MarkRey

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.

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.)

Relevant aircraft.cfg would be in your Flight Simulator 9/Aircraft/PMDG737-700 (I don't know what PMDG named their old 737 folders but you get the idea)

I don't know you personally, but my heart too hit the floor. You exemplify the kind of guts I'd want to display in such a situation. Thank you sir for creating a place where I could go to relax all these years, a place of cordiality, discipline, camaraderie and learning. Your steady stewardship has meant more to me than I can ever begin to express. Godspeed Tom, wherever the road leads, strength to you and family in this challenging time.

"Prepar3D Proudly Welcomes Captain Sim" Guess LM likes candy too

Objectively, who says this isn't their 'A' game? Few have PMDG's multifaceted depth of talent and ability to reproduce every bulb, switch and pogo stick inside out. Clearly iFly does a lot of things very well - for instance that fs9 744 vc approaches fsx level in detail, they broke some poly barrier there it seems. Lighting and virtual ergonomics seem to be ongoing things with them, but they listen to and directly interact customers, and are still building their talent. If the 737 evolution was any indication, the 744 is just getting started. Sounds like an iFly defense, but it's not - just saying generally devs should do their individual best and let customers decide.

The model has a 'center' position at coordinates 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 - lights and such are positioned forward, aft, left, right, above and below this position. Forward, left and up are positive, aft, right and below are negative values. In your example 25.31 looks like forward distance along the fuselage, 6.67 and -6.67 are left and right (or right and left - not totally sure), and 1.70 is height. I'd guess for the longer 319 and shorter 321 you would need to experiment mostly with '25.31'. Just backup you aircraft.cfgs and go crazy - that's how you learn this stuff.

There was a pic of their 744 configurator showing some advanced options to help make long haul easier (time compression, automatic fuel config etc). Plus the internal 3d modeling especially is vastly updated compared to PMDG's old model, let alone their own freeware. Then you add all the features of their 737 and more - it's a new plane altogether. Can't say I'll bite however, just not in the market for a 744 :mellow: ..but we'll see.

It's one thing to be bored during a flight for lack of things to do. It's another thing altogether to be bored with virtual civilian flight itself. Could be wrong but the weariness I think the OP meant is the latter. Typically that person HAS done it all, and over an extended period - I know I have; from choppers to GA to commuters to tubeliners of all ranges. I envy you if you've never been there. Me? Heck just look at my join date.

Tbh when I was really into it I found longhaul LESS boring because of the fewer cycles, hence the the reduced frequency of the fun parts - takeoff/departures and approach/landings. Lh for me has it's own mystique in simming, it's a bigger challenge (with bigger reward) to plan properly depending on route, weather, aircraft etc etc etc. I planned such trips days in advance where applicable. Plus, despite the 'leash' I DID get a lot of other things done (or just slept) Eventually, it ALL become too much anyway, but we're all different.

Over the many years it's a recurring theme for some. The enthusiasm you had for putting together an IFR trip is just...gone, and just makes you shut the pc off. Personally I'm among those who find the only real cure is to just stop and do something else. In my case I found trucking to be a fun alternative to IFR heavy iron flight - same principle of hauling something big and heavy but much simpler to execute and interesting sights along the way. Eventually, hanging around the forums, YT etc, the itch comes back, and off you go into the blue again.

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:

Not 'better' per se, but the LDS 767 still stands the test of time despite it's age. And ditto on the LSH Maddog. PMDG 744 and these two were often mentioned in the same breath back then. All different, all deeply rewarding in their own ways - very different aircraft as you can imagine. Of course they were then proceeded in later years by the MD11 and now iFly737. If you're just an A to B heavy flyer who just inputs the basics for fms driven flight, ALL of the above can be operated basically on the same level for normal ops (except the md80 - LOT more buttons and levers etc). The differences are feature depths, and very importantly, graphics - the older birds are not nearly as visually detailed, especially in the VC. Good choice with the iFly - features and options to keep you reading for weeks, but still easy to operate at your own level of complexity/comfort as you explore it's depth of features. But when you can, pick up the older birds too - still fantastic.

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!

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?

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?

"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.

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!

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'.

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

It's a joke (look at the captain's FMC)

Personally I'm not comfortable seeing FSX or any other sim in the news. Their collective ignorant sensationalist histrionics is not the kind of attention I'd want on the hobby. Our knowledge of aircraft, and even our freeware would have them scrambling for 'experts' to 'comment' :blink:

One of the 'data points' investigators are reported to be considering in looking at the pilots doesn't make sense imho. They say pilots may have diverted the flight (the initial left turn) then gotten on the intercom to 'calm the passengers' about the diversion. Beyond the initial sensation, I doubt that many (if any) pax would notice that turn as there is no external reference over water at night and it probably never exceeded 20 or so degrees. For all they knew the flight was just proceeding normally.

Been thinking similarly. I've no idea what is or is not economically and/or technically feasible, but to totally lose an aircraft and hundreds of people like this in 2014 boggles my mind. There MUST be a better way to keep track of a modern jetliner, even if it now requires 'tombstone technology' going forward.

As a diehard heavy ifr only simpilot, I know the feeling very well. Day after day of looking at the pc only to turn away, not motivated to set up even the most basic flight with some realism (for us that's minimum 15 minutes). Tried GA many times, always like for a while but get bored so that's not really an option once sim-weariness sets in. I'm just now coming back from what became YEARS of essentially little or no simming. Don't worry, the passion does return. Best cure is time doing other stuff, but stick around the forums, watch others fly on YT - eventually the inner aviator yearns to soar once more. B)