Jump to content

BeachAV8R

Members
  • Content Count

    73
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    Yes
  • 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. Thanks for the detailed reply...I appreciate the information!
  2. Any chance you could update this to the 1.9 release by chance?
  3. Sorry to beat this horse to death..I've read through the thread and I'm still a bit confused. I own the RXP GTN 750 (love it..same unit is in the Citation I fly for a living) and was hoping to have the combination of: Laminar 172SP + PropStrike Bush + GTN 750 + REP...is this possible? Also, is the GTN clickable using the VR mouse pointer? Thanks for all the hard work on this. I'm totally fine with whatever matrix of products works..!
  4. Hey - thanks for this - it looks great, works great, and is a fantastic addition to the Mu-2 panel..! Nice job! BeachAV8R
  5. Well, the operative word is "had" definitely. We are talking 25 years ago when I was doing that. Those were the days that bank checks had to physically move to the banks in order for the deposits to "count". So all over the country, every night, thousands of small airplanes flew all over the country picking up bank checks and delivering to larger cities where the checks could be hurried to the major banks to be deposited. Scanning and electronic banking pretty much killed that industry. As well, we carried a lot of Airborne Express freight from those smaller communities to the larger hubs, there they'd all go onto a larger aircraft like a DC-8 and sent to the major sort centers. We also flew a lot of Kodak and Konica film canisters - I don't know what was in the film..maybe medical film or something..I have no idea. Nowadays you see more stuff like blood and tissues flying around in the middle of the night with couriers doing drug testing samples and organ donation stuff..those are things that can't be scanned or electronically processed. Things are a lot different than they were a couple decades ago..I'm glad I got to experience it, and I'm even happier that I survived it.. LOL
  6. Oh man, some of those airport names bring back some memories. Pulaski, Martinsville, some of those others. 25 years ago, flying single engine freight aircraft like Lances and Bonanzas in the winter. LOL..some white knuckle moments. I'll be interested to revisit some of them...
  7. I'd buy that BAe 146 a second time over if they would make it P3D v4 compliant...I love that aircraft...
  8. So I'm in way over my head with this - I love the PC12 integration, but my PC12 in XP11 is pretty broken with regards to some of the engine modeling. I was hoping to use the EV-55 Outback for a 9,500 nm cross country Christmas Flight, and I would LOVE to have the GTN 750 in the panel..but I'm lost in PlaneMaker. I can access the 2D panel just fine, but I'd love to see the EV-55's Garmin replaced by the GTN. I actually got to use the GTN 725 in our real airplane today on the way to GYH for some maintenance. Really cool that I can have something similar in X-Plane..! Thanks! BeachAV8R
  9. Oh man...this was a great purchase. One of the planes I fly in real life (a Citation Ultra) has the GTN 750..so this is pretty cool. I bought the X-Plane version and have installed it in the Carenado PC-12. I haven't had a chance to totally explore it, but I love it already... BeachAV8R
  10. Oh man..you'd be a hero among us if you could manage to get this square peg into the round hole that is P3D v4. The Metro is a really awesome plane and I'd love to see it "alive" in v4... Good luck! BeachAV8R
  11. Does anyone know if ENVTEX works with Active Sky Next? I see some mentions of Active Sky 2016, but haven't seen anything about ASN (I haven't upgraded to 16 yet)... Thanks! BeachAV8R
  12. >Yeah-but in the Yosemite shots which I am quite familiar you>cover the distant mountains with clouds-and fsx is just much>more accurate here-let alone the terrain of Half Dome...:D There seems to be a lot of shots of Yosemite out there floating around..and I certainly couldn't resist the temptation to take FSX there because I got engaged to my girl on top of Half Dome..!http://www.mudspike.com/adventure/california/cal09.jpghttp://www.mudspike.com/adventure/california/cal15.jpgI flew in there with a bit crappier weather though..so the terrain comparisons won't really show...http://www.simhq.com/_air7/images/air_263a_194.jpghttp://www.simhq.com/_air7/images/air_263a_195.jpgRegards..BeachAV8R
  13. >I dont think the review is that bad, its a good review imho.>Honest, but the Wow - factor prevailed..>>But this shot made me wonder how 'good' fsx really is:>>>FS5 ?Lol..hey Johan..thanks for the comment..but that screenshot looks like crap because I was a few miles from the airport during multi-player on a long, wide downwind setting myself up for the ILS. I used the scroll wheel on my mouse to zoom way in on the airport environment to show how many multi-player ID tags were around and on the airport. The detail and washout factor is due to the fact that I was zoomed in from very, very far away (probably 64x or more zoom?) so there is no level-of-detail rendering going on there. As a matter of fact..the picture just after that one in the review is a screen of the GPS position from where I took that screen..and it is on 15nm range..(where is there a scale on there though to tell you how far things really are?? or is 15nm the radius from the airplane to the edge of the compass rose?)..so I'm guessing I was 5 or 6 miles away (or more?) for that shot..http://www.simhq.com/_air7/images/air_263a_221.jpgWhat also might contribute to the low LOD at far distances is that for MP in the Seattle area I keep the slider that sets the distance that details are rendered to LOW to keep my FPS high. So..a combination of things made that particular shot..well..pretty darn ugly.. :DRegards..Chris/BeachAV8R
  14. >Here you go Chris stock photos of each. Inqnore the FPS was>doing something else while FS9 was running and dont have a>muti-core cpu.Hey..that's awesome..and a relief..because your pictures jibe with what I had posted in the review..mainly that the small detail splotches in FS9 are a good bit more noticeable (coarse) and the overall terrain mesh quality is easily discernible with both (default!) sims running with terrain quality maxed out. I was pretty sure that my autogen was working fine in the rural areas and that pretty much confirms it. The Atlanta picture was indeed wrong and the corrected one (that has now replaced the wrong one) has replaced the wrong one in the review.Thanks for taking the time to do that..unfortunately work got in the way today and I wasn't able to do an uninstall and reinstall of FS9 to get some screens.. :)Regards..BeachAV8R
  15. >Looking at your pics above I'm seeing FS9 with zero haze. FS9>default (or otherwise) looks terrible with no haze. Add some>haze to both sims, fix the autogen, and then compare the two. While I appreciate your thoughts on it..the screens are pretty much accurate..I didn't dork around with cloud layers and stuff...and most of the comparative shots are taken with clear skies..so you can compare ugly to ugly if you'd like.>You need to do something to get the correct amount of autogen>to show up. We all can get some Microsoft promotional shots>of FS9 in the city to compare as those shots looked just as>good as the actual sim did on my system when I first bought>it.Knock yourself out..my review isn't the end-all be-all of simulation reviews. I could just have easily (well..it wasn't easy let me assure you) thrown together a review of FSX vs. FS9 w/ Active Sky 6, Active Cam, and a bunch of terrain add-ons. That wasn't my intent.>Here's a default pic of FS2k2, it's almost no different from>your supposedly default pics of FS9 (minus the sky texture>which could be easily edited). It's amazing how FS9 looks so>much like FS2k2 in your examples above (don't get me wrong I'm>not alluding to deception here just pointing out how with>enough effort anyone could make FS9 look terrible. Same goes>for FSX, I've seen some terrible shots in these forums):Well..you started out cool..but using words like "supposedly" and "deception" sure do make it sound like you are pointing a finger. I'd suggest you go back and read the whole review again and if you find areas you disagree with, feel free to write one yourself. I'll be sure to look for the one page of the 50 pages it takes to pick out some details I'm not crazy about.. ;)Meanwhile I guess I need to go back to my review and make sure I edit in the correct FS2000 images in the right places... BeachAV8R
×
×
  • Create New...