greggerm

I'm late to the party here, but I'm really surprised nobody has brought up Satisfactory yet. Such a fantastically well executed game. I haven't touched any other game in months because of it.

Before opening the video... that Judy McLane one looks like Quonset... Ayup! Certainly is! Haven't had an airshow there in years... very disappointing.

Well that was a bit of a surprise... hmmm... I wonder what's in store for us this time!

As Andy/Spesimen wonders, the PMDG MD-11 (and perhaps the 747 and JS4100) are not officially supported by PMDG for use under FSX:SE. That being said, I can say that I have successfully used the MD-11 under Windows 7 x64 and FSX:SE with no workarounds necessary. Note that it does not work properly when using Windows 10. Good luck with the new buildout!

In the case of the FSL A320, the cost of the FSX version plus an upgrade to P3D will total the exact same amount as the P3D version itself. For those folks flying with both simulators, they can jump in now and enjoy what the product has to offer today while they wait for what will probably be their preferred version tomorrow, and not spend any extra. Quite nice if you happen to fly on both platforms!

If you've been simming since the 1980's and factor in all the hardware and software for every computer you've ever simmed with for your entire life, perhaps. But even if that were the case - it could often be said that lots of flight simming may have actually helped lay the groundwork for someone's interest in obtaining their PPL, as opposed to the other way around. I certainly don't mean to pick on the original point (*because me and my checkbook over the years get it!). For me, flightsimming has been a very positive feedback loop - interested in aviation, found flight sims. Made me more interested in aviation, made me more interested in simming... and on and on and on. Even if my sim-oriented investments over the years could have defrayed a foray into a real license, I still consider it money well spent! All good problems to have, though! -Greg

ActiveSky 2016 is the latest weather generation tool in the ActiveSky family, and is indeed functional with any ActiveSky compatible 3rd party integrations (such as the PMDG 777 and other programs) Link - http://www.hifisimtech.com/as16/#faq Link - http://www.avsim.com/topic/491604-wx-radar-and-as-2016-compatibility/

Just a couple thoughts... First, we don't know what X-Plane 11's timeline is. If X-Plane 10 is our guide, there will probably be a protracted period of time between when Laminar Research starts making blog postings about XP11 and its eventual release - and they haven't even started the blogging about it yet. Second, the first 6-18+ months of a major X-Plane version's life is usually a little shaky. Drawing again on my experience with X-Plane 10, there is a substantial teething period for X-Plane after a major version is first released... not only ironing out some unavoidable bugs, but continuing to build in features which were planned or expected for the version but hadn't yet been finished. With history as our guide, I would expect XP11 to also undergo a longer-than-you'd-expect maturing process. Along the same lines, over the past several years X-Plane 10 has had a chance to mature - it's still being built out with improvements and fixes, but it's far better than it was during its younger years. If you're interested in X-Plane, I'd recommend downloading the free XP10 demo today. If you like what you see and experience, jump in and make the purchase! If you don't, then you have a more concrete reason for sticking it out until XP11 rolls around and matures a bit. Good luck! -Greg

Any other tips, tricks, and experiences are welcome - is it truly that simple and easy thing to manage? (*Perhaps I've been overthinking it for all this time!) Thanks, -Greg

Thanks for the tip, Tomasz! I actually do have the DX10 Fixer and while it does make some great improvements, it's still not enough to keep me happy with FSX for all my simming needs. I've updated my initial message with that note in case others think it might be a good recommendation. I appreciate the input though!

Hello, my name is Greg, and I have flightsim OCD. For years, I've subscribed to a mantra that I will only have (1) flavor of a MSFS-based simulator installed at any time on my PC. A nice, clean PC with no dual simulators - no muss, no fuss. With that being said, I've found myself in the midst of a tug-of-war this summer between the gloriously beautiful Prepar3D v3 and the highly compatible FSX:SE. I am flying along enjoying the beauty of P3D, but start to miss flying the Level-D 767 or PMDG MD-11... So I flush my system with a new baseline build and bring it back up with FSX:SE, make some airliner flights, and start missing the beauty of P3D again... So I flush my system with a new baseline build and bring it back up with P3D, but I start to miss flying the Level-D 767... So I flush my system... Some say that José is "The UNINSTALLER", but I'm sure to have given him a run for his money over the course of the past ten years or so. As efficient and proficient as I have become in the art of reinstalling my entire PC, the fact is I am finally getting tired of it. I'm considering giving in and performing a dual install. For those of you who run both FSX:SE and Prepar3D v3, I've got some questions - primarily surrounding scenery and weather addons. I'll throw them out here and feel free to answer, comment, or otherwise mock me and my thought process. Any need to install one before another? Any sensitivity with addon vendors to have their product installed on one before the other? Will I need to install each of the (3) flavors of SimConnect for each platform independently? Orbx - will there be two "FSX Central" instances (one for FSX, one for P3D) and will they be independent? ActiveSky 2016 & ASCA - (I own it for both) - Any users running both versions for your dual-installed sims? Gotchas or issues? (primarily on the ASCA side, as I know there are two distinct versions of AS2016) REX Texture Direct - any dual users supporting both FSX and P3D with REX:TD? Gotchas or issue? This is a big step (for me, anyway). I know many of you might do this very thing, so feel free to share any of your tips, tricks, hints, or cautions as I prepare to make the change. Editing to add: I do have the DX10 fixer for FSX and find that while it makes substantial improvements, to me it still not enough to keep me permanently running FSX - especially with what the PTA/RealismShaderPacks can bring to P3D. Editing to add: I also own the Estonia Migration Tool, but some of my FSX-only addons remain incompatible. I have not used it for my recent rebuilds, and don't plan on using it going forward. Thanks! -Greg

Thanks, Michael - I appreciate it.

Hello pilots - I'm in the midst of speccing out a system upgrade, and I recall that back when the MD-11 and 747v2 were pulled from the market there was some nebulous discussion from PMDG about how the two older aircraft were experiencing some troubles on newer chipsets. It wasn't clear if it was GPU related, CPU related, or motherboard related, so I have the following question: Is anyone operating the MD-11 under Windows 7/FSX on a Skylake i7 6700 processor these days? I get the sense it will work just fine, but I'm seeking some confirmation to help set my mind at ease. (Note - I am aware of the Skylake chipset's unique issue regarding Windows 7 and USB peripherals when it comes to the initial installation.) Cheers, and thanks for your input! -Greg

Back on topic, anyway... Chances are the author is using 5m source data to create the LOD10/38m mesh files. Even though the default terrain is also LOD10/38m, the higher resolution source data should provide some modest improvements to the accuracy of the terrain. Obviously, improvements will not be as dramatic as other mesh sets which provide both better source data and a better LOD. Most other vendors who have used higher res source data than their LOD output have noted this in their product descriptions to help avoid confusion.

For further confirmation, I'm seeing what you're seeing - 4 downloads that exploded into: 21 data files and 1 exe installer, 10.3 GB total size.

The first thing that came to mind... (Quick and dirty....)

Purchasing itself took a smidge longer than usual due to slower page loading times, but my purchase was complete by 4:10 PM local and had all (4) parts downloaded by 6:05 PM local... and I'm in the process of installing. Thankfully, nothing really to complain about here regarding the transaction and downloading process. In fact, it looks like the install just finished... let's see if it's all that it's cracked up to be!

Although I haven't used MS Flight enough to say if it occurs there, on FS2004, FSX, and P3D - if you happen to fly into the range of an ATIS transmitter on the frequency your radio(s) are set, you will begin to "hear" (*see) the constant scroll of the ATIS message at the top of the screen. You will need to tune the offending radio to a different frequency to stop the message from appearing. Good luck! -Greg

Dear Prepar3D users - of which I am one... Although P3D and FSX are cut from the same cloth, I think we can all agree that the changes Prepar3D has made since it was first release are significant.... so significant in fact that we as users have chosen to invest our time and efforts into flying it. Why does it seem difficult for us to accept that these differences will have a bearing on the development of an addon - especially one as (apparently) complicated as the FlightSimLabs A320? Developers will have been undoubtedly working in parallel with FSX and P3D until the point at which the platforms start to diverge. In cases where the FSX/P3D differences are big enough, it makes sense that they will come to a point and focus on finishing up for the easiest platform and getting it out the door. There's no sense in artificially delaying one version just so they can work on the other one for a concurrent release. As a Prepar3D user, I actually like that many developers release for FSX first. That is a rather large pool of guinea pigs who can shake out any bugs or logic issues which may be inherent to both platforms. In the case of highly complex aircraft, there is always something amiss, and we as P3D users will often get the benefits of the "fixed" version without the muss and fuss. Ultimately - we should welcome the fact that Prepar3D is different enough that it requires some additional time to develop for. Without those differences, we probably wouldn't be using it in the first place. Anyway - thanks for bringing this thread/news to the forefront - As more of a Boeing guy, I honestly had all but forgotten about this aircraft, and it's nice to see that there are developers above and beyond the usual suspect(s) making strides towards very high fidelity aircraft addons. I'm paying attention...

Well, from the news posting, Robert indicated that he would post when all was back to normal. As of right now, he has not posted such news, so it is fair to assume that they are still working on the activation servers. -Greg

Bingo - thanks for the interpretation, Kyle.

The PAVE PAWS installation is smallish, light clearing roughly located at the 10 o'clock position off the aircraft, fully surrounded by woods. It's about a wingspan away from the tip of the starboard wing. There is a small access road leading to the radar on its right side. While the radar does get its feed from one or two of the larger transmission lines in the area, the actual feed is too small to be seen in the screenshot. There are multiple high voltage transmission line clearings visible in the screenshot servicing the south coast, central Cape, and connecting the canal power station (located just ahead of the aircraft on the other side of the canal) with the grid. I spent some time working on this area in OpenStreetMap, adding in the transmission lines and some gas pipelines in the region, hence the familiarity!

Rod, The 777 is not only a heavier aircraft in the real world, but I've found it to be heavier in the flight sim world as well. In FSX, I too observed a significant difference between the NGX and the 777 as far as performance is concerned. I've chalked it up to the enhanced and different systems/capabilities being simulated in the 777 rather than any sort of bug. Based on Kyle's note, if you get a chance please do try and flip over to the DX9 mode to see if there's a performance improvement with the 777... I'd test it myself but I do not have FSX installed at this time. I've been horsing around with reverting back to FSX for some other aircraft which are FSX limited (such as the PMDG MD-11), but this performance hitch with the 777 is one of the bigger reasons I've been reluctant. (*installing both sims isn't something I'd like to entertain just yet) Personally I've found the 777 to perform far better under Prepar3D vs. FSX - better frames, better system response, and an overall smoother experience. P3D doesn't seem to labor under the 777 anywhere near as FSX. I believe it is still a little heavier than the NGX, but the difference isn't anywhere near as as dramatic. If you get a chance to test it out, let us know if you observe any different behavior between DX9 and DX10 with the NGX and 777... Thanks! -Greg

Not may screenshots make me stop and admire.... this one did. Very well done.

No - there is no noticeable difference in performance between Win7 and Win10 as it relates to flight simulations. I've noticed some slight efficiencies in overall desktop performance with Win10 vs. Win7, which may be attributable to the new UI, some or other under-the-hood improvements, but nothing on its own which would be compelling to switch. If you are concerned about someday "needing" to move to Win10 and missing out on the free upgrade period, then from a financial perspective it probably is worth it. From a flight simulation perspective, there are a select few old addons which may not function properly under Win10, but most of them are also limited to FSX. If you're flying P3D, I'd say the vast vast majority of your addons will be functionally fine. Still, if you have older addons you consider essential that you've shoehorned into P3D somehow, you may wish to do some personal research on various forums for reports of other users successes or failures. Ultimately, there will be a crowd which follows the "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" philosophy, and this is 100% fine. If your Win7 install is humming along nice, there probably isn't a compelling reason to make the switch. But as you note, the eventual rollout of DX12 capable titles and the X-Box tie-ins are of interest to you and those can be compelling personal reasons to make the switch if you so choose. P3D and X-Plane both work well under Windows 10 - no better and no worse than Windows 7. Go for it! (*Like Harold_Finch mentioned, a full clean install is a nice step to take as well - look up the system Windows 10 reset features to see how you can do it if you decide to go that route.) -Greg