mackintosh

Hear hear. Support for SLI and proper multicore would already be enough as far as I'm concerned. Those two should already boost performance far beyond that of FS9 and FSX. Right now most of my CPU cycles and GPU power wasted. I don't need improvements in graphics, I do crave improvements in performance. This thing in my sig can run Crysis at 60fps @ 1080p, damn it, I want the same performance in Flight! ;)

You can make the 2D panel work. Not sure about the VC though. I guess when a product's as bad, nay, terrible as the Wilco Airbus, no one bothers trying.And now they have the audacity to charge for what is essentially nothing more than a patch that, from the looks of things, is purely cosmetic. The nerve of these people. Sheesh.

Yep, ditto. It's a pity it only comes now, when there aren't that many of them flying around Europe any more, but I'll still find a use for them in my hangar. I only wish they hadn't announced it yet, Q3 2011 is so far away...

I have to admit to not having noticed exterior inaccuracies in the MD-11, I was mostly focusing on systems modeling, which to me is quite impressive (although I can't really pretend to have any in-depth knowledge of those either...). I suppose as a reviewer you're much more attuned to such discrepancies. Just out of curiosity (and apologies for the derail) - what are some of the most obvious errors?

PMDG's MD-11 is, as far as I'm concerned, the pinnacle of FS9 development with LSH's Maddog a close second (probably due to the inherent complexity of the MD-80). LDS767 is still an amazing piece of software engineering, but I feel both the MDs have surpassed it. The jury is still out on the iFly NG.

This is absolutely, 100% correct. The equation for determining the most appropriate USERVA value is USERVA = 4096 - 768 - amount of gfx ram. Setting USERVA too high will result in excessive paging, severely degrading performance, setting it too low will, obviously, defeat the purpose.

It's a decent package (and the only 737 classic package out there afaik). It had some teething problems years ago, but it's pretty flyable these days. The visual model is awful though and I have found it to be a framerate hog (admittedly it's been a while since I've used it...), so I've replaced it with the 50North 737s.I disagree with the opinion that it's not as well modeled as the iFly 737. I'd say they are comparable in features. Since the iFly models the NGs, it's obviously newer and has more bells and whistles, but the FT 737 is pretty rich in features for a 737 classic and for its age as a product.That's not to say it's without problems however. While most of my flights go fairly smoothly, it does have a tendency to overbank every now and then and is prone to falling out of the sky at higher sim rates than 2x and handling can be somewhat erratic at times.

I just noticed that they deleted my post (which was the first mentioning the suspension). Well, I guess I won't be going back to that forum again. Really poor form. Least they could do is to be mature about it. Lots of companies have cashflow and other issues, it's communication that makes the difference. Oh well.

Well, having bought it when it came out, I finally got a chance to do a test flight today. I have to say I haven't been this pleasantly surprised by a release in a while. This thing's done one of the most exquisite, picture perfect autolands I have ever seen. As we all know, programming an add-on to perform a perfect autoland is no easy feat and is often a testament to how well an FDE and panel work and in iFly's case, they have it down to a T.

[wrong thread, duh]

Guilty.

The stuttering isn't caused by texture size (at least not 100% of the time). It's mostly caused by missing alpha channels in DXT3 textures. If you add the missing alpha, most of the stutters should be gone. Can't speak for DFW, haven't bought it yet, but nearly all other FSDT sceneries have had this issue.Here's some more on the subject: http://www.alpha-india.net/forums/index.php?topic=8581.0

Well look at that, guess who called it? :( Seriously though, I do cling to a faint hope this will not simply be a rebadge of his "upgrade".

I've been around the block long enough to know that Wilco is not the dev. In fact I said "Wilco" precisely to avoid pointing out the fact that FT were the developers of this abomination to begin with. "Track record" in this case is a dangerous sword to wield :(

While I'm not a betting man, I get the feeling that this "improvement package" is just a rebadge of Eric's updates that's he's been selling on his own. Time will tell I guess, but knowing Wilco, I wouldn't be expecting any miracle cure-alls.

Just FYI, The Very Singapore had a known memory leak that never got patched (at least I don't recall it being patched). That was the cause of most CTDs. IIRC it had something to do with landclass. I forgot the unofficial fix though. I hadn't used TVS in years.

A patched installation of UT in and of itself does not cause OOM errors. Period. Exclamation point.A memory intensive FS9 set up (high resolution / anti-aliasing settings / complex aircraft going to a complex airport / heavy use of AI) coupled with UT (which does use a lot of memory) is, on the other hand, a textbook recipe for an OOM event.Like I said, there is an indirect relationship between the two, but UT by itself is not the cause, it merely exacerbates an existing problem and thus seems to be the whipping boy in this scenario, most definitely undeservedly so.

The equation is for determining the maximum USERVA value (i.e. the value that should not be exceeded), obviously there's no point in setting it that high if you're not getting OOM errors at 2560. The 4GB value is not the amount of RAM you have. 4GB refers to the 4GB virtual address space (i.e. 2GB for application and 2GB for OS use).To be quite honest, I don't know the effect on video memory use on FS9's performance, but it shouldn't have any effect on OOM events.Ultimate Terrain is not a cause of OOM events. At least not directly. It does require a large amount of memory though and thus increases the overall load FS9 places on memory requirements. It's the straw that breaks the camel's back. You could just as well argue that PMDG's MD11 is a cause of OOM events if you'd installed it after UT, since you'd most definitely end up with OOM errors with that combo. With OOMs it's always a combination of a number of memory-intensive add-ons that's tipping FS9 over the edge.The best solution is to move to a 64 bit OS. Unless there are compelling reasons to stay with 32bits, there's no real reason not to.

Again, yes and no :( What the 3GB switch does, is allocate some of the OS' address space back to the applications, the equation is simple and looks like this:USERVA (maximum) = 4096 - gfx onboard memory - 768MB (minimum OS allocation). Higher than recommended USERVA will result in excessive swapping, quite an undesirable outcome when simming.However unlikely, it is still possible to go over the address space allocation if the required USERVA is low due to a high gfx card memory count and should FS9 be more memory hungry than usual. In all my testing back when I still used a 32bit OS and with a fairly low USERVA (2304), I have never had FS9 crash with an OOM error with the /3GB switch.

Yes, to a certain extent. Yes in the sense that PCI Express graphics cards "share" their virtual address space memory allocation with the OS. In essence, the more memory your gfx card has, the less is available to the user address space for applications. That's why OOMs were a very rare occurrence with AGP gfx cards, since that was a completely different architecture that didn't take any memory from the OS. It is not a bottleneck in your example though. What you're describing is basically the effect of FS9 simply demanding more memory as a result of your increased resolution. Higher res = more mem = you've gone over the 2GB user mode virtual address space allocation, a classic OOM scenario, if you will.

Yes, I am, but I haven't had any throttle problems, FADEC works fine here.

It's pretty much impossible to merge the two. The POSKY model has a very unrealistic centre of gravity, which severely interferes with the Wilco/FT panel. FWIW, my merge settings for the CRJ-700 are below. This is a very unrealistic merge, you'll have trouble making a smooth take-off (it'll blast into the air like a space shuttle), but once in the air, it starts behaving somewhat similarly to the Wilco/FT bird. It uses the FT air file. I'm using a combo of shockwave and PSS lights here, you might want to change that back to stock settings.[General]atc_type=BOMBARDIER atc_model=CARJ performance=Passengers: 70\nCrew: 4 \n\nTotal Baggage Volume: 824 sq cu\n\nDimensions:\nSpan 76 ft 3 in\nLength 106 ft 4 in\nHeight 24 ft 8 in\n\nEngines: GE CF34-8C1\nTO Thrust Rating: 12,670 lb\n\nMax Fuel Cap.: 19,450 lb\nMaxTOW: 75,000 lb\nOEW: 47,500 lb\n\nTypical Cruise Speed @ FL310: \nM.78 - Normal Cruise\nM.825 - High Speed Cruise\nRange: 1,732 nm editable=0 Category=airplane[weight_and_balance]max_gross_weight = 75000empty_weight = 43500reference_datum_position = 40, 0, 0empty_weight_CG_position = -27, 0, 0empty_weight_pitch_MOI = 1374924empty_weight_roll_MOI = 856479empty_weight_yaw_MOI = 2368455empty_weight_coupled_MOI = 0max_number_of_stations = 6station_load.0 = "1000.0, -25.5, 0.0, 4.0, Business"station_load.1 = "2500.0, -30.0, 0.0, 4.0, Std Economy Fwd"station_load.2 = "2500.0, -35.0, 0.0, 4.0, Std Economy Aft"station_load.3 = "953.0, -21.5, 0.0, -3.0, Fwd Baggage"station_load.4 = "953.0, -34.5, 0.0, -3.0, Fwd Baggage"station_load.5 = "450.0, -50.5, 0.0, 3.0, Aft Baggage"[lights]//Types: 1=beacon, 2=strobe, 3=navigation, 4=cockpit, 5=landinglight.0 = 3, -94.60, 0.00, 16.00, Opensky_nav_yellow ,light.1 = 1, -19.25, 0.00, 8.22, Fx_shockwave_beaconh, //fx_beacon ,light.2 = 1, -19.25, 0.00, -0.80, Fx_shockwave_beaconb ,light.3 = 4, -7.00, 0.00, 4.00, fx_vclighth ,light.4 = 5, -33.80, -6.20, -0.20, fx_shockwave_landing_light_narrow_old ,light.5 = 5, -33.80, 6.20, -0.20, fx_shockwave_landing_light_narrow_old ,light.6 = 5, -23.80, -6.20, -2.20, FX_PSS_LAND_light,light.7 = 5, -23.80, 6.20, -2.20, FX_PSS_LAND_light ,light.8 = 2, -94.60, 0.00, 16.00, FX_STROBE ,[GeneralEngineData]//0=Piston, 1=Jet, 2=None, 3=Helo-Turbine, 4=Rocket, 5=Turboprop//engine_type = 1//fuel_flow_scalar = 1.035//min_throttle_limit = -0.250000//engine.0 = -65.00, -8.00, 6.00, //engine.1 = -65.00, 8.00, 6.00, engine_type=1Engine.0=-65.00, -8.00, 6.00, Engine.1=-65.00, 8.00, 6.00, Engine.2=-65.00, -8.00, 6.00, Engine.3=-65.00, 8.00, 6.00, fuel_flow_scalar=0.475min_throttle_limit=-0.169983[effects]wake = fx_wakewater = fx_spraydirt = fx_tchdrtconcrete = opensky_sparkstouchdown = fx_tchdwn, 1windshield_rain_effect_available = 1[fuel]//Longitudinal (feet), Lateral (feet), Vertical (feet), Usable(gallons), Unusable (gallons)fuel_type = 2number_of_tank_selectors = 1electric_pump = 0Center1 = -40.00, 0.00, 0.00, 480.0, 3LeftMain = -44.00, -11.00, 0.00, 1200.0, 3RightMain = -44.00, 11.00, 0.00, 1200.0, 3[contact_points]static_pitch = -2.75static_cg_height = 4.25tailwheel_lock = 0gear_system_type = 1max_number_of_points = 7point.0 = 1, 2.6667, 0, -4.9, 16000, 0, 0.9, 70, 1.45, 1, 0.55, 9, 10, 0, 250, 280 //0.45point.1 = 1, -46.22, -7.3899, -6.68, 4000, 1, 1.5, 0, 0.8, 1.5, 1.5, 13, 15, 2, 250, 280point.2 = 1, -46.22, 7.39, -6.68, 4000, 2, 1.5, 0, 0.8, 1.5, 1.5, 13, 15, 3, 250, 280point.3 = 2, -54, -37.22, 1, 787.4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0point.4 = 2, -54, 37.22, 1, 787.4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0point.5 = 2, -77.29, 0, 1, 787.4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 9, 0, 0point.6 = 2, -15, 0, -1, 787.4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 0[keyboard_response]elevator = 100, 200aileron = 100, 200rudder = 100, 200[forcefeedback]gear_bump_nose_magnitude = 3000gear_bump_nose_direction = 18000gear_bump_nose_duration = 250000gear_bump_left_magnitude = 2700gear_bump_left_direction = 35500gear_bump_left_duration = 250000gear_bump_right_magnitude = 2700gear_bump_right_direction = 00500gear_bump_right_duration = 250000ground_bumps_magnitude1 = 1300ground_bumps_angle1 = 08900ground_bumps_intercept1 = 3.0ground_bumps_slope1 = 0.20ground_bumps_magnitude2 = 200ground_bumps_angle2 = 09100ground_bumps_intercept2 = 1.075ground_bumps_slope2 = 0.035crash_magnitude1 = 10000crash_direction1 = 01000crash_magnitude2 = 10000crash_direction2 = 9000crash_period2 = 75000crash_duration2 = 2500000[airplane_geometry]wing_area = 738.700wing_span = 76.300wing_root_chord = 18wing_dihedral = 3.000wing_incidence = 1.300wing_twist = 1.000oswald_efficiency_factor = 0.700wing_winglets_flag = 1wing_sweep = 32wing_pos_apex_lon = -29.000wing_pos_apex_vert = 0.000htail_area = 178.000htail_span = 30.000htail_pos_lon = -85.000htail_pos_vert = 15.000htail_incidence = 0.000htail_sweep = 32.000vtail_area = 160.000vtail_span = 10.716vtail_sweep = 44.000vtail_pos_lon = -75vtail_pos_vert = 7elevator_area = 59.840aileron_area = 25.000rudder_area = 25.63elevator_up_limit = 24.00elevator_down_limit = 15.000aileron_up_limit = 25.000aileron_down_limit = 15.000rudder_limit = 32.000elevator_trim_limit = 15.000spoiler_limit = 30.000aileron_to_spoileron_gain = 5spoiler_handle_available = 1min_ailerons_for_spoilerons = 8min_flaps_for_spoilerons = 0.000spoilerons_available = 1[electrical]max_battery_voltage = 12generator_alternator_voltage = 13.80max_generator_alternator_amps = 40engine_generator_map = 1,1electric_always_available = 0avionics_bus = 0, 5, 9.5avionics = 1, 5, 9.5additional_system = 0, 2, 9.5marker_beacon = 1, 2, 9fuel_pump = 0, 5, 9[Views]eyepoint=-2.130, -1.25, 5.25 [flight_tuning]cruise_lift_scalar = 1.2parasite_drag_scalar = 1.0induced_drag_scalar = 1.0elevator_effectiveness = 4.0 //1.2aileron_effectiveness = 1.0rudder_effectiveness = 1.0pitch_stability = 1.0roll_stability = 1.0yaw_stability = 1.0elevator_trim_effectiveness = 4.0 //1.0aileron_trim_effectiveness = 1.0rudder_trim_effectiveness = 1.0[TurbineEngineData]fuel_flow_gain=0.002inlet_area=6.8rated_N2_rpm=29920static_thrust=6700afterburner_available=0reverser_available=1[flaps.0]type = 1 // 1 - tail, 2 - leadspan-outboard = 0.8 // 0.0 .. 1.0extending-time = 21 // secondsflaps-position.0 = 0 // degreesflaps-position.1 = 0 // degreesflaps-position.2 = 8flaps-position.3 = 20 // degreesflaps-position.4 = 30 // degreesflaps-position.5 = 45 // degreesdamaging-speed = 220 // KIASblowout-speed = 280 // KIASlift_scalar = 0.5drag_scalar = 1.2pitch_scalar= 1.5[flaps.1]type = 2 // 1 - tail, 2 - leadspan-outboard = 0.8 // 0.0 .. 1.0extending-time = 15 // secondsflaps-position.0 = 0 // degreesflaps-position.1 = 20 // degreesflaps-position.2 = 20flaps-position.3 = 20flaps-position.4 = 25flaps-position.5 = 25damaging-speed = 220 // KIASblowout-speed = 280 // KIASlift_scalar = 0.8drag_scalar = 0.9pitch_scalar= 1.0[Radios]// Radio Type = availiable, standby frequency, has glide slopeAudio.1=1 Com.1=1, 1 Com.2=1, 1 Nav.1=1, 1, 1 Nav.2=1, 1, 0 Adf.1=1 Transponder.1=1 Marker.1=1 [direction_indicators]//1 Type: 0=None, 1=Vacuum Gyro, 2=Electric Gyro, 3=Electro-Mag Slaved Compass, 4=Slaved to another//2 Indicator number of slaving indicator if Type = 4direction_indicator.0=3,0 [exits]number_of_exits = 3exit.0 = 0.1, -4.5, -3.5, 3.9, 0 //openclose rate percent per second, longitudinal, lateral, vertical positions from datum (feet), type (0=Main 1=Cargo 2=Emergency)exit.1 = 0.4, -7.30, 6.3, 0.8, 2 //openclose rate percent per second, longitudinal, lateral, vertical positions from datum (feet), type (0=Main 1=Cargo 2=Emergency)exit.2 = 0.4, -16.50, 4.5, 0.5, 2 [Reference Speeds]flaps_up_stall_speed=138full_flaps_stall_speed=110cruise_speed=424max_indicated_speed=335.000000max_mach=0.85[autopilot]autopilot_available=1flight_director_available=1default_vertical_speed=1800autothrottle_available=0autothrottle_arming_required=0autothrottle_takeoff_ga=0autothrottle_max_rpm=98pitch_takeoff_ga=8max_pitch=10.000000max_pitch_acceleration=1.000000max_pitch_velocity_lo_alt=2.000000max_pitch_velocity_hi_alt=1.500000max_pitch_velocity_lo_alt_breakpoint=20000.000000max_pitch_velocity_hi_alt_breakpoint=28000.000000max_bank=25.000000max_bank_acceleration=1.800000max_bank_velocity=3.000000max_throttle_rate=0.100000nav_proportional_control=9.000000nav_integrator_control=0.250000nav_derivative_control=0.000000nav_integrator_boundary=2.500000nav_derivative_boundary=0.000000gs_proportional_control=9.520000gs_integrator_control=0.260000gs_derivative_control=0.000000gs_integrator_boundary=0.700000gs_derivative_boundary=0.000000yaw_damper_gain=1.000000default_pitch_mode=1default_bank_mode=1[brakes]toe_brakes_scale=0.747703parking_brake=1[gear_warning_system]gear_warning_available=0pct_throttle_limit=0.099976flap_limit_power=25.496622flap_limit_idle=5.042029[stall_warning]type=1stick_shaker=1[attitude_indicators]attitude_indicator.0=1[turn_indicators]turn_indicator.0=1,0[TailHook] // For opening cargo door.tailhook_length=1 ;(feet)tailhook_position = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 ;(feet) longitudinal, lateral, vertical positions from datum[folding_wings] // For opening main deck cargo door.wing_fold_system_type = 4 ;0=Nonefold_rates = 0.05,0.05 ;Percent per secondcable_force_adjust = 1.0[hydraulic_system]electric_pumps=0engine_map=1,1,0,0normal_pressure=3000.000000[pitot_static]pitot_heat=1.000000[vacuum_system]max_pressure=5.150000vacuum_type=2electric_backup_pressure=0.000000engine_map=0,0,0,0[pneumatic_system]max_pressure=18.000000bleed_air_scalar=1.000000[deice_system]structural_deice_type=0

Ben, for the love of all that is holy, the Wilco/FT bus cannot fly managed mode properly. That's like saying the PMDG 747 or the Level-D 767 are wonderful birds but they don't do VNAV properly. In essence, their Airbus is fundamentally flawed at its very core. Sure, it will take off, fly and hold altitude and when configured improperly, it will even autoland (albeit with a highly suspect flare) - but all that doesn't change the fact that it fails at its most basic requirement - flying a vertical profile.

I haven't seen this being mentioned, has it slipped under our collective radar? FeelThere seem to be developing a v2 of their E-Jets series, this time the 175 and 195 flavours.http://forum.iemit.com/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=4481PS. Obviously the topic title should be "FeelThere", would some kind mod please fix it? I do apologise :(

Yes, as long as you avoid having duplicate plans, otherwise it'll get a bit messy. You can have WOAI co-exist and supplement UT and your own, manually installed AI plans and they will all work just fine. In fact, years ago, before I got into manually installing my AI, that's the way I used to run things. Some plans would come from UT, some from WOAI.Having said that - custom designed, manually installed AI is the best AI ;)