FS-X is L33T, sorta.

[blave 0]

I just had to use that tired term to get your attention 8^) .I have finally had the chance to mess around with FS-X over the last ten days or so - to make a long story short, my simming rig has been mothballed for almost six months, up until right before Turkey Day. Now I am back, I am nationwide (name that band!).In the hope that the ACES guys and gals will read this, let me pop out some bullets:(my background: 47 year old simmer/pilot, with private/instrument fixed wing and commercial helicopter ratings. Simming seriously since FS2000.)- THANK YOU THANK YOU for revising the helicopter flight model. I recall talking to an MS manager dude at the Avsim Conference in Tahoe two or three years ago, and I made a big point about how that model needed some serious attention. I have no idea whether my rant had any bearing on what finally transpired, but I really don't care - the end result is that the helicopters now autorotate a lot better than they ever have. Next Step to work on: emulation of required pedal input when pitch is pulled - duh!! (BTW the guy in the 206 virtual cockpit looks *exactly* like my real-world helo CFI - I told him he should get an agent or something.)- I have learned that I can be mostly satisfied with FS-X's performance on my PC, and I got there by starting out with everything turned OFF and then slowly bumping stuff up. As everyone knows by now, Autogen and especially AI traffic are the framerate killahs (in my experience, especially the airport ground traffic). Until I get a waaay faster system, I am mostly satisfied in thinking of FS-X as a feature upgrade, with visual features that I may someday be able to enjoy - but not right now! But the lesson that I think is here is that FS-XI should somehow better manage available platform horsepower automatically, rather than dismay almost every single user when they try to crank everything to 11 and yet expect miracles.- The new Tower aspect of multiplayer is awesome - this is what the game /sim really needed and I have already had some fun times in sessions where very knowledgeable folks are hosting the session and manning the tower. I haven't tried Shared Cockpit yet but will soon do so with a friend who wants to learn how to fly (for real).- I have flown just a few of the Missions so far - and I like what I see. I can see spending a lot more time there. I know that this is intended to open up the game/sim to the masses and I hope it will succeed.- Other than the Bell and Robinson, I have only flown the Cessna 172 and Mooney. I don't know what happened, but the flight models have degraded, at least during the takeoff and climbout phases. The airplane seems almost uncontrollable when I first apply power and then up to 40 or 50 knots. The required rudder pedal input when power is first applied is TOTALLY different than previous versions. Am I the only person that has noticed this? I can't figure out how my hardware setup could be resulting in this behavior.- The G1000 simulation is surprisingly good - better than I expected given that (as I understand it) it takes a lot from the "GPS500" XML model, which I was never very happy with (but note that I'm a heavy RealityXP product user). If only we could enter flight plans directly into the G1000, and not have to use the Flight Planner! Please kill the Flight Planner in the next major release, and instead have pilots use the in-game GPS for that.- THANK YOU for allowing the voice audio to be channeled to a 2nd sound card. I am using a Logitech USB headset for this and it works like a champ - another step towards realism. (Next step: allow the marker beacon/NAV ident audio to be sent to the voice channel.)- THANK YOU for providing an easy way to save graphics settings to a file. I used an add-on for this in FS9 but it's very nice for it to be built-in.- The biggest beef I can come up with so far is that the "Show ATC Text" switch is not persistent from session to session. If this is fixed in SP1 I will have to go hunt for something else to complain about 8^) .- All of that good stuff said - I still have serious reservations about how Microsoft as a company is moving forward. What I've heard about the "Geniune Version" checking in Vista is appalling, and I am similarly depressed about the LAME LAME LAME nonsense that is going on with the Zune audio/video player, in terms of the copy "management" system (does Microsoft seriously expect to compete with the IPod with all of that nonsense?). As things stand now, I will be dragged kicking and screaming into the Vista world, even if it gets me DX10 and thus (theoretically) better visual quality in FS-X. Sometimes I think it's enough to drive a guy to XPlane. (Been there, done that, came back - thus far anyway.)Summary: it's taken me a while to appreciate this new version, but I am now of the mind that it is a Good Thing - not perfect (which of course is not possible anyway with software) but a good step up from FS9 - at least for my needs. Thanks to ACES for what appears to be a huge amount of hard work - but pass the word on upstairs that Vista is looking like a trainwreck from where I, a potential customer, stand, and as much as I detest the idea of having to become a real system manager, I *will* go to Linux or Mac or whatever just to escape the incredibly controlled universe that MS appears to be headed toward.best regards,Dave Blevins

[ryanbatc 12,770]

A nice clear, concise, and honest post.Thanks Dave!

[Palebushman 0]

L33T= Any chance of knowing what this acronym means?But that said; what a delightful and wonderful post to find at last on this awesome AVSIM website. As a newcomer to the site since the release of FSX, all I have read so far, seem to be posts written by folk who have not taken the sensible approach to this new FSX program like Dave has.This will probably get me thrown to the wall, but I have always admired the work and effort that the Microsoft "Programmers and Developers" put into to providing us, their end-users, with great programs and systems. Sadly that cannot be said about Microsoft's marketing people who hype everybody up with all the 'Bull-Dust' they can muster and then promptly vanish out of site when that is discovered in the end product. The opposition are just as bad at this type of marketing scam too.But back to the essence of Dave's post;RTFM is an absolute MUST and so too is signing up to AVSIM.com which is where I found Greg Germanowski's compilation of "FSX Tips,Tricks and Tweaks Guide" which has been all that I needed to get immense enjoyment from my FSX Deluxe.Yours Sincerely,Dave Whitehead. Intel 3.2 P4/HT1Gb Corsair RAMRadeon 9550/.Net CATWD 150Gb HDDGigabyte P4 Titan MoBoAverage FPS 13-21 with msconfg set at "Selective Start-Up"

[LAdamson 240]

>>- Other than the Bell and Robinson, I have only flown the>Cessna 172 and Mooney. I don't know what happened, but the>flight models have degraded, at least during the takeoff and>climbout phases. The airplane seems almost uncontrollable when>I first apply power and then up to 40 or 50 knots. The>required rudder pedal input when power is first applied is>TOTALLY different than previous versions. The models do vary, but I have not been thrilled with the takeoff roll for several versions. I want the feel of pushing rudder pedal against a percieved force with no slack, or tendency to begin wandering from side to side. Microsoft's CFS2 was one of the best for rudder pedal input on the roll and climb. Versions since have varied. On the good side, FSX has a much better representation of a moving airmass, and the models also seem to trim to a finer degree.L.Adamson

[Guest nem]

>L33T= Any chance of knowing what this acronym means?http://www.google.com/search?q=l33tRegards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg

[Guest lemonadedrinker]

Hi,WWWhhooaaaa there, Dave,<<>>>I hope Tom Gibson doesn't see this post. I love the Flight Planner and use it to make VOR to VOR flights everywhere. I don't load them, just print them off and go by that.None of the big props from CalClassics have GPS!Andy.

[blave 0]

Ah, good point. Let me modify my suggestion then: "please allow the user to have the *option* of entering flight plans directly from the GPS, rather than forcing them to use the Flight Planner".cheers,dB.

[Guest lemonadedrinker]

Hi dB,Are you saying there are GPS units which you can click on the map and drag your flight line to different beacons and the like? I don't have FSX but I seem to remember there was going to be a facility to create your own waypoints, which I thought would be great in the hills- you could program a route through the valleys and across passes and fly in all weathers etc. That height definitions are missing from the map view seems it's biggest fault (in FS9 anyway) and I had hoped that might have been added to FSX. It's terrain following I guess.Andy.

[blave 0]

>Hi dB,>Are you saying there are GPS units which you can click on the>map and drag your flight line to different beacons and the>like? I don't have FSX but I seem to remember there was going>to be a facility to create your own waypoints, which I thought>would be great in the hills- you could program a route through>the valleys and across passes and fly in all weathers etc.>That height definitions are missing from the map view seems>it's biggest fault (in FS9 anyway) and I had hoped that might>have been added to FSX. It's terrain following I guess.>Andy. Sort of. The Garmin GNS400/500 series and the G1000 all allow you to create "user waypoints" arbitrarily at any time, by pushing a button twice (I think it's the Enter button when not in a menu or mode, and BTW this doesn't work in the default FS "GPS"s). Those waypoints can then be (optionally) named to something meaningful, and then used in a flight plan.However, the GA GPS units that I am familiar with do not let you "drag" a course line as you describe. You'd have to edit the flight plan and enter/append user waypoints as needed.BTW if you were to do as you describe in real life - i.e. plot some waypoints with the intent of flying in low visibility conditions through mountain passes - and the FAA found out about it, you'd be without a license to fly real quick. That is, if you lived through the experience 8^) . Instrument flying is more about vertical space from land obstructions... Look up "MEA" (Minimum Enroute Altitude). It's typically one or two thousand feet vertically from land, and probably *miles* from any lateral obstructions at that altitude.dB.

[Cruachan 705]

Hi Andy,"Are you saying there are GPS units which you can click on the map and drag your flight line to different beacons and the like?"Not quite GPS, but you might like to try 'FSDiscover!'From the pdf file: "You can use the map to explore the Flight Simulator world for interesting places to visit, to createand edit FSDiscover! flight plans and to set the aircraft position."It is surprisingly easy to create a basic flight plan by simply connecting the dots (waypoints) and the autopilot will do the rest.Take off from your chosen start position, climb to cruise height, put on a CD, switch to autopilot, sit back, relax and enjoy the flight.Works well in both FS9 and FSX.Available from Flight One Software.Mike

[Guest lemonadedrinker]

Hi,<>>> I certainly wasn't thinking of contour following in a DC-7C from La Guardia to Metro Oakland Intl:-lol , but I would have thought some kind of height indication in the lumpy bits would have come in useful for VFR type flying in Oregon etc.I mean, the GPS already knows how high you are above the ground when you have a flight plan installed because it tells you, so I didn't think it'd be too much bother to make it visible on the map as another little window like it already has for the ILS feathers,intersections, NDBs etc etc. I guess most pilots carry sectionals for their routes and this is what I was thinking about.As the advert says ; What are you sinking about??!Andy.