17 minutes ago, Daube said:

When I read about Ray flying his Concorde in P3Dv3, I just feel sorry. I understand he loves the aircraft, that's cool. But I would personally get ZERO pleasure from doing that.

But flying Concorde is not about the scenery or the clouds. You really don’t have time to admire the scenery (or not in the case of v3 🤣) because your workload is so heavy.

By the time you’re supersonic the only view is of ocean and the weather is soon thousands of feet below you. Thereafter it’s all about monitoring systems and moving fuel. I also get great satisfaction manually adjusting pitch to keep IAS as close as possible to vMo from Mach 0.95 to 1.7 when reheats are turned off and I engage MAX CLIMB / MAX CRUISE.

I could leave a PMDG737 flight unattended for 30 mins without any harm. Doing the same for Concorde would probably result in engine feeder tanks running empty because I hadn’t operated fuel switches.

But I also understand we all have our own priorities so that’s cool too. 😉

That's because you are limiting yourself to real-world routes.

If I would fly the Concorde in the sim, of course I would practice the real-world routes as well, but not only. Because it's a simulator, so I want to simulate. I want to see what it would be to fly a Concorde from anywhere to Nice, as it has been done a few times in the past (I actually saw once the Concorde taking off from Nice while driving nearby), and that's just one of the many examples. Until our simulator actually simulates the "sims", there won't be anybody to complain about my sonic boom 🙂

Same applies to any aircraft, really. I don't care that much if an aircraft is or is not operated from this or that airport. Since I can simulate it from my desktop, I want my simulator to show me what would have happened if somebody would have done it in real world. That's the whole purpose of the simulator: not only allow you to do it in the same way it was done, but also allow you to do it in other way, and show you the consequences (good or bad).

11 minutes ago, Daube said:

so I want to simulate

sacre' bleu.....

12 minutes ago, Daube said:

That's because you are limiting yourself to real-world routes.

Where did I say that? I haven't flown LHR-JFK in months. I design my own routes and the ones I fly the most are Manchester - Lisbon and return. Oslo - Heathrow, Ben Gurion to Malaga is especially interesting as land remains visible for most of the route and the climb after take-off is continuous until it's time to slow down a couple of hours later.

I haven't flown into Nice yet but a supersonic flight from Athens would be feasible. Not from the UK because that would require a subsonic flight. I stick to real-world rules even in a simulator.

16 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Don’t forget you have one great advantage over real pilots. The pause button that will give you time to work out what needs doing. 😁

Even on my 747, trundling away, way below you, I still have to occasionally use the pause button. Usually when RC4 wants me to turn onto a heading and descend at the same time. Otherwise I do tend to get reminded rather sternly,( for PMDG's fault of not making the knobs turn fast enough!).

20 minutes ago, IanHarrison said:

Even on my 747, trundling away, way below you, I still have to occasionally use the pause button. Usually when RC4 wants me to turn onto a heading and descend at the same time. Otherwise I do tend to get reminded rather sternly,( for PMDG's fault of not making the knobs turn fast enough!).

I hope it's not me chastising you! 🤣  If you have comms, delay the ack until you have set the heading and altitude. If Otto has the comms you'll have less time of course but if you're in LNAV mode you can set the heading bug whenever you like.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Here's my virtual cockpit at 51,600ft enroute to Barbados from JFK.

Note I'm descending slightly. That's because the priority is to maintain Mach 2. Concorde was assigned a block altitude of FL450-FL600 as no other aircraft would occupy the airspace.

The quality of the VC is very far from what is possible in a 64-bit sim but keeping VAS as low as possible was the aim. Visual beauty will have to wait for the 64-bit version.

Graphics, fidelity and stability are equally important to me. I believe the most complex aircraft that I currently fly are the Challenger 650 and 747-200 on XP12 and perhaps the A10C II on DCS and I love them all, but if they would only be available on FS9, I would not touch them. The same is true if a sim like MSFS would not have WT/AAU avionics, GTN support, or add-ons the Fenix or the PMDG 737. I would not use the sim at all...

Finally, I am easily bored flying the same plane over and over again. That is why I am constantly changing sims and add-ons. One day flying the F14 on DCS, the other an H145 on MSFS and the next an A340-600 on XP12. As long as the platform/add-on is well maintained, stable and offers top of the line graphics, I will have it installed.

Edited March 16, 20233 yr by GCBraun

3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Where did I say that? I haven't flown LHR-JFK in months. I design my own routes and the ones I fly the most are Manchester - Lisbon and return. Oslo - Heathrow, Ben Gurion to Malaga is especially interesting as land remains visible for most of the route and the climb after take-off is continuous until it's time to slow down a couple of hours later.

I haven't flown into Nice yet but a supersonic flight from Athens would be feasible. Not from the UK because that would require a subsonic flight. I stick to real-world rules even in a simulator.

It was my understanding from your replies on that topic in the past, but I have probably misunderstood. In any cases, the necessity to avoid supersonic flight over land is most likely something I would seldom respect.

4 hours ago, Beardyman said:

Really, u see the difference ??, for me those are equally ugly to the level that i can't fly into default ones as it destroys whole experience and fun.

Yes, I do, but after some alcohol... sorry, after installing Zinertek airport textures. Now FSX/P3Dv4 airports change, from ugly to just acceptable. That, GSX/SODE jetways and some AFCADs do the trick. Only if I know the real airport by heart (i.e., having flown there several times IRL) I can consider purchasing it.

I understand Rex has a better product (Worldwide Airports HD), but I didn't feel like purchasing it when I already had the other one. Anyway, neither Zinertek or REX work in V5, and there are no plans to do so. That, and the fact several default airports have less parking spots push me heavily back to V4. If only there was a way to import default v4 airports and terminals to V5*...

TL;DR: yes, default v5 airports are worse than v4 ones, and, unlike v4, there's nothing I can do about it.

 

*Ray published a way to do so with airports, but terminals are not covered AFAIK.

Edited March 16, 20233 yr by Luis Hernandez

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I hope it's not me chastising you! 🤣  If you have comms, delay the ack until you have set the heading and altitude. If Otto has the comms you'll have less time of course but if you're in LNAV mode you can set the heading bug whenever you like.

Not today! But it has been in the past. It usually on a vectored approach, when Otto has comms.

I still have to learn Just Flight 747-200 with INS.  

Maybe when I retire?

3 hours ago, Daube said:

It was my understanding from your replies on that topic in the past, but I have probably misunderstood. In any cases, the necessity to avoid supersonic flight over land is most likely something I would seldom respect.

No problem. As for flying supersonic over populated areas if that’s what you want to do I don’t suppose anyone is going to worry about it. I would never do it.

9 hours ago, GCBraun said:

Finally, I am easily bored flying the same plane over and over again.

I’m the same. I have 5 aircraft - 4 in v5.3 and 1 in v3.4. I’ve had a week of Concorde flying and I’ll switch to the Lear 25 in the next few days. Going back to 4K and unlimited memory plus lots of Ai will be very welcome.

Like many I mostly use MSFS, but I often come back to P3D V5.3 to fly my PMDG heavies. Qualitywings for the 787 and the Aerosoft 330 (which I particularly enjoy). I also fly using FS Economy so I'll use P3D to swap between my large collection of much maligned, (unfairly so in my opinion) , Carenados. I've tried X-Plane but just can't it get on with for some reason.

I don't see these planes arriving in MSFS anytime soon (the 330 perhaps shortly) so I'll be jumping back and fore between P3D and MSFS for the foreseeable future.