Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thank you - I didn't know of either of these threads. I fly the 208 almost exclusively in MSFS but didn't know that the original "fix" mod had been forked. Going to check it out now.
  2. I just went through those, went to -45 on the X & Y axis for both sliders, and -30 for the Z axis. I left the throttle slider alone. Seems a lot more comfortable for me, as long as I don't hit the stops with the stick
  3. I've seen this before. I have no idea if it's an issue or not, but I do know I was playing with this trying to figure out what REX's Weather Force program was doing. Ultimately, I learned that going "live" on all options made the default weather much more realistic, and that's what I've been doing since. It'll be interesting to see what tomorrow's patch brings.
  4. Ray, Thanks for suggesting Firefox - that finally got it downloaded, but Windows 10 still is refusing to run the file. I know it's a false positive but has anyone figured out how to trick Windows defender into allowing this to run? Thanks!
  5. Okay, short story time - but first a little context. I've flown MS-based flight sims since I started, and if you disregard combat sims and a brief interlude with the first version of Fly! (which I loved), I've been exclusively invested in that family. From subLOGIC's FSII on my C64, to subLOGIC's ATP and Flight Lite, and then MSFS4, 5, 5.1, 95, 98, 2000, 2004, FSX, and FSX:SE, I've owned them all. I always viewed X-Plane as a "second-class citizen". Bought XP10 on a lark on Steam and put a few minutes into it and never went any farther. I was all in for DTG's FSW, seeing that as really the logical successor for FSX (please, no comments - I know). When that fell apart, I was left with FSX:SE or moving on to Prepar3d. The $200 price tag of Prepar3d was just too much, so I was left with FSX:SE. And yeah, it's still good, especially tricked out with all the add-ons, but its age is definitely showing. And that brings me to the story. My first job out of college was a flight simulation pilot's dream: I got a job with the construction team at what was then the "new" Denver Airport (KDEN still meant Stapleton - we were DIA!!!) Get this: I got paid to spend the entire day driving down every runway and every taxiway so I could update a map with the paving progress of the various contractors, and then in the afternoon update a map in the management office so they'd know the overall progress each day. By the time I started, 7/25 was the runway with the most paving activity left, and one of the most notable differences about 7/25 from the rest of the airport is that the runway complex is lower than the rest of the field, so driving down taxiway G to the 25 approach end was a downhill drive in my little Subaru Justy. The grade obviously isn't a problem for airliners but in my car it was quite evident. But in FSX and all the other sims, of course, the airport is exactly the same elevation everywhere, and that little bit of immersion was lost. It was a little sad because of all my DIA memories, driving down that taxiway somehow sticks out the most (there was also a rather gnarly road intersection there for construction traffic that of course no longer exists but I digress)... So today, during the Steam summer sale, I picked up X Plane 11, and for fun flew the C172 from 3V5 (which isn't open anymore) to KDEN and landed on Rwy 7. I know XP has boasted "sloped" runways for a long time, but now, looking up taxiway G towards the terminal area, I can actually see a hint of what it's really like. It's probably not as drastic in the sim as it is in the real world, and it certainly isn't a showstopper in any of the other sims, but for the first time in a LONG time, I can see it. Maybe its an illusion, but the rest of the terrain (including the runway) seems to have the right "feel". Certainly I haven't seen this in FSX! I've got a lot to learn about XP11 and I'm sure there are going to more "little things" like this, but I have to say Thank You to the developers - for a moment at least, you helped recapture that time I spent at DIA in a way no other sim has! I can tell I've underestimated XP11 - I'm glad I'm in the fold now. Well done! Mark
  6. Agreed I didn't intend to start any flame wars! Just a civil discussion of the merits of both sims. And thank you everyone who answered - you very much helped out!
  7. Thank you all for your replies! I appreciate the input! To answer a few of the questions here, I have installed the XP11 demo and it was a much better experience than I anticipated - enough so to cause me to pause going forward with P3D. I watched a number of XP11 videos as well as P3Dv4 videos, but you can only glean so much from videos. Next step in my evaluation was to come here, and I appreciate everyone's time and thoughts. With that, I have a few responses: I've asked myself this a bunch of times. I think the answer comes down to the feeling that support for that platform from add-on developers is probably going to dwindle now with everyone moving to the 64 bit platforms, as it should. Regardless of your feelings on DTG (and I don't want to dive into that here) FSW showed great promise in some areas to elevate the default sim to new heights. Reminded me a lot of Fly! before it started falling apart. Monica's on point here with my feelings, at least from what I've been able to review so far. XP has some stunning visuals especially at night. Thank you for confirming however that AI traffic is not one of XP's strengths. That is important to me. Seeing regional European aircraft parked at the gates at KLAX kills a lot of the immersion of airline flying for me. The comments on detailed GA aircraft are interesting - thanks for that insight! Again, thank you all! It does seem that P3Dv4 is the direction to go in at least for now. I'm kind of doing the same type of evaluation as PWJT8D did, but for me, more options are coming up for P3D than XP, and your replies are helping to confirm that decision. Thanks!
  8. Hi Guys, Okay first and foremost, I'm sure a lot of you have your opinions on which sim is the "better" of the two, and probably just as many of you probably think both sims have their merits and I should get both. I appreciate both opinions, but that's not really the point of my question. Here's what I want to know - if I buy XP11, what am I going to be missing out on from P3D? In what aspects do you think P3D outshines XP11? I want to compare out-of-the-box experiences here; I have FSX (and every other version of MS FS) and of course a ton of add-ons for FSX (though none of the Orbx scenery), but it seems to me that many of my FSX add-ons will need paid upgrades to make them compatible with P3D v4, so I think if I invest in either product, I'm going to have to start working through add-ons again. Honestly, I had high hopes for FSW, but that product for better or worse is closed out. I am intrigued by PMDG's "announcement" in the forthcoming FS Expo in June but while the speculation is exciting I hardly expect a new FS platform. I don't know why a small team like that would be interested in jumping into that market and competing with the two other companies that they make products for. Help me through the thought process here - how should I be looking at the two platforms and why should I choose P3D over XP11? Thanks! Mark
  9. Eric, in a way, moved FS in a new direction - towards greatly increased realism. It's rare that a single person does that, and his legacy can be viewed as the growth in popularity of super-realistic add-ons. I remember the evolution of 767 PIC and frankly, kinda miss those pioneering days. RIP Eric, and condolences to the family.
  10. That's what you get for relying on the GPS too much... Thanks guys!
  11. Yes definitely! So that begs the question - has this always been modeled by the FS engine? Admittedly I don't usually fly low and slow and even when I do, I'm typically using the GPS for nav. Only recently have I had a desire to go back to the basics of DR and simple instrument navigation (GPS is great but what do you do when the box fails?) so maybe it's been in the sim and I just haven't noticed? If so, that's a really nice bit of realism!
  12. Should have clarified - I was like 40nm from the station. I'd expect that flying over the station, but not necessarily that far out?
  13. Hi All, Was just messing with Flight School to get a feel for the Cherokee (I anticipate FSW's will be substantially more complete) and am flying down the NW coast of Washington State. I'm tuned to the HQM VOR on both Nav 1 and 2. And I'm noticing that - even though I'm getting closer to the navaid, I'm occasionally losing the signal, then reacquiring it. I'm at 1,500' so I'm pretty low. Is this: A Bug An LOS issue with the VOR HQM is a high-altitude VOR I believe, but the terrain here is pretty mountainous, and I'm just curious as to whether any kind of LOS modeling has been done for radio navaids. Any thoughts? Thanks!
  14. I will do that - probably have to wait until next weekend. Never heard of that site before - it's cool!! Thanks for the tip on that one!
  • Create New...