Jump to content

FalconAF

Members
  • Content Count

    857
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

133 Excellent

About FalconAF

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

3,396 profile views
  1. Also double-check whatever virus/security scanning software you are using. Depending on how it is designed, a large change in your hardware may default the virus scanning software settings back to a "default" setting where your "Exclusions" for any P3D files/folders/drives may have been removed (I'm assuming you do exclude your P3D stuff from realtime virus scanning. If not, go do that now and see if it helps).
  2. Got it and it works great now. Thanks for your assistance. 😊
  3. OK, I'll resend using the "support" email address. Just be advised that when the pop-up box comes up after installing the program in X-Plane 11, it says to send it to you at "register". Also, I couldn't find an edit button to edit my post for you (I think the time expired for an edit). So I reported my original post instead and asked a moderator to edit it for me. Hope that works. EDIT: Oh heck...I only asked the moderator to fix one of the addresses in the post. I forgot there were several times I did it. I'll send them another request to clarify it. EDIT 2: Oh heck heck 😟 It won't let me report the same post more than once. I think you may need to report it now and ask a moderator to either fix all of them or maybe better yet just delete the whole darn thing. Sorry!!! 🤕
  4. I'm confused on getting a "license" file (?) for my RC4toXplane purchase from SimMarket yesterday. The instructions that came with the download were not clear on how to make everything work (sorry, but I'm a new X-Plane 11 user too, so am still learning that also). After much searching on the 'net, I discovered I needed to download an updated version of XPUIPC (2.0.5.9) to replace the 2.0.0.0 installed by the RC4toXplane installer. After doing that, I did get RC4.3 (which I have used with FSX and P3D for well over 10 years now) to provide accurate ATC for ONE flight. It seemed to be working great. But the next time I closed then re-opened X-Plane and tried to use the plugin for RC4, it gave me the (sic) "Your copy of RC4toX-Plane is unregistered" popup. I filled out the Registration.txt file in the plugins folder and sent it to the email shown in the popup... register(at)multicrewxp(dot)com (I included a cut/paste of my SimMarket invoice also just in case). I haven't heard anything back yet. My SimMarket invoice says for support I should contact support(at)multicrewxp(dot)com. There are several other internet "searches" I made while trying to get rc4toxplane to work that say to post in the MCE forum here at AVSIM. So.....it's confusing. 😀 1. Was my email request for the "license" file for RC4toxplane sent to the correct email address? register(at)multicrewxp(dot)com ? 2. Is there anything else I need to do now to get RC4toxplane to stop telling me to send you an email to get a "license" file now? Thanks for any assistance.
  5. It happens a lot here at KLAS in Las Vegas when the weather is clear (which is most of the time). Many of the STARs take the aircraft to an IAF for the Instrument approach procedure, but on initial contact with the approach controller they will receive "Expect visual approach.....". This does not relieve the pilot from still following the STAR and the initial instrument approach flight path (the approach controller did not say anything about "...expect vectors..."), but eventually the aircraft will be "...cleared visual approach runway 26 Left....", and then if the pilot goes "missed" later during the approach the Tower Controller will (actually, must) issue an "instruction" to follow, as the requirement to follow the missed approach procedure on the chart was voided after being cleared for the visual approach. I've never heard a Tower controller say something like, "Fly the published procedure (sic)…" in these circumstances. I'm not sure if that would even be a legal instruction anymore after being cleared for a "visual approach" that doesn't/wouldn't have a published missed approach procedure (anymore since being cleared for the visual). Have any real world pilots here ever been cleared for a visual approach and THEN been told to "fly the published procedure" when going missed? I would think ATC would have to vector you all the way if they wanted you to follow the published procedure route then.
  6. I agree 100%, Ray. Except... An OPINION is not a rational reason to accuse ANY developer of "conning" the consumer. You are accusing developers of being "conmen" based on YOUR own opinions. Which are not facts.
  7. Because if LM made ALL textures in the DEFAULT P3D 4K overnight, the users who are using 5-year old computers would scream bloody murder when THEIR computers ran like dogmeat then. There are plenty of addon developers who will (and already do) provide 4K texture addons for the core simulator. Heck, already many users of P3D who are still using old computers who realistically SHOULDN'T be using 4K textures buy those addons. It's their OWN fault when the core simulator "doesn't run right" then.
  8. Ray, with all due respect, anyone who has taken a course in Logic or Critical Thinking Decision Making would recognize the fallacy of your above statement/question. Just because YOU don't (or won't) "fly at night" in YOUR flight sim DOSEN'T mean the developer is "conning" anybody with the update. If the product DOES have a new P3Dv4 capability that DIDN'T exist in P3Dv3, then it IS a "real upgrade". You can't try to establish your OWN way you use the simulator as the "benchmark" for whether a new addon is an "upgrade" or not. For the sim users who DO use their sims to fly at night, the addition of Dynamic Lighting IS an accurate upgrade to the product. Nobody is being "conned" by the developer in your example above.
  9. Heck, that's been around since Telemarketing began on TV. "Buy our (grill that uses disposable bags...or our razor that needs replacement blades...or whatever we can sell you that you will need to buy replacement parts of it that wear out or you throw away) and we will send you FREE replacements for LIFE! Yes! FREE FREE FREE !!! (Just pay Shipping and Handling, which we hope you don't realize the shipping and handling cost we charge you is incredibly higher than OUR cost for the replacement parts and our ACTUAL cost to mail you the items to begin with). Consumers are gullible. Marketers have known that for a long, long time. You can get them to pay for just about ANYTHING as long as you tell them it's "Free" or "New and Improved", etc. I'm not surprised SOME (not all of course!) flight sim addon developers have taken the same marketing tactic. I'm waiting for one of them to try this... "Buy our airport for FS9 and we promise to give you FREE Upgrades for ANY future version of flight sims you may buy!!! Just pay our low (*cough* *cough*) Shipping and Handling Bandwidth costs for the download!!!" I'm positive many flight sim users who refuse to pay for an airport upgrade from say FSX to P3D would jump at that sales pitch. 😎 (For anyone who doesn't see the "satirical" part of this post, please don't respond to it) 😉
  10. I bought it. It's a good scenery. And I also own all the other Flightbeam sceneries and they are good. But for cryin' out loud...how long does it take a developer to start allowing their sceneries to be added to P3D OUTSIDE of the main P3D folder using the XML method? For Flightbeam to still INSIST that their airports MUST be installed inside the main P3D folder is really getting silly. And it's a bad reflection on how serious they are in making their products P3D "compliant" with the current Lockheed Martin XML installation method. C'mon Flightbeam. You took a major step getting your products dis-associated with the Couatl Addon Manager. Now get them so the customer can install them in P3D using the P3D recommended XML method.
  11. Your friend didn't have HIS hardware configured correctly. Period. The hardware and software is not set up properly in both previous posts/cases above. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If anybody is ever going to be visiting Las Vegas, if you want to, send me a PM and I'll be glad to bring you to my house and show you how to do it. No magic involved. But if ANYBODY is using a 40" or larger UHD 4K TV with a 1080 GPU (or better) and has unclear text or graphics while sitting even 3 feet away from it, they simply don't have the hardware configured correctly. And we WILL record the entire session with my GoPro video cameras so nobody can say ""He's lying". People are entitled to their own opinions. But not their own facts. Visiting a friend who doesn't know what they are doing and seeing the results of that are not "evidence" that the hardware won't perform correctly.
  12. Ray, nobody is disagreeing with "known facts". The disagreement is in the way you represent your "objective" information. You can't just say something like, "The downside of a large screen is you don’t get the sharpness a smaller display gives" or "but (I) accept others want the immersion of larger displays. But you do lose out on sharpness". Those kind of "blanket one size fits all" statements are just plain false. They are called "Erroneous Information" in an academic teaching environment. And they are misleading and a disservice to people asking questions like the one asked in this thread. A 65" UHD 4K capable TV doesn't even need to use an Anti-Aliasing setting in most cases to have a "sharp" display...text included. IF it and the software application being used is configured properly. I use only MSAA and Anisotropic with P3Dv4 on my Samsung 65" UHD 4K and there are no "jaggies" or "un-sharp text" ANYWHERE on the screen. And yes, you do need a "good" GPU to do it...but not even a 1080ti. I use a plain old GTX1080 without it being the "ti" version. I'm not trying to be "hostile" to anybody. I just abhor "Erroneous Information" in what should be an educational environment like a forum that offers "advice" for it's members who ask.
  13. Yes. And it seems some people don't understand how to make that technology work yet. Anyone saying that using a large(r) screen TV will give you "less clear" output simply doesn't know how to use it. I've been using a Samsung 65" UHD 4K Curved TV as my monitor for well over a year now. Using ONLY ONE nvidia 1080 GPU (not even a 1080ti) HDMI-cabled from the GPU to the TV with the resolution in P3D set to 4096 x 2160 and there isn't anything "blurry" in the display. No performance issues whatsoever using ORBX, PMDG, ActiveSky for P3Dv4, REX SkyForce for P3Dv4 (for textures), and a few other addons. No need to use a bunch of "tweaks" for any of it either. I sit in a recliner about 4 feet away from it. And my "sliders" in P3D are all set to at least "dense" or better. Yes...it can be done...if someone wants to learn how to do it. Please...PLEASE...if you DON'T know how to make a hardware system work, quit telling people it WON'T work. This forum should be an educational venue that passes on ACCURATE information for people looking for information.
  14. True. But if the user's previous driver wasn't acting "buggy" to begin with (which means any "bugs" in it weren't applicable to THEIR computer usage), would you STILL recommend they upgrade just because there was a new driver release? For none of the 4 REQUIRED reasons listed above? If I recommended (or did) that in my 40 years of IT experience/employment, my employer would have rightfully fired me for incompetence (or sent me to Leavenworth after a Courts Martial). Nobody needs to update drivers "just because there is a new one available". That recommendation never has been accurate. And it's what caused unknowledgable Windows users so much angst when Windows 10 included the "automatic update all drivers" fiasco. Microsoft included that "feature" simply because MOST home computer users don't use their computers for things like WE do in our flight sim community. But those same people could have ALWAYS just turned the individual driver updates OFF if they took the time to LEARN how to do it within the OS. The ability was always there to allow Windows itself to update, without automatically updating the GPU drivers. And there are STILL people posting in our forums who don't seem to know how to do that with Windows 10. They blame the Operating System for a fault, when it is really the user who hasn't learned how to use the OS properly for what they want it to do based on how they are using their own computer. If you are only running "games" or self-contained "apps made for Windows" on your computer, you can let Windows update all your drivers for you and you won't normally experience any problems. NOT so when you are doing the kinds of things we do with our flight sims, tons of complex interacting addons for them, and the plethora of different computer setups we use with our sims (stand alone, networked, etc). People need to learn when they really need to update their drivers...and when they don't...when using our "home" computers with the flight sim software WE use on them. And my apologies if anything I said upsets anybody. But if a flight sim user comes to a flight sim forum seeking "education", what they are told should be factual.
×
×
  • Create New...