Moose4

>Thanks!>>I guess this is documented in the real Sandel docs, then?>>BasilYep, that's where I had to go to find it. When RXP tells you to download the manufacturer's docs on their Garmins and on the Sandel, they aren't kidding! So far I haven't tried everything on the 3308, but of what I have tried, I haven't found a single thing that doesn't work exactly as it does in the manual. And the Stormscope is no exception, although I don't really know, in terms of FS2004, what the practical difference between "cell" and "strike" mode is. I know what they're supposed to do in real life, but not sure about FS.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

Just thought I'd throw this in, but to tell you how good the maintenance module is...if you let the engines get a bit low on oil, the ITT goes up. I try to fly to where I keep the ITT under 740 degrees C, which is recommended by Aeroworx, and after a long flight, I didn't top off the oil before the next leg (with the maintenance set to "fast" so things wear out quicker). On the next leg, at FL270, I wasn't able to run as much throttle as on the first leg, because the ITT would go over 740 C. Now maybe it was atmospheric conditions, I don't know. But at least I think that letting those PT6As get a couple quarts low on oil could cause something like that to happen!Get this thing. Don't wait for v2.0, that's just the icing on the cake. Get it, study the manual, and you'll learn to love it. It flies great, and the sophisticated avionics are awesome. I retrofitted some RealityXP stuff into mine (GNS530, WX500, and the new Sandel SN3308 EHSI) and now it's *really* tricked-out! But you don't even need to do that, the stock autopilot and FS2004 GPS are plenty sophisticated, and I never really did learn all the tricks to it even in about 40 hours behind the controls.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

Press SHFT and the up-arrow, and select CELL or STK (strike) mode.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

The only "problem" I know of with v1.0 is the bug where the max flap extension speed for approach flaps is screwed up. You're supposed to be able to put them down safely under 200 KIAS; on v1.0, dropping them at anything over about 170ish will jam and disable them, and force you to land at approach flap, and repair them on the ground. That, and on my particular system, sometimes it'll CTD FS2004 on exiting a flight. Other than that, it's darn near perfect.Those shots of the new version with the full-analog panel look sweet.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

>>> Hello,>> I am thinking that the FSD Pilatus PC-6 would>be a great Bush/Mountain Hopping plane... I have a few>questions pertaining to the craft.>Hiya! I own the PC-6 and love it, I'll try to answer your questions.>1. When it rains how are the effects in the VC? Does rain>actually hit the windows?It's the same as the FS2004 default. You'd need an add-on like Flight Environment or ASV to change that.>>2. Are you able to fly off of the VC ok?I have no trouble whatsoever with the VC. The visibility is excellent, it's a great plane to fly VFR in the VC, you can even look out and read the "MICHELIN" on the left main tire. :) It's not bad on frame rates at all. It does suffer from the common FS2004 problem of sometimes getting a bit dark until the instrument lights come on, but there's not much that can be done about that. Oh, and the red rotating beacon reflects inside the VC, that can be a little annoying at times, but I guess it's realistic.>3. How are the flight characteristics?In a word, great. It's a ball of fun to fly, although it takes me some adjusting to get back in it after flying anything else. It can fly so slowly that I have trouble with landings sometimes because I'm going too fast...at 60 knots. :) It's neat to see just how small a space you can get it in and out of. I've had it easily controllable on landing at speeds under 40 knots, with a very short landing roll. It'll easily cruise at about 120 knots and has plenty of power for acceleration on takeoff. You do have to remember that it's a turboprop, though, as there is a significant lag between pushing the throttle forward and actually getting the power on.>4. Does that load manager or the characteristics it has work>or is it pretty much a bunch of hipe? It works. It lets you mess with paints, set your number of passengers onboard, whether or not you have the extra wing fuel pods, lets you do maintenance, set realism options, and enable using RealityXP gauges if you have them. It also keeps track of your "costs"--fixed cost like hangaring, maintenance costs, fuel cost (at a price you input), etc.>5. I was reading something in the Forum about engine hours and>maintenance etc... Does that work? And does it really have a>working hobbs guage?Well, I've never blown the engine up, but apparently you can. It does have a working Hobbs meter, and you're supposed to do periodic maintenance on the engine every 25 hours. I'm up to 20 hours on mine. I imagine if you skip the maintenance, it'll eventually go out on you. It's not as sophisticated as the maintenance module on the Aeroworx King Air B200, but it's a nice touch.All in all, I highly recommend it as a bush plane. It'll go anywhere and it's got a lot of neat features. I own it and the Aerosoft DHC-2 Beaver, and swap back and forth depending on how the mood strikes me at the time.>P.S. Really interested in the craft... Never purchased a craft>from FSD don't know what their like and if they are good with>support etc... Usually it is Flight One or Real Air for me>right now... Kinda nervous about branching out. So just>looking for some seasoned veterans that have been down a road>I have not yet traveled.. I am really interested in that>plane.FSD is a very reputable company. I have their Porter and Piper Navajo Panther, and am very satisfied with both. They do good stuff.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

I own them both and really like them both. They have fairly similar performance in terms of speed and range (they both like to cruise around M.65 and have a range of around 1000-1200 nm depending on load and wind) but the CJ1+ has an all-glass cockpit, and the II/SP is mostly analog, though I've done a Reality XP refit on mine, and am seriously considering buying the RXP Jetline 4 package for my CJ1+ and C-X because I have some readability problems in the VC in the X.The complaints about the II/SP panel readability are valid, it can be a bit hard to read at lower resolutions; I run 1280x960, which is what Eaglesoft designed it for, and have no problems, but I did have trouble at 1024x768 before I replaced my video card. The CJ1+ glass-panel displays are easier to read at any resolution, but the lettering on the panel can also be hard to read at other than 1280x960 or higher.As for the actual flying part, you won't be disappointed with either one. They aren't nearly as fast as the X, won't go as high or as far, but they're both excellent hand-flyers, very easy to handle, and will both get in and out of places that you wouldn't expect a bizjet to go. The II/SP, in particular, is a really impressive short-field bird considering its size. Both do have nice virtual cabins, though neither one has quite the detail of the "deluxe" version of the X. Both have excellent VCs, as you'd expect from Eaglesoft.If I *had* to pick one, I'd pick the II/SP, just because I'm a "steam gauge" fan, and I like the analog panel with a few RXP tweaks. Plus the II/SP has a higher useful load, and since I do a little flying for a bizjet VA, that's important. But really, you won't go wrong with either one.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

>Milton, thanks for that. You know those guys from Virginia...>They can be led to water, but whether they drink or not is>open to debate. GO HOOS! :)Oh Lord, it's a Wahoo. One that's sober enough to post, even. :)GO DUKES! (JMU '87)Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

The one question I have is, you recommend the Gee Bee racer sounds to replace the default aliased sounds in the 18, but those sounds are for a single-engined aircraft. How do I modify the sound.cfg to make it work properly with the twin-engined Beech, or do I even have to?Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

Milton, I've just now gotten a chance to play with this thing, and you, Scott, and Andre have somehow, someway, managed to top yourselves. This thing is beyond amazing. I'm a big VC guy when flying GA, and I am simply blown away by how photoreal and yet very usable the 18's VC is. And releasing the source so people can do different mods to it? Wow.Honest to God, this thing slaughters most of the payware that's out there except the very best. It's astounding.Thank you guys for all you've done for the FS community, for all the hours you've put in and all the products you've created (I have 'em all!). Y'all really are the best.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

>I had this on my first landing this morning after I fired up>ASV. When I originally test flew the plane after adding the>patch this morning it was perfect. Then a landing after ASV>produced that long float again. After that, however, ther>rest of my landings were perfect, and I made at least 10. >Maybe it is a random thing with Active Sky. I will have to>post this question on their Forum. Well, I just had it happen again with the Carenado 182RG, but maybe it's bad technique on my part? Even at 60-65 KIAS and full flaps, weight about 2750 lb, I had to keep the nose below the horizon or the plane just would not sink, and wound up doing a nose-level landing at 55 knots. This was with ASV, and a 7-knot quartering headwind on the runway. It's got to be something I'm doing wrong, I think I'm just not getting it slow enough on landing--too high on final, and carrying too much speed (75-80 knots) in too steep an approach. Probably too much work landing jets, and faster planes like the SF.260 and Bonanza A36.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

>That's interesting, cause I use ASV. I tried it in several>different airports, but I am wondering if ASV uses similar>Vertical currents at different airports as kind of a default.>Probably should have shut ASV off altogether and tried it. >I wonder...I had a very similar problem with the MAAM-SIM DC-3 the day that I installed ASV. 75 knots over the numbers, idle power and full flaps, and I had the joystick 2/3 of the way forward trying to force it onto the runway, it was like that last 15 feet of air was Jello. It just would not land. I had to go around, and the second time, I still had to force it a bit but it was a much easier landing--still not quite "normal," though. At the time I just assumed I had cranked in too much back trim by accident, but now I'm not so sure.In any case, I'm off to get the 182RG service pack!Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

Manny, here's two more screenshots. The first one is a normal VC shot at .75 zoom, the second is zoomed in on the pilot's primary flight instruments and the engine instruments at 1.50 zoom. They may be slightly blurry, and if so, I apologize; it's not the VC, it's me cropping these down from 1280x960 windowed to 800 wide for AVSIM, and then converting them to JPEGs.BTW, I've refitted a Reality XP GNS530 in place of the "color radar" (which is just a HSI repeater) in the middle of the panel. Other than that, this is bone stock out of the box.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/119601.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/119602.jpgLewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

I can't speak to the flight model since I'm not a real pilot, but the gauge fluidity is pretty good, certainly good enough to use the VC for IFR flying. Right up there with the Dreamfleet A36, and better than most VCs nowadays. It's not RealAir smooth, but then again, nothing else but their Spitfire and SF.260 are.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

I've done a couple of flights with ASV so far, and am really enjoying it. The updraft/downdraft simulation adds a lot to the realism, and I've only begun to scratch the surface of all the different textures available. So far so good!Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

I concur...the Dreamfleet 727 is simply outstanding. Well worth the money.If you can't afford it or want to go freeware, then the Vistaliners 727, mated to the excellent latest 727 panel by Richard Probst, is a great choice.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

>Yes, Moose, that looks pretty good. But it the transparency>of the bottom layer that is of issue. I am amazed that>Microsoft could not get one of the basic four or five cloud>layers correct. Especially when it can be emulated with a>simple layer that simply does not have any transparency. It>does not necessarily have to have vertical volumetric>properties, although as most overcast are at least 500 ft>thick, it would be nice. But, at the least, a SOLID thin>layer, with no blue sky or ground showing through it would be>most realistic. >>CBOh, OK, I see what you're saying now; it's not looking all the way down from the top you're having the issue with, it's how quickly things fade out when you climb into it. Yes, then I agree, ASV won't fix that. That looks like a Microsoft shortcoming. The ground didn't fade out completely until I was at, oh, about 1400 feet--tough to tell, since the climbout put me over water, and I was climbing pretty steeply so I didn't have a good view of the ground anyhow. My horizon reference, however, was gone at 100-200 feet AGL.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

Guys, I hope this is OK, but I want to paste in a screenshot along these lines. This was taken about 15 east of Kotzebue, AK (PAOT), on Alaska's northwest coast, at 9500 feet. Note the METAR on the top of the screen. I was in the soup from wheels-up, the ground disappeared under me at about 1000 feet, and I didn't break out of it until about 9000.The environment settings, BTW, were random. I did extend the thickness of cloud layers to 25,000 feet, but I might set that back to 10,000--provided that I can still get some good summer cumulus built up if I do. That's the one thing I've always felt was missing from FS2004 weather...it seemed like weather, even with AS2004, basically stopped at about 10,000 feet unless you had some AS2004.5 anvil-headed monster reaching up to FL350. Here in Virginia, we get a lot of pretty tall cumulus, 15,000 feet or more, during hot summer afternoons, but not all of them are thunderstorms.That looks like one heck of a marine overcast to me!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/119307.jpgLewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

Well, I just bought and downloaded it, and I must say, I'm very impressed. I like Carenado's T-34 Mentor, and this 182RG is even better. I hear what you're talking about with the looping in the sound, but overall I really do like the engine sound...it's got a much less "buzzy" sound to it than the default 182, and sounds a lot like planes I hear going overhead all the time. The VC is indeed impressive, with good refresh rates. I also like the "mix-and-match" cockpit, with the different radios and old-school autopilot.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

I have a moderately slow system (Athlon XP 2500, 1 GB PC2700 RAM, Geforce 6600GT 128MB AGP 8x) and can tell you that the top three frame-rate killers for me are, in order:1. Clouds2. Highly detailed ground scenery like add-on airports3. Other aircraftActiveSky draws better overcast layers, so it draws the clouds thicker. The default FS2004 weather engine is horrible about making "overcast" into "scattered." Try tweaking with your various weather settings, cloud draw distances, etc. to find something that works for you. You can pull your cloud draw setting in 10 or 20 miles and get a surprising frame rate boost.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

>Noticed in your sig that you are in Richmond Va. What part ?>I was born and raised there and took primary flight training>at the AVITAT at KRIC. Flew a lot of Capt Fuzzo's planes at>Hanover, and over at Chersterfield (old W98 now KFCI?). You>flying real world at all and if so where ?>>I live in the West End off Gaskins between I-64 and Patterson. I grew up in Lynchburg, lived here about ten years ago (I need a T-shirt that says "I Survived English Hills") and moved to South Carolina for a while, then came back up here in January. If you don't live here now, you wouldn't recognize the place. The changes in the far West End between 1997 and now are just crazy.Sadly, I haven't done any real-world flying except for one hop over Atlanta in the back seat of a Cherokee. I keep telling myself that if I'm a good boy, stick to my diet, and keep my room clean, I'll buy myself a discovery flight...but now that my wife's expecting our first in February, that may get deferred. Again. So I spend the money on add-ons for FS2004 instead, it's still cheaper than the real thing. :) Got Carenado's new 182RG onboard, and if I can ever get ASV downloaded and installed, gonna take a virtual vacation trip back down to SC in it!Steady 19 kb/s on the download, got up to 39.5M before it crapped out and I had to retry. You guys at Hi-Fi are victims of your own well-deserved success, it looks like! :)Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

It's possible. I've tried every AA setting, from "off" to "8x", and only "off" works. All other AA settings give me flashing ghost images during view changes or whenever tooltips pop up.It still is quite playable, it just looks like #### with all the "jaggies". Even 2x AA would be a gigantic improvement, but it doesn't even look like that's an option. There's some leaked 77.20 drivers that came out with the latest demo of the game Battlefield 2, maybe I'll try those when (if?) my download of ASV finishes.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

Well, I assume your servers are getting pounded right now, so if they ever actually let me in sometime this year, I've got my plastic in hand and am ready to purchase. :) I've been an ActiveSky wxRE/2004/2004.5 user for a year and a half now, and used Chris Willis' products as well, so this looks to be an excellent combination and I'm very much looking forward to it...that is, if I can ever actually buy it! :)I currently have FS Sky World 2004 installed...do I have to do anything special in terms of deinstalling it before installing and running ASV, or can I just install ASV and let it handle doing whatever texture overwriting it needs to do?Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

That's the same trouble I'm having. Another poster said he had fixed his by running 8xAA like you did, but I don't think I really have the horsepower to run 8xAA with just an Athlon XP 2500 and an 8x AGP 6600GT. I might try it, but my frames bog down hard enough as it is when there's lots of clouds around.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

Actually the fuel booster pump *may* be modeled...sort of. There are many planes that actually model the pump, and when you flip it on you see fuel pressure gauges (if so equipped) go up. Now whether FS2004 models a situation where the pump will keep the engine from cutting off...that, I don't know. Guess I'll just have to buy the Spitfire someday and find out. :)Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

I tried uninstalling the nVidia drivers (72.10), used Driver Cleaner Pro to sweep things up, then installed 76.45 and turned on 2xAA and 2xAF...uh-uh. Every time I brought up a pop-up window, it ghost-imaged the screen all around it. I uninstalled, cleaned, re-installed 71.89 (the latest version from nVidia's website), and it still doesn't work with AA/AF, it does the usual screen-ghosting.I'm running the latest BIOS for my Asus A7N8X, and I *think* I've got the latest set of nVidia nForce drivers. I'm not sure I want to risk messing with those, I've had some nasty problems in the past when I did.DXDiag is showing full video acceleration and reporting no problems (I have DirectX 9.0c installed). I think I may need to find a good nVidia tweaking program and check some settings out. AGP aperture size is set in the BIOS to 128 MB.BTW, this was reported back in April on nVidia's nZone boards, but I don't think nVidia tech reps actually frequent those boards, and I don't know how to report this to them. Considering the 71.89 drivers are two months old, if there is a driver bug, it's been out there for quite a while.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia