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

2,503 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 And, FS9 was going on stronger than any superseded sim before it.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. Fs isn't designed to handle the kind of AI loads we throw at it. So helping it do so is a multifaceted science with tools covering everything from airport parking and runway useage to ai aircraft themselves. Regarding Ai traffic, here's a few things I remember: Here in the library, fs9 configurator 'fs9cfg16.zip' can be used to increase taxi speed as mentioned, while Ai Separation 'fsaisv1.1.zip' can be used to improve Ai traffic efficiency. Also Google 'AiSmooth', which often is used in conjunction with Ai Separation, or just by itself. It's still available all over the place.
  4. Don't remember if ACA2005 has this among it's fault finding capabilities, but missing effects (.fx) files can cause this as well. WOAI is notorious for this, referencing non default .fx files in their aircraft.cfgs, like Nick's smoke, or even Shockwave light effects :blink: . Every time another AI aircraft wants that effect, cpu cycles are wasted hunting. Simplest fix is create a copy of an equivalent default .fx file and renaming it accordingly, Or if not too many aircraft.cfgs are involved, just edit them instead. But finding which ones requires a utility like Process Explorer (which is also just generally useful in finding issues which waste cpu cycles within fs generally.)
  5. 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.
  6. XP10 bug has set the bar for flex - we need to see total wingtip to fuse flapping action. Nothing less will do now so FSL still has a lot of work to do, or a bug to insert :Big Grin:
  7. My post neither questioned FSL's decision, nor implied anything about FSL having a challenge with the mechanics of flex implementation within FSX. In fact, what I said was the opposite - I acknowledged your deliberate tradeoff decision. I then posed a hypothetical about the same deliberate decision on a larger aircraft - that's all. If you've said the performance hit would be worth it in that case I apologize if I missed it - getting on in years. With that I'm out as well. This is indeed a sensitive topic for some strange reason, might as well be a Boeing vs Airbus debate. And I'm a little weary of having to explain what I'm NOT saying despite having been very clear imho. Peace out and good flights to all!
  8. There is no question the wings flex, they do, and they must. Not even the developers question that. It seems the sharklet equipped wings arc even more than those with winglets. The real question is implementation in the sim. I do fully understand any devs choices. FSL clearly feels the resources required to smoothly arc the wings slightly are better spent elsewhere. So they have opted for just 'bounce' - I get that. I assume Aerosoft has made a similar tradeoff choice for the AXE, albeit they don't animate the wings at all. Devil's advocate hypothetical question for an FSL or Aerosoft: Given the (understandable) design tradeoff above for the smaller A320, wonder if they'd have to do the same for an A330/40/80? Despite the family commonality, I assume the big birds, along with their sheer poly eating size, have even more inward complexity to reproduce in the sim? Would we see straight winged A330s too?
  9. Snow This is a general discussion forum, there is every use in discussing our general likes, dislikes and preferences in a cordial and mutually respectful manner regardless of any developer's decisions, final or otherwise. On that note, consumer discussion, feedback and expressions significantly help to guide product development and advancement in any given field over the medium/long or even short term. Did you know that the iFly 737 of today is leagues beyond the product that was initially released a few years ago? And it was impressive even then. At many points along the way they have added features previously determined as being unfeasible (and they're still going, even on their fs9 offering where possible!) All along the way it has been nothing but great camaraderie over there - we accept their decisions even while they allow us to freely (within reason) express our desires. So again, it's not about pressuring anyone, it's about ...just talking - there's no harm in that is there?
  10. "The wingflex on a 777 is signifcantly more notcable too. I see why PMDG felt it was required in this model." Just to clarify, my reference to PMDG was with particular regard to the 737NGX series. Like the T7 they took great pains to dynamically animate the wings both on the ground and in the air. IME the A320 wing is very similar in behavior. Obviously the T7 is another order of magnitude, yet even then it can be argued that animated wings were unnecessary in a sim of that inward depth. Again, it's not a showstopper as cockpit immersion is the paramount consideration - we are all in agreement on that.
  11. Actually, so am I. Once I 'sit' in a great vc surrounded by great ambient sounds, I forget everything else. For certain the dev knows better than us on the outside what they can or can't do, no question. But if I had a dollar for every time over the years a dev said 'can't' or 'sim limitation' only to have some other, or even the same dev find a way later on, I'd be Bill Gates Good flights!
  12. It's always unfortunate when people take a reasonably expressed preference and distort it to extremes to make a (therefore irrelevant) point. No one in this thread has said or inferred any such sentiment. People are different sir, that is what makes this hobby the highly subjective, fun experience it is. By your expressed paradigm thus far, it would not be much of a stretch to assume you think PMDG aircraft, which simulate virtually every external animation imaginable simply for the sake of simulation accuracy, to be supremely 'silly'.
  13. Bit of a minor but pet peeve of mine. Even after transitioning from 2d/wv to vc only flying years ago, board stiff wings still irk me just a tad - I can't stand to look at them even the 0.1% of the time I still venture outside in flight. Like the OP I too spent many flight hours watching the A32x wing as a passenger. Just like the 737NG, that thing is alive both on the ground and in the air, it's a large, heavy moving surface beyond the engine pylon. Yes, yes a thousand times yes I fully understand any developer's decision to eliminate the feature to save resources. I'm not a modeller and have no clue what it takes to build a 3d model. But I still think it generally unfortunate in the general scheme of modeling advancement that a feature first introduced (quite well) way back on even fs9 freeware, is now (increasingly?) abandoned - it's like a step back to fs98 in visual modeling. Adding to the confusion of admittedly ignorant consumers like myself, only some developers at the top tier consider wing animation unworkable today. Others seem to have no issue producing fps friendly (enough) models with considerable system depth as well. End of the day, I agree it's not a show stopper, but in my subjective opinion, it adds to my simulated experience of flying something lifelike, just like tilting bogies, compressing struts,, and moving control surfaces, along with a host of other external goodies that are also never 'seen' from the simulated cockpit
  14. 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.
  15. 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'
×
×
  • Create New...