Bluescaster

Hi All, I do hope this is the appropriate forum for my query, I apologise if it is not.Whilst trying to optimize my setup I read somewhere (I think one of the Avsim forums) that I should alter the FS9 Config file to match the various "Mesh" scenery I'm flying over. (I have addon mesh for British Columbia, Washington, Idaho and Alaska etc. ie. Holger Sandmann - and others - freeware from this site)I've now heard that this is not necessary as the program will only load the appropriate settings. I'm afraid I am not too familiar with the intricacies of computer programming - would someone be kind enough to put me right regarding this as I don't want to scramble my Sim by fiddling where it's not necessary.Regards, Blue.

Hi Chris and All, Thanks - I'll look forward to a session as soon as I can co ordinate free time and your flights.Keep up the good work! Regards Blue

Hi All, I would really like to have had a go at this........ however I'm away that week. I wish you all, "Good luck!" with the project and hope it is a resounding success; not least because you will then no doubt repeat it at a time I can join you! :-) MAAM aircraft are really something and deserve the effort you afford them! Best of Luck.Regards Blue.PS. Please keep us updated as to further flights.

Vic, As I'm sure you're aware the reason for "setting" mixture on piston engine aircraft is because the air density changes with altitude - therefore altering the ratio of fuel/air, (resulting in a less efficient engine)The idea is to adjust the mixture in order that you obtain maximum power from the engine(s) as you climb/descend. By monitoring the engine revs. and maniford pressure whilst altering the mixture you will be able to ensure power efficiency. Rule of thumb (in the simplified sense) you would "lean" out the mixture as you climb so obtaining max revs/power, then take it back (enrichen the mix) slightly. (prevent overheating etc) The opposite, clearly would be true if descending.Hope this helps. (Not actually sure how much of this is modelled in the MAAM aircraft :-) )Regards, Blue.

Bill & All........ I've posted before on your wonderful offerings! They are still wonderful - including the "call outs". I'd like them to stay please. Keep up the great work - Thanks again. Blue

Congratulations! It will only need to be half as good as your previous efforts to be a stunner!You release it - I'll buy it! Regards and Good luck! Blue

Donny, That's truly a wonderful story! Regards Blue

Hi All, Interesting discussion - the use of ground effect was most useful to the WWII pilots and crews when returning shot up or with mechanical problems. (But no doubt when short of fuel also)When an aircraft was unable to maintain height and slowly sank towards that deep dark North sea, whilst trying to make the English coast, some, to their surprise no doubt, found that their slow descent was arrested as they closed the waves of the sea. Thus managing to just scrape home. The ground effect being just enough to compliment their failing engines/lifting surfaces. Many, many more were not so lucky unfortunately, but a "godsend" if you were one of the lucky ones!I know nothing of computer modeling (except to enjoy the wonderful creations of those that do:-0 ) however I suspect that the constantly varying "lift" and "sink" effects felt in the real world would be jolly difficult to replicate. (Their cause being many and varied - differing temperatures of varying surfaces, wind/slope/sun/shade etc.etc. etc.) These effects have a great deal to do with the constant adjustments pilots make during an approach and landing and can even catch out very experienced pilots. Regards, Blue.

Hi "L.Adamson", (and ALL ) that's a real pretty panel..... and home built too! Lovely, you're obviously quite a craftsman. My last hobby seat was a "Luton Minor" - in that pitot static was hi tech!!! (The "standard" stuff, i.e. low tech, was pencil and watch:-) )In any event it was a real experience and certainly kept you on your mettle.Regards, Blue.

Donny, a very interesting post.... and somewhat thought provoking:-) Although I go back to Sublogic days and further!! I've never tried Fly or Fly II. Are they perchance still available do you know? I'm aware that some older programs enjoyed a renewed lease of life on the "economy counter" with kids games. Just a though as I'd like to at least have a looksee:-)Regards Blue

Sorry All.........but are you on something people???? Sure has me wondering! Regards Blue. (Hope you're all bck to normal soooon....)

Michael, I for one have been encouraged by the various views and counter views, put forward by all those posting to this thread and find your intervention puzzling. Forgive me if I've missed something (as you point out it is a long thread) but I don't recall you posting to this subject earlier and now am curious; almost suspicious as to your motive.I cannot believe I am the only one still reading this thread each day when I find time to log on. It has not degenerated into an embarrassment to the forum and my beleif is that discussions such as this are self policing in many ways and certainly do not warrant untimely closure.I would ask that it be allowed to remain pending developement at present:-)Regards Blue.

Dillon....... pleased to see you're reconsidering your position, well done:-) Also credit to you for having character enough to share that in this medium. However I feel I must set the record straight as to my position. I am not biased either way. None of my posts you will see, did anything other than ask for reasoned consideration from your good self. These forum are an excellent medium for discussion and expressing ones likes and dislikes; however I feel it must be done in a reasonable and balanced way, if one wishes those points of view (opinions :-) ) to be taken seriously.To harp on endlessly in a reproachful and negative fashion; first about one thing and then about another connected with a company/model/organisation etc. only provokes discord and upset. Further the individual acting thus is counter productive as they then tend to be dismissed by the majority, even when they have in fact a genuine point to impart.Several people "posting" to this thread have made some excellent points. It is easy to see those who have considered the issues and shared their thoughts in a balanced way. Whereas others have clearly allowed their personal feelings and emotions to colour their submissions. On balance that is fine - takes all sorts. However, those explaining their viewpoint in a balanced way tend to be better received and credible.Good luck with Concorde, a wonderful aviation milestone.Regards Blue

Dillon.... Michael J. makes his point well. Further more I have read (and indeed re-read your incessant threads) So I think we are at the position I stated earlier; i.e. Are you now to write a review ("Put Up") or not, ("Shut up") ?? I think Tom has established a legitimate challenge; or are you to pontificate further?Regards, Blue

Par, ....I was interested in the source of your information as to the statistics of VC - v - 2D cockpits users. Is it a guess or are you in possession of some facts on this? Regards Blue.

Dillon........ was that a "Yes, I'll do a review" (Put up) - Or "What's the use ....etc" (Shut up)..... In answer to Tom's well put intervention?Regards, Blue:-)

Hi Par, ......some would agree with you..... some wouldn't. That's opinion eh? I agree with Phil Olson, who makes his point well.Regards, Blue

Hi Again All..... my point was (and is indeed made here by others in their offerings...) that one persons "5" is anothers "4" or "3" or what ever.... some will be content NOT to have this or that feature, considering it a minor or VERY minor part, whilst giving much more attention and credit to other parts of the sim. that others would dismiss. In all events .... it is ONLY an opinion and, unfortunately life is not always fair nor are humans completely impartial... if they were an OPINION would not be an opinion but a fact.Cheer up in any event..... I don't usually use 3D cockpits, but have bought the RealAir Spitfire knowing it only has 3D. In my opinion it is brilliant!! (albeit taking some getting used to ... the cockpit that is, not the plane, that's just dandy!!)Best Regards, Blue

Hi All, A couple of thoughts struck me reading this thread..... Firstly, .....that's a huge amount of money if it were paid for on the flight line!..... then, 1X v Real time..... is there anything other than Real time? Even on the simulator - what could persuade anyone to cheat time?...... then, imagine how much that equates to when you ADD time spent reading/writing to the forums, searching the libraries etc. etc......... then, it's almost enough to make you pack up simming and do something productive with all those hours!! Happy Simming everyone..... is it such a waste????Regards Blue.......

Surely THE point must be to allow the reviewers to express THEIR opinions on whatever it is they are reviewing; then make the conclusions THEY see fit. Now, you may not like their opinions, least alone AGREE with them, but they MUST be allowed to express them.Afterall....... opinion is a very personal thing:-)Regards Blue

Many thanks to those of you who have replied to my question in part of this intersting topic.When determining exactly HOW much RAM is being used by FS9 when it is running, I assume one uses the Task manager.... I'm still learning when it comes to computers so would someone kindly tell me, which part of it should I be reading please? Regards, Blue.

Kurt, your post interested me as I asked a question recently on memory using FS9.... I have yet to fully understand what's happening.I run task manager after FS9 has been running a little while. I've got a pretty reasonable system (AMD 2700+. 1 gig ram. nVidia 6800 graphics card) The CPU graph in the task manager often is shown topped out flat - which I assumed was the set up running out of RAM.(I have large paging files on both my HDD - one HDD only used for FS9) My querey was - "Do I need more RAM"Regards Blue

I suppose that's dependant upon how you understand my post. When I was given that advice I took it as a small part of all the information I'd gathered, and balanced it to come to my conclusion. :-) My main aim was to get the best performance screen to enable my system to give the best display - when I set out to research it I didn't have and preference - just that criteria. Regards Blue

Hi, for what it is worth I did a fair bit of research on this very subject back around October last year (2004) If you look back through you should see my post.After considering all aspects I went for a 19" CRT(21" would have been better but I don't have the physical space in my office) Specifically, the LG Flatron ez T910BU - this is a completely flat screen and is excellent for Flight Sim purposes - it's main use, but is also very good for text home office use etc.It is physically larger than TFT screens but my research led me to the conclusion that TFT are not really upto the quality levels of the older technology (Cathode Ray Tube) just yet - at least for the graphics etc. I am sure there are many Flight sim users out there who would argue this of course - but I researched it well, being rather non technical on the computer front.There were a number of issues that finally helped me decide - particularly the issue of flexibility in the resolution available to the CRT as against the TFT. Apparently TFT mostly have a much narrower range of resolutions that can be used for Flight Sim - whilst still using a reasonable refresh rate.Some TFT's could only be used in one resolution. Where TFT units did have any flexibility in the resolution area, the non-default resolution of the TFT often gave poor quality graphics.Also of importance (to me) was the fact that not all TFT's could be viewed other than directly in front of their screens. Apparently many give poor quality display when viewed fron one side or above etc. In my home office I sometimes want to view the screen from the desk next to mine where I do some jobs but refer to the sceen about 6 feet away. There was also the issue of "missing pixels" which is an occurence I understand with the TFT where, even from new, some have discrepancies on screens!! I only heard about this from people selling the things and apparently, "its quite normal" and "not very noticeable at all " - as the screens age this happens further I understand. In any event - these are some of the things I found during my research - Before I close, the last thing that impressed me; from several people I spoke to, who advised - "if you buy TFT - DON'T buy a CHEAP one!! Whereas CRT technology is well tried and tested -whereby even the cheapies work and last well - this cannot be said for the newer technology!"Hope this helps a little . Regards BlueP.S. I did have a couple of TFT screens actually demonstrated at local computer outlets - two of them with FS9 as the demo program. CRT won for me here also:-)

Kurt, thanks for taking the trouble to reply..... I'm still researching this so will be saving my money for the moment. Thanks again. Blue