corinoco

I'm having the same issue with the same driver, W8x64 install. I think these drivers might not be so good.

Go to orbs website, find FAQ on their forums, read post about uninstalling ORBX scenery. Maybe 15 seconds in Google, but how long did it take to type a rant? The uninstall process... 1. Run FTXcentral, set scenery to default. 2. Go to FSX/ORBX, delete desired scenery folders. 3. Go to FSX/ORBX/scripts, delete desired .cfg files 4. Go to FSX/scenery/world/scenery, delete ftx* files Done. Time to uninstall, about 2 mins. Amazing what a couple of minutes research will save you.

Remember a few months back when Flight was released, and it seemed like 15% of the Internet came here to whine about how Flight didn't let them fly 757 cargo flights between Schipol & Frankfurt at 2am in heavy cloud on autopilot, while simulating in excruciating detail the steps to turn the cabin heater on? I hope you're all real happy now. Real happy. No more flight sims. That's it, game over. Back to 12fps in FSX I guess, I can't afford a whole new PC just to get 25fps!

http://coandaaero.wordpress.com/ I just wrote a long analysis of the press release on this page, then deleted it as it was probably a little bit over the top. Suffice to say I have some doubts as to the claims made in the press release, particular with regards to the rather ... wide ... variety of platforms proposed for support. Anyone else seen it / read it / understood parts of it / heavily invested real money in it? For some opinions similar to my own, read the comments section of this: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/06/the-flare-path-flustered-by-flux/#more-102882

Looking Glass' "Flight Unlimited", back in 1995 was the only reputedly the only sim ever to use proper fluid dynamics to model aircraft behaviour. The proof was considered to be the ability to correctly perform a 'lomcevak' or 'torque roll' in Flight Unlimited - something impossible in any sim since then (please correct me if I'm wrong, but you have never been able to do one in any version of FS, nor is it possible in Flight.). They could be performed in Flight Unlimited by following the standard method for entering one - hard pitch up to 45, full left aileron & rudder (for clockwise prop) and throttle suddenly pushed hard open. IRRC it is gyroscopic procession of the engine's torque that pulls the aircraft into the pitch roll. Lomcevaks in real life are very distinctive - for a start it just looks WRONG - the plane rolling around it's pitch axis (ie, the axis of the wings) and if it is trailing smoke the smoke appears to 'pool' in the stalled air under the wing and is emitted straight 'down' from the aircraft - see this video - The Lomcevak is so far from a stable flight condition that it would be simply unthinkable to bother modelling in any sim, even a professional one. For a start it is impossible to perform in a jet or twin, and probably impossible for a glider (probably - though gliders can do all kinds of freaky stuff at times). Xplane might use BET http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_element_theory for props, but BET won't give you everything. I suspect that if you really did use 'on-the-fly' CFD you wouldn't get much frame-rate, even with modern PCs. Flight Unlimited was 'hardcoded' to model about 4 aircraft, and was 'spaghetti code' assembler, which is why it has never been seen since. Look-up tables make good sense for the most part, and can be implemented as algorithms rather than 'tables' as such.

I think (IANAP) the pitch-for-airspeed / power-for-glideslope thing is an anti-stall measure. As someone said, pitch is a quicker response than power, so a quick response to airspeed is what you want when IFR.IRRC, power-for-glideslope is also the theory used for jet landings. I can recall the power-for-airspeed teaches from waaaaay back in the manual for FS2 on the C64 (apart from RC gliders, thats how I learned to fly), but power doesn't give you an immediate response; if you're on the edge of stall adding power will simply make for a noisier impact with the ground! You MUST learn to ignore the instinct to pull up in a stall - even the pros (Air France in the Atlantic...) have the instinct to pull the nose up when near a stall - you MUST push the nose down - reduce AoA at all costs, the only way to have a chance is to NOT stall the wings.ah, 100 posts. After nearly EIGHT years I'm not considered a 'newbie' anymore.

Flying in fog or cloud in Flight is really well modelled - it is very disorientating. I find I cope by zooming the cockpit view so that the primary instruments almost fill my view, and I look up only occasionally, say once every 30 seconds for a quick glance to see if runway lights are visible for instance.Your instrument scan technique is vital... google "instrument scan practice" for some helpful sites. The basics centre around the Attitude Indicator and go something like AI-altitude-AI-airspeed-AI-RoC-AI-heading-AI-bank/yaw-AI-engine-AI-... at a rate of once a second.You need to know what numbers or attitude you expect to see at all times, and what to do if the numbers don't add up.E.g. plane is level, but altitude is not right, airspeed is decreasing, RoC is descending - check throttle is OK? then check oil pressure is OK? then check engine temp is OK? No? CARB HEAT ON! (carburetor or air filter is icing up). If engine temp was OK, the next thing would be wing icing, turn on wing de-ice, etc. While doing all that, increase revs, look to gain airspeed & altitude. That whole sequence of checking and implementing solution should take less than 4 seconds or so - remember what the previous post said about lifespan of an untrained pilot? Decreasing airspeed & lift due to ice - you'll have about 8-10 seconds before stall in a light plane. Ice builds up very quickly in cloud... it's a lot to juggle at once, and is why any pilot needs practice, practice, practice.Also try to avoid flying into clouds-with-rocks-in-them.

Me. So there is one. There may be more out there.Heck I even spend most of my time in FSX out-of-cockpit. Seriously - why even bother with an external model if you don't look at it?Of course, the True Hard-Core Maxtreme Simmers only ever fly between Schipol & Frankfurt in cargo B737s, at night, in cloud, so I guess all you ever need is the cockpit and an autopilot on/off switch. :Big Grin:

Just you wait to see what I'm building for FSX, and Flight once the SDK is out.Hint: It looks like this.That's the one I made for FS2004, at long last I am upgrading it to FSX & Flight (one the SDK goes public)Incidentally, this would be a great plane for Flight missions - seats 5, has transcontinental range, FL21 cruise @250kts IAS

Well, technically this app is using disassembly techniques to read memory of another running program, and although I don't have the EULA in front of me, I would put good money on that being in breach of Flight's EULA.Mind you - Dammit, Jim, I'm an architect, not a lawyer!Personally I can't see the difference between this and the picking apart of Flight's data files and aircraft formats (which appear to be compiled with a $16,000 piece of software :shok: - not gMax any more!) - and that thread got slapped before we had a consensus on what the format was.Might have had something to do with some rather rash alteration of said data files, though.Screen shots are one thing - you're not reading memory, you're reading the screen buffer. Different thing - write back to the screen buffer and you'll get a mess, write back to an active program and you get mods. If you can read it you can write it - that's what the previous thread proved.Until there is an SDK I think it's prudent to play it cool on apps that skirt legality like this.

Since everyone is playing Guess That Aircraft...Lockheed Electra 10!It seems the British Electras had very large spinners - covering a prop pitch mechanism, and possibly to keep engine warmer for cold climate ops?

The Great Ozzie gave a good description of the use of negative or 'reflex' flap settings.The WIki & FAA describe what I used to term 'de-loading' on the wing - wings are designed to work at a certain wing loading - weight / area, and overloading can cause all sorts of ill effects. Overloading doesn't necessarily mean actual mass on the aircraft; it can also mean airspeed and g-forces applied to the wing. Using negative flaps can reduce 'apparent' wing loading by disrupting the lift produced by the wing without increasing drag. You won't be able to take-off in an overloaded state, but you can avoid a condition known as high-speed or high-g stall, which occurs when airflow detaches from the wing even though you are way above stall speed. Most modern fighters have fly-by-wire systems that automatically adjust wing camber to the same result.I used to use it a lot for hand-launch RC gliders - I would put -5% reflex in the flaperons (combination flaps / ailerons) for launch when I wanted the glider to follow a ballistic path with minimal drag, and also to not pitch up due to speed above the 'cruise' airspeed of the glider. This meant I could launch without having to try to control the elevator (and hence the pitch) and could thus throw much harder. When the glider's speed dropped at the top of it's arc, I would switch the flaps back to 0% as the glider reached cruise speed.

Tag: corinoco

Worse.JELLYBABIES

Are they? I have done every one in the air so far. Sometimes it means getting a little close to the ground, but I haven't crashed getting one.The only one that gave me trouble was Barking Sands - I had to land, and taxi up to the hangar - at which point I caught a wing and got stuck with no reverse pitch, and without the ability to push your plane back.It would be nice if your avatar could push a plane - most GA aircraft are at least movable by one person with the brakes off.