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.

Yep. The fog mostly performs as it does in Real Life.Consider this - common in Sydney by the way - within fog, the visibility is about 300m, but the fog layer is barely 100m thick. At 100m altitude, the airport is probably still a km to two away, so you won't see it at all. Above the fog layer the ground looks at little blurred, but easy to see. Entering the fog is a now-you-see-it, now-you-don't experience.

PM me please.I am asuming isn't Okino or Pandasoft; both legit! aaaand there's the gold right there. Read it and weep, doubters!

Looks like you got a mesh.What was the format, out of interest?Any part names, animations?

Fallout 3 is a LIVE game.It has been modded to there and back again.I'm just saying... it's not impossible, it's not 'banned'.

That sounds like the mob I was mucking around with a few nights back. Chatting, playing follow-my-six, seeing who could do the most outrageous landing... there was a real community thing happening - even basic ATC after we realised our planes are solid. I was the first to find out that if another plane is on the runway when you land... CRASH! What was really cool was you could still fly missions & aerocaches while still in multiplayer, FSX didn't have that capability. Setting up multiplayer in FSX meant setting it up through forums, you couldn't just open or join a free session.AI - who needs it when there are real people. ATC - we just started doing it ourselves, the same as real pilots at GA uncontrolled fields; you would just call out if you were on final to what runway and someone would say 'not clear' if they were still there (this was at night, during day you can see clearly)I leave a hosted session running the whole time now, just seeing who turns up is fun!

This is, unfortunately the same as services like Steam, and is the main drawback for cloud or download based gaming.A solution would be to have 'profiles' within the one account I suppose.

I have been flying with my session as public, and I haven't seen any transfers that big.I usually have 3-4 people in my sessions, data rate seems to be about 19kbps max according to the network logger I use.The flight download itself was 1.4gb I think, Hawaii pack was 450mb

Speaking from experience - Acer monitors suck at colour management. I have an Acer 22" monitor that I don't bother using for anything other than email and a web browser - I use my main Samsung 26" for anything I want to look right.Color matching & management is seemingly simple but in practice annoyingly complex task.Find the Colour Management icon in control panel and set all of your monitors to use sRGB IEC61966-2.1. You will need to do this numerous times, and as Administrator.Then make sure your monitors are set to use things like a Neutral colour mode (not 'Warm' or 'Cool'), disable any 'Automatic' or 'Magiccolor' or 'U-beaut-o-rama-my-iColors' mode, set gamma to 2.2, set contrast and brightness to 100%, set any individual RGB color modifications to neutral.Only then start mucking around with gamma or brightness in software.Get the hardware right first, then alter gamma / brightness to your liking in game.If you have a CRT you are on your own...

Great to see that you praised them for the great things about Flight first - that's always the best way to approach criticism.Why not try sending it directly to Microsoft? Posting it in a forum is not the best way of getting them to read it.There is a 'Feedback' button in GFWL and I think in Flight (I don't have it in front of me) - which I have already made use of a few times now, usually just to say 'Great! Thanks!' little things like that really make a big difference.

Nope, I still don't understand that rationale.If Hawaii is considered expensive, how could one afford FSX Gold itself? It is still available, and costs $70 or so.YES, I can hear you: it "comes with the whole world", except you need to buy ORBX if you really want to enjoy Australia, you need to buy Global FX if you want the whole world in any great detail, you need to be REX if you want your clouds to look any good and not be a slideshow, you needed to wait 3 years for GFX cards powerful enough to run it without getting a mortgage on your house, you need to buy TrafficX or similar to get any decent AI that isn't a slideshow, and good luck landing in Nepal, Tibet, Bhutan or Antarctica - so, NO, you can't "fly anywhere" can you? If you're anything like me, blam, there goes $2,000So what about the fabled ACES-produced FS11 made from pure unicorn fur? Was it going to be free? Would it have been 100% backward compatible with the limited, occasionally flawed datasets from legacy products? Would you need to buy all your add-ons again?Answers to the above: doesn't exist; no; hopefully they weren't planning that; most definitely yes.So you would need to spend... what you will probably spend on MS Flight.And you will enjoy every minute of it!