Oh, No! In FSX Too? Hope Not!

[Guest ditopilot]

Hello friends:The AI traffic in (my) FS9 looks ridiculously small in size. Is that just the way it's ought to be? If yes, then that is no fun and I hope it will be much close to realistic as it can be in FSX.

[n4gix 4,947]

>Hello friends:>>The AI traffic in (my) FS9 looks ridiculously small in size.>Is that just the way it's ought to be? If yes, then that is no>fun and I hope it will be much close to realistic as it can be>in FSX.Small as in "not enough" or do you mean small as in - well - little, puny, undersized, miniscule???If you mean "not enough," the solution to that has been around for over two years! You been sleeping? ;)

[Guest MrBitsy]

>Hello friends:>>The AI traffic in (my) FS9 looks ridiculously small in size.>Is that just the way it's ought to be? If yes, then that is no>fun and I hope it will be much close to realistic as it can be>in FSX.I am assuming you mean "very small and difficult to see". Well, I always thought so until I started flying for real - now I know real traffic is very small and difficult to see ;)The middle part of the pilots licence is endless circuits. Even when you hear another aircraft call their position in the circuit, it can still be almost impossible to see them at times - and they may only be a mile away! Those of you who fly into or out of Elstree in the UK (EGTR), will know how strange the circuit procedures are. I was inbound to the "golf course" VRP and was looking for another C172 also inbound. I didn't see it until it appeard in my 12 o'clock, slightly above and opposite direction. It passed me within 10 seconds as I descended underneath it.FS2004 has it about right I feel.Ray Keattch.

[MD83 1]

I think it's realistic, but there are always going to be limitations when viewing a 3D envirnoment on a 2D screen :)--------------------------------------------------------------------MD83's Dictionary:Dirge: Slow and mournful music e.g. COLDPLAY's musicMaudlin: Effusively or Insincerely emotional e.g. COLDPLAY's musicWhiney: To make a high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint e.g. COLDPLAY's musicDreary: Boring; dull e.g. COLDPLAY's music

[BaronKen 144]

If you should happen to see an AI aircraft right in front of you before you hit it, it would appear to be "ridiculously large" and would be the last thing you ever see. (Simulated, of course!) FS9 has it just about right, I think!

[Guest jboweruk]

There is always a great solution to not being able to see the AI traffic when airborne, it's called FSHotseat and if you set it right your CP will point out the traffic for you, meaning you never have to lie about seeing an AI plane again.

[Guest ditopilot]

I mean puny, undersized, miniscule.Dito

[Guest ditopilot]

I mean undersized, miniscule even on ground - e.g. an IA B747 on an airport groung compared the a B747 that I am readying to fly on the simulator.Dito

[slashed2 53]

I think every pilot prefers other aircraft to be small and miniscule be it sim or real. Anything larger and well.....Ian.

[Guest]

That's because many 3rd party models aren't accurately sized to the FS world coordinate system.Extreme example: the RealAir Spitfire is going on twice the size of the ** P.51 when in reality the two aircraft are about the same size.I've not done a detailed comparison of the P.51 versus default aircraft, but that one looks to be a bit oversized as well.The PSS 747 was too small, 10-20% smaller than the default model.Remember that Microsoft sets the standard. If others don't comply with it you shouldn't blame Microsoft for that...

[Guest ditopilot]

>That's because many 3rd party models aren't accurately sized>to the FS world coordinate system.>>Extreme example: the RealAir Spitfire is going on twice the>size of the ** P.51 when in reality the two aircraft are>about the same size.>I've not done a detailed comparison of the P.51 versus default>aircraft, but that one looks to be a bit oversized as well.>>The PSS 747 was too small, 10-20% smaller than the default>model.>>Remember that Microsoft sets the standard. If others don't>comply with it you shouldn't blame Microsoft for that...Now I fully understand and hope the SDK should not be handed over just to any 3rd party out there. If not some may turn the awesome FSX into some despecably looking 18 century flight simulator. From the 3rd parties receiving the SDK we expect above and beyond what FSX brings out of the box. Ins't so?

[Guest]

No. The SDK is for everyone's enjoyment, not for some elite clique made up of people you think are somehow "qualified" to produce "quality".If you don't like an addon, don't use it. But don't go around claiming that noone is allowed to make addons unless you approve them first based on some idea of "quality" (and how would you gauge that anyway if noone can create anything because they've no access to the SDK...).

[Datalink 26]

I thought the SDK's were there to help everyone, if you don't read them thats when the problems start and products tend not to be or are less compatible with future versions