Jump to content

Tim Arnot

Frozen-Inactivity
  • Content Count

    252
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About Tim Arnot

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 01/28/1961

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.tasoftware.co.uk
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    England

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    VATSIM
  • Virtual Airlines
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

1,935 profile views
  1. I haven't flown any approaches in this region, and can't really speak to the 5 degrees difference at this time, although the change in magnetic variation between FSX (WMM2005) and MSFS (WMM2020) is 5 degrees (which may or may not be pertinent - it's just an observation right now).
  2. On balance I'll have to say Plan-G: FS2020 redefined the heading from true to magnetic, and Plan-G didn't anticipate that.
  3. Looking at KTCM (since OSM provided the image above), ILS 34. According to the FAA chart, the LOC has a heading of 345 magnetic: Looking at the databases for a bunch of sims: FSX: Hdg 359.75 Var 340 XP11: Hdg 359.8 Var 344 MSFS: Hdg 345 Var 345 What seems to be happening is that the headings stored in FSX, Plane (and P3D) are True, whereas the MSFS value is Magnetic. In the PNW, where the magnetic variation is up around 20 degrees, that difference is very obvious. Now it could be that I'm missing a flag in the bgl - I'll need to do some more investigation, but that's definitely something that'll get fixed.
  4. What version of Plan-Gv4 are you running? There were some early builds that didn't have magvar implemented, and that may be skewing them (depending on where in the world you're looking). Edit: current build is 232, for reference.
  5. Can you give an example of where it's wrong? Easy enough to check what the problem is. :)
  6. Ah yes, Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition... LOL!
  7. I hope there are no moving parts in that room... :(
  8. Here's to the Crazy Ones. The misfits. The rebels. The trouble-makers. The round pegs in the square holes.The ones who fly into 25,000 airports...BTW, XPX has 33,473 airports! :Whistle:if nothing else, Flight definitely shows a failure of imagination and vision, IMHO.
  9. Being new to X-Plane, I somewhat foolishly turned on real weather. I was flying the Carenado Bonanza, at around 2000ft, on a route that I've flown many times RW. The winds were around 20kts according to xp. Looking out the window at home, conditions were what I'd describe as 'a bit choppy, but flyable'. Ie, you'd be bounced around a bit and probably want to grab hold of the coming from time to time, but you'd be unlikely to hit your head on the roof. Pitch roll & yaw probably no more than 20 degrees in the warrior. The bonanza, being heavier, I'd expect less.Within seconds of turning on real weather, I'd done a wingover!What I was experiencing was turbulence severe enough to endanger the safety if the aircraft. If Laminar think that is realistic to RW, I can recommend some aviation met courses...
  10. X-Plane doesn't have a flight planner in the same way that FS does, so it's not quote so simple. You can fly the plane with reference to the plan in PG ( just as if you were using a hand held GPS RW), but the autopilot won't follow the plan unless you manually re-enter it into whatever GPS is fitted. X-Plane does have an "fms" file which v3 will support. But it's limited somewhat to whatever planes have an appropriate fmc fitted (mostly heavies and whatever addons have been so coded, I suspect). My experience of X-Plane is still rather limited, and I'm still fumbling my way around...
  11. v3 of Plan-G will include 'native' X-Plane support (i.e. it will use X-Plane nav data and read/write .fms plan files). Connection will still be via XUIPC, since that works really well right now.@jfail: So long as Plan-G is set to connect via FSUIPC rather than SimConnect, it should just work - there really is nothing else to set.Tim (Plan-G author)
  12. Interesting. I had a flight around my local area (ok, England, not Scotland, but there shouldn't be significant differences) and the traffic was most definitely driving on the wrong side of the road. However, despite there being no buildings, the layout of my local field (EGTN) was pretty accurate, even with the old disused WWII taxiways. Plus the hump in the middle of the runway too! Shame e 08/26 numbers were backwards though. The general area doesn't look particularly "English" (field layouts, building styles etc), and the towns are too green - not really giving the impression of built up areas, but then neither is it the scorched earth of FSX. No doubt there will be tweaks and addons in due course, and it does seem to be a step in the right direction.
×
×
  • Create New...