Jump to content

RandallR

Members
  • Content Count

    2,277
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

257 Excellent

About RandallR

  • Rank
    Member - 2,000+
  • Birthday 05/16/1949

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Columbus, OH USA

Flight Sim Profile

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

Recent Profile Visitors

5,095 profile views
  1. Understood - since I don't use AI this is not an issue for me, but I know that it is important for many. I certainly hope that this is a major bug item for MS/Asobo as it affects AI, VATSIM, Multiplayer and other operations. It's amazing to me that this wasn't addressed at the very beginning, but as it is also connected to the ATC system (which I believe will eventually be addressed by WT) I can understand (a little) why it's been delayed. My question would be: as proper runway selection based on the prevailing wind alone affects so many areas, why in the world hasn't this one item been addressed?
  2. Agree - I simply ignore the "assigned" runway from the default ATC - it is wrong about 90% of the time.
  3. This was my experience the other day when testing for turbulence with the C172. Overall, I was very pleased with the manner in which turbulence, buffet, wind shear and slope were represented. Most of the flight only had moderate chop while the approach had me dealing with strong winds and some wind shear (14-24 Knots of wind - even 45 knots at one point) so the additional turbulence and the response of the aircraft still felt appropriate to me. 16 minutes of video was pulled from the 1 hour 50 minute flight - you can also quickly jump to segments using the Chapter List.
  4. From what I've seen, I believe most of the community would agree with this statement. Yet there are those who find it difficult or unnatural to their experience - a device to set this to a lower setting, such as a new adjustment in the Piloting options might do the trick.
  5. I'll have to agree with JRBarrett - I do not find the majority of the videos to contain much turbulence. In fact, I'd say that MS/Asobo is getting closer and closer to what I've experienced in the RW. Another factor on the appearance is so many of the views are from outside of the aircraft instead of inside, so the bumps and air movement are magnified a little in comparison to the "feel" in the cockpit. I did most of my training and PPL flying in the early 70's thru the early 80's - most of it in northern Illinois with occasional forays into Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, etc. The occasional bumps and rocking you see in your videos is very reminiscent of those days. The only days that were really smooth for the whole flight were winter days - as soon as it got warmer the air would move the aircraft in a very similar manner to what we're experiencing now - in fact, I'd have to say that the general representation is still a little mild. Like JR, I've been testing the OP's theory by flying the C172 in varying conditions - I'm actually quite impressed with how a lot of it reminded me of my flying days . Not knowing whether anyone was going to make a video, I actually recorded one yesterday and would be happy to share it but it appears that this discussion has run on long enough. Finally, I am all in favor for there being some kind of adjustment for this and would be happy to vote for it if there is something appropriately posted on the MS Forum? I know that people are going to have varying comfort levels and experience and considering the other adjustments that are offered maybe this is something that could go in the Assistance area?
  6. Live Weather - US for the last couple of weeks. As I have stated, I noticed there was a little more turbulence after SU9 - the first flight I made following the update seemed to be a little more severe than conditions warranted - especially on the approach. After that one flight I found the turbulence to be (for me) a little more realistic than it had before. I have flown all default or modded aircraft since the update: both 172's, modded G36, Modded C208B, modded TBM930 and the WT CJ4.
  7. It does seem that there has been an increase in turbulence since SU9 - though I believe it is actually closer to my real world experience now. Early in the history of the sim they certainly over-baked it - I was flying over the Alps in the TBM and had the wings torn off by extreme turbulence. Today I had a great flight - I took off with thunderstorms nearby and had a fairly busy departure due to gusting crosswinds. This was very well done and reminded me of actual flights I had made under similar conditions. On my approach I had to work a little wind shear so I was busy on the throttle. Other times it has been calm or steady on winds and the flight was fairly smooth. It seems like they have turbulence dialed in nicely. I do recall that some of the roughest flights I've had in the real world as PIC have simply been the constant bounce of updrafts on warm or hot days. Just passing over a highway on a hot day would literally give me a hard kick in the pants.
  8. If you're talking about the TBM, this was posted a while back. This made the TBM930 Improvement MOD compatible w/SU9 (also, be sure to add the WT g3000 Mod)
  9. Not without editing, but one edit does the trick for now. I did the recommended edit and have been flying it with no issues (outside of the standard ASOBO/ WT g3000 work-arounds).
  10. C152, C172, TBM930 Modded: G36 Turbo (great), TBM930 (great), C208B (better)
  11. I usually do initial flight-planning in SimBrief, then import it into Navigraph to verify STARs, approach transitions, etc. I then import the FP saved thru Navigraph into the MSFS flight Planner after starting the sim. Once in the aircraft, no matter which nav system was being used (g1000, g3000, other, etc.) the approach and transitions I selected in Navigraph were in the FP exactly as I had chosen. Now, that's usually not the case. It appears since SU9 that the flight planner continually ignores the original Navigraph approach transition and inserts its own? Now, this hasn't caused any big issues, but its rather frustrating to have to reset the approach transitions for every flight! It happened again today. I chose the transition and IAF that would work best for the flight plan, only to have the flight planner over-ride it and choose an inappropriate transition. I edited the approach in the nav system and changed the transition back to the appropriate one. Isn't Navigraph supposed to over-ride the flight planner, not the opposite?
  12. No problems at this time (except for the normal issues with some mods which I'm sure will be updated shortly). In fact, I'd have to say everything is smooth - the occasional stutter/pause is not happening at any greater frequency than before. I will state that at least one of the new in-plane ATC voices was not produced properly. The phrase segment files were recorded with too great a space at the close of each segment, which produced a halting, unnatural sound to portions of a sentence. This was especially noticeable with call signs.
  13. Hard to say. One possibility is the altitude of the transmitter. BGD is supposed to be at 110 ft, while DRZ is listed as 700 ft.
  14. One source I have (see below) shows range below 18,000 ft to be approx. 40 nm: Type: VOR Frequency: 110.60 Usage: Both High and Low Level Radio Class: Normal anticipated interference-free service: below 18,000 feet: 40nm 18,000 feet to FL450 - 130nm Above FL450 - 100nm Latitude: 33° 15' 38.40" N ( 33.2607) Longitude: 044° 14' 57.00" E ( 44.2492) Elevation: 00113 ft. Magnetic Variation: E003380 0703 World Area Code: 427 Slaved/Assigned Variation: E00300798 Associated airport: ORBS
×
×
  • Create New...