Jump to content

PaulVR

Members
  • Content Count

    130
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About PaulVR

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 08/14/1953

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Mechelen, Belgium
  • Interests
    flight sim<br />travel<br />video editing

Flight Sim Profile

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

Recent Profile Visitors

2,756 profile views
  1. EBAW Antwerp (Belgium) is also a very well done freeware scenery. Video: https://www.facebook.com/ebawforfs/videos/1787098864935463/ Download: http://www.freewarescenery.com/fsx/belgium.html Paul
  2. FlyInside apparently needs an update for v 4.3. Meanwhile: time to test native VR for the first time. Paul
  3. I have it installed in FSX Steam, with no issues. Other than slightly better behaviour of the mouse pointer and support for Oculus Touch, I see not much difference with the previous version.
  4. The resolution is indeed still the weak point in VR. It`s like looking through a screen door, and you often have to lean in to be able to read text. On the other hand, the feeling of immersion is so strong that I can easily overlook the disadvantage of seeing the pixels - after a short while I only notice them when I have to read something. I`ve lost all interest in flying by looking at a screen, even a large 29`` screen like I have. VR really IS the future of flight simming, and I guess it will take off rather fast. Once you`ve tasted it, it`s hard to go back. Sure, you can wait untill the technology has evolved to perfection, but many of us didn`t wait either to take up flight simmimg until it reached the level of realism we now take for granted. Paul
  5. You get that effect when you use FlyInside together with Ezca. It disappears when you close Ezca. Of course your problem might have a different cause. Paul
  6. I have it running on aan imac with no compatibility issues, no reason why it wouldn't run on a laptop. If performance is adequate, depends on the muscle power of your laptop. Paul
  7. I also use FEX with ASX, but I still get ennoyed by 'visibilty lakes' when flying over mountainous terrain. It seems the FEX weather engine has an answer to that:>4. Haze and Visibility issue>The FEX weather component implements a technique which solves the problems users have experienced with other weather engines. Accurately depicting visibility with no harsh transitions between layers.If that's true, I'm afraid it's byebye ASX...Paul
  8. I too am running FSX on a MacPro (2,66 Ghz quad core with 3 Gb RAM and Radeon X1900 with 512 Mb video memory). FSX runs very well in Vista with Boot Camp. I have two partitions: one for Mas OS and one for Vista and FS (9 and X). When I boot in OSX, I can access all my files on my Vista partition by running Windows with Parallels. I can read and change files on my Vista partition with my Mac OSX applications. (I just worked on some screenshots I made in FSX with Photoshop for Mac). However, I have to use my 'old' Windows XP with Parallels. I could in theory use Vista on the PC partition with Parallels, but then it requires a second license for use with the virtual machine (unless you have Vista Home Ultimate).When I boot in Vista, the MacPro is just a powerful PC which runs FSX very well.The main limitation at the moment though is that Vista under Boot Camp will not recognise more than 2 Gb memory. I suppose it has to do with that fact that the Mac as a PC doesn't use BIOS but EFI. This bug probably will be fixed in a future update.Paul
  9. Yes it does. The only switch that doesn't work is the cabin heating :-).It's an excellent plane and has quickly become a favourite of mine. You won't regret buying it.Paul
  10. In my case ActiveCamera reverted to demo mode in FS9. I didn't notice any other problems yet.Paul
  11. If all FSX had to offer was better mesh, better coastlines and rivers and a detailed road network, I would still buy it. In FS9 I seldom fly outside of Europe, because the default FS world is lacking in detail and accuracy. I chose to make Europe as detailed as I can with addon scenery, but I can't do that for the whole world. It's just too expensive.With the added detail FSX offers, I'm looking forward to explore the rest of the world with at least the same amount of realism as I've created for Europe. Now that alone is already something to look forward to.Paul
  12. >Didn't MS used to make a version of Flight Simulator for Mac>in the past? I can't recall for sure but I remember seeing one>some years ago. It would be nice for them to remake it for the>new Intel Macs. There's quite a Flight Sim following in the>Mac community. At least there used to be.The last version Microsoft produced for mac was FS4, somewhere in the mid nineties if I'm not mistaken. I started my simming 'career' on a mac.Paul
  13. Hi Peter,I bought it today, and I must say I finally recognise the Alps in FS2004 als I know them. The resolution is 19.1 m, and it shows. No more rounded mountain tops, sharp transitions between sloping hillsides and almost vertical rockfaces... It all looks much more real than anything I've seen so far (Terramesh, Holger Sandman, ...). It also blends in very well with UT Europe. The position of most mountain passes is very convincing, although there are still some places where I wouldn't dare to drive if roads were built like that in real life.Here's a view of the Matterhorn to give you some idea.Paul
  14. A nice feature to implement in FS X (or FS XI?) would be to include AI traffic in instant replay. After a landing I always enjoy replaying the last few minutes of the landing from a passengers viewpoint. What spoils the illusion however is always to arrive at empty airports, because AI traffic disappears while replaying. This would of course imply the instant replay feature would need to record the position and behaviour of all AI traffic at the airport. Maybe it could be a feature you could disable if your computer isn't too powerful (because recording extra information would tax your system during a critical phase of the flight). There would also be no point in recording AI traffic while in flight, so recording would not have to start until you're below a certain altitude or even until the wheels touch the runway.Anybody else interested?Paul
  15. >Correct me if I'm wrong. If the resolution were 1024 x 1024 wouldn'tone need a monitor that supported that same resolution?I'll have to correct you then . Texture resolution has nothing to do with screen resolution. It means FSX will use far more pixels to represent the same surface than FS9 does, which means the surface will remain much sharper and contain more detail and depth when you get closer to it. When you have over a million pixels to draw a surface (as with a 1024 x 1024 resolution), you can put much more detail into it than when only have 65.536 pixels (as with a 256 x 256 resolution) to render the same surface.The same principle will apply to your screen resolution, but in a different way. A low screen resolution will result in an overall loss of detail, and produce jagged edges in stead of smooth lines and the disappearance or blurring of very fine details.To put it in a differnt way: if the resolution of for instance a grass texture is so high that you can see individual grass blades, you only have to come close enough and you will see the blades no matter what resolution your screen has. But with a higher resolution screen, you'll see the blades sooner, when you're still farther away from the surface of the grass.Paul
×
×
  • Create New...