Bearracing

Gary,Regardless of how one flight site operates vs another is not particularly important, but there was a real problem developing here at AVSIM concerning our servers and the problem was being caused by the individuals that were posting in the Screenshot Forum. So many posts were being put up, with the highest percentage of these not being in the spirit of what the screenshot forum was supposed to be about, that our server was being totally jammed to the point it was effecting the speed in the other forums.The original purpose of the screenshot forum was for everyone to have a platform to post their "favorite" screenshots from their favorite sim (rather that be a flight sim, trainsim, or autoracing sim). What was happening though was that many were posting whatever screenshot they had, just to see how fast they could clock up their posting numbers or often times there were people posting just to try out a new signature, etc..Another problem was that even after we limited each post to 700 pixels wide and a limit of 5 jpgs per post, individuals complained until they were blue in the face, then decided to post 5 jpgs and then merely respond to the original post with 5 more jpgs. Not exactly in the spirit of why we restricted each post to 5 jpgs in the first place.Then there is the common problem of (and I don't have an answer as to what to do about this) just how many screenshots of a single Boeing or Airbus can one put up or that we as readers can stand to look at. I recall once, back when the Project Airbus Team released one of their latest, when one individual posted nearly 30 different screenshots, of which every single one was showing basically the same aircraft landing, only from slightly different angles. Ugh!One of my personal favorite reasons for having the screenshot forum (and frankly one of the reasons for having the screenshot forum as per the adminstration here at AVSIM) is having a place where the freeware developer or painter can display his or her latest work for all to see.Hopefully, if and when, the AVSIM ss forum is back up, the original spirit of why the screenshot forum exists will be adhered to.Bear!

Robb,Actually the default airfiles for the Caravans are not that bad, but the FSD International airfile update slowed down the elevator trimtab adjustment and with the amphibian, the initial stickiness of the floats has been improved or removed. Nothing really dramatic, just a bit of fine tuning.Bear!

Al,Kurtis Miller pretty much explained why a "cruise control" based on Ground Speed is not possible nor very practical, but if monitoring your ground speed would help, you can use your default GPS for this function.Bear!

>Is it you Bear?< Nope, not I, but during the MS presentation at last year's AVSIM Conference, it was made very clear by the MSFS design team that they do listen and they have specific individuals assigned to reading all of the various forums on a daily basis. I also got a kick out of one the MSFS team members, whom had a photograph of his personal aircraft (Maule) and in the photo his wife was wearing a BFU (Bush Flyers Unlimited) T-shirt! I don't think it is important that they identify themselves anyway, what's important is that they do listen and they do take legitimate suggestions seriously. I completely understand and agree with why they don't identify themselves here, but the truth is all of the fellows from MS that I have met are all maddly addicted flight simmers and in almost every case, realworld pilots as well and most are either members of AOPA (Aircraft Owners & Pilot's Association) or EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) or both. All you have to do is attend our (AVSIM's) annual Conference & Exhibition and you'll have the opportunity to meet some of these gentlemen and I'm sure you'll find that their enthusiasm and dedication to this hobby to be rather impressive, as I did!Bear!

Like others have pointed out, it is a bit late for any suggestions envolving FS2004, but I would add that Microsoft has a couple of fellows assigned to the daily duty of reading the MSFS forum here at AVSIM and at the other popular forums on the web.Its no secret that someone from the MSFS design team has been in the forums here at AVSIM for the past several years and they probably post too, its just a secret as to who or whom it is. That's not a speculation on my part either, as members of the FS design team have told me directly that they hang around these forums and they are directed to copy any suggestion they see in these forums, that they think is good or positive, and copies or memos of those suggestions are sent out to various FS team members for consideration.The FS team members are not allowed to identify themselves (for obvious reasons) and they are not allowed to discuss any details concerning unreleased products (other than those details that have been a part of any press-release). Bottomline! If you think you have any ideas or suggestions worth considering, then post them here in the MSFS forum, it may be too late for FS2004, but if your ideas are good (and the MSFS design team hadn't thought of them) they just may be able to include them in FS2006.Bear!

As everyone has pointed out, if you see Bill Lyons' name attached to it, buy it immediately, you can't go wrong! Besides his other payware Classics (Waco Collection, Ryan STA, Tiger Moth, and Globe Swift) don't forget his freeware stuff (Cessna Bobcat50, Goodyear Defender, Fleet Cannuck80s, and his Hot Air Balloon, all available from the AVSIM library).Bear!http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3e8013bf6eb393ab.jpg

Adam,Operating a recip engine is a great deal different than a jet engine, so bear with me (pun intended)! First of all, gasoline must be mixed at a very specific ratio with air to burn properly and efficiently. The mix ratio is stated as, for every 1 lb of fuel you need to mix it with 14.7 lbs of air, no matter what your altitude is. As you gain altitude, you must reduce the volume of fuel entering your engine because the air is becoming less dense (weights less) and that mix ratio of 14.7 to 1 must be maintained or a loss of power will occur. The general rule-of-thumb for adjusting your mixture is by watching your engine rpm or by listening to your engine. You should bring back your mixture setting (pull toward yourself or toward a leaning condition) until you note a loss of engine rpm or misfire, then gently move the mixture setting back in a bit or until the engine runs smoothly. As you increase prop bite (noted by the reduction of the prop speed), you may have to slightly increase your mixture setting toward a rich setting, otherwise your EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature) may increase to too high a reading and engine damage can occur. Reducing your prop speed is kind of like driving your car up a hill, your engine has to work harder, so the burn temperature will increase, but you can check this temperature increase by increasing your fuel input.On your situation about not being able to acheive a cruise speed greater than 140 knots, when the stated cruise speed of the Commander 520 is 197 knots is probably the difference between IAS (Indicated Air Speed) and TAS (True Air Speed). Because the outside air pressure is reduced by an average of 10 inches of mercury at 10,000 foot elevation, your "indicated" air speed will also be reduced, but I bet if you checked your ground speed (with the default GPS) you would note that you're clicking across the terra-firma at the advertised speed. About your manifold pressure gauge not indicating anything higher than "20 inches" (you incorrectly stated it as 20psi, but no worry, that's a common mistake), but 20 inches of manifold pressure is normal at 10,000 feet. If you had a barometer in your hand, while standing at sea level, and the day was a normal day (59

With Flight Simulator, the FS Design Team at Microsoft are going through their normal product evolution, so it would be in their best self-interest to have much of what works in FS2002 work in FS2004. Microsoft has already stated that any FS aircraft built or scenery designed using the format stated in the SDK for FS2002 will in all likelihood work equally as well in FS2004. Creating a new product that is incompatable with prior versions is not in Microsoft's rule book, but at the same time, offering an update to the existing product, rather than introduce an entirely new version is NOT in Microsoft's best interest any more than it is for us. Based on their comments (press-releases) and from my own experience with them, the next version of Flight Simulator is a souped up version of FS2002, with many of the issues experienced with FS2002 corrected. Because of the two year turn-around between versions, not all features of FS can be addressed in any one version. With FS2000, Flight Simulator received the most changes and advances in its basic core (as compared to FS98), but with FS2002, only the basic core was improved (or corrected) to enhance performance. A few additonal aircraft were added and scenery was enhanced greatly, but it was only with the new features of interactive ATC and autogen that totally new ground was covered. With FS2004, its the addition of a whole new way for weather to appear that would seem to have been their greatest challenge, with all the other new additions or features being merely extensions or improvements of what they introduced in FS2002.Bottom-line? It would be my assumption that most of what add-on you've installed into FS2002 will probably work fine in FS2004!Bear!

Stan,Being one that has downloaded hundreds and hundreds of aircraft, you mentioned that other than some payware aircraft there have been very few freeware aircraft to include a quality VC panel/cockpit! I thought I would give you a short list of just some of the freeware aircraft I'm aware of, that have a pretty descent 3D virtual panel cockpit (panels I would rate from good to "standards of the hobby").Yannick Lavigne/Rob Young's Falcon50 (the vc panel here is used as the standard for all payware VCs for AVSIM's review ratings)Mikko Maliniemi's Pitts and Cessna 185-206Brian Gladden/Ian Grant's v3 Zenair 801Brian Gladden/Dan Hohman's Cessna 140Project Opensky's Airbus 320 v9Project Opensky's CRJ-200/900Francisco S

>>>>I was wondering though there isn't any thunderstorm clouds shown in fs2004 so my question is what will the C/Bs look like and will the lightning light up the night sky as in real life or just see lightning streaks like in fs2000/02.<<<<<<<<

Robb,Another batch of aircraft you might consider are the default Cessna Caravans (with the FSD International airfile update) as I enjoy either of the two included models (Amphibian and wheeled). I also wanted to mention the recently released (freeware) AC Design Commander Twin (520), though it is designed as an era or period aircraft, as far as its avonics are concerned, the aircraft, textures, 2D/3D Virtual panels, and its airfile are all top shelf stuff. The airfile was developed from the beta testing of several realworld Commander Twin owner/pilots. I wasn't a beta tester for this aircraft, but I will mention that I have racked up a few hours (real-world) in the Commander Twins and I would say that the AC Design Commander 520's airfile is right on the money!You might want to try John Woodward's freeware Lake Renegade 250 (I would also suggest you install the updated JLStubbs Lake 2D panel as well). Another nice flying aircraft is the Mike Stone G21 Grumman Goose, but I would suggest adding the updated JLStubbs Goose panel, and the sounds from Heather Sherman's Grumman Duck. This FS aircraft has an incredible feel to it, that feels very much like what you would expect (I've never flown a real Goose, so I have no realworld experience to compare it to, but considering that I have flown a broad range of different realworld aircraft, both in type and weight one does have a tendency to learn a certain feel for the way any given aircraft will or should feel like.) Bear!

ChasW,I'm not quite sure what your meaning or insinuation was by the question "Where do YOUR loyalties lie when money is involved?". My reviews, of payware packages, can stand on their own and you can trust that I have been as precise and as accurate (honest) as I can possibly be when providing a review of a commercial product. I take great offense to your insinuation that I somehow take bribes to provide a favorable review of a commmercial product. I suggest that you go an read the AVSIM criteria for our formation of a commercial product review and I think you will see, that we here at AVSIM, are quite proud of the way we provide reviews and the fact that we never leave it up to the reviewer alone to determine the overall scoring (awarding of stars). In the event a reviewer has requested a 4.5 to 5.0 stars, that review then goes before a committee (review board if you will) that must ultimately and unaminously agree with the reviewer's findings, before that review is posted.As far as reviewing a product (freeware) that I know is nothing more than a teaser for a later to be released commercial product, then I'll wait for the final release before I would bid to do that review and not before.I would also say that if someone is intending on a commercial release, then don't you agree that the quality of the pre-release freeware teaser should be of similar quality as their later commercial release package? If it is not, then don't you think then that this file is self-reviewing? Bear!

As a person that is continuely downloading, testing, and evaluating various FS files (aircraft, utilities, scenery, etc.) that are freeware in nature, I do believe that I tend to force myself to see things from a more unbias position. I will expound on the positives of any given file, while I will at the same time, tend to minimize any shortcomings I find.If you were to go back and read my reviews from over the last couple of years, you should recognize, based on my presentation style, that I purposely see things from a glass is half-full attitude. In otherwords, no matter what the

Samuel,Hey, what's wrong with our reviews right here at AVSIM?????????Try:http://www.avsim.com/pages/0203/meridian/meridian.htmlorhttp://www.avsim.com/pages/1102/sf260/sf260.htmlBear!

Cliff,You might want to check out my review (AVSIM review archives) and there you will see screenshots of me not only doing loops, but throwing in a snap-roll at the top of the loops as well. The RealAir SF.260 is the only FS aircraft I know that can perform an accurate snap-roll.Bear!

>I hope those same Cessna Factory Engineer-pilots don't get wind of Rob Young's upcoming C-172 flight dynamics mod, there's nothing worse than than a pouting Cessna Factory Engineer-pilot.

Robb,Not sure what you mean by "realistic", but if its realistic as far as airfile, then the RealAir Simulations SF.260 is the winner hands down.If you're looking for something a little more "civilian" in nature, I've heard good things about both the FSD Commander 115 and the Flight One Meridian, though I don't speak from personal experience, as I have neither of these aircraft. I also understand that the Dreamfleet Archer and Cardinal are both quite well done and fly equally as well as they look.The default 172 is pretty good (the flight modeling was done by the Cessna Factory Engineer-pilots, so I would say the source for the FS Design team have some pretty good credentials on that one).I also like the default 182 with the Rob Young airfile.If you want something a bit more classic, then you might try David Eckert's Boeing Stearman Kaydet or one of Bill Lyon's creations (Waco, Ryan STA, or Globe Swift).Bear!

Rainer,I went into my Cave and re-downloaded the file (landsnd.zip), just to follow-up on your problem. It downloaded fine for me and opened up correctly so I'm unable to offer any help or suggestion as to what may be happening in your situation. Maybe someone else here might have some idea as to what is occuring with your system to cause this.Bear!

Milton,Looking forward to your 560! It was in a 560 that I declared my only emergency from all the years of flying, which prompted the emergency crew (ambulance and fire) at Sacramento International Airprt to wait aside the runway while I made my landing. Just as I activated the gear for landing, while turning onto final, a large bang came from the nose area, my yoke shook really hard, I got no green on the nose gear, and hydraulic fluid was streaming up the windscreen. I aborted the landing and did a flyby of the tower where they confirmed my nose gear was down, but of course they were unable to tell if it was locked or not. I set her down on the mains and then gently eased the nose down to the runway and she held, no problem. I had approached the runway on sort of a diagonal line so that if the nose gear collapsed, the damaged would be minimzed by our sliding off into the grass, but that turned out not to be necessary. Apparently, just as I hit the gear switch, a very large Canadian Goose did a Kamakazi on me. The hydraulic fluid on our windscreen was in fact blood and the very large dent on the nose of the 560 had shorted out a relay switch for the nose gear light.The Goose wasn't so lucky, as he/she spun-in and crashed onto a parked car at a office building nearby the airport (heard about that later).Bear

I would imagine that the vast majority of those that frequent these forums will opt'd to go with MSFSCOF (Microsoft Flight Simulator Century Of Flight) when its released or soon after. If you look at all that the FS design team has stated in their press releases, it becomes obvious that MSFSCOF is not going to involve any radical changes, but it is going to be a product showing drastic improvements on the exsisting features. The basic core of the FS2002 product is still there, but with improvements in its performance, new volumetric 3D clouds, improved ATC, new aircraft, improved versions of exsisting default aircraft (I noticed in a couple of their screenshots that the Lear and Mooney now have virtual cockpits), the number of variations with the autogen buildings have been increased, improved ground texturing that is also more attune to the variations around the world, and the list goes on. I would also imagine the majority of those aircraft that work in FS2002 will work in MSFSCOF equally as well. Fact is, I have a number of FS98 aircraft that work great in FS2002 and I would be surprised if they didn't work in MSFSCOF just as well as they do in FS2002.Looking past the performance issues with FS2000, it was in reality a dramatic improvement over FS98 in terms of aircraft appearance and specifically with the improvements in ground texturing and scenery. FS2002 was equally as much of an improvement over FS2000, in terms of aircraft appearance and ground texturing, autogen, and general scenery, but with the performance issues corrected FS2002 has been a huge success. Its going to be quite a chore to expect the FS design team to "wow" us again with MSFSCOF, but I suspect they're up to it. Bear!

rbirtel,The screenshot forum was shutdown until such time as we start up our new server (expected sometime in late March or early April). The screenshot forum was slowing the whole forum system down, on our current forum server, and it became necessary to relieve some of the pressure. There were a number of issues causing the slowdown, the biggest issue being that so many individuals were posting screenshots outside the stated rules or guidelines, too close to the 125K size limit or often individuals were exceeding the 5 shot maximum by reposting additional shots through the reply feature. Also there were a number of individuals that were just posting whatever screenshot they could come up with, just so their individual post count would increase. Then there were others that didn't understand the reasons behind limiting their signature size and the list goes on.The purpose of the screenshot forum was so that anyone could post their favorite shot from their favorite sim or PC game. Also it is a great format for those addon authors to show their works in progress (freeware only). Hopefully, when the new server comes on line, we will be able to set the new screenshot guidelines in a way that its fair for everyone and the spirit of why the forum is there in the first place will be followed. Time will tell.Bear!

Bjorn,For the last review I know of concerning any Abacus product (aircraft download) check here at AVSIM for my review of their SkyRanch package. I was being as kind as I could about the package, but I was NOT impressed, even in the slightest with it. I am not aware of any aspect of this release called "General Aviation Pack", but their (Abacus) Corporate Pilot release for FS2000 with the compatability patch for FS2002 isn't bad, not great mind you (no VCs), but the aircraft are basically pretty decent and most have a Steve Small airfile. I like the Beechcraft Starship and the Cessna Citation X from that package (Corporate Pilot). All of the aircraft from the Corporate Pilot package have acceptable 2D panels and they do include some aircraft types that have not become available otherwise.Bear!

No, I'm not kidding! You can download all of the videos that Microsoft has released for their soon to be released "Century of Flight", but for the Jenny video go here: http://library.avsim.com/esearch.php?DLID=...hor=&CatID=RootBear!To see all of the available videos, use the quick search (AVSIM Library) with the keyword "video" then arrange the results by date and it will list all available videos for Flight Simulator "Century of Flight" that have been released so far.

I think the video of the Jenny flying through the open barn to be the best, because if you watch closely, you will notice the chickens flying out of the way just as the Jenny exits the barn.Bear!

Michel,It had been announced over a period of time that the SS Forum was going to be shut down until the new server comes on line in late March or early April. With the current server the SS Forum was using so much of the bandwidth it was effecting the entire forum system speed.Bear!Please read the note at the top of the page concerning posting screenshots in the MSFS Forum.