tf51d

You're a little late to the party, if you look around you will see a number of long threads already posted on the subject!

Never mind, At first I thought you meant night lighting

If there is a lawsuit from a entity like Paramount pending, is it wise to direct link the video here? It could leave AVSIM vulnerable to legal action as well.

No RND provides random effects with ASN it's unnecessary as I prefer predicted turbulence based on actual weather conditions. I fly mostly in the cockpit so no real need for CR. Take a look at this video starting at the climb out at about 33:00. Notice the turbulence matches what's on the radar returns.

I find the most realistic settings to be max cloud and wind turbulence set to 100%, Wake turbulence set to no more then 20%, Make sure enhanced turbulence is unchecked. Turbulence effect scale set to default 70%. In EZDOK use DHM only Go into DHM mode, (right click on DHM button) A dialog box will pop up, Set the Main level knob to .25. (Lower left of dialog box)

This is a philosophy I totally disagree with. I always compare a new flightsim to what I currently have, not what it was like 10 years ago. If I am going to move to a new platform, I want to know that it's either an advancement to what I currently have, or at least that it has the capability to bring it up to that level or exceed it. This is why I haven't adopted X-Plane 10, because it still lacks major functionality that FSX does much better. Namely it's AI and ATC systems, as well as it's weather system. Why would I want something that is less than I currently have available to me. This is the same methodology I use anytime I move to a new FS version.

I know people want a completely new sim breaking all backward compatibility. Take a minute though to realize just what that means. New SDK with new tools which will require whole new learning curve for developers. While this sounds good, it will mean much longer development time for 3rd parties to get on board. Look at X-Plane for example.Look how long it is taking PMDG to adopt this platform, and then it's only their "sandbox" model (DC-6) to get their feet wet on the platform. It will probably be more then another year or 2 before they produce a NGX or T7 for X-Plane. Meanwhile it didn't take them long at all to tool up for P3D, which came later and we already have the NGX and T7 for it. So I for one think it is ultimately not in this communities best interest to make a clean break for the FSX/ESP structure. I think we would be better off with a 64bit sim based on the FSX/ESP structure, with DX11 graphic advancements and performance improvements using simconnect, maybe updated to increase functionality, , to make it easier for developers to develop for it. This will speedup product introduction into the market, which will help both 3rd party developers bottom line as well as DTG's, and keep this market viable. One of the big reasons MS Flight failed was the lack of DLC available for it, and no way to fill the gap. I fear if it takes a prolonged time to introduce addons of the standard we are accustomed too, the same could happen with DFS. I could understand if they were moving to a newer more advanced engine, but as long as it's still will be based on the FSX/ESP engine, I think reinventing the wheel here will turn out to be a mistake!

Make sure the following lines are in your exe.xml file under your userid\appdata\roaming\microsoft\fsx folder (userid=your actual user id for windows) <Launch.Addon> <Name>EZdok camera addon</Name> <Disabled>False</Disabled> <ManualLoad>False</ManualLoad> <Path>C:\Program Files\EZCA\EZCA.exe</Path> </Launch.Addon> (Path is where EZCA is installed)

I getting tired of reading things like this, and it's this negativity that will kill this hobby! I can't count the number of negative posts I've read on these forums poo pooing DFS and that's before the sim even exists. The fact is there is no evidence of any of this. Most addons for P3D originate from an FSX release not the other way around. How long FSX stays around now depends how well DTG's DFS is received. If it meets or exceeds expectations the transition may be quick, if it doesn't it will be slower and addons will continue to be produced for FSX for a longer period. Time will tell. For now both FSX and P3D will be supported about the same. Edit: While I stand by my statement, I just noticed this was your first post here, and my anger on this subject is not meant to be directly at you, so I apologize for that and welcome you to AVSIM!!

The only way you will see this, is if they can get AI to work with contoured taxiways/runways. To date neither MS/Aces, LM or DTG (FSX-SE) has been able to do that with the FSX/ESP engine...and before anybody throws in MS Flight was able to do it, Flight did not have an AI system to worry about. Without AI both FSX, FSXSE and P3D are all capable of this as well. So I wouldn't hold my breath on this one. Though DTG does appear to have some talented developers on their staff, most notable the VAS management improvements, they were able to do with FSXSE, so I wouldn't completely rule it out.

For default ATC, if you are not using FSEditVoicepack (Which I would also suggest) In the aircraft.cfg file in the General section is a field "atc_model" which is set to B77L . Change that to B772, then ATC will recognize it as a 777-200. Tom Cain

Absolutely at this stage of development, whatever features DTG implemented has most likely already been decided on, and won't change now if they want to keep on their schedule.

...and how many of airline disaster movies use real airline names, unless it's about a historical event? Then continuing to harp on it, when DTG clearly would know about the request, is sort of like beating a dead horse.

No they don't use the 200LR however there are UNITED (Fictional) liveries available for the 200LR, also American. PMDG did provide some fictional airlines liveries for the T7 if they were using other variants of the T7 like the 200ER. Tom Cain

FS never had accurate damage modelling for a reason, If they wanted to model real world aircraft or airlines, they had to dumb down the damage modeling. Boeing or Airbus doesn't want to see a representation of their aircraft, being destroyed, or blown up, even in a sim. Especially after 9/11. Also remember PMDG needs Boeing's license to publish their model as other developers may need other manufacturers license. If DTG goes ahead and adds damage modeling that people here seem to want, These developers may not be able to offer their products on DFS. I don't think anyone here wants that, so I'm ok with what we have now in this regard. Also it's a little late in the game to be requesting new features, the time for that was last year, when DTG had a "What do you want to see in a new flightsim" thread on their FSXSE forum on Steam.

PMDG Setup - Equipment - bottom of page 5 (Packages) If it's not there, then either you have the wrong version installed or you have a bad install. Tom Cain

It already is, make sure you have the latest version (Early Jan 16) Turn it on in the equipent options on the FMC Two options mid and aft. Tom Cain

That brings back memories! I had just about every title mentioned over the years. It really shows how far we've come over the years.

The weather themes in the sim do not use ASN and therefore the WXR in the NGX will not work. You can set weather manually or load a previous weather file within ASN that will work.

The differences here are that the Win 10 upgrade is free, and so far, the reviews for Win 10 have been mostly positive, so I think the migration to Win 10 will be faster than it was to win7 or 8 from WinXP/Vista.

I think the issue is more the ground lighting is a bit too dark in the DFSL shot, but this is only a promo shot, so it's hard to determine if that's how it really looks in sim. Remember the famous FSX promo shot?

Comparing to the Google Earth photo, None look like what is really there, the closest would be the FSX shot, since it has the least trees. As for the sky, DFSL (Flight School), P3D, and FSX all appear to be set to the same time of day and have different tones though similar in brightness. MS Flight shot however appears to either have different weather set (Cloudy or foggy) or it is the darkest most unrealistic clear daylight shot I've seen in a sim.

Hopefully DTG will design DFS in such a way that they can upgrade to DX12 easily when Windows 10 becomes more widely used, to a point that the risk of loss of sales base is minimal.

DFS, or DFSchool are not going to be DX12, they will be DX11 Apps.

In addition lights are flashing off as you get close to them. I don't think this happens with FTX lights at least in FSX, don't know about P3D.