Jump to content

Ray Proudfoot

Moderator
  • Content Count

    11,544
  • Donations

    $50.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,619 Excellent

5 Followers

About Ray Proudfoot

  • Rank
    Member - 10,000+
  • Birthday May 2

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.cheadlehulmeweather.co.uk
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Cheshire, England

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

About Me

  • About Me
    Former MoD civil servant now retired.

Recent Profile Visitors

12,859 profile views
  1. More info required. What simulator? What version of MakeRunways are you running. And what version of FSUIPC? Please don’t say “the latest”. Give version numbers and check they are the latest here. https://forum.simflight.com/topic/80977-updated-modules/ https://forum.simflight.com/topic/66136-useful-additional-programs/ Then run the database updates and that should fix the problem.
  2. That might be what you think. I have a different opinion.
  3. Those UT and FTX packages have lasted me through FSX, P3Dv3 and v4. Good value for money I would say.
  4. Because the core P3D ground textures have always left a lot to be desired. FTX Global is more or less mandatory and its benefits are very obvious even from FL350. The other products I use are Ultimate Terrain X as it greatly enhances the coastlines etc.
  5. Speaking personally I think plenty of people will stick with P3D and therefore they will continue to buy from ORBX. If you’re an IFR pilot I’m not sure how important seeing the ground as depicted in MFS is when you’re 6 miles up. For VFR flying MFS might be the preferred simulator providing they have a fast enough internet speed. But for IFR I think there are plenty of reasons why P3D will remain attractive.
  6. The OP has raised a valid question which is being debated. Nothing wrong with that.
  7. Gentlemen, time to step back and have a breather. Consider not just what you post but the way you say it. You wouldn't speak to one another like this is face-to-face.
  8. @threegreen, I’m not here to debate the crash. I just wanted to ensure facts were debated and not speculation.
  9. @threegreen, I agree mainstream media won’t post the technical stuff but given the crash occurred less than 30 hours ago I wouldn’t expect any responsible media outlet to publish uncorroborated info. The black boxes will be with the Pakistan accident people and they won’t be that quick to release info. I’m sure in good time the reasons will be made public and people can debate knowing all the facts. Lots of speculation mixed with some known info at the moment.
  10. No because they reports facts and not speculation. I have no wish to hear the tapes. If you want to discuss known facts that's fine but leave it at that. Be careful. Every accident is different.
  11. That is nothing to do with the Pakistan crash.
  12. That's a discussion forum for pilots etc. Not an official site for Air Accident investigators. This is what the BBC are reporting. Very little of your post is in theirs. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-52780289 As I said, keep discussion to known facts.
  13. Has any of this been made public? Unless it has I suggest you refrain from speculating as it's both disrespectful to those who have died and is pointing to the crew as being responsible which is uncalled for. Leave discussion until the facts are known.
  14. I didn’t know at the time he posted the video so much discussion would follow. It will only be a matter of time before someone asks why XP Concorde is being discussed in the AH thread.
  15. @trumpetfrazz1, you make valid points but really this is the wrong forum for discussion of the XP Concorde. It might be better if you post on the Concorde topic here. This is the Aeroplane Heaven topic after all. We have got distracted.
×
×
  • Create New...