frantzy

>To hold with the G430, all you need to do is press the "OBS">button when you get near the fix you want to hold at (this>assumes you are holding over a waypoint already in the GPS>flight plan). The GPS will then "lock on" to that fix and>won't sequence past it once you cross that point. Once you are>finished holding, just hit OBS again and the GPS should>sequence to the next waypoint in the flight plan. >Note that circling and holding are different. If you're looking for a practical solution (like you need to mow the lawn and you want your plane to stay at your initial approach fix so you can come back later and finish the flight) the above method is effective.If you instead want to simulate the real-world instrument procedure of holding, you need to fly an oval rather than a circle, compensate for wind drift, and follow either published or verbal instructions about where the oval should be relative to the waypoint. The method above would not do that. If I recall correctly, the real world G430/G1000 and real-world autopilots will fly a holding pattern when it exists on the missed approach procedure (but without compensating for wind), but elsewhere you would manually change autopilot headings to make an oval. I'm not sure what the FSX version of the Garmins will do.

I've been using three Dell 20" (2001FP or something like that), which I like because:1) Fast response time2) Easy to adjust ergonomic positions (up, down, sideways rotate, tilt)3) USB connections available on the side of the monitor. I don't use them currently but have before4) Good price from Dell Outlet

Beautiful work! What's your visual system? And how do you like the GF throttles?

The real thing is pretty ugly as well... http://arvamont.com/AK-Images/04-07%20olym...20mt%20hood.jpg...although I guess the sim doesn't make it dense or smooth enough to look realistic.

Sounds like perhaps it was low hanging fruit. Why make easy fixes wait for the harder/bigger ones? I'm not affected by this one but I'm encouraged by the precedent...

My faith in a post drops with every exclamation point contained in the subject line

I appreciate the front page status report today (and offer to cancel) but I really view an FS version upgrade as a big, long project. Waiting a few extra days or weeks really doesn't matter to me...in fact, letting others wrestle with and solve issues while I wait will make my experience easier. And the last thing I want to do is cancel an order that supports Avsim. For the next couple years when I'm building my FSX world, I know Circuit City and Best Buy won't be of any use to me, but Avsim will be invaluable.

>>How does the airplane get the info about windspeed/direction>in the first place? Is there a datalink to weather station>systems or something? I mean, the plane itself isn't gonna>detect it, right?Wrong. The GPS knows the ground speed and ground track, and the primary flight instruments + pitot system know the air speed and heading. So the wind speed and direction can be derived on board.

>I'm sure there will be "another way" to get>these setups to work for you guys.If so it would be nice for Mike aka Taildragger to provide more than a 1-word, 2-letter answer.Maybe a better way to ask the question is, "How are multi-monitor scenarios supported in FSX?"

My experience with the demo was almost exactly like costone's, except that I don't have a dual core but rather SLI. In multi-monitor mode I had three monitors with 3d virtual cockpit outside views and 1 with 2d instruments; in SLI mode I went for Very High settings for scenery, terrain, etc. In both cases 20+ FPS and smooth.- Athlon 64 FX-55- 2x 256MB nVidia GeForce 6800 Ultra (SLI)- 2GB RAM- 10,000 rpm hard drivesAlthough I'll buy FSX right away, the Vista slip means my next hardware upgrade (to multicore CPU and DX10 GPU) won't be concurrent with the new sim's release. I'm really relieved to find my current hardware can handle FSX reasonably well, otherwise it would have been a painful wait. As a hardcore simmer, how I will ultimately evaluate FSX has little to do with how the product is marketed to the masses. All the small but meaningful usability improvements + what I hope will be unprecedented cooperation with the 3rd party add-on community will determine success/failure.

>Um, we don't get paid to write them, you know. It's all on>our own timeOkay, well that changes my opinion then. If you're doing it more or less as hobbyists, that's a different story. I apologize.

It's called constructive criticism. I think they're much more open to it than you give them credit.

They're marketing their product, Jim. They're the ones who decided on this approach (which I like). But if their chosen approach is going to work, they have to see it through. There are, what, 8-10 of them blogging? Even 1-2 new entries per week from the group as a whole would be an improvement. I'd be very surprised if the FS team didn't agree their frequency is too low these days. It's not the end of the world, of course, but yes I am serious.

I give the FS team wide latitude and the benefit of the doubt on most topics, but that's just not good enough in my book. Too busy to write essentially one email a week to your hardest-core customers? "Z" has written exactly 2 blog entries (both useless) all year.You're either committed to communicating with the community, or you're not. Which is it?

"Micro-vectors" are what turn me off to the default ATC the most....turn left 10 degrees, right 10, left 10, right 10, etc.

>I wonder if the two posters (or anyone else) who are running>more than one Video Card in their PC for *outside* views can>elaborate on how this is done and how well it works.I have 1 computer with nVidia SLI and 2 video cards which each support 2 monitors, so 4 monitors in total. SLI was intended to have those 2 video cards combine their resources to have nearly double the performance; it doesn't work that way with MSFS, so SLI has been much maligned in these forums. However, it was an easy, off-the-shelf way for me to get 4 monitors. Expensive though (I got it last January).As for performance, my sliders are mostly medium and I lock framerates at 31 FPS. I always have 2 monitors displaying external 3d views, sometimes 3. With 2 monitors in 3d, performance is great (I have the best AMD CPU and best nVidia cards that were available last year, plus 2GB RAM). With 3 monitors in 3d, I get mid-20 framerates. With 4 monitors in 3d, I get mid-teens framerates. I started with 1GB RAM, but upgraded to 2GB due to lockups. The extra RAM solved the problem. The CPU is now my bottleneck (I remember the quote at AVSIM from the Microsoft presenter: "We can bring any computer to its knees". If I were to slide all my sliders to the right, my framerates would drop to slideshow with these 4 monitors going.) Because of the many variables (especially add-ons...I run high-end airplane add-ons like Eaglesoft and PMDG, I have 3rd party Traffic and ActiveSky weather, but no scenery add-ons at all), your mileage may vary. One last note, based on the FSX preview chatter, you might conclude this is a bad time to do a big video card update, since *no* current video cards will support DirectX 10, and DX10 promises great advances in graphics and performance by pushing load to the GPU.

I have an SLI setup but I don't use SLI for FlightSim...instead I display 4 monitors with a 3d view on each. This is a convenient way to get such a panoramic picture, although I'm sure there are cheaper ways.

>What is this power setting, does it directly translate to throttle>position? No. Although in some airplanes with advanced engine monitors, like the Cirrus, the monitor gives a % power readout. It is possible to get the same % power output with different throttle/mixture combinations In piston singles, pitch first for level flight then power back. Don't power back too far though. Depends on altitude and whether your center of gravity is fore or aft. A rearward CG leads to better cruise. Also don't forget to adjust the prop pitch (blue knob between throttle & mixture) to the recommended cruise setting. Absolutely not. In fact, in different airspaces there are specific requirements for how far (up to 1000 feet) you must remain away from clouds. Absolutely legal. But in a single-engine piston especially it's not wise to do this too often, for two reasons: (1) if you lose your engine or otherwise need to land right away, you'll be stuck going through clouds & not knowing what's below, and (2) there's no guarantee even at your destination the undercast will be clear.Follow the rules and use realistic weather (continuously updated), and you'll discover some of the challenge of long cross-countries. Absolutely (in most planes). Some trim up pretty well, but most real planes I've flown, especially trucks like Cessnas and Pipers, can be easily trimmed for hands-off flying. Best of luck with your adventure, Moose!

>Does the real unit have VNAV and waypoint hold capability?>>ShezHi Shez, the real world 430 and 530 GPS units have a VNAV function where you can program a target altitude at or near a waypoint, and the unit will give you the climb or descent rate needed to reach that point.For example, I use it on VFR flights to be 1000 ft. AGL at 4 miles prior to my destination airport. On IFR flights, if I get a crossing restriction (e.g. cross XYZ waypoint at 8,000 feet), I program the unit to tell me the climb or descent rate needed to meet the crossing restriction.The waypoint hold capability requires you to hit 'OBS' to suspend waypoint sequencing, allowing you to hold at the waypoint. If given a holding pattern (e.g. hold on the 180 degree radial) that can be programmed in as well.The posters who have said the FS GPS is nice but not full-featured are exactly right. It's not a piece of < >, but neither is it a full simulation of the real thing.Mike

I have far more time in an SR22 than an SR20, but in both (real) aircraft upon extending flaps, the balloon is pretty pronounced. It may be overdone a bit in this model, but at Cirrus factory training, they teach owners to counteract the ballooning tendencies with substantial yoke pressure. Upon retracting the flaps, especially in an SR20, there's a pretty definite sinking feeling in the real airplane. Less noticeable in the SR22, which climbs like a rocket.I agree with other posters, this is a really nice freeware package. Only nits I've found so far are the presence of deice in the SR20 (not available in the real one), and the stall behavior is much more gentle in the real plane. I suspect this is related to the wonderful parachute sequence, but I noticed in this sim model, at stall speeds, there's a strong tendency for a wing-over. In fact, my first two stall attempts resulted in spins! Obviously I've never done THAT in my Cirrus...Great job, guys!Mike

While I'm a big fan of AVSIM and cognizant of the international makeup of our hobby, I think common aviation terms like "hangar" should be spelled correctly on the front page (I'm referring to the "Bob's hanger" announcement)

Time for a trip to the nearest used PC store. As I expand my Project Magenta panel I've been adding 15" monitors at the rate of $5 each. I saw used 17" monitors for $20. What kind did you lose?

I really wish folks hadn't taken a shot at CH in this post. For several years they've filled such a valuable market position -- without them, there would have been no yoke & rudder options below $500. I upgraded to the world of $500 yokes but still haven't yet replaced my old analog CH rudder pedals, which have been a heck of a value.Having high standards is fine, but ripping CH as cheap junk is both inaccurate and detrimental to the flight sim community as a whole...

I really wish folks hadn't taken a shot at CH in this post. For several years they've filled such a valuable market position -- without them, there would have been no yoke & rudder options below $500. I upgraded to the world of $500 yokes but still haven't yet replaced my old analog CH rudder pedals, which have been a heck of a value.Having high standards is fine, but ripping CH as cheap junk is both inaccurate and detrimental to the flight sim community as a whole...

Don't get me wrong, I think Avsim is head and shoulders above other similar sites. The library is great, forums are active, and there's an obvious level of journalistic professionalism.But increasingly I think our hobby is divided into "eye candy" users and people obsessed with flight dynamics. I'm in the latter group, but I have complete respect for those who focus on visuals. With all the AI traffic and detailed visual models and scenery, I'm amazed at how true to life some people can make their virtual worlds.Unfortunately, I think attention to faithfully recreated flight dynamics gets short shrift on Avsim. Too often, reviews have only scant information on whether the aircraft handle like the real thing. Sometimes reviews mistakenly conclude that if an airplane is easy to fly or feels "right", the flight dynamics are good. I'm not saying only 747 captains or aeronautical engineers should write reviews, but reviewers should be more thorough in documenting whether airspeeds and fuel flows are accurate for a given throttle setting & pitch attitude, and whether aircraft stability is consistent with an airplane's real life reputation.I propose that every commercial and freeware plane reviewed on Avsim should be explicitly rated on both looks and performance. Many aircraft designers aspire only for visual fidelity; that's fine, but please say so in the review.I'd be interested to hear what you guys think about this topic...:-waveMike