Bearracing

Members
  • Content Count

    282
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Bearracing

  • Rank
    AVSIM Staff
  • Birthday 05/01/1950

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Reno, NV

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    IVAO
  • Virtual Airlines
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

3,313 profile views
  1. Bearracing

    Words I need to share with our Community

    I can't begin to tell you how I feel Tom, but over the years you've always been a good friend and I wish and hope you'll defy the odds, just enjoy every moment of every day my friend. My Prayers are with you! Steve Cartwright
  2. Bearracing

    PMDG777 GoAround Altitude Overshoot

    I'm going to assume you posted here in error!
  3. Bearracing

    Comparisons

    >>>I consider myself a serious sim pilot trying to follow FAR's and STARs and SIDs and whatever else I can cram into a simple flight. That's what I enjoy learning and I'm always looking to add that touch more of "escapism" reality to my flight sim. FS9 as faulty and ill equipped as it is does this much more to my liking then FSX has the ability to do in near future.<<<Absolutly good point Jeff, FSX is simply going to be better geared for that type of "hard-core" functionality.My personal experience with Flight Simulator goes back to 1986 or 1987 or so (about 20 years) and frankly I really enjoyed it then on my computer (Commadore64 I think).I really didn't feel there was much improvement until FS98, which I still have sitting here on my shelf.When FS2000 came out, that's when the most noticeable improvement in scenery was made, as we went from that poly-block to layered texturing. Unfortunately, FS2000 was a bit ahead of the available hardware and ran poorly on most home systems. FS2002 changed all that and was a terrific flight sim. The visual difference between FS2000 and FS2002 was best described as WOW, while the changes or improvements between FS2002 and FS2004 were best represented by WOW, while between FS2004 and FSX, wow would be more appropriate.Does that make FSX bad, absolutely not, based on everything I've seen its a terrific sim and is an important move forward with the franchise. I purchased one copy (FSX) for myself and have since received an additional copy from Microsoft/AVSIM. I gave one of them away to a friend, whom had never seen Flight Simulator before FSX. He is absolutely enthralled by it and has now gotten a couple of co-workers involved and they too have purchased copies.These fellows work for a customer of mine and now everytime I go into that business (a local Ford Dealer), they corner me to ask questions about this and that. Their personal comments have been very positive about FSX and its been the missions, wide-variety of aircraft, and the general overall appearance of the scenery that has them hooked.Are they wrong, of course not, they are precisely the core model of individual Microsoft was hoping to attract! (one of the guys was absolutely stunned to see elephants walking across the African plains or birds flying over an Alaska inlet)There's two things that are most important about rather I feel FSX is better than FS9 or the other way around. First, that's an irrelavant question which means absolutely nothing to anyone, they're both great flight sims; and secondly Flight Simulation is about flying and I enjoy the fact that I can chose to fly a Piper J-3 Cub, a WWII combat aircraft, or maybe I can jump in the Concorde and fly it across the pond, whatever, its your choice and rather I choose to fly in FSX or FS9, well that's my choice too, neither answer makes me wrong and neither makes me right either. Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  4. Bearracing

    Comparisons

    >>>It seems when you like FSX you have done a crime<<< :(Actually I personally don't believe you've commented a felony just because you happen to enjoy FSX (misdemeanor maybe :-lol)!Comparing shots, like the author of the shots above has done, can only the door for people to state their individual opinions (which is highly subjective), nothing more. FSX is a great sim for the new-comer, that is new to the world of Flight Simulation, with its wide choice of default aircraft and a bunch of missions to keep the newbie entertained, but we hard-core simmers will probably find ourselves more satisfied staying with FS9.Then again thats just an opinion too!Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  5. Bearracing

    Comparisons

    I agree with you Ed "Picasso", as I too tried to like FSX, but there were just too many issues with FSX for me to ever take it seriously. I've noted that a number of authors are claiming they're going to continue to support FS9 and for me that is very good news.Besides the performance issues (which I don't fault anyone here as my system is rather old and in need updating regardless), I have found that a number of seemingly small changes by the ACES team have so negatively effected the ability for me to enjoy it. Just for example: the inability to have a choice of both the 2D and 3D panels without restarting, the loss of the zoom and manual adjustment of the "spot" view, thus eliminating the ability to create screenshots like we can with FS9 and previous versions of Flight Simulator. With FSX, we no longer have the numeric keypad for use in the virtual cockpit mode to quickly display sideviews (I bet a lot of you missed that one).There are other issues, which are more subjective in nature, such as the appearance of the textures in specific parts of the world. Alaska for example, which in FSX is now a cross between Western Oregon and the Arizona desert, very strange and/or weird. The desert Southwest (Arizona, Nevada, etc.) appears to be covered in thick dirty snow rather than just plain dirt and shag-brush. For the best example, have someone post a screenshot of the Grand Canyon, very very strange appearing and certainly several steps backwards from how it appeared (default) in FS9. Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  6. Geewiz, what's so difficult to understand guys? :-hmmmThe size limit is 1024 x 768 and no larger than 150KB, that's it. Most people have no problem with image quality at those limits and though a very few have indicated they wish we would increase the file size to greater than 150KB, remember, it does eat up a lot of band width on our server."What is the reason for this? I post my images on several forums, and I will not compromise image quality with heavy compression, nor am I going to create a second set of images just for posting at Avsim. So far this has not been an issue, and according to the posted rules I am not in violation, but it would be unfortunate if I am no longer allowed to post my images here."Sorry we'll miss your future postings! :-(Steve (Bear) Cartwright :-wave
  7. Bearracing

    Treasure Chest - Thank you Trevor

    I agree, Trevor's new feature "Treasure Chest" is excellent and I hope Trevor continues what I feel is an important part of AVSIM's tradition of providing a free access website, dedicated to Flight Simulation and related subjects. I guess it is inevitable that his feature would be compared to my former feature of the "Bear's Cave".I, more than most, can truly appreciate the effort this sort of endeavor can require of someone, so my hat's off to Trevor! :-waveI simply do not have the time available necessary to commit at providing the Bear Cave now or within the foreseeable future, so having someone else willing to provide a similar service is great!Due to other committments and interests (off-road racing, BPCR Long Range Shooting, and my working in the study, testing, and advancement of alternate fuels), I barely have the time to fly in FS little more than 1 or maybe 2 hours a week.Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  8. Bearracing

    Helicopter advice needed

    Excerpt from "readme" file on engine start-up:First is to allow the Helo rotor to rotate to a complete stop after you initially choose the EC135 from your aircraft file. Then follow below for a successful start-up:PRE-START CHECKBAT MSTR switch -- ON; CPDS internal test startsNOTE: Do not switch off CPDS during or after flight!OVERHEAD PANELCDS/WARN UNIT TEST -- WARN UNIT (all warning lights must come on)CDS/WARN UNIT TEST -- CPDS; Check display self testFuel XFER pumps switch (AFT and FWD) ON; Check caution (F PMP AFT/FWD) offFuel XFER pumps switch (AFT and FWD) OFFFuel PRIME pumps switch ON; Check caution onA-COLL light ONINSTUMENT PANELNOTE: Do not switch on FADEC before CPDS self test has been completed!FADEC switch 1 on, then 2 onSTARTING ENGINESRotor area Rotor StoppedENG MAIN switch IDLE; Monitor: N1 increase TOT increase Engine oil pressure increase N2 and NRO increaseWHEN IDLE (N2>70%, IDLE Caution off) has been reached:Both Fuel XFER pumps -- ONBoth Fuel PRIME pumps -- OFFAvionic Master -- ONAvionic -- CHECK ONWHEN NORMAL SYMBOLOGY APPEARS ON FCDS:Both ENG MAIN switch to -- FLIGHTlights -- on as requiredSteve (Bear) Cartwright
  9. Larry,Your comments have lead me to firmly believe that the fault, concerning how terrible FSX appears and performs on my system, relates strictly to my system and not with FSX. I've seen several screenshots (in the screenshot forum) of FSX and they appear quite impressive, but when I had both FS versions on my system and had installed my copy of the Shockwave P-51 and Spitfire (into both FS9 and FSX), the appearance of the aircraft and the fps comparison between the two FS versions was astounding! On my system, FS2004 is vastly superior to FSX, rendering the Shockwave Spitfire (in FSX) similar to what you would have expected with FS98 or maybe even FS Win95. My system (its specifications are listed in a prior posting) is dedicated to Flight Simulator only and as the original poster here intended, I put my vote in for the hope that the developers won't abandon all of us users that will continue to use FS9. I should also point out that I have slightly over 160GB of available space still remaining on my harddrive (my copy of FS9 is only using 279GB of space at the moment), meaning I have a lot of room available for future addons.I just did a quick calculation and if I were to fly each of my installed aircraft (including the repaints for each) for 1 hour a day, switching to a new aircraft every day, flying for 1 hour 7 days a week, it will take me just over 6 years and 6 months to get through the aircraft I have installed right now. This doesn't take into consideration any future addons I might also install. So I think I will wait until I've gotten through the aircraft I have now before I really think of moving over to FSX. Maybe in 6 1/2 years I will have upgraded my system by the then, so possibly it will successfully run FSX, which will probably have been replaced by some later version of Flight Simulator (of course its possible that a future version of Flight Simulator will not be capable of running on the system I have by that time, meaning I will continue to use FS9 even then, sort of a catch 22, if you get my drift)! :-lolBottom-line, I hope that developers will still be releasing addons for FS9, 7 or 8 years from now and if they do, I will probably continue to buy them! :-)Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  10. >>Just curious as to what the subtle changes are. I find everything in regard to flight as an improvement, which includes trim, the perceived feel, moving and changing airmasses, and the crispness of cockpit/panel textures.<<Larry,I certainly don't wish to start a flame war or any such thing over the issues I find unacceptable with FSX, as compared to FS9, but there are some changes where we lost specific features that have been a part of Flight Simulator for the last 10+ years and I'm simply not ready to adjust to them (when you get to my age you kinda get set in your ways you know).I can't answer to the improved <<....trim, the perceived feel, moving and changing airmasses, and the crispness of cockpit/panel textures.<<, as my system (Dell Dimension 8300 XP Pentium 4, 3.2Ghz processor, 1024 MB DDR ram memory, Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB video card) is incapable of running FSX at anything past 2 or 3 fps near airports and maybe 8 or 10 fps in other areas, these frame rates can only can only be acheived when all sliders are reduced to their minimums (rendering the scenery to something akin to what was default in FS2000). This said, I cannot comment on any improvements as to flight modeling or "cockpit/panel textures" (all of the FSX panels on my system appear as simple fuzzy blotches), all of which is related to my system's weaknesses and not necessarily anything to do with FSX itself.The subtle changes I was speaking of relate to other individual items, including but not limited to: Losing the choice of having both the 2D and 3D VC operate at the same time (its either one or the other now), no longer being able to change views using the arrow keys (especially in the VC mode, which is really a problem when you can't get your system past 2 or 3 fps while landing at an airport), and another problem that is strictly a personal one for me, the loss of the ability to control your spot view position (Especially useful for those of us that in addition to flying, enjoyed making screenshots, which is kind of like going from a digital SLR multi-lens camera to a cardboard fixed lens throwaway camera). I have other issues as well and I'm sure many may think I'm being particularly nit-picky, but I've enjoyed FS for over 20 years now and I'm use to FS working in a specific fashion, so frankly I am unwilling to compromise just to fly in FSX when much about what I enjoyed the most about FS is now gone.The performance issues are a completely different matter, as my system is simply too old and too slow to work with FSX and that certainly is not ACES fault. My copy of FS9 works great, is smooth as glass, and I no longer have CTD issues, ever. You then consider that in addition to how well FS9 runs on my system with the fact that I have hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars wrapped up in aircraft and scenery addons, well the choice now becomes even simpler.Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  11. I will continue to use FS9 exclusively and I for one am hopeful that the developers will continue to support FS9 for some time.I absolutely mean no disrespect whatsoever to the good folks over at ACES, but I personally have found some of their more subtle changes with Flight Simulator (within FSX) to be completely unacceptable to me and I have permanently removed FSX from my system and will never reinstall it. So, it appears that FS9 will, in all likelihood, be the very last version of Flight Simulator I will ever install.Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  12. >>>>That's true! But on the other hand, if you actually have the real life experience, then the mind can fill in a lot of the gaps, minus the G-forces! :-hah No experience, and it really is, just a "spring"!<<<
  13. Bearracing

    Curiosity about LAGO?

    I thought it would be prudent to post a follow-up to let everyone know that LAGO is apparently alive and well, but has been experiencing some apparent server difficulty recently. I finally received the ID and Install code from one of their monitors and all is well now. Thanks for all that responded though!Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  14. Bearracing

    Curiosity about LAGO?

    >>>>...but you might try to send an email to one of the moderators: click on the name Lazer and use the option to send an email to him, maybe he can help.<<<Actually Peter, I tried that last week to no avail! I was hopping they were just out for the holidays, but considering some of the responses I've read in this thread, it looks like I'm beating a dead horse, so it looks like I will have to contact my credit card company and cancel the transaction.Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  15. Bearracing

    Curiosity about LAGO?

    >>>What were you expecting? Santa to prepare your Key file and email it to you?<<<<Very cute Peter, but the fact is they were quick to jack up my credit card after promising to provide my key file within 24 hours, and now they're 124 hours past that 24 period. I did my part, now I expect them to do theirs. The reality is I have done a lot of business with LAGO over the years and they have always been very responsive and their support has always been second to none, which is why I have been quite perplexed with my inability to get any kind of response from them.The reasoning behind my having posted this thread was in the hope to find out from someone what kind of difficultly they (LAGO) are possibly experiencing and maybe find the answer as to why they have not responded to my multiple attempts at contacting them.I'm a very calm and patient person, but even I have my limits.Steve (Bear) Cartwright