ilarikousa

Negative. It's made by a guy called Chris Serio. JD's role has been a consulting one at most.

You can always make it optional.. a "realism settings" box with options to choose from... "Realistic altitude units" could be one.. problem solved.

I've been using X-Plane quite alot recently, but am waiting patiently for v5. Something that the team should address is your descent profile. It would be lovely if you didn't get the same 11k/12k crossing restrictions every time. Since you asked for suggestions, mine is to make the descent profile a little less predictable, for example based on the amount of AI. And what about using FS's (albeit static) airspace data to set sector lateral and vertical boundaries, like this http://www.x-plane.com/blog/2011/02/the-world-is-under-control/

That's how it works...

I fully agree -- and it'll only get better with 5 :)

I find it bad that ORBX has been making love with Microsoft...they're no longer being objective...

Glad to know it might be possible -- another realism booster!

Brussels has them too: "Beeline six four bravo, taxi via outer six, bravo one, holding point two five right" :(

Hi,As you are well aware, some airports use certain nonstandard taxiway designators (reference for example the LEPA ground chart). The most common ones are Link, North, East, South, West. Could you include at least those in the scripts, as many afcads have Link taxiways coded as LINK so we could hear it the usual way and not Lima, India, November, Kilo or the like? Subs?

Well, there are some bugs but in my mind this is the best solution till the LDS757 comes out. The QW systems modeling is too simple for me. Just make a copy of the QW757 .air files and copy them to the CS folder(s) under the names specified in the CS aircraft.cfg.

I combined QW flight model with CS systems, great combo...

Is there any particular reason for why you've chosen to limit RC to 1 comm radio only?

I have forgotten something important..the "Twin Cessna" aircraft type callsign...could you add that if not already there?

I'm going to wait for the FSL one -- Wilco's just looking to cash in on the early birds :)

You mentioned once that RC5 has the "caution wake turbulence" advisory. Would it be possible to make v5 apply the proper time-based separation on takeoff (e.g. have you wait the correct amount of minutes) by ticking an "Apply wake separation on departure" type checkbox in the interface to cater for programs that simulate wake turbulence? You would just need to query user aircraft type vs. departing AI type and decide on the delay per FAA/ICAO regs as approppriate...

There is a reason for this -- I'm a brain researcher, and interestingly enough it's been found out that the brain DOES discriminate between higher FPS levels: even though 24 or thereabouts is the smoothness threshold, with increasing FPS scenes are perceived as being more realistic.. some studies even report the brain can discriminate up to 700-1000fps!

The most realistic way to implement this would be:- For ICAODeparture taxi instructions and arrival taxi instructions with specific gate- for FAAAs above except no SPECIFIC gate, employ an algorithm to search for area with gates gates with user airline code and say e.g. "Taxi to your gate via papa" Reason being, U.S ATC does not assign a particular gate, that is handled typically by ramp control not part of the ATC system. Hope I'm not picking the nit too much here....

It's Lancair. And Russian/Slavic pilots sometimes use the ICAO in place of the callsign if they find the callsign hard to pronounce given their dialect. Same goes for ATC. However, as you said, the callsign is Kogalym.Btw Subin, What's the present callsign count.. I'm gonna have a wee bit of a headache recording all those callsigns when the time comes...

I'd like to ask for the Lancair aircraft type callsign to use with the splendid Orbx product in the USA.

Great! Sorry for always asking nitpicky questions, but this is looking seriously good.. I mean, seriously...

As you guys know, FS ATC gives VFR aircraft clearance to transition class B U.S. airspace in the air. For V5, have you been able to extend this such that you can pick up a clearance for this on the ground if the departure airfield is in Class Bravo? As you know, aircraft need a verbatim clearance before entering this class of airspace.

Are you referring to an "immediate takeoff" clearance...?

I'm not asking you to blow any covers here, but one of the weaknesses of the default ATC system has always been that essentially all airspace is treated as contrlled -- radar service is available everywhere and the like. In V5, does one get the "full class G experience" in that ATC service is only provided in controlled airspace either according to the FS defined airspace or some static airspace model like in V4?

Yes, I believe JD mentioned this has been implemented. Can anybody confirm this for me?

This is precisely what I've been wanting to know as well. I've been using X-Plane as well due to its in my opinion superior flight dynamics. What kind of feedback have your test pilots given as to the manual handling of the NGX?