Jump to content

MarkRey

Members
  • Content Count

    1,478
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Neutral

About MarkRey

  • Rank
    Member - 1,000+

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    Other
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

2,621 profile views
  1. Perhaps, but what's compelling for me is MCAS needing only 61 seconds to actively fly an otherwise airworthy aircraft into the ground. Even an incompetent FO on his worst day would likely not have. The need for suitable candidates properly trained can never be overstated and must be addressed. But this aircraft was grounded because it was fundamentally, massively flawed by a badly implemented system it didn't even need except to augment it's control feel. This in order to retain it's great grandfather's certification.
  2. Short answer - money. Upgraded hardware/FS steadily fs4 till fs9, which got everything thrown at it $$$ plus a ton of back end work. Got so I was tweaking, learning, modding and painting more than flying - that hamster wheel Time FSX rolled around I was sort of burnt out, and as an almost exclusively airliner simmer couldn't bring myself to reinvest in rebuilding it all in FSX (and folks were tweaking more than EVER!). Plus other interests got my attention - this was key. Even if I wanted to, couldn't afford a more expensive than ever FS plus my other even more expensive interests. And, FS9 was going on stronger than any superseded sim before it. So just 'settled' with good enough till I just stopped entirely. Haven't flown in years, but FS2020...wow
  3. My very deepest condolences to Mr Allensworth's family and other loved ones. May time turn tears of sorrow into tears of fond remembrance. Rest well Tom - you earned it and then some.
  4. I stand corrected re Advanced then Rob, thanks. Indeed, it's a hobby, and of course everything I say is entirely within that very limited life-context. To me it's just academic, principle, and that is important. At the end of the day thanks to you guys my (small amount of) money is not lost, and all else is really AS' problem - the market will determine their ultimate fate as a business.
  5. Hey Rob - two things: 1. So if I understand, because AS tried to use EPR rather than the usual 'dressing up' fs N1 to LOOK like EPR, the result is the uncontrollable thrust bugs we experience in Basic? If that is so, then if indeed they succeeded in the Advanced - why leave us with the bugged EPR derived IAE variant in Basic? Why leave us to work around it using the CFM? Which leads to my second point 2. I myself have developed and posted two methods: of either repainting IAE operator liveries on CFM models, or better using the IAE external model along with the CFM variant/performance/displays. But that is not a 'fix', it is yet another user essentially rescuing AS with a workaround. And I am but one of many such examples of customers not merely 'tweaking' a finished product as normal, but just making the things reasonably flyable. This includes even the CFM, which also has core issues that can spoil enjoyment. By any normal standard AS remains below the expected level of performance from a developer, no matter how innovative or promising the product. It is, by any normal standard, no 'release candidate'
  6. As one of those who have in fact been (eventually) able to fly the (CFM) bus even on long legs, (thanks to Rob, Rafal and others of course), I'm still not satisfied as a customer to be honest. The IAE version, sold as part of the Basic product, is broken - period - the FADEC is bugged. I am told it works in the Advanced, also that the Advanced does not require disconnecting SECs on the OH to achieve stable lateral guidance at high speed/altitudes. AS wishes to maintain separation - fine, but there is NO fathomable excuse for these fundamental flaws to remain in the Basic package after several YEARS. The very fact that they do, with no indication of any intention to fix them, still speaks volumes about the attitude of the company.
  7. They look good, but I still prefer Andre's - for my taste these are too pristine for the old work horse.
  8. Using AFCAD: Lists > Comm Frequencies > Insert - you should be good from there :)regards,Mark
  9. >to see the desktop. Both FS and ActiveSky were simply gone.May not be relevant but I find this strange - Activesky is not dependent upon fs to run - I wonder why it crashes too? I've has fs ctd many a time with not a blink from AS, except to say 'fs disconnected'regards,Mark
  10. Probably 50/50 - I am forever adjusting something, mostly with AI or my newer user planes, but it's all fun to me cause I'm a born fixer :)Well maybe AI can be tedious...regards,Mark
  11. Some time ago Daryl clearly elucidated just how LDS works. Basically a coupla guys working in their off hours. Despite that LDS is at the top of the addon airliner heap with few others (hence eons to produce the quality we know and love). Add to that we all know by now how vastly different FSX and fs9 are.That all tells me that those coupla guys are faced with a choice as to how to best apply their off-hours - fsx or fs9, not both. I can't say I blame them for striving toward the bleeding edge, lost profit or not. Daryl has said that money is not the object so that's that.And finally, I'm sure that if Laurent and Wade had chosen differently then Daryl would defend that decision just as firmly, so I'd cut him some slack. The man's just doing what he must ultimately do as LDS' headbanging front man - if you take issue with his vocals well...Sorry for sounding fanboyish but that's basically what it boils down to imho. It's hard to put the ubiquitous 757 out of mind, but I choose to focus on other very good short/med range airliners available (or will be) for fs9.regards,Mark
  12. Guess thats why shoot 'em ups are so popular, and why fs has more 'game' aspects now.We who just love the magic of aviation, who just 'get it' are a separate breed, only a few per thousand births :)regards,Mark
  13. Good point, but if I take myself as an example, my fs9 is years old, but NEW stuff never gets old. Also, as I said below, the new stuff for fs9 is still evolving - look at the difference in addon quality since fs9's inception. Whether brand new or just a better replacement for a dated addon, I personally am still willing to acquire the latest and greatest for my chosen platform, free or payware. I doubt I'm in a minority among fs9 users.regards,Mark
  14. This is the thing that still amazes me, fs9 is more viable now than ever. It seems we are only just now really seeing the advances this sim was always capable of supporting.No doubt FSX has even greater potential, but as addon development timeframes lengthen it seems any new platform is at a serious disadvantage if the lifespan of each version is only 2-3 yrs.I think more and more fs will depend on new users to keep going - I would not be surprised if the c172 in the next version is armed :-lolregards,Mark
  15. All I can say is 'ouch' and 'ouch!' Pragmatic as I am it's 'bad' enough that LDS has dusted fs9 off it's feet, but to send me off to PSS and CS for a 757 alternative just adds insult to 'injury' :) You're not serious are you??As for the happy FSX users, those posts are not particularly instructive. Perhaps those folks are happy with visual compromises that I am not? Call me greedy but I cannot go back to less than smoothly approaching a chock full Mega Frankfurt or London with all the trimmings after 9 hrs, bloom or not.That said, the point is moot, such is life.regards,Markedit - glad to know LDS is planning beyond FSX - personally I will get back to you guys in some sim at some point. :)
×
×
  • Create New...