Jump to content

otterspotter

Members
  • Content Count

    216
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About otterspotter

  • Rank
    Member

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No
  1. Thank you! So essentially 1) remove the files without _A suffix and 2) rename their _A counterparts by removing the suffix. That worked. Splendid livery! Thank you again.
  2. I can confirm the same in FSX. Removing _a at the end of some of the file names essentially means removing them to avoid duplicates (CAATESDQ_ext1.dds vs. CAATESDQ_ext1_A.dds) and that doesn't fix it. With or without these files the texture shows white in FSX. Too bad. It's a very nice livery.
  3. I don't think there is a GPU with this aircraft. You need to use the hotel mode to power it on the ground for an extended period of time, which is essentially running the no. 2 (right) engine with prop brake on. Steps to do so are in the included checklist but there's also a YouTube tutorial (search for "Carenado A72-500 - Hotel Mode").
  4. Have the same problem with SBGR. Essentially the SODE jetways cast edge or vortex shadows in the direction of the viewer. Leandro from TropicalSim provided me with a new set of SODE jetways, which were an improvement (the weird jetway shadows were fewer and only triggered at some angles) but didn't fix the issue completely. I reported my findings to him and never heard back. The problem doesn't manifest itself with the default jetways in the product, but those don't move. I have SBGL but haven't installed it yet. I was afraid it would have the same problem as SBGR. No other airport with SODE jetways I own (I have quite a few) has this issue.
  5. You set the heading with the HSI Heading Selector (Flight Manual Part II, page 96). For the autopilot to fly the heading, you flip the HDG SEL switch on the autopilot panel (glareshield) and engage the autopilot with the AIL and ELEV switches (Flight Manual Part II, page 55).
  6. It'd be a shame to let such a great thread wither away. Coming in to land at KEWR (MJC8 Q400's second tutorial). South of Rochester: Cayuga Lake: Ithaca: Manhattan skyline coming into view beneath clouds:
  7. Hah. While others have commented on where exactly JF TriStar lies on the accuracy continuum (and can we stop equating accuracy or depth of simulation with good quality? QW's work on 757, with its simplified systems, is of great quality), here's one thing that JF TriStar has that SimCheck A-bus doesn't: a more in-depth INS implementation. SimCheck's version of INS doesn't implement drift or DME updating. As pointed out in some reviews, TriStar, while a 'lite' systems simulation, has a pretty decent INS implementation and can serve as a great INS procedural trainer. One of the reasons I bought it. Yay! Looking forward to it! I like the plane very much even as a 'lite' simulation but would love more depth in the systems implementation. We now do have some choice with regards to medium- and high-level first generation narrow bodies (CS 707, JF DC-8), but there are only 3 first-generation widebodies on the market: CLS DC-10 and B742, and JF L-1011. They're all lite sims (even with the realistic INS in TriStar) and the first 2 are a bit dated (any news on the CLS 742 1.5 upgrade? Unfortunately it doesn't involve an update to the bit dated cockpit graphics...). So to have at least one with more in-depth systems and more up to date with regards to modeling (as JF TriStar is) would be great.
  8. Thanks guys for your comments and the tip. I guess I'll have to wait till the end of July how the AMD CPU price drop plays out.Michal
  9. Wow, posting at the same time, almost like a chat!Thanks for your additional comments. I did actually ask Alienware if they offered an ATI CF board/solution for the kind of money I'm willing to spend but they responded "not at this time." The only CF setup they have on offer is pricey (4/5 grand) and involves Pentium. The last Intel I've ever owned was Pentium 100 and I have no intention of going back... Who knows, maybe it's because there are no AM2 boards with CF as you mentioned.Thanks again.Michal
  10. Hey Chuck, thanks a bunch! I kinda missed the fact the Alienware mobo is an AM2 board (well, the memory speeds should have been a clue...). I read a couple of previews/reviews at AnandTech on the freshly baked AM2 boards and the impression I got was in the long run those boards didn't offer much of an advantage other than future upgradeability. Anand was stressing the fact that it may take a few iterations before AMD has optimized their AM2 CPUs to utilize DDR2 memory as efficiently as they have done with Socket 939 CPUs and DDR1. He did suggest choosing AM2 boards for new machines, though.The reason I focused on Crossfire was not FSCOF but the likes of Oblivion (called along Q4 the first game justifying a CF/SLI setup) and HL2, as well as FSX. I do realize the dangers of buying a machine with DX10 and Vista round the corner, and as many have pointed out, you will need a dedicated DX10 GPU to admire FSX in its full glory, but still I wanted to give myself a little space to grow and get the best out of CF/SLI setup (since FSX is supposed to be able to take advantage of it) in DX9 before I have a chance to switch to a dedicated DX10 board. ATI (both CF and single setups) seems to edge NVidia in games like Oblivion (interesting tests at AnandTech) and HL2; earlier there were also driver issues within SH3 (UZO spray issue); and a recent article in Computer Gaming World (June 2006 issue) claims "GeForce 7900 GTX cards can't render some games with anti-aliasing and high dynamic range lighting at the same time" (the same article says not to bother with CF/SLI on monitors 19" and smaller, but I'm not sure whether they meant only LCDs and their native resolutions or CRTs as well -- I have a 19" CRT and seldom use 1600x1200 res). Following your comments I might need to give the AM2 option more thought though.Anyway, thanks again for your comments, shedding a new light on my options, and the suggested reading. I'll have to reassess my choices. With so many new technologies starting or about to appear I guess I couldn't have picked worse time to buy a new machine, but I have no choice.Michal
  11. Hey George, I was curious how your IBuyPower machine has been doing over the last few months. I'm about to plunk down some money on a new machine, and following my not-so-great experiences in PC building, I decided to have one built this time. Long story short, I know how to put a PC together, but when there's a problem, all the time and money spent on troubleshooting (especially an elusive motherboard/memory issue) I'd rather spend on flying and warranty. I'm not that great on tinkering. There's not enought time for simming as it is, so I gotta keep my priorities straight ;-)Anyway, since together with hardware I'd like to buy some peace of mind (lost a lot of it during my PC building experience), I've taken a look at the desktop vendor reliability chart at the following link: http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,a...409,pg,8,00.asp. So the main question is whether to go with a reputable builder like Alienware or a no-frills (WYSIWYG, some call it) builder like IBuyPower. Since ABS and CyberPower were rated so low, I've excluded them from the running. Obviously there are people out there unhappy with Alienware (like with any vendor, but unless PCWorld has a marketing relationship with them, the results of the survey are quite important to me. I've been looking at a similarly priced systems around $2500 total (since I live in Cali and would have to pay tax with IBuyPower) from the two vendors:Alieware Aurora 7500AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+Alienware
  12. Thanks Jimmi for the numbers. They are actually very respectable. I don't know why my original impression was so significantly different than what I had experienced in real life. I definitely don't expect FS planes to be always on the money. The real Tomahawk I flew felt more sluggish, but as you rightly point out, no two planes are ever the same. Does the full package include an American paint or do you know if somebody made one?Michal
  13. Anybody notice anything unusual about Tomahawk's climb? Seemed very vigorous to me (I flew Tomahawks in my PPL training over a year ago), but now my demo is disabled, so I can't check it again. Maybe my memory serves me wrong...Michal
  14. "I would be suprised if any accomplished simmer took much more than minimu hours for a PPL."Talk about arrogance. ;-) So I guess it is the simmers that make a large part of the I-got-my-PPL-in-40-hours crowd. :D It took me 63 hours to get my PPL (USA national average: 67 or 69, don't remember). I guess this doesn't make me "an accomplished simmer," although I've simmed quite a bit before then. It has always irked me how people boast about how little time it took them to get their ticket, as if that by itself was a tribute to their airmanship. But you're right in your last statement: the attitude and stick'n'rudder skills are most important. And FS can give you plenty of the former and too little of the latter...Still, procedurally and in terms of situational awareness (navigation)FS can be an invaluable tool. It's all about being aware of its limitations. Short of owning a full motion simulator, it may take any simmer a good while to come to terms with all the physical feedback and forces the PC sim cannot really simulate.Michal
×
×
  • Create New...