Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About NM5K

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,287 profile views
  1. Southwest seems to use at least two different types, but I forgot the model number of the one they use on the classics, and some of the older NG's. The new jets use the HGS 4000 I think, and has the same oval combiner as the NGX. The older type has kind of a "coffin" shape combiner with cut corners. It might have been the HGS 3500 ?? or something like that, but I forgot.. Been a while since I looked it up..
  2. The HGS mimics the PFD for the most part. The different modes just change the various extra features a bit. But you will notice the layout is the same as the PFD for the most part.
  3. Thus my whining... But I've been cheap and haven't tried any other ATC programs. I've never flown anything in the real world. But I can tell by the usual tracks to the various airports that what the RW does, and what FSX does are usually quite different. To me, if FSX ATC would only stick with the STAR I give it, and wait until the appx normal point to start vectoring to the final approach course, it would be fine. Or good enough for gov work.. But it throws the STAR I give it totally out the window. In the past I had thought that Radar Contact was supposed to be the best ATC program, but I'm not up on the various 3rd party ATC programs that have come out. Like Frank says, I just adapt.. Most of the time I stay in contact, and just do what they want. But sometimes I'll pretty much ditch ATC if I want to fly a STAR and approach by the book.
  4. But the problem is not the file, it's the way FSX handles the STAR and approach. But I'm talking about using a constant flight plan, and constant ATC contact. Sure, I could probably ditch ATC before the descent, and just call the airport when I'm on final, but to me that's a worse compromise than having to use a goofy path to the airport. Unless I'm missing something here anyway.. The plan, etc is good.. It's just FSX wants to ignore the by the book path, and do it's own thing. One example is the way FSX will route you to 13R at Dallas Love when coming in from the south.. "Houston". From what I see, most tend to take the by the book STAR which most will take you east of Love Field, and you don't have to fly halfway to Wichita Falls before getting routed back to the ILS. In FSX, it always takes you waaaayy out west of Love, even west of DFW, and then makes you dart across the north side of DFW to catch the ILS to 13R. It's silly.. But I live with it... I wish I could get it to fly the STAR and ILS by the book.
  5. > I do not fly PMDG so do not know if the FMS will save a plan in FSX format. edit.. actually, the FMC does not make any "flights" for FSX. You either have to use FSX itself, which is pretty lame, or an outside program such as Simbrief. Used to use Simroutes for a long time, but it got unreliable lately, and Simbrief is a lot better. Simbrief can spit out the PMDG co route files also in addition to the FSX flight. unedit.. Sorta, but there is no real way to use SIDS/STARS. But you can make one with other programs such as Simbrief no problem. So my FSX flights exactly match what's in the FMC, including the SID/STAR. It's just that FSX seems to have issues letting you fly say a STAR to an ILS approach by the book, unlike the SID which it handles just fine. Once you get the runway to be used from center at or around TOD, they are steering you around at that point, or will begin to, and the by the book STAR to the approach goes out the window.
  6. I use the default ATC with the flights made at Simbrief. The approach is the only weak spot.. Departure works great, and you could fly LNAV/VNAV from 400 AGL all the way out if you want to. ATC won't squawk a bit. But I've never been able to really get the approach to do the usual real world paths. No matter what you do, it wants to vector you around town to the runway. Often on a path totally different and farther than the usual real world path. I just live with it. Actually, I really don't care that much, as I think it's good practice being ordered around, and do whatever they want me to. Whatever they want, I'll do... lol I run ATC the whole way, clearance delivery to ground after landing.. The only exception is if I want to fly a FMC path to the runway.. In that case, I don't even bother with ATC, as it can't cope and will have a hissy fit. :(
  7. As far as the stutters, sometimes having the internal limiter can make those worse on the newer i7's. Some i5's too.. In know with the i7 4790 that I'm using, if I run the limiter at 30-35-40, for some reason it seems to choke the sim down more than it really should, and seems to not let it use all the horsepower that it could in dense areas. In really dense areas, I get higher rates and less stuttering using "unlimited" vs a locked rate. This is backwards from what my previous AMD box did... It ran better with it locked. But not my i7.. And it seems the more dense the scenery, the more difference it makes. I'm also using FTX Global and Vector with the scenery and autogen at max. Also ASN.. Now version 4 as of tonight.. So my WX can be a load too at times. Most areas,cities, no real problem. But some of the dense city areas can load it down a bit. IE: KLAX is one.. Most of the load is confirmed FTX vector object load.. And I'm not making it easy running scenery and autogen at max.. I also have Vector itself set showing all objects. But I live with it.. Most of the time, by the time I get to the runway, it's OK. Anyway, I do better in those dense areas with unlimited instead of a locked frame rate. Might be worth a try with yours, if you haven't tried it. BTW, I just remembered you are on P3D.. I'm on FSX.. So likely different.. But worth a try anyway I guess..
  8. I notice a bit of that at night, but slightly different. More horizontal, and not really a cross hatch in my case. I thought it was a quirk with my cheap video... In my case, it seems to be related to the night panel lighting.. Sorta.. I haven't seen Kyles explanation.. Mine is kinda like a banding, and it moves and changes so to speak if I move my view. I don't notice it at all in the day, and not really that much at dusk/dawn due to the extra normal lighting I suppose.
  9. I know the 800, and maybe the 900 to some extent, are more slippery than the 700 and 600. Or at least as far as the PMDG sim.. I fly the 700 the most, and it seems normal to me. And if I switch to the 800, I do notice I have to plan for a little extra slipperyness in comparison. But the real worlders generally say the same thing when comparing the 700 and 800. The 600 is the least slippery of all, and is easy to get slowed down. I'm sure part of that is the lack of winglets.. I've never tried any of the longer model non winglet versions. To me, the 600 feels like a 500 with a glass cockpit.
  10. Pretty much default for KHOU, and actually most of the airports I go to. I am using a minor freeware HOU scenery, but it is mainly to set the gates, and I think resolves a taxi-runway hang. But visually not too much different than stock. I had another HOU scenery that had photo textures, but didn't really like the way it stuck out from the regular textures and don't use it. I'm using FTX Global and Vector as far as the overall scenery. Yep, a good number of the early flights start down south at CRP or HRL. But they juggle things around so often, it's hard to know for sure. IE: SWA 8 used to start down there. I think HRL at one point, then HOU, DAL, LIT. I actually flew on that flight once in the real world from HOU-DAL-LIT. But at the moment, SWA 8 is MSY, HOU, DAL, SAT, and ends at ELP. Seems a few weeks ago SWA 8 was starting off in the east, like Atlanta or wherever, and then to HOU. Many flights go through KDAL, so that's one reason why I go to Dallas so often. I think almost every real world SWA flight I've been on went through Love Field as a stop.. I once flew on a 200 from LIT to DAL to HOU.. That was SWA 73, and probably in the mid 80's or so.. I don't really fly the east coast all that much for some reason. But have been doing the west coast some the past few months.. I always fly the real world flights, which I pluck from Flightaware. But I rarely have enough time to do a whole days sked with the turns.
  11. I do quite a few of the SWA routes. I've done HOU to DAL so many times I could be asleep and still make it to the airport. And DAL to HOU nearly as many times. HOU to MSY... HOU to LIT... HOU to OKC... HOU to TUL... HOU to MCI... HOU to SAT... HOU to AUS... HOU to BNA... Hummm... I think this could go on for another week.. :Shame On You: And I've been doing a good number out west these days too. And a few international.. I did SWA 943 KHOU to MMMX last night.. I do HOU to HOT in the pseudo BBJ every once in a while.
  12. I think it's just what one is used to. I don't fly the sim at 1.0 for much the same reason as Diana. And I also like to see a tad wider VC view, more of what I would expect with my normal peripheral vision. Say from judging as how my panel and dash look in my car. I can see from one side to the other without moving my head. With a 737, I sort of expect to be able to see about half the width of the panel, just guessing.. So with the wideview set in the cfg, I usually run in the 60-70 range as far as the normal view. And same with the other planes. I have no trouble at all judging speed or height, because I'm used to it. Actually, I don't think it would have any real effect for me one way or the other.. :| The outside view may well be more accurate with 1.0, but I don't like such a restricted view area in the VC. It's almost like I have my head about a 7 inches in front of the glareshield. Or to me anyway.. The tradeoff is my runways will look a bit more narrow vs real world view. But I still have no trouble lining up, so... There we are.
  13. His video was a Paro tutorial for FSX, but his comment about the gear was about real world. He was using a 737 for his demo. I'd have to go back and watch again just to make sure that's what he said.. I tried landing the 800 there just as a challange, which I managed to pull off, and the extra drag from the gear sure helped with that plane and it's higher speeds. The lower speeds with the 600 make it a good bit easier. But even with the 800, I didn't drop gear until alongside the mountain, heading for the gorge. Of course, the 700 was used by Boeing for their demos.
  14. As far as the bank angle, I got that from a guy that did a video for Paro. He claimed that the 319 could'nt use it's max bank angle for the descending turn unless the plane was in landing config with gear down. Being I don't fly the artificial Airbii, myself, I wouldn't have a clue if that is true or not.
  15. I've seen one maybe 2-3 times in FSX. I saw a real good one a couple of years ago. I was flying almost due north, I think over north Texas, or maybe southern Oklahoma. Was a long one that streaked across I think from west to east if I remember right. It was up near the top of the glass below where the combiner is, so pretty much right in my view. The others were so quick as to mostly see them out of the corner of my eyeballs.. I've seen the aurora at least once. Not sure what triggers that in FSX.. IE: I don't think real weather includes solar flare and storm data.. :Shame On You:
  • Create New...