Brian Doney

:Whistle:

I think a valid analogy would be that of MSFS/X-Plane vs PS1.3. Orbiter is great if the farthest you ever want to go is the moon, in excruciating detail. It can do that probably better that KSP ever will be able to. Having said that, I have enjoyed using KSP far more than I ever did Orbiter, and it may be simply that KSP is actually fun, but hey, to each their own. I read guru, but am not a member. I just...there are too many forums. I like most was really looking forward to WD, but as the details trickled out pre-release...well I will be waiting for a sale.

Hey Bill ! Long time no chat. Last I read from you was over at guru3d during the Watch_Dogs...fun FYI, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I believe 64-bit support for Windows is to be released with the .24 update due soon ™.

Getting my feet wet with a few mods now. So far I really have only wanted new parts. KW Rocketry seems to fit the bill for me perfectly, in that it offers many replacement parts that are less bulky than stock, but especially in providing more fuel tank options. As an unapollogetic ..errr...Apollo fan, I did of course check out the FASA pack, which is so very well done. The Saturn V/CSM/LEM included is so beautiful :wub: . I still will stick with my mostly stock-ish version for missions, as for me half the fun is tuning/building, but that FASA pack really is something special. Kerbal Engineer is essential as well. It's one of those mods that after using it, it's kinda hard to figure why something similar isn't in the base game. (not a criticism really, just sayin') BTW Ray, the Saturn V in your Falcon III video, is that based on NovaPunch parts ? Looks great :smile:

Great shots ! :smile: ...and thanks for dropping me off !

It is indeed KSP :smile: All I can offer is my own experience with it so far, having only had it since the Steam sale. KSP can really be whatever you want it to be. In that sense it is very much like our flightsims. It can be as challenging or forgiving as you decide. I personally spend more time in the Vehicle Assembly Building than actually out in space. With an excellent modding community behind it, I've found that much of my own enjoyment comes from building, maybe even more so than missions. Give the demo a shot. Much has changed since the version the demo is based on, but it should be enough to get an idea.

Hope no one minds something a bit different than the norm. :smile: On the pad, weighing in at 426.5T... Up we go ! Center engine cutoff: Stage I separation with ullage motors assisting: Stage II separation, moar ullage, and LES jettison: And finally, having shed 380T of fuel and staging, the circularization burn for 100x100: Thanks for looking ! :wink:

So I'd had my eye on this for awhile...but I really wasn't ready to jump in to something new, with other things vying for limited free time. The recent Steam sale made it impossible to refuse, but, I have a very serious issue with KSP, in that I haven't run anything else since the day I downloaded it. My interests so far have been pretty vanilla, no real mods save a couple of visual/sound enhancements, and I've just been puttering around in the Kerbin SOI, Apollo-style. I even got up early a few times last week to get a launch in before work ! Minecraft never really did anything for me, but this...this is so much fun. :wub: My Munlab is probably not entirely necessary but it was a great way to really get the hang of docking among other things. Without a doubt something I will (Squad-willing) be enjoying for years.

I really feel that even with the seemingly obvious mistakes made in this incident, I have no place to really judge what happened. I am firmly on the more casual side of the fence in terms of how seriously I take my sim time nowadays. That said, everything from the HOLD annunciation on-wards was cringe-worthy, the questionable choice of FLCH in the first place notwithstanding.

Also:

:huh:

Yeah...that seems to be the case. It's certainly none of my/our business if something personal came up, but I do notice he hasn't been on since Thursday. I hope it's nothing too serious, and if anyone (Ryan, et al) that is in communication with him reads this, and it is something serious, please pass along my best wishes. Hopefully it's nothing, though. :unsure:

The most current official information we have been given is here. (as an FYI, always be sure to check the PMDG General Forum for the latest official updates.) We can only guess that something may have come up that prevented any further release of information last week. It seems that release is close, but no one can say for sure. Beta testing may have uncovered an issue that needs attention. I'd bet on a post from Robert in the next few days, once again, in the PMDG General Forum.

1 star. I hovered over the link and saw that it was to youtube, but clicked anyway in the vain hope that it would be something other, well, something better and more creative, than what it is. I am dissapoint.

I dunno. I found those two posts while looking for a link to an official statement for him, and those were the first two hits I got. After reading the second, I just....closed that reply and decided I had better things to do :lol: I really have no idea what the deal is.

Yeah maybe, but Mr. Nixon himself has posted at least twice that the service pack would be free as well, which leads me to believe that he's read the same official statements that the rest of us have. In the second link, he's even quoting Kyle, who unequivocally states that the SP will be free. If he's expecting a notarized letter from Robert, well, yeah...I'll just leave it at that.

Sure, astroturfing as it were. That's only the most recent article in the list though. There are many others listed, that just about cover the issue from one end to the other, for anyone that is really interested in learning more.

Yeah. Thing is, we (as in we, the taxpaying public) have already been repeatedly scammed out of billions for just that purpose, and left with nothing but broken promises to show for it. If anyone seriously wants to educate themselves on this issue, here is a great place to start.

"I don't get it...and I also don't get the 1970's..." Amen child....amen.... :lol:

Try: C:\Users\%YOUR_USER_ACCOUNT%\AppData\Roaming\Lockheed Martin\Prepar3D v2\Prepar3D.cfg

No problem. I did add a few edits after posting, that you might not have seen. Notably, try checking the MipMap VC Panels option in P3D to see if that helps at all. I am not certain it will have any effect and as said, I don't really have any experience with it, but it is worth checking into. I think I've pretty much covered your options though. Maybe someone else might have another idea.

That's a pretty extreme zoom level, and though I understand it is what you prefer, that's low enough that it will severely distort the image. I'd be surprised if any amount of AA could fix it, to be honest. Options: 1) You might experiment with a zoom level that maintains gauge clarity, while also moving the actual eye point back to achieve a view closer to what you are looking for. 2) If you always use a low zoom like this, for any aircraft you fly, you might try setting COCKPIT_HIGH_LOD=1 to COCKPIT_HIGH_LOD=0 in your Prepar3D.cfg, found under the [GRAPHICS] section. This switch simply lowers the resolution the gauges are rendered at, which in this case is a good thing, since they are compressed into such a small space. In my experience, only the Airbus X from Aerosoft is incompatible with this option, which may not matter to you, if you don't use that product, but just fyi. 3) The only other option would be to manually reduce the pixel_size of the VC gauges themselves. This is effectively the same as option 2, but will only affect the edited aircraft. If you feel like experimenting with this, open the panel.cfg file for this aircraft (after backing it up, of course), and look for the line: pixel_size= in any of the [VCockpitXX] sections. I suppose you might try to locate just the main panel section if possible, but if you cannot determine which section that is, you might reduce section each by half, so for example, if an entry reads pixel_size=1024,1024, try instead pixel_size=512,512. I can assure you though, that the AA mode itself is not changing. You are just asking for too many pixels to be rendered in too small of a space for the image to turn out properly. The "MipMap VC Panels" option might help here too, but that's not an option I have enough experience testing to say one way or the other.

RP should be launched manually before P3D launch, or set to start with windows. You may only use it for P3D, but it's main purpose is to allow dynamic switching between profiles for any number of games, etc., so it does indeed need to be running in order to detect P3D launch, and then apply the correct profile. Basically, it takes the profile you create, and forces it as the global profile in CCC, when it detects the launch of the profiled application. Once you quit the application, it restores your default global profile in CCC.

See here: Mine is set to 4x, just adjust the samples slider to 8x if that's what you want. 8x might be a bit optimistic though, just sayin'. As long as you have "Override application settings" selected, and the samples (i.e., 4x, 8x etc) match between P3D and RP, and the mode slider is set to Supersample, it should work.

Just to be sure, you are setting 4xMSAA in P3D, and also 4xSSAA in RP, correct ?