tf51d

I echo this, FSX-SE would solve most of any VAS issues the OP has, most addons are compatible, although manual installation of DLL's in the dll.xml or external apps into the exe.xml file maybe necessary if it doesn't have it's own FSX-SE installer.

It doesn't sound like the problem was ATC, You yourself stated you should have just armed your localizer. From what you state it looks like ATC vectored you correctly to intercept the ILS, At that point you should arm your localizer (LOC), only when you capture the LOC should you arm your APPR. It looks to me, you armed the APPR before capturing the Localizer. (Note with default or less complex aircraft, you maybe able to (incorrectly) get aw3ay with this. With more complex aircraft though that model more realistic systems, you will not. Some models like PMDG gives the user the option to capture Appr before LOC, (In Options) ) When that happens you can lose both lateral and vertical guidance, which is what appeared what happened here.. Default ATC really gets a bad rap, it actually does a pretty good job, once you realize what it's trying to do, but it does have a problem, that gives the impression it's wildly vectoring you. What it's doing when an approach is assigned is plotting a flight path usually parallel to the runway assigned at about 23-27 miles out it will turn you base then a final vector to intercept the ILS or runway if visual approach.The problem is it doesn't take wind or the environment in consideration when it does this, so as the wind moves our plane further away off the virtual flight path it set, usually at about 4nm, it will vector you back on to it, this usually happens about 2 or 3 times on an approach, giving the impression that's vectoring S turns for no reason, where all it's trying to do is get you back on course it set.

The new video which is a landing lesson demo looks like it is now available to public now. Here it is. Looks like some texture creep, could be VSYNC problem.

That's not landclass data, things like railway lines or roadways are vectored data, like we get with addons like UTX or FTX Vector. Landclass is to match the appropriate textures and autogen to the type of areas. For example an industrial area would have factory buildings, less flora etc. A suburban residential area would place houses, trees, grass textures, urban, bigger buildings,, etc...

My only issue with XP lighting is that taxiway lights are too visible from the air, other than that I agree XP Lighting is superb!!

I'm waiting for a fiery red sunrise/sunset , something that I have yet to see done in any sim!!

Looks like these airports may be getting the Orbx touch!!

Actually the price is rather high and is higher then the current price of the PMDG NGX, considering you are only getting a minimal pilot handbook (Their words) an interface guide and a few tutorials. Although the aircraft itself, may or may not be at the same or higher level as the NGX (Time will tell once released), the NGX included the entire FCOM manuals an intro guide, 2 full tutorials, the FCTM and the QRH.

Not going to do much about it with Flight School, it is what it is, some will like it, some will not. When DFS comes along though I'm sure our friends at REX and Hi-Fi will be there to give us more choices.

I was watching a stream of the Khansin Mustang last night, and it looked pretty good, Having flown the real Mustang though, I thought the roll rate was a little high. To be fair, I also thought the A2A's were as well. Here's a sample of the real one

Here's something to wet your whistle while your waiting! This is what it's like to fly the real thing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vapvp_YvSc&list=PL04EF86731F7D9519&index=1

Check the following value atc_model= in the aircraft.cfg file, for ATC to recognize it as a 777 it needs to be set to B772. I think PMDG uses B77L which FSX ATC doesn't recognize. Tom Cain

The CS757 is not as buggy as you think, take for instance the claim The CS757 doesn't calculate a TOD. Everyone assumes the FMC should do this for you as most modern airliner FMC's do. You have to remember though CS models their planes on the original variants first produced. The 757/767 had the 1st generation of FMCs as they were the first airliners to have them. Back then in the early 80's the FMC wasn't as automated as it is now, and you had to help it to calculate a TOD. You do this by one selecting a runway transition if one is in the NAV database, or setting your approach altitude on your FAF waypoint, or final constraint. Then it has the information it need to calculate the TOD. It's the same procedure still used on the Q400, and works very well with the CS757, as you can see in the video I posted.

The highmemfix=1 fix, depends on whether you have FSX-MS or FSX-SE, If it's FSX-MS it is definitely needed DX9 or DX10, if you use FSX-SE though, it's now built into the base code, so that line is no longer needed. Generally FSX-SE also performs better in DX10 then it does in FSX-MS.

My vote is for the CS757, although not PMDG quality (Not much is ) it has more system depth then the QW757, and I think it tracks VNAV constraints and predictive altitudes better, especially on ascent, Both does well on descent though. Don't take my word for it though, here's a comparison using the same flightplans KLAX to KSFO. See how the CS757, stays close to the altitude predictions in the FMC, where the QW757 is way off. CS 757 QW757

Well it's sure to be released before that then

New LNAV/VNAV video just posted.

Actually that may have been different, had DTG also obtained the code for Microsoft Train Simulator 2 when they got FSX. MSTS2 which was based on the FSX engine also, was to be a global train sim. It would include a base set of trackage (which was said to be derived from pretty accurate data) for whole continents filled in with autogen scenery. You would be able to replace/enhance scenery, the same way as we do with FSX (freeware or payware) with more detail and accuracy and keep continuity. This would allow the user for the first time in a train sim to run the train cross countries. Ultimately Aces plan was to tie it in to FSX at least in multiplayer mode so users can choose to fly or ride in the same session.. It was looking really good, unfortunately when MS pulled the plug on Aces that was it. I think it could have been a superior sim to the DTG's TS20xx series, had they completed it.

If he doesn't use Steve's DX10 Fixer, he would and and should go back to DX9. FSX with DX10 is nothing without it!! It's an absolute necessity to run FSX in DX10.

They're also breaking the pattern of the way the movie is titled. If they followed pattern this movie wold be called "Star Wars Rogue One Episode VIII" instead of "Rogue One A Star Wars story"! Not sure that's a great idea.

Where did this come from? The original press release, clearly stated both Flight School and Flight Simulator was based off of FSX

To your points, one this product is targeted at newbee gamers that may be interested in trying a to get into flight simming, but the complexity of a full featured sim like FSX/P3D intimidates them from trying it. MS most certainly made a much bigger mistake with Microsoft Flight. This had the same goal, but they really thought they could nickel and dime us by reducing the world to Hawaii and a couple of planes with no AI or ATC. then selling us addons, Problem was they tried to develop the addons themselves and couldn't keep up, ending up with Alaska the only scenery expansion, and a few more aircraft models, most without cockpits. This is the big difference in where DTG will succeed where MS failed. Flight School while being a closed sim, is meant to entice new simmers, as a jumping point t get into Flight simming as a whole and move onto the more feature rich DFS available later this year, which may appear to a new simmer to be just as intimidating to a newbee that FSX, XP, or P3D is to them today. It intself will have most of the default capabilities FSX already has,like whole world coverage, ATC and AI, but present it in a simpler form. The hope is that as they become more familiar with flying they will want to jump over to DFS to expand their experiences If DFS is released on schedule or close to it, They just might succeed and in the process, give them a cash flow, that will go to completing DFS. I think the price point they set is right on point on what the market will support for something like this. Remember DTG will succeed or fail, on volume, so it is imperative they expand the user base to what flight sims attract today. Time will tell if it works, but I think this is the best approach they could take.

For Flight School As for A , since no addons will be supported, probably will not be needed. I'm sure there will be some kind of interface for addons/plugins when DFS is release later this year. (We need an acronym for Flight School, since we can't use DFS, may I suggest DFSL?)

While there is no official video with in game footage, there is this, which seems to show they are using the FSX style mission system for the lessons.

You'd be wrong about that, in fact it was one of the first things they did. They did it by flushing the terrain cache and releasing it's address space back to the sim, this left space for the new scenery when you reach your destination to load with room to spare. FSX Box held on to it so when you reached your destination there often wasn't enough available address space to load the new scenery resulting in an OOM? This also occurred with P3D prior to V3.0. LM didn't implement any form of VAS management until then. For example on my system in FSXSE and the NGX or T7 I could fly most anywhere in the world no matter what length I've flown 14 hour flights. and have 500MB or more VAS left available with no pinging at anytime from FSUIPC. With FSX-Box I couldn't get close. The only exception I found was flying to New York or London Heathrow. I could still make it but it was much closer with pings from FSUIPC. This is with 2048 texture res, Extremely dense Scenery, and autogen, and WOAI traffic. Doesn't sound too impressive, until you take into account I'm running a pretty old system, still on Win Vista 32bit. with it's 3GB VAS limit. So that gives me an effective VAS usage of 2.5GB, in FSXSE itself. The only reason I brought this up, was because the reviewer chose to make comparison to FSX. I just wanted to point out that FSX-Box and FSX-SE really do have some significant differences internally due to the improvements DTG put into FSX-SE, visually though they are pretty much the same. Here's the bullet point from the original release notes of FSXSE "Fix to flush all levels of detail in terrain cache."