Jump to content

thetford569

Members
  • Content Count

    171
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Neutral

About thetford569

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

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

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Your point brings up the same thing that I thought about but forgot to add above: Support for a pen device that you could write notes on your VR kneeboard. Seems like something that would be easy to implement. Obviously it would require the purchase of a pen device but having the ability to write notes in VR would solve that problem. Brandon
  2. Good performance and good graphics without shimmering or jaggies. All cockpit items and instruments clearly readable. A virtual kneeboard to hold charts/checklists/other documents that is easily customizeable - support of pdf, doc, etc - can be turned on/off with a single keypress Ability to bring other windows in and pin them anywhere in your VR view. I'm mainly talking about a web browser view in order to view charts from skyvector and approach charts/airport diagrams from AirNav.com - I use this every flight and it would be a paint to have to take the headset off to read my charts so much. - also can be turned on/off with a single keypress In my view these are the main things that a good VR implementation would need in the simulator. Everything else would just be gravy. These things are important for VR to be successful. The walk around feature would be nice but it's not a necessity at least right now. - Brandon
  3. Don't know if this was in the previous thread but I thought about it the other day....Airfield Lighting... Pilot controlled lighting via unicom/multicom frequency at uncontrolled airports Ability to request light intensity to go up or down from the tower just as in real life. Also ability to request airfield/runway lights to go off for military black-out operations with night vision goggles. And in that vein support for a "Night Vision" green view to simulate NVG ops
  4. It would depend on the implementation of VR in the sim by the developers but here is how others have done it: In DCS and I believe XPlane (although I have never used XPlane) there is a virtual kneeboard that you can load with your charts and checklists to cycle through and view in VR. I read yesterday that Navigraph Charts are accessible in VR for XPlane. All buttons are clickable with the mouse just like using TrackIR. I have all the buttons on my joystick programmed for the flight controls and other common switches. Really haven’t had much need to be out of VR to do anything else. In a civilian sim looking at VFR/IFR charts and approach plates I do imagine it will be more difficult to implement however I don’t think it’s impossible to do and make it good in VR. Brandon
  5. This could be one of the reasons they are trying to still "figure it out". I would like to see at least a basic implementation of ATC that is expandable by SDK so someone talented could at least take the ball and run with it. However I would more like to see at least the same level of ATC that was in FSX with some improvements to things like AI separation, ATIS working farther away than 60 miles or whatever it was, the unbelievable amount of go-arounds, etc. The FSX default ATC was actually pretty good for it's time. If they could make improvements to it and use it as a basis that someone else could expand upon that would be a good start. In my dream world they actually put some dedicated development into ATC and build a new system from the ground up that works with the AI and also mirrors the real world. Even if that's not in at release but is something that they plan to do soon then I would be ok with that! Brandon
  6. Re: The SDK and AI Traffic / ATC and other items.... I just listened to the flightsim.com podcast style interview with the developers which frankly was more interesting than some of the videos that have been produced as far as information. The most interesting items I heard were: An SDK will be released with the tech alpha. They did not say if that would be a widespread release or if it would only be released to certain developers they are already speaking with. But they did say an SDK would be available with the tech alpha. AI traffic was mentioned as being turned off during the event in Seattle that everyone was flying. They will have a system that will use real time AI traffic which is what we saw in the E3 trailer but they are working on it and it was turned off for now. ATC was specifically mentioned as something they were just now talking about and that it’s very complex and they were looking at ways to possibly have regional voices with their sound people. Nothing on ATC is set in stone and sounded like it was lower on the priority list. They also mentioned that they were making a priority list based on feedback they’ve been seeing recently. The number one on the priority list he said is VR support and they are looking at it because they didn’t really plan it before but he said it was clear that was a high priority based on feedback. #2 on the “priority” list? Seasonal support. The interview was 30 minutes long and packed full of good info straight from the developers mouths. I enjoyed it thoroughly. Brandon
  7. The screenshots and videos coming out from this sim are just mind boggling. I can't wait for this release. This is truly the next generation of flight sims and what a great surprise for it to come like it has out of nowhere. Just incredible...
  8. Throw the military pilots a bone! Historically in FS and P3D I don't fly airliners but stick strictly to Bizjets, GA, and also Military Aircraft. I know there are many more pilots out there that do the same. There are several military aircraft for FS and even though it's not a combat simulator there are plenty of enhancements that could be made to make the military aircraft more realistic in FS. I like all of the above suggestions to improve the realistic flight environment like weather, ATC with SID/STAR Support, etc. but here are some other suggestions: UHF Radios - Someone mentioned this a ways back (thanks) but we need UHF radios/frequencies (these are published data so should be easy to get) for ATC. Military aircraft use both VHF and UHF and fighters/bombers usually stay strictly on UHF most of the time. The UHF frequencies are paired with their VHF counterparts so realistically you should hear the controller talking to other aircraft that are on VHF but not hear those aircraft respond. TACAN - In addition to VOR/DME we need TACAN support for TACAN approaches to military airfields. PAR and GCA Approaches would be awesome at military airfields as well if that is possible through a newer ATC system somehow Overhead Approaches - Have ATC support an overhead approach pattern for military aircraft at all airports - I should be able to request an overhead approach pattern just as I can request an ILS, GPS, Visual Approach, etc. - AI support for overhead approaches would be great to add to this as well so military AI aircraft can also fly the overhead pattern Unrestricted Climb - Ability to request an unrestricted climb from an airport so those afterburners can take us closer to cruising altitude sooner. For realism this could be randomly denied by ATC or assigned to a lower altitude than requested but higher than airliner/GA traffic to simulate traffic flows and controller workload Finally here are some suggestions that could be implemented with readily available data that would work for all aircraft and not just military: NOTAM Support for closed runways/taxiways - NOTAMs are published data and when a runway is closed either temporarily or for longer periods of time this should reflect in the sim. Same thing with taxiways. Check the NOTAMs before your flight or be surprised if you don't! It would be great to arrive at an airport and have to get a runway change because a runway became NOTAM closed for an inspection. Gives some variation to your flights. This could be an option that maybe you could also turn on/off for those that don't want to check NOTAMs. Ability to request specific parking spots/ramps by name instead of parking numbers. With the number system you have no idea where those parking spots exist on the airport in most cases. The gates are fine for the airliner sim pilots but for GA, Bizjets, and Military looking to park on a specific ramp (like the FBO) it's complete guesswork and usually it's wrong. I resorted to using Airport Design Editor to load the bgl for the airport at times to figure out what parking spot to request but what a pain! I should just be able to request parking at the FBO or a specific FBO/Ramp by name and get taxi instructions there. For now I have been only flying DCS for months because I wanted to learn it and P3D was becoming stale to me. I'm as excited as most everyone else here at the prospect of a newer, modern Microsoft Flight Simulator. I hope that many of the suggestions made in this thread are either already implemented or can be implemented over time. I also hope that this version will be continually supported and updated so we can add as many things possible to make the sim truly "As Real As It Gets" just like we've always expected in the past! Brandon
  9. I like Eaglesoft products and I am going to purchase the Citation X whenever it comes out for P3Dv4. But, I've moved on from 32 bits as have a large amount of people who are active in flight sims. Having an Eaglesoft message board here would be like watching paint dry. Look at their message boards....nothing of any substance for quite some time. I'll check in on them when they have something substantial to show. Not being rude....just being real/honest. I hope that their 64-bit products arrive sooner than later because I am beyond ready for them. Brandon
  10. Is there an error logged in the Windows Event Viewer? That will usually tell you about crashes and something to look for. Unfortunately for me I am having crashes without any error message in even viewer but this is on version 4.2. I did not have these crashes with 4.0 or 4.1. It seems in my case it's related to looking closely at the instrument panel using trackIR during the approach to a highly detailed area. I am going to try troubleshooting to see if my hardware (which is relatively new) is being overloaded and causing a crash. I just need to start doing some hardware monitoring during flights that I was not doing before. I reinstalled 4.2 from scratch and still am having the crashes. Of course the way to chase down these crashes is to disable all add-ons and go from default one by one through each add-on but I neither have the time or energy for that. That would require multiple weeks of hours long flights to see if there is an add-on problem.....and I don't believe that there is because I am using only P3Dv4 compatible add-ons. Anyway....long answer to your question but I would check the even viewer and if nothing is there then you may be looking at what I am seeing as well. Brandon
  11. I just had this same issue. A few days ago I re-installed P3D v4.2 from scratch because I was having unexplained crashes in flight to desktop. I never had crashes like that with 4.1 and there are no events logged in the event viewer to help me find any causes of the crash. I decided to do a clean install of 4.2 because previously I had updated from 4.1 to 4.2 using just the client, content, and scenery installers. I use add-on.xml files for most of my addons so they were easy to put back into place. After the clean 4.2 install I immediately had an issue with elevations at the iBlueYonder Nantucket scenery that I have never had before. I fiddled with things for hours trying to figure out why. There is an altitude correction bgl in the Scenery/World/Scenery folder that was the solution for others who were having the same issue as me however I had this folder in place too and it wasn't helping me......more on that in a minute.... After trying to fix KACK I decided to do another flight that I had been trying to do when the sim was crashing which was CYUL to CYYZ. I departed CYUL IFR talking to default ATC and at some point towards my cruising altitude of FL220 the ATC stopped working and changed to "Nearest Airport List" in the ATC Window. I started searching because I had remembered this post here at AVSIM and found your solution where the Scenery/World/Scenery folder entry was missing in the scenery.cfg. I landed at CYYZ and after descending below 10,000 ft. ATC came back and I was able to finish with ATC. After shutting the sim down I checked the scenery.cfg and sure enough Area001 was blank which is supposed to be the Scenery/World folder entry. I edited this in the scenery.cfg and restarted the sim. As I was editing this I remembered that the altitude file for Nantucket was located in the Scenery/World/Scenery folder. I loaded Nantucked in the sim and my elevation issue was fixed because P3D was not reading this directory!!!! What a way to figure out this problem! To me this is a Lockheed P3D bug because I have done nothing to edit the scenery.cfg prior to now other than add scenery using the library or add-on.xml files. It also did not happen to me when I previously updated using the client installers but happened with a clean 4.2 install. The good news is I have fixed the issue and my flight did not crash as before. Hopefully this trend continues! Brandon
  12. The Fuel Trucks, Tugs and other vehicles appear to be using the ai_singleprop01.wav file in the P3D/Sounds folder. I guess this is why it sounds like a prop aircraft all the time. I also checked the soundai folders and was unable to find a "FuelTruck" vehicle that the sound.ini files are all pointing to. I simply renamed the extension of this file to .OFF and the sound disappeared. The problem as we know is one of these vehicles can be sitting hundreds of yards away on the ramp and you still hear the sound like it's outside your aircraft. Renaming this to OFF made the sound go away however I don't know if there are any other side effects of doing this. If you use default P3D AI Aircraft then I suppose you might lose prop sounds on those. I use add-on ai aircraft and have actually added my own sounds so that's not an issue for me. Also after updating to P3Dv4.2 I noticed there are now ambulances roaming the airfield. When one came next to me yesterday it starting playing a siren sound which kept looping even with the ambulance was far away. It also was way too loud and did not decrease with distance just like the prop sound above. The filename for that sound is 10Police_Siren.wav and I also changed it's extension to .OFF to keep it from playing. Brandon
  13. Completed my KAFW to TEX flight with no issues. Now onto leg #2. KTEX-KSJC. The only change I made was installing the beta FSUIPC 5.22e Brandon
  14. I read through that post before however I never changed those entries to begin with so I don’t see how that could be my issue. The post says that was bad advice to change them and I didn’t so I should be ok? Pete has released a 5.22e beta version of FSUIPC that is compatible with 4.2. His earlier versions apparently were tried with the 4.2 beta but there were some changes between them and release. Anyway I am using 5.22e now and so far so good. I will know in about 20 minutes when I start my descent and see if I can complete the flight that crashed the last time I flew it. Crossing my fingers...... Brandon
  15. Well the first time it happened at KAFW using scenery that I developed and has worked fine. It crashed twice during taxi. Then I flew from KAFW to Orbx KTEX and it crashed while I was descending into the airport around 17,000 ft. It worked just fine all the way through the flight to that point and I thought it would be ok. I was using the Carenado CJ2. I am using the older version of FSUIPC that everyone else is reporting works and they are using however I have been wondering if that’s the problem. Other people are having unexplained crashes too and the latest FSUIPC causes stutters in 4.2 which is why everyone is using the older 5.22 I think? Until Pete updates the module I won’t be able to tell if that’s the case. But it’s the only thing that I have not truly updated for 4.2. Brandon
×
×
  • Create New...