PaulVR

The only negative aspect I found with the Ifly 737-800 max is that some clickspots in VR are way off, especially in the lower part of the instrument panel. It makes operating the FMC a hit and miss thing. i hope they can fix this in a next update.

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

More info here: http://fullterrain.c...oduct_nzni.html Looks great, as is to be expected. Paul

Hi I have a few sims om my iMac (i7): FSX (with quite a bit of addons), Flight, Trainsim 2012 and Cities XL. They take up about 300 Gb of a 500 Gb partition. I run Windows 7 Home Premiuim (64-bit) - which I would recommend. This might give you an idea. Performance is very satisfying with all sims, except Trainsim which is rather average. If you apply the DX10 patch, FSX does very well in DX10 preview mode on the iMac. Paul

The quote says 'new aircraft'. Unless my understanding of English (not my native language) is flawed, that's a plural. Otherwise it would say 'A' new aircraft. Nobody seems to pick that up. I'm quite confident at least one 'deluxe' aircraft will be offered, but as a separate purchase. Paul

I have both. Although Realair is a top class developer, the A2A Spitfire ranks a class higher, both in visual appearance as in depth of simulation and sheer pleasure to fly. I particularly like the little details like the shaking of the instrument panel at startup, the way the engine behaves at low idle and even changes the color of the exhaust smoke, the way the canopy fogs up if you descent from cold air into warmer air and you forget to turn open the ventilation...Of course, there is also a difference in the version being modeled. The Realair simulation is of the later and more powerful four bladed propeller mark IX, A2A models an earlier mark II version with two or three bladed propeller. Even without Accusim I like the A2A version better, but with Accusim there's no more comparison.Paul

MS Flight should take a look at the App Store for the mac. Like the app store for the iPhone/iPod/iPad, it's a convenient place to find all kinds of apps for Mac OSX which otherwise would remain largely unknown to the broader public. It has all kinds of apps and games in all price ranges, including freeware. But the existence of an app store doesn't prevent you from downloading and installing other content through other sources. This would also be a business model for Flight that would benefit all parties involved, and would not kill freeware. On the contrary. Developers who choose not to use Microsoft Live would not benefit from the larger exposure the online store would offer, but that would be their choice.As usual, MS looked at Apple for a successful innovation and tried to copy it, but ended up not getting it and doing it completely the wrong way. (Unless of course WE are getting it the wrong way, and the addon market for Flight will not be as closed as we understand it).Paul

Funny, I had FS9 on my HD until yesterday. I have hardly touched it in 4 years, though I had a lot of freeware and payware - both scenery and aircraft - installed. It just took up space (a lot of it), and I wasn't doing anything with it. So I finally bit the bullet and deleted it, along with its backup archive. While FSX is choppy on my system compared to the silky smooth performance of FS9, the old sim seems to have lost its attraction after having been exposed to the likes of PNW, OrbX, A2A, the RealAir Duke,... I could go on. Many developers for FSX have made FS9 seem cartoonish in camparison.Paul

They're planning on doing that, but it is still a long way off. Development hasn't even started yet. If it turns out the versions of Vertigo Studios and Just Flight are very good, they will have to compete in an already quite saturated market. They might even decide not to compete at all... That would be bad news.Paul

The Duke is so immersive, I keep looking for the seat belts when I get in. Oddly, there aren't any... (It's only a peculiar omission without any importance in an otherwise addictive plane).Paul

I particularly like the modular approach they've introduced with this version. You can now only install the elements you're interested in. The whole scenery is a whopping 32 Gb.Paul

I used the 3D glasses for quite a while with FS2004. The experience is really amazing and adds a great feeling of 'being there', even more than TrackIR (which I also use). But I never used them the whole flight. As has been said, it's a bit cumbersome working the VC with the 3D effect enabled. The click spots are difficult to hit. But you can switch the effect off and on with a key press.You need a fast PC and a monitor with a high refresh rate. Most LCD-monitors only have a 50Hz refresh rate, which is insufficient (my new monitor does anyway, which is why I cannot use them anymore).One advice: if you're going to buy them, take the wired glasses. I had the wireless version and I got fed up buying new batteries all the time...Paul

I"m sure there will a queue at the counter...http://www.realairsimulations.com/list_box...e=duke09_buynowPaul

>Since the Mac doesn't use BIOS, there are a few>limitations: no Vista 62 bit and Windows doesn't recognise>more than 2 Gb RAM.I have to contradict myself here: in the mean time I'm running Vista Ultimate 64-bit on my MacPro, with CH FlightSim Yoke, CH Pedals and CH Throttle Quadrant, all working perfectly.Paul

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

Running FSX and FS9 on a MacPro with Vista Home Premium 32 bit. Since the Mac doesn't use BIOS, there are a few limitations: no Vista 62 bit and Windows doesn't recognise more than 2 Gb RAM.CH FlightSim Yoke LE, CH Pro Pedals and CH Throtttle Quadrant are working flawlessly in FSX. I have a little ussue with the Quadrant in FS9 (view starts panning up in virtual cockpit view), but that is easily cured by unplugging the USB connection and reconnecting to the other USB port on my keyboard.Paul

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

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

In my case ActiveCamera reverted to demo mode in FS9. I didn't notice any other problems yet.Paul

This topic has been moved by the moderator of this forum. It can be found at:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...topic_id=341041

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

>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

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

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

>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