michal

Again, whatever was available was an arcade, cartoonish version, not real crash modelling. You would need a Cray computer and huge amount of ground work to do any realistic crash modelling, it is beyond reach of consumer software products.

Exactly, probably the single most lacking and most important element. Damage modelling - thank you but this is another cartoonish feature, you will never even approximately model aircraft damage.

Yes, all these (SIDs/STARs) can be overruled by ATC. However the controller would(should) never issue a clearance that would put you in harm way relative to terrain.

Outerra is very nice, great technology and I can see potential when this could deliver an awesome flighsim platform. These guys seem to have right recipe how to revolutionize world-wide scenery creation. However their goals are so fuzzy, little happens for whole years that I have my doubts whether it ever comes to some fligtsim fruition.

You have absolutely nothing to prove that they can deliver any better flight simulation than everybody else. The discussion is purely academic and of little value, on the other hand if they ever get into flight sim business please let us know ASAP.

So far they are such insignificant part they hardly count. All this talent and millions going to cheesy arcade production - I am not impressed with the outcome considering $$$$ spent.

Because they don't have monopoly for talent. Plus the proof is in the pudding.

I like to compare apples with apples not apples with watermelons. The creators of GTA may have developed some incredible technology however until their product is comparable to a flightsim we can't judge how suitable this technology is to a flightsim. I am not convinced at all that creators of GTA only if they wanted could apply the same software architecture to flight sim world and leapfrog Microsoft, X-Plane and Prepar3D.

Clearly it's panel has little to do with SF50. Weather effects are geared toward ground-level, not atmospherics in flight, in short it can't be compared with a flight-sim hence it is impossible to judge how their software would perform under demands of a typical flight sim environment.

Clearly we have opposed views, the last thing I dream about is ability to drive to the airport. Give me a well modeled airplane and immersive airport/weather environment instead. And their Vestra "jet" is not even an existing jet - this way they don't have to worry about any criticism how close they are to the real thing. Am I impressed about how the model the terrain? Perhaps but it is fake and with tiny coverage area. And I see cloudless skies. Perhaps they could show how they model aviation weather (probably the most challenging part of flight sims today) and I see no evidence they even do that or that they do it better than the rest. For arcade experience could be good enough but unless they start tackling issues that every flight simulator grapples with I can't make judgement how good their technology really is.

This all turned out to be lies (or miss-statements). We heard quite a few of lies so far - they already recovered 40 bodies - lie. With the help of sonar they pinpointed location of the fuselage - lie. A recovered body had a life jacket on - lie. Too bad, they were in a relatively stable and well defined attitude when they hit water, nothing terribly hard to visualize. Faulty deduction based on faulty data. At this point there is absolutely no verified info to support theory they hit water "softer" than AF447.

Because they new the location and got to it quickly. This made all the difference. If you waited another month with that aircraft you wouldn't be able to find anything.

I don't believe in such events at FL320 unless it was sabotage/bomb which I don't consider likely here.

I don't, don't see the point. Why? "not fared well" - would you crash as well?? But yes, if someone is incapable of executing a missed approach he/she shouldn't be flying in IMC. I don't think reenactment like this has any significant values apart from a simple element of curiosity - it is impossible to recreate true conditions of the flight, the available metar could be significantly off compared to what this pilot saw, also the psychological state of the pilot is important factor (which often is key to understand chain of events). If you are a GA pilot and you missed your first approach and this is your second approach - your chance of crashing goes through the roof. For reenactment of this accident it would have been much more educational to reenact how this pilot planned his trip, his weather briefing, what other airports/weather were in the vicinity. Therefore I prefer to read Peter Garrison's analysis of such accidents in his Aftermath section - you then get a fairly complete picture of choices pilot had and you learn a lot. AOPA also does a great job reenacting some of the accidents. This particular accident had its roots probably even before the pilot took off.

Flightaware also shows routes that begin or end in the US. Never heard of equivalent tool that would cover the rest of the world or parts of it.

Guess what - tens of thousands of people get there every day without problems. Some with no delays, some with delays, like everywhere else. You can probably find some statistics that compare European airports.

It is even more stupid to make statements like that. No one forces you to use a particular flight simulator, these days you have multiple choices. No one forces you to use any flight simulator at all. It is silly to complain about a program which is no longer even supported (I am guessing FSX is on your mind). Who do you think will improve such program? Some knight in shining armor on a white horse? You can design your own flight simulator with the best 'graphical engine' and save the world. Plus using the latest hardware you should be getting more than 20 fps and fully enjoy the 'game', unless it is your goal to 'prove' how bad it is. yeah, I suggest you do that.

Total mess, total nonsense. Congratulations - after 75 posts you are where you started - understanding absolutely nothing! Can't you see you are making a clown of yourself? This thread should have been locked long time ago.

You would like but you don't understand words spoken to you. You twist everything which is given to you. You need more than words, you need some audio-visual presentation. I was telling you, you need to get out of your house, talk to pilots. Aviation isn't done by sitting in your bedroom in front of your computer.

:ph34r: B) :excl: We will be here a year from today listening to AF330's endless questions about course and heading. AF330 - grow up, return to this forum in 2 years perhaps then you will understand.

Track is the actual path your aircraft is painting (or projecting) onto the ground. It can be a straight line or it can be a curve. The course is a number. It is the current magnetic heading of the desired track you want to be on. Again, this is not the heading of the aircraft it is the heading of the track. On a globe a straight line between two distant cities will result in constantly changing course, depending where you are along the way. When talking about the track you have to be careful - there is the 'actual track' and the 'desired track'. For example G1000 display has distinct abbreviations for both: desired track = DTK, track = TRK. You can even be talking how far is your track displaced from the desired track. And G1000 gives you this number as an XTK (cross track error) - you are so many miles to the left or right of your desired track.

This video is like a super rich densely woven tapestry, it only shows how still remote is idea of bringing this kind of weather to a desktop simulation.

Yes, it doesn't follow standard western practices of 'balanced field takeoff' (to protect against possible engine failure). But this is not the first such video with Russian airplanes using up every foot of the runway length, there were similar 'close call' videos with passenger Ilyushin aircraft too.

We can certainly begin to jump to such conclusions after the recent NTSB press conference about this accident. In all likelihood birds had nothing to do with this catastrophe. At the NTSB’s media briefing yesterday for the Phenom 100 crash at Montgomery County Airpark (GAI) in Maryland on Monday morning, December 8, NTSB member Robert Sumwalt said the aircraft’s flight data recorder produced good quality data. Initial findings show that with both the landing gear and flaps down, “automated stall warnings began about 20 seconds before the end of the flight” and continued to the end of the recording at impact. The recorder also tracked large changes in pitch and roll beginning about the time the aircraft reached its lowest airspeed, approximately 88 knots. Sumwalt said, “Two seconds after the aircraft reached its lowest speed, the throttles increased power and the engines responded.” Initial investigation of the wreckage does not indicate a pre-impact engine fire or failure, Sumwalt said. Early reports of local bird activity were explained as birds seen on the airport and not, as was first thought, along the Runway 14 final approach course. There is no evidence NTSB said birds were ingested into the engines or struck the jet. The Board also said that weather does not appear to have been a factor. The Phenom 100, N100EQ, was manufactured in April this year. It was certified for and being operated with a single pilot and a passenger in the right seat, according to the NTSB. The pilot held an ATP and a type rating in the aircraft as well as a CFI certificate and had logged 4,500 flying hours before the accident. Sumwalt confirmed that the same pilot was involved in a 2010 aircraft accident but offered no specifics. The December 8 accident claimed the lives of all three people on board the Phenom and three more in the house the aircraft struck

You will NEVER understand Airbus unless you first understand other aircraft. No pilot begins his flying with an Airbus, they first fly something else, something a lot simpler. I also suggest you find someone who speaks French and who can explain you most of this stuff. Also I urge you to make a trip to your closest local airport, find some private pilot willing to talk to you (in your native language of course) and perhaps draw/explain you some of this stuff. It may be a much better use of your time than sitting days behind the desk and trying to 'fly' Airbus.