Sign in to follow this  
yellowjack

Maule: ugly HSI, can I change it?

Recommended Posts

At the moment I'm flying the Maule a lot. It's a nice little plane with a good view on the earth!The only problem is the dials are ugly. Well, most are okay, the Nav2 isn't that good, but the HSI is really terrible! Even from the default distance you can't read the numbers and you can see the jpeg edges on the yellow arrow! This things is SO low res! And because I have a Track IR Pro I zoom in qit a lot in it. It's to ugly to be true...Anyone knows if it is possible or easy to do to replace it with an HSI form another plane...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

>At the moment I'm flying the Maule a lot. It's a nice little>plane with a good view on the earth!>>The only problem is the dials are ugly. Well, most are okay,>the Nav2 isn't that good, but the HSI is really terrible! Even>from the default distance you can't read the numbers and you>can see the jpeg edges on the yellow arrow! This things is SO>low res! And because I have a Track IR Pro I zoom in qit a lot>in it. It's to ugly to be true...>>Anyone knows if it is possible or easy to do to replace it>with an HSI form another plane...?I always delete aircraft I don't use in FS9/X.Hence I don't remember what the gauge looks like.Can you post a 2D cockpit picture?You can most likely substitute another aircraft gauge by changing the 'panel.cfg' file. BUT make sure you back it up first!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, never mind... I ditched the Maule. I hadn't really flown with the Cessna 172, but I have to say... it looks SO MUCH BETTER! I think it even outshines the Flight1 version (although I only know that one from screenshots). This FS X version really looks like a payware addon! The Maule is just too ugly. Here are some comparisons (all made at the same zoom level, 90%, and not resized or anything: this is how I see them ingame when I bent over with my Track IR Pro ;). The 172 looks REAL, 'photorealistic', the Maule looks... outdated...?http://i19.tinypic.com/2irr7rp.jpghttp://i13.tinypic.com/30ataty.jpghttp://i14.tinypic.com/4hapgza.jpghttp://i16.tinypic.com/2vklow4.jpgNeed I say more...? Still, you do see differences in one plane too. The Nav2 from the 172 is clearly not as good as the VSI or the airspeed indicator. I think the 172 will be my default plane now. I flown a lot in the Baron 58 but I don't really like planes with their wings low... it spoils the view. ;)P.S. The ONLY thing I don't like about the 172 is that you can't do EVERYTHING from within the VC itself... To release the handbrake you have to use the keyboard... Ah well... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Well, never mind... I ditched the Maule. I hadn't really>flown with the Cessna 172, but I have to say... it looks SO>MUCH BETTER! I think it even outshines the Flight1 version>(although I only know that one from screenshots). This FS X>version really looks like a payware addon! The Maule is just>too ugly. >>Here are some comparisons (all made at the same zoom level,>90%, and not resized or anything: this is how I see them>ingame when I bent over with my Track IR Pro ;). The 172 looks>REAL, 'photorealistic', the Maule looks... outdated...?>>http://i19.tinypic.com/2irr7rp.jpg>>http://i13.tinypic.com/30ataty.jpg>>http://i14.tinypic.com/4hapgza.jpg>>http://i16.tinypic.com/2vklow4.jpg>>Need I say more...? >>Still, you do see differences in one plane too. The Nav2 from>the 172 is clearly not as good as the VSI or the airspeed>indicator. >>I think the 172 will be my default plane now. I flown a lot in>the Baron 58 but I don't really like planes with their wings>low... it spoils the view. ;)>>P.S. The ONLY thing I don't like about the 172 is that you>can't do EVERYTHING from within the VC itself... To release>the handbrake you have to use the keyboard... Ah well... ;)>Why not use the Baron 58? One version has the G1000.Otherwise, if you are only interested in a single engine plane check out the DreamFleet2000 Archer III for FS9. It's awesome!http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/Previews/181/preview_home.htmlForgot to mention http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?category=fs2004 products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Why not use the Baron 58? One version has the G1000.>Otherwise, if you are only interested in a single engine plane>check out the DreamFleet2000 Archer III for FS9. It's>awesome!As I said, I don't really like planes with low wings: it spoils the view. This is ever since I bough the Track IR Pro! ;) I've been flying the Baron almost exclusively ever since I bought FS X (first with the G1000 but lately only without it: I like to fly the old fashioned way now). I switched to other planes since I've bought the Track IR Pro!My ALL TIME FAVORITE is the DF A36 (love it even more than the PMDG and Level-D Boeings), but unfortunately it doesn't work with FS X... I might give the Archer a look, though! DF stuff is awesome! (They got me excited with the upcoming A320: it's quit a long time since a big airliner got me excited!) It's got low wings though, I remember now...EDIT:I see the Archer has Reality XP stuff in it... which means it's not compatible with FS X...>Have you tried the FSX Cessna Caravan. Has a good looking VC>this time around.It looks good, but not better than the 172... The Caravan is also too big for my taste and er... to ugly for me... from the outside anyway. Not that I really care because I use the VC only and never switch to an outside view, but still, the idea it IS ugly is enough. :( Now if it really had retractable gear I might want to give it another try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the Track IR Pro?I have read good comments about it. Might get it some day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be warned once you have a Trackir PRO you will:1) Never go back to flying without it.2) Kick yourself for not getting one sooner.3) Start looking for aircraft that can be flown completely from the VC cockpit.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll second this.TrackIR is one of those things that you never think you really need, but once you've used one you can't understand how you ever lived without it. (Like a Palm Pilot & TIVO for me. :) )When reading the descriptions of new FSX planes in the file section, the 1st thing I look for is 3D panel. Won't even bother DL'ing any releases with only 2D. I'd never fly them.Just go to Naturalpoint's website and check out some videos of the thing in action.Worth every penny and plenty more.D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EXACTLY!!!It has completely changed my simming experience!!! It isn't cheap but it's the BEST add-on-thing I have EVER bought!!! I've already said it elsewhere (here on Avsim and on all forums I visit).While I used to do short flights (half an hour max), starting and ending at the runway with lots of speeding up (2x or 4x) I now fly all the time from cold and dark at parking/gate to cold and dark at parking/gate and I never ever use the time speedup option anymore because.... it's just not real! And flying with the Track IR is REAL! Believe me, just as yellowjacks said, you can't fly without it anymore! Just take the Maule: it has a tailwheel so taxiing is a problem because you can't see anything. Well, with the Track IR... you just go sit a little higher and watch over the nose, JUST like in real life! It's so natural! I do EVERYTHING from within the VC without using any popup panels at all (which I always HATED because they are seldom the same as the VC). I also dial all freqs manually: I just bend over and 'turn' the knobs! And also looking around during a flight... man, the Track IR is absolutely the best 'thing' ever and I can recommend it to everyone. It's a must have. (I also have the TrackClip Pro, which I advice everyone to get also.) Believe me, you can NOT compare it with the mouse look. That's nice but it's uncomparable. Seeing is believing when it comes to the Track IR, I'm afraid. BTW I also use it for driving (TDU for example): awesome too. I am no longer caught in a box, as if I have a stiff neck all the time. No more claustrofobia on the computer! ;) And no, I'm in no way affiliated etc. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but most of the gaugues delivered with FSX are terrible. The bitmaps are usually low resolution and movement of the instruments is not smooth, it seems to be on a pixel by pixel basis.If you really want some beautiful silky smooth gaugues, i suggest you try Realair's SF260 for FSX:1. You will never need the 2D cockpit again. Before this I always prefered 2D over 3D however this has changed completly now.2. There are about 6 different views in 3D cockpit mode some being close ups of the "sacred 6". You can zoom in as far as you want in 3D cockpit mode and the gaugues always look perfect.3. Movement of the gaugues is ultra smooth. You can never see the pixel by pixel movement like in most of the FSX gaugues. I don't know how they pulled it off but it's great work.4. On my configuration the Realair SF260 is among the least FPS hungry aircraft. Despite the super smooth gaugues and VC it's not a FPS eater.5. I don't work for Realair and I purchased their product.The only other quality gaugues I have seen for FS are the Reality-XP products. They do not eat FPS but unfortunately none of them are released for FSX (yet).PMDG had some good gaugues in their products (the heavies) however they were FPS hogs in FS9 and far from being as smooth as the Reality-XP or Realair technologies.JCMK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, that DOES look cool...! But I do miss something... shadows maybe...? It looks very clean, so to speak... I like a little texture here and there...But isn't this some sort of stunting plane...? I like the more relaxing A36 or C172... ;) Does EVERY button in the VC work? Looks like it's got original radio's and so on. Do all ADF buttons work for instance? And is this plane IFR-able? ;) I often fly longer flights with ATC and so on. Hm, well maybe I should see it to believe it all. About those '6 different views': I've got the Track IR Pro, so views are a thing of the past for me. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hm, that DOES look cool...! But I do miss something...>shadows maybe...? It looks very clean, so to speak... I like a>little texture here and there...>>But isn't this some sort of stunting plane...? I like the more>relaxing A36 or C172... ;) >>Does EVERY button in the VC work? Looks like it's got original>radio's and so on. Do all ADF buttons work for instance? And>is this plane IFR-able? ;) I often fly longer flights with ATC>and so on. >>Hm, well maybe I should see it to believe it all. About those>'6 different views': I've got the Track IR Pro, so views are a>thing of the past for me. ;)The SF-260 IS an aerobatic trainer, but that doesn't mean you've gotta fly it like one. :) Speeds are a little higher than in a 172, but not ridiculously so.Every switch in the VC is clickable, with the exception of the panel dimmer. It's IFR capable with a full autopilot. The gauges are the best you'll see on ANY plane in FSX.It is a low wing, but it's a somewhat skinny wing. :) Plus it's a bubble canopy so you've got amazing 360 vision. No big spars or fuselage sides to mar your vision. And you get a really spectacular view of the landscape when you're inverted. :)I've flown alot of 3rd party add-ons over the years, the Realair's offerings are amongst the very few that I've ever bought for myself.D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hm, that DOES look cool...! But I do miss something...>shadows maybe...? It looks very clean, so to speak... I like a>little texture here and there...>>But isn't this some sort of stunting plane...? I like the more>relaxing A36 or C172... ;) >>Does EVERY button in the VC work? >It is very cool. My favorite plane, and the only prop I fly now. the textures are crazy detailed. I have shadows on as well, so the shadows it cast's are a nice addition.I read up on the plane, and it was marketed as a military trainer/aerobatic plane. However, I have used it for IFR and some great VFR both short and long flights. I can get it to cruise at 180 knots, which isn't shabby, and it covers ground quick. It is nice and stable, and not twitchy like the edge. Also it is a trike setup not a taildragger, which adds to its laid-back attitude. What I mean is, you can still approach your landings and takeoff like you and I do in the Cessna's - only thing that changes is the rotation speed, and approach speed. It's without a doubt my favorite sim aircraft.Each facet of the VC is "workable." You can click on anything and everything, but the sounds are what really get me. The sound in coordination with the flaps, gear, and throttle are nice and immersive. I fly mulitplayer daily with it, and have only come across a few guys flying it, its a shame - what a nice plane. Even my friends who are not into aviation/much less sims, saw it and jaw dropped at the attention to detail.If you end up with it, let me know so we can meet up in a server and I can hear your reaction.....haha. Let me know if you want some screenshots emailed to you - -Danon O.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this