Jump to content

PaulVR

Members
  • Content Count

    130
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PaulVR

  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 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. In my case ActiveCamera reverted to demo mode in FS9. I didn't notice any other problems yet.Paul
  10. 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
  11. >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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. >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
  15. Abe,Do you by chance have Roads and Rivers of Europe (Just Flight) or All Roads of Europe (FSQuality) installed? Both packages are identical. It seems they contain a landclass file which is not recognised as such by FS Manager. It's called europe.bgl. It should be moved to a separate scenery folder (without a texture folder) and then declared in FS, or to scenery/BASE/scenery.Paul
  16. Jaap,Your reply showed me the way to solving a memory leak problem I had myself. I have 'Roads and Rivers of Europe' by Just Flight, which is
  17. Hi Abe,Like Emile said, a landclass file might be the problem without you realising it. I had the same problem. When I let FlightSim Manager (freeware, look in the Avsim library) search for landclass files, it found a scenery which contained two landclass bgl files in it's scenery folder. Once FSM had moved them to a dedicated landclass scenery folder (without texture folder) the problem went away.Paul
  18. Hi Barry,I had a system with the same specs as yours, and did the upgrade to exactly the same configuration you're thinking of. I can say it's definately worth it. I didn't measure exactly how much of a frame rate boost I got out of it, but I guess it's at least around 30 %. It's not the holy grail of simming yet,
  19. The pricing strategy of these expensive 'single airport sceneries' baffles me too. I might be willing to pay that kind of money for my local airfield or for an airfield I would like to use as my home base. But as it happens, most airport sceneries I have (mostly freeware, but some payware too) I only visit a couple of times. I like to fly 'all over the place', even if it's mostly restricted to Europe.Apart from the 'locals', only those who have money to burn would pay almost 25 $ for a single scenery, no matter how good it is. So these expensive sceneries seem to be aimed at a VERY small market. For that price, I am only interested in a scenery package if it contains multiple airports. And so might be many others too. Unless the scenery would be really cheap, then I wouldn't be bothered too much if I didn't visit that airport very often. Think of it: a developer would earn twice as much by selling a thousand copies at $5,00 than by selling a hundred at $25,00.Why does no-one sell single airport sceneries for $5,00? Are the transaction costs too high in comparison? Do people only buy sceneries in which they have a special interest anyway, no matter how high or low the price is? I wonder....Paul
  20. I don't fly the default Caravan or King Air, but I had the same 'problem' with the Aeroworx King Air B200. This has something to do with poor modeling of turboprops in FS. In fact, most FS aircraft have a tendency to stay 'glued' to the surface too long, and to suddenly 'break loose' when you increase power a bit more.How I solved the problem is to put the condition levers in low idle and prop levers full forward with the parking brake on, and then gently move the throttle forward until torque starts to rise. I then try to get it settled at around 300 to 400 ft-lb (3 or 4 on the gauge). This has to be done very gently, only just touching the throttle lever(s), otherwise the torque rises too high too fast and the aircraft will leap off when the brakes are released. Once both engines have settled on equal torque values, I release the parking brake and the aircraft starts rolling gently. I never touch the throttle levers again until take off. If I have to slow down or stop, I just apply the brakes.I don't know if the same values apply to the FS King Air 350, you might have to experiment a bit to find the 'sweet spot'.Paul
  21. Hi Clayton,It's perfectly possible to combine FSPassengers with f.i. Flight Deck Companion and have the copilot fully involved. You can turn off the copilot in FsP, so he doesn't interfere with the one from FDC.One last word about the infamous screaming passengers. Yesterday, during a 737-700 (PMDG) flight, I hit some servere turbulence which caused the autopilot to disconnect and sent the plane in a steep dive. Of course my passengers were screaming. But the sound was quite short and rather in the background. Certainly not 'overdone', as by someone who revels in fear and terror. It was quite believable to me and not in bad taste. It added a sense of urgency to correct the situation quickly.Paul
  22. Jan, I strongly agree. Screaming passengers, crashes, death counts... It's about 0,5 % of the features of this really amazing addon. If you fly properly (and that is the whole point of FS Passengers: learning to do it properly) you NEVER hear screaming passengers or a have to count bodies. In real life, that's the penalty for bad piloting also. Well, if people are turned off by an unimportant feature like this, it's their loss. Paul
  23. >When you say the program told you the weights of your>passengers, did it automatically load the pax weight into the>aircrafts total weight, or do you have to do it manually like>normal? Yes, it does load the passenger weight according to their seating arrangement. FS Passengers also can load fuel I believe (I haven't tried it thouroughly yet).Paul
  24. The program has a feature where you can earn bonus point when flying in dangerous war zones. Each zone has its own 'risk factor', based on real world situations. For instance: flying over Kali Colombia or over Iraq is far more dangerous (more risk of being shot at) than flying over let's say Kosovo, and earns you more bonus points if you pull it off safely.I was surpised myself that California is considered a 'war zone'. But I guess this was done for demo purposes only. AFAIK you don't get shot at every time you overfly a military base. Anyway, you can turn off the feature if you consider it being 'over the top'. Paul
  25. I just tried the (fully functional) demo for FS Passengers. I first had to set up my airline company and I 'bought' my first aircraft for it, the Aeroworx Kingair B200. After I prepared the aircraft (flightplan, fuel...), I started the flight - KSFO (which is the 'obligatory airport' in demo mode) to Sacramento Executive. The program told me there were 8 passengers waiting at the gate. When everyone was aboard (a mini-window gives you the boarding status), I switched on the seat belt sign. After about a minute or so I could see everyone had fastened his seat belt. I could even pull up a menu which gave me the names and weights of my eight passengers...After take off I could see there was a little trepidation with the passengers because of turbulence, but overall they were still very satisfied with the flight so far. At cruising altitude I switched off the seat belt sign (the copilot announced it was now safe to unfasten the seat belt and to move about), but I could see 5 passengers preferred to remain buckled up. I thought it would be nice to serve some sandwiches and drinks to the passengers (which earns you bonus points), but I couldn't, because a light aircraft like the Kingair doesn't carry a flight attendant. Well, it was a short flight anyway, so I figured the passengers wouldn't complain...I didn't follow any airways, so at some point I overflew Travis AFB. Suddenly, I was being shot at by light firearms. I received a hit in the right engine, which I emediately had to shut down and feather. I didn't have time to recover from the shock, before my left fuel tank was hit. I had to declare an emergency. I figured I could still reach KSAC on one engine, because it was only 15 miles away. While on approach, at some point I noticed I was too high, so to avoid a go around, I made a steep descent. My copilot started yelling at me that we were going to crash. But of course, I knew what I was doing ;-). I managed to make a safe and smooth landing ('kiss' it said in the flight report) the passengers applauded and were a 100% satisfied with the safe landing. I parked the airplane, shut down the engines and opened the passenger door. One by one the passengers started leaving.Because of my handling of the emergency, I received a number of bonus points. The passengers thought my company should deserve a better reputation. And I made a nice profit from the flight. I can start saving to buy another airplane...Just to give you an impression of how FS Passengers is an addon like no other. It adds an immersion factor to FS, which I can see can become addictive very fast. No need to tell you I didn't have to think twice to buy it!Paul
×
×
  • Create New...