otterspotter

From my experience with a similar ADF unit in Xomer's excellent An-2, fine tuning is done on the same dial (the big one), you just gotta click closer to the center and then at the edge of it . I don't know if this gauge was programmed the same way, but it's worth a try -- just try clicking in various distances from the center of the dial along the switch handle and observe how the digits change.Hope this helps.M.

There's probably no better Cherokee than Dreamfleet's Archer, but that's payware.Of the free stuff, I find Rien Cornelissen's Warrior very likable (warrior6.zip here in Avsim library). The only problem I had with it was the tendency to turn left when straight and level, so I had to balance it with fuel loading. Other than that, it's a very neat plane. Apparently Rien also made a nice Arrow, but I don't know the zip name. Be advised, Arrow is a complex category aircraft (retractable gear and constant speed propeller).Hope this helps.M.

Ponyboyz brought up some valid points, although they should also be looked at from a proper perspective. As far as "infomercials" are concerned, you gotta keep in mind that there are very few places, websites or magazines, that would have critical reviews (I'm not talking about users' reviews). It seems Avsim has run out of reviewers (I recall the website more active in this respect even only a couple of years back) and the only reviewer left seems to be Bear, who once in a while will treat us to his minireviews or a review of a golden era package, which although greatly appreciated, hardly reflects the number of new releases. Haven't seen Andrew Herd's review on flightsim.com in a while either and all their other reviews are infomercials in true sense of the word (the infamous mention of Dell at the end of every review). Once a source of very good, insightful reviews - FSInflight online magazine - just folded. Reviews in Computer Pilot's competitor - the British PC Pilot - are not that much different (that mag is more expensive although in my opinion has nicer editing). If you want an accurate evaluation of an FS addon product, the only way to get it is to dive into the forums here, which, as we know, can be time consuming. The same goes for assistance with development - printed mags will never have enough space to cover such things in depth, they may only nudge you in a specific direction or give you a general idea of the subject and the hints where to get more information. My point is that I would never buy the magazine for up to date news, in-depth reviews, or extensive tutorials. To me it's a nice complement to the sites like Avsim. Many of us don't have time to spend hours in the forums here and a mag like that is sure a nice thing to have when your access to a computer is limited or your eyes are too tired from looking at the screen. You gotta admit that sometimes staying on top of all new developments in FS, even only glancing at the forums, can be very time consuming. Myself I like reading wherever I can, so the mag comes in very handy.Apart from reviews, Computer Pilot also provides flight training articles (ground school, basic training, IFR, multiengine, etc; sometimes topics in those are explained better than in standard textbooks that I'm using for my real flight training), excellent Round Robin adventures by Al Pelletier and many other ideas on how to enhance your simming experience (places to visit, challenging approaches, etc.).Anyway, I'm a happy subscriber to both magazines and consider them a very nice complement to websites like Avsim.M.

Big thanks for the tutorial, Mike!One question: what is the relationship, if any, between this model and the one featured in Steve 'Bear' Cartwright's minireview posted yesterday? Obviously those are two different packages, if only by size (12MB vs. 52MB). Don't know if v9.0 has a VC or not, the other package does. I hope your tutorial can also be used to fly the other bird too.Once again, thanks.M.

Yeah, more Russian/post-Soviet airports! Is this one from the same guys that made Almaty?M.

Neato! I'm supposed to fly my first dual cross country from KWVI to KSBP via KPRB this Sunday, so I guess this will come in handy. Thanks!M.

A discount for IK DC-9 owners would definitely help me make a decision. Have you guys considered an option where each major variant (-10, -20, etc.) can be purchased separately at, let's say, $10, but if somebody would like the entire package, then charge $25 for it? The more options, the more customers, methinks. Anyway, congrats on the excellent model and a superb way in which it's showcased - those screenshots made me salivate big time!M.

I'm a subscriber, no problems with January CD. Sorry 'bout your problem.M.

sj,Since you asked, here's my humble opinion about the two flight sim mags. Both come with a CD and the major difference is that PCP is bimonthly and CP is monthly (more CDs). PCP costs more per issue (around 10 bucks here in US vs 7.95 USD or so for CP).Last CP issue (December) angered me with a couple of the articles, where screenshots are ridiculously huge (in reference to their content) to mask the scantiness of text. In some CP issues, the screenshots are ridiculously small in turn. In my opinion PCP's layout is always immaculate and CP sometimes seems to drop the ball in this respect (quality and size of screenshots, layout, etc). In other words, PCP has a little more solid, professional look (particularly comparing the last issues of both). However, CP has some great regulars, like Hints and Tips section, nice Flight Instructor, Ground School, and IFR, Multiengine Flying sections (not in every issue), my favorite Round Robin Adventures by Al Pelletier. To me, they're the greatest asset of the magazine. It also has siginificantly more X-Plane articles (rare in PCP) as well as combat sim articles. PCP used to have great IFR Training tutorials by Bill Stack (whose editorials in CP in turn aren't that great in my opinion), they disappeared for a while, but they're back in the last issue. They also have flight tutorials, but they're kinda irregular. Both mags have great articles on topics ranging from editing sounds or AI, painting, mixing real and virtual flying, to comparing FS sceneries vs real world places, etc. Sometimes both mags seem to have run out of topics, which in my opionion results from a heavy focus on payware, whereas there's so much good freeware around that you should never be able to run out of ideas (both mags mostly mention great freeware, seldom reviewing it). CP seems to me more in touch with what's going on in the community (nice articles on Dash 7 design, creating a virtual flying club, the tips section).Anyway, I like them both, and since recently you don't see too many reviews or flight sim articles on major websites, it's good to have another source. Reviews in both mags sometimes are too lenient and not in-depth enough, but this seems to be common phenomenon these days also on major websites, as we don't have too many Andrew Herds... But then again, what do we have forums for?Hope this helps. I would be interested to see other people's opinions, although the two mags are seldom mentioned here.M.PS. There's (was?) a good free on-line magazine at www.fsinflight.com (presently down for reconstruction).

Excuse my boldness, sj, but by supporting PC Pilot, you're supporting PC Aviator's competition (a UK-published bimonthly). The magazine published by PC Aviator is called Computer Pilot (monthly mag published in Australia and USA). Both mags are great though.M.

With only 14 hours under my belt I don't pretend to have much expertise, but thought I would add to this thread, since I'm having problems similar to Mark's. First off, about all the opinions that I had read about real flying being actually easier than the simulation, it's not that simple. Yes, you have more sensory clues as to what's happening with the plane, but at the same thing the real plane sensitivities can't never be fully rendered in the sim. Well, at least my Tomahawk is pretty sensitive; so often I have flashbacks to my driver license training where I would treat my brother to frequent whiplashes with my acceleration and braking technique and torture the engine with not so smooth gear shifts). I don't know, maybe I'm one of those who take longer to get it, but maintaining the altitude within +/-50 ft margin, especially under 1500 AGL (turbulent air) and in turns is quite a challenge for me. Initially, apparently like many flight sim pilots, I got fixated on instruments, primary reference in the sim. It finally got to me that unless I look outside I will never be able to keep it steady, since visual clues will always be much more easily discernible. Landings are still tricky to me, but I would never blame the sim for that. My approaches, according to my CFI, are excellent, the problem starts 5 feet above the runway - I sometimes flare too high and tend to float. I don't think it has anything to do with excessive speed cause I'm usually right on the suggested numbers. I had to learn to lower my flare height and distribute it better in time (gradual, slow pull). I really don't know how the sim could screw me up in this respect, I never really practiced that many landings in it. I think it's a matter of "getting the feel for it," since as my CFI and some fellow pilots said, the proper flare cannot really be taught: there comes a time when you finally "get it." I guess if you haven't flown for a while, you're also very likely to lose it. I never even contemplated the idea that more simulated landings might help me with my landing technique - only more practice in the real thing can do that. Nor do I think that sim time can really hinder your real world flying: it's only a matter of knowing its limitations and not taking it too seriously. As already mentioned, it's a great procedural trainer, to some extent it can also help the hand-eye coordination too, I think.I have read a lot of those posts and letters about how long-time simmers finally decided to do the real thing and found it so easy with their simulation experience. Well, I guess not everybody is born a pilot, some of us are made...Michal

There's a good review of Tibor Kokai's Malev Tu-154B-2 (tu154b2_mal.zip; an updated version with new virtual cockpit was released later by Maxim A. Mysin, Tibor Kokai, Dmitry Kolesnik, Aleksi Pennanen; apparently there's another Tu-154 by Roman Skorykh) in the FS In Flight online magazine (wwww.fsinflight.com, Reviews section), where the reviewer mentioned the issue with CG and trimming - Tu-154 is tail heavy. The problem is that there are no trim indicators, so the reviewer added a subpanel himself.Now I wish somebody could tell me how to couple the AP to VOR or ILS, both in Tu-154 and An-24 (saw somebody else asking about An-24's AP NAV/ILS modes a couple of days ago, but still no answer).m

Another DC-9 (or airliner for that matter) newbie here. Yeah, the POH leaves a lot to be desired, at least for beginning users, and I saw a lot of posts on Flight1 support forum go unanswered. I myself had lots of questions. Getting there though.I wouldn't worry too much about the RUDDER TRAVEL UNRESTRICTED blue light on before take off even after yaw dampener is enabled, as p.14 of the POH states that for landing this light should be on, so I'm assuming it should also be on for takeoff.As far as APU annunciator lights are concerned, POH states that the APU should be shut down some time after takeoff at Captain's discretion, so until then all APU systems should probably be running (including the cooler system and doors). Is your APU temp normal? If not, you gotta play with cooling switches in APU (Air Cond Cooler and Doors) and Air Conditioning (supply switches) sections. For APU GEN OFF light to go out, the APU gen switch on CSD (electrical power) panel has to be on (p. 66 of the POH).I have the same problem with barometric pressure for cabin pressurization, the scale takes only single decimal digits. Also, to the right on the target altitude selector (Cabin Pressurization section) I seem to see another scale (something like 1.5, 2.0, and so on). No idea what it is.For DC-9-30 performance data, do a search here on Avsim for Matt Zagoren's DC-9 operations manual, it does include data on -30 series. Other two sources: www.banhof.se/~classic/d9_classic.html and www.hilmerby.com (not -30 specifically but still useful).Matt's operations manual does include a sort of tutorial section discussing all flight stages (3 pages), but it would be nice if somebody knowledgeable could produce a more extensive and comprehensive tutorial specifically for Iron Knuckles DC-9 similar to the ones put out for Captain Sim Legendary 727 or PDMG 737NG. Getting this bird airborne and then to the cruise altitude without Master Warning screaming at me all the time was pretty tough for me, since I'm totally new to airliners, not to mention vintage ones. I still have a lot of questions on my own since I would like to really understand how the systems work (how does CSD work? what systems AC and DC buses serve specifically? the whole RAT-EPR-EGT relationship, and so on and on...). There are a couple of sites on jet engines suggested in POH, still checking them out, but I haven't been successful at finding resources describing other airliner systems though (any suggestions?).Anyway, the plane is awesome and despite the steep learning curve, I'm having a blast. Still learning how to put this bird down safely...Hope this helps a little bit.M.

Yeah, those outline clouds bothered me too. Changing the cloud density (3D appearance) didn't do anything for me. The solution for me came with increasing the cloud draw distance some 10-20 miles beyond the general draw/visibility distance. I have the general visibility set at 60 miles and cloud draw distance to 80 miles and the outline clouds are gone! Basically with these settings the farthest clouds (the outline ones) are not rendered I think. Didn't observe any impact on frame rates on my GF3.Michal

Don't know anything aboyt MSFF2, but I'm a rather unhappy Saitek X-45 owner. I had read nothing but raving reviews about this system and nobody could beat their price (I bought it 2 years ago for $99 but then I heard they went down to someting like $72), so I went for it. And regretted it ever since.Starting with mechanics, the spring on the joystick is a total joke. Forget smooth movement, I get weird resistance in a number of positions. Forget precision flying. The throttle may have been decent at the beginning but now after 2 years of use (I'm not a diehard simmer though, there were long periods of not using it) it's pretty loose and there are some power settings where it will simply not stay on its own. On the whole the system feels and looks very cheap (why didn't I see it in the first place?). Always had problems with the mapping software, and after multiple tries, profiles downloaded, and forums searched, I could never get the trimming wheels to work in any sim. I don't know, maybe I'm too dumb to make it work...HOTAS to me is a great idea but if I could choose now I would go with CH products or Thrustmaster Cougar. I know, they're pretty expensive, particularly Cougar, but I would hope you get some quality product. I will definitely not go cheap on my next controls purchase (when I can afford it) and sure as hell will never buy another Saitek product. Now, if I only could afford a nice console by Precision Flight Controls...I'm sure there are X-45 users out there who have been luckier and/or smarter than me, but since you asked for opinions...Michal

Thanks guys for the tips, you helped me make up my mind. I'll be buying the Centurion!And I guess we can address the AVSIM review issue on the Letters to the Editorial Staff forum here.Michal

So glad to see this post, 'cause I was going to buy my first payware GA these days (first payware a/c for that matter) and was deciding between DF Archer and Carenado's Centurion (can't afford both). At least on the screenshots (yeah, I know, they don't tell the whole story) Centurion looks much crisper and simply gorgeous. Some people remarked that flight model was pretty good too, product said that sounds could be better, but still no comprehensive review. It seems to me that Carenado's product's seem to be ignored by simming media, with the exception of one AVSIM review of the Bonanzas (new models for FS9 coming spring next year!) and an article or two in Computer Pilot and PC Pilot. Don't know the reasons for this, maybe except that Carenado don't make the situation better for potential users with their website that leaves a LOT to be desired.AVSIM being behind with reviews big time is another issue. For reviews I go to the "other" simmulation site, although some of their reviews seem to be more product overviews rather than reviews. Why don't we have more Andrew Herds?One more question, though. DF Archer comes with an excellent manual, as all DF/Flight1 products do. I don't expect anything of that magnitude from Carenado, but is the Centurion manual satisfactory at least? (Reviews of some of their old products mentioned that manuals were seriously lacking.)Thanks,Michal

Right on, Dick! I feel exactly the same way. But you put it together much better than I would have been able to. Thanks.Call me naive, but I find it very reassuring that people like Ron Freimuth sit down, make their test gauges, and then try to figure out what's going on in the sim, even without waiting for SDKs to be released. In another thread (don't remember now which forum on which website it was) I saw Ron's post explaining how he was investigating the vertical component of wind (as that editorial on flightsim.com mentioned that updrafts and downdrafts are non-existent and would be difficult to model in MSFS). That's the attitude!Michal

Hi Bill,Sorry to butt in, but I thought I would repost some operating procedures for An-2 that I once posted in BFU forum. I didn't try Xomer's model in FS2004 yet, all my An-2 flying was done in FS2002 this far, so I don't know, maybe there are differences in how it works in FSCOF. The thing is that the English manual is 'abridged' and I had to resort to my rudimentary knowldege of Russian to read the full Russian version to figure some things out. I hope it clarifies things a bit, although John's checklist seems ok to me. I'm gonna try to load Anushka in FSCOF tonight or tomorrow and see if I can get it to start.MichalOk, heres a few clarifications and explanations about the basic flight operations, using the instrument and gauge numbers from the Panel_en.mht document and the checklist by Dr. Phil Clarke, also included in the package. 1. Switch the fuel selector (68) to

So glad to see that other people are enjoying this bird too. Excellent model, challenging but very rewarding. Thanks for the update, been meaning to try it out in FS2004.Here's a couple of quotes from Stephan Wilkinson's great article "The Un-Falco" (http://www.seqair.com/Other/UnFalco/UnFalco.html):"Well, let's just say flying an An-2 is like making love to a fat lady who's had too much to drink: there's a lot to work with, it's unresponsive, you're never quite sure when you're there, and it's big-time ugly.""It combines the challenge of instruments as random and unfamiliar as those in a slumlord's boiler room with the manipulation of controls straight from the Allis-Chalmers School of Design plus the physical demands of roll and pitch forces that must have produced entire generations of Aeroflot weight-lifting teams."I love this bird.m

Glad to see this thread. Couldn't agree more, VC adds immensely to the immersion. Granted, sometimes I gotta squint a little bit to read some gauges, but the sense of 3 dimensions and freedom of movement to me is indispensable.As far as the default heavy iron not being up to snuff VC-wise with GA defaults or heavy iron commercial offerings is concerned, do not forget the scope of the sim and the customer base. How many of FSCOF buyers would really appreciate a faithful rendition of 747 systems? I'd rather MS provided a canvas for everybody else to paint on, so that everybody can pick and choose to add on whatever rocks their boat most.My addiction to VC notwithstanding, it seems to me VC expectations are going to put the work of many freeware designers to test, since as somebody already noted, even moderately complex ones are usually a daunting task and can be extremely time-consuming, not to mention the art of optimisation. This, coupled with more and more advanced exterior rendition technologies, increases the total design time so significantly, that I think fewer and fewer freeware designers are and will be ready for such commitments and as a result, a vast majority of excellent quality all-around (exterior and interior, pardon my VC emphasis here) designs is and will be payware. This is the price to pay for increased fidelity and immersion, which I myself am willing to pay. It also makes me even more appreciative of all the freeware work.I think we better get used to the idea that the 50-60 bucks for MSFS is only a base price for basic functionality and the cost of the total flightsim experience for amny of us will have to be counted in hundreds of dollars, the precise amount depending on your idea of immersion and fidelity, interests, and how thick your wallet is. And is it necessarily such a bad thing?m

Bump-ne go jeszcze raz.Wiec jednak sa zalety mieszkania w Stanach...

Piwo? Czy ktos powiedzial piwo?