• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 Neutral

About SAX702

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

3,702 profile views
  1. SAX702

    Radar Contact

    Still using it for every flight. Nothing better.
  2. SAX702

    Best Flight Planner

    OP, would you elaborate on what you mean by "they are not complete"? What's missing from them that you need?
  3. Sounds like there's still an AFCAD active that has runway 31. Are you using MyTraffic (an AI injector program)? Have you installed any other scenery for KFLL?
  4. SAX702

    Floating runway?!

    There's not enough information in your post that could be used to offer help. Have you posted in the forums for your respective products? Are you using ORBX Vector? It could be a mesh and/or missing texture(s) problem.
  5. There could be some performance drawbacks to higher resolution clouds that may not justify how they look.
  6. SAX702

    P3D V4 and the Boeing 767

    It would be nice if Level-D and PMDG where to enter into a joint venture and release the B757 and B767 for P3D.
  7. SAX702

    Default Airport Updates Coming?

    Jesse, thank you for posting this. Hope their automated update method ends up working as expected and that we can use it to update all the default airports just like we update navigation data. As Jay said, it takes a while to manually update an airport, plus there are several variables to consider, i.e., how does the update impact the airport boundary, especially those airports with runways very close to coastlines.
  8. SAX702

    edit parking sizes with ADE175

    Trevor, There are a good set of step-by-step tutorials here that may help.
  9. SAX702

    P3d replicates my life! Wonderful!

    Great post Stan, thank you.
  10. SAX702


    Thank you for your informative posting Chock.
  11. SAX702

    Best 737 payware?

  12. SAX702

    Help: Sound Issues

    Thank you Wills. Setting "Do nothing" in the Communications tab of the Sounds Control Panel was one of the first things I did. I've checked to ensure that's still set to "Do nothing" and it is. I've checked for sound device assignment and my speakers are set as Default Device for Playback and my camera microphone for Recording. I was able to have a good flight by setting P3D to directly use my speakers instead of the primary audio device. Don't know why because it used to work with the default setting. I will do a couple more flights before I call it done. Again, thank you Wills. Dave
  13. SAX702

    Help: Sound Issues

    Thank you Ramon. I have done that but it didn't fix it for me. I'll try again and see if perhaps after so many other changes, this sticks. EDIT: That appears to have done it. I was able to fly one flight with normal sounds. Not calling it done until I get a couple of flights, but thank you Ramon.
  14. SAX702

    Help: Sound Issues

    Posting this hoping someone has come across a similar scenario and offer a solution. I use P3D 4.3, Radar Contact for ATC, and other addons. When in P3D, the RC voices volume is significantly reduced when they start playing. I can press 'Q' to suspend the P3D sound and the RC voices come up to normal volume, but the behavior reverses when I resume the P3D sounds. I have been using P3D for a while with RC and this has not been a problem until about two to three weeks ago. I'm aware of the Win10 Sound app and the setting in the Communications tab. It's set to "Do nothing" but it behaves like it was set to "Reduce the volume of other sounds by ... ." I've performed all "General Debugging Steps" post in the P3D forum. I've also uninstalled and reinstalled the P3D client. I also get the same behavior from GSX voices, so it's not just RC. Yet the ATC voices in P3D sound OK. I've also asked for help in the Prepar3D Client Application Questions forum. I've also updated sound and video drivers to the latest version. Any clues? Appreciate any help.
  15. PMDG aircraft are good based on how much they simulate and how well they simulate of their real counterparts. But, are they overpriced? Part of pricing a product is estimating what customers would be willing to pay for it. How many hours would it take to develop, the developers' talents, external cost, i.e., Boeing data, are also taken into consideration. I'm sure they also consider their brand (users not only pay to have a simulated B744, but a PMDG simulated B744). With this in mind, it's also about what the market will bear, especially when competition is close to nil. In this community customers are programmed against competition. I'm certain many would complaint if some other developer says they're working on a comparable B737NG because PMDG already sells one, whereas competition with reasonably similar products would be beneficial to the customer. Influential developers lead the customer base away from practices that may diminish their power base, i.e., what happened to FSW. I would like to see more developers jump in and produce quality airplanes, scenery, utilities, even though similar offerings exists. I applaud those developers that accept that and move on, like ImagineSim saying they would continue supporting and developing ATL knowing FlyTampa is working on the competition. What about a B747 that is high quality, no bugs, but doesn't simulate failures and thus sells for less than PMDG's. I would trade failure simulation for a lower cost, quality option.