frantzy

AFCS III USB Yoke & Throttle

While not a simming magazine per se, I think most simmers would enjoy Airways Magazine www.airwaysmag.comhttp://jdtllc.com/images/RCsupporter.jpg

>Does it not bother anyone that this gentleman chooses to >force his Ill informed opinionionated policy on you ? Yes! Not so much this one person, but the cumulative effect of reading similar complaints day after day after day. I love good freeware, and I hate bad payware, but vendors can market their wares at whatever price and I can take it or leave it.There should be a separate forum called "Debate Capitalism"http://jdtllc.com/images/RCsupporter.jpg

Great. Can the Fleetwood folders also be removed?http://jdtllc.com/images/RCsupporter.jpg

Now that I've installed v3 (:-jumpy) what can I get rid of from previous versions 2.0-2.2? If I run the uninstallers that came with those versions, will it wipe out anything shared with 3.0?(It's not that I'm not sentimental about the old stuff, just that my main hard drive is filled to the gills)Thanks,Mikehttp://jdtllc.com/images/RCsupporter.jpg

Congrats JD & team. Can't wait! :-jumpyhttp://jdtllc.com/images/RCsupporter.jpg

From Airliners.net:"all Dash 8-300s built since the second quarter of 1996 have been fitted with a computer controlled noise and vibration suppression system (or NVS) and so from then all models were designated Dash 8Q-300s. In 1998 the aircraft was again renamed, this time to Dash 8-Q300 when a new interior was also introduced"Copyright

FS & real is KBFI. My house is close enough to tune in ATIS. In FS I can afford to fly more distant cross countries, though ;-).

That's tremendous, Bear. Now THAT's "as real as it gets". Cannot believe how lousy the default looks.

"Funny" is one word to describe it, and having traveled the same airspace I can relate to the visual challenge.However, with the number of lives potentially endangered, winging it with dead reckoning is a bad idea. Basic use of the many navaids in the area would have been advisable."Irresponsible" would be my description.

I can't believe nobody has said, "Rhapsody in Blue" - the United Airlines theme music. Best airline music of all time

>I thought I covered this in the doc's, but maybe not :-) >Wrist-slap accepted. Glad you didn't tell me RTFM!>Now with that amount of flying you should be able to do some >short field flying and when you've that sorted, I want to >hear you've got into, and then out of, Emma Field :-) Last night I carried too much speed & altitude into Vancouver International. Granted I had lots of runway but used speed brakes, forward slip, closed throttle, and lots of curse words to parachute onto the numbers. We'll give the Emma Field challenge a try :-)

Even with a couple of weeks passed since it's release, I'm still having a great time with this plane and panel, flying it almost every night. Kind of like an "ahead of its time" regional jet. Thanks so much, Paul.There is one problem I have and I'm not sure if it's just me: with the autopilot, I can choose "HDG" initially, but once I choose another setting like "NAV1" I can almost never get it back to "HDG". When I click near HDG I either get OFF or NAV1.Is it me, or the way it works, or an issue? Thanks,Mike

Good post & discussion. I was very surprised when I attended a course which included time in an airline full motion 737 simulator. Most of my "experience" was simming with the usual CH yoke & pedals in a variety of planes, mostly jets. My real world time has been in single engine Cessnas. My classmates were high-time General Aviation types, mostly CFIs. Yet they had MUCH more trouble trimming and especially landing the 737, because of its sensitivity. (I've also heard airline pilots complain that airline simulators are harder to fly than the real thing, so I don't think they're an absolute measure).After this experience, and after reading many arguments in the forums, and being happy with or disappointed by many aircraft packages, here's what I think:1. There are some planes with flying characteristics that are clearly not realistic, even to an amateur. Fortunately, it's often clear which ones are & aren't, by the description and size of the file, and interests of the authors.2. Easy to fly does not equal "good", and sensitive does not necessarily equal "bad". I've read that the MD-11 has a bad reputation among many pilots for it's handling. I'd love to feel what that's like.3. Hardware matters. I can't wait to replace my CH yoke with a high end product with a feel more suited to the planes I fly. With a myriad of setups out there, each simmers experience is bound to be a little different.4. Developers are handicapped by what FS gives them to work with. I don't pretend to know specifics, and sometimes people make discoveries & breakthroughs, but the bottom line is this: unrealistic handling doesn't necessarily mean the developer was careless.Not everyone is into realistic handling, and we should respect that. Some of us emphasize "Flight" and some emphasize "Simulation"; the scenery and attention to visual detail that some simmers achieve is amazing and shouldn't be dismissed as "eye-candy"On the other hand, sharing opinions about handling characteristics is valid too. I love hearing from the airline pilots among us, and realize that they disagree, too. The argument, "What do you expect from a $70 sim?" is pretty lame. How many posts per day are there just at Avsim? People take this hobby seriously.I'd love it if people were able to respectfully evaluate, compliment, and criticize freeware & payware, because it furthers the hobby. Sure, not everyone is a real pilot. And not everyone is trying to build the most realistic handling airplane. But the extreme reactions on both sides after a new release ("it's looks awesome" or "it's flies like ####") tends to crowd out the meaningful evaluations from people smarter than me that I'd like to read before installing a new plane.

2 wishes: Have AI/ATC use more than just one runway, and make the flight dynamics parameters more robust & more transparent to 3rd party developers

>>David, I'm 33, which is actually the average age here at the >comair academy!! So there's quite a mix here, young guns >right out of college and the carrer changing guys (Doctors, >Lawyers, MBA's, Engineers etc.) like me. >As a 33 year old MBA thinking about exactly the same route you're taking, let's just say I'll be looking forward to your updates.But knowing the workload you're about to face, I won't expect them to be frequent ;-)Good luck,Mike

Student Pilot, 40 hours in C-172, 1 in a C-182, and 1 in a 737 full-motion simulator -- THAT was fun! -- thanks to the ATOP program, www.b737.com

>From what I've heard another confirmed feature will be the >elimination of the 2D panel. It's all VC's with intuitive >zooming panning from here! In my opinion that would be a bad move. I flew in an airline's full motion 737 simulator, and it looked much more like the 2D panel in FS2k2 than the 3D ones. If I flew with my face pressed up against the monitor, it might be different.For God sakes, Microsoft, fix the ATC problems, and make the flight dynamics better (and more transparent for 3rd party developers).

The other option for reality-based ATC is Radar Contact, which, unlike VATSIM humans, never goes to bed!

Hopefully frame rates will be high enough to permit moving airplanes too ;-)

I've experienced those frame rate problems you describe on flights from EDDK to KPHL. I tried changing all the other variables, such as weather, airplane, display options, but only ending the RC adventure improved performance.Never had such problems with FS2000, and never have problems with RC on shorter flights. Since a search of this forum didn't produce many other accounts of this problem (and I know that other users of RC use it successfully for long flights) I attributed the problem to my setup or something else strange about how adventures work.I'll bet with RC 3.0, since it is not adventure-based, this won't be a factor.

I second your suggestion, Cactus. Or perhaps more suited to this forum, "Doug's Controller School"

Normally I stick to the local area or routes assigned by a Virtual Airline, but for fun I downloaded the Norway Airports scenery in the AVSIM Library. I know nothing about Norway and can't pronounce the names of any of the airports but cruising around exploring was great fun...

Any thought, JD, to using parallel runways to the one that MS AI use? Of course not every airport has a suitable parallel runway but at the busiest airports, where sequencing will be the toughest, they're pretty common.BTW you have my sympathy for trying to release 3.0 without an SDK to help, but I think it's the right choice given the circumstances.