BeachAV8R

Painful from the standpoint of spending extra money..but that combination of the Do228 ad the GTN 750 is pretty awesome. I really enjoy the Do228..love the old school panel and beat up look to it. I'm using it in my Air Hauler company. And I've always said the RXP GTN 750 is the best add-on I've ever purchased. We have on in the real Citation I fly and I absolutely love the unit in real life and in the sim...

I love their Portland, Oregon scenery (KPDX) - I did some side by side comparisons with the P3D version against the X-Plane version if anyone wants to try to make a decision between the two... https://www.mudspike.com/flightbeam-studios-kpdx-portland-oregon/

Thanks for the detailed reply...I appreciate the information!

Any chance you could update this to the 1.9 release by chance?

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..!

Hey - thanks for this - it looks great, works great, and is a fantastic addition to the Mu-2 panel..! Nice job! BeachAV8R

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

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...

I'd buy that BAe 146 a second time over if they would make it P3D v4 compliant...I love that aircraft...

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

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

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

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

KenG gives great answers for all of that stuff - spot on. I've been flying King Airs (real life) for almost 20 years now. Straight 200s, B200s, and B300s. I was one of the consulting pilots on the Aeroworx B200 (Chris Frishmuth). I've not tried out Carenado's B200 or C90, so I can't make any comparative statements. I do *think* though that Flight1 actually bought out Aeroworx and that the flight model is probably largely from the Aeroworx product (a complete assumption and I could be wrong). The Aeroworx flight model was really very good. A bit laggy with the torque (torque response in the real plane is almost immediate) but overall the performance was in-line with the real aircraft. Can't comment on the ProLine 21, but I can say that we outfitted our older King Air B200 with the G1000 and it is awesome. So much so that all the line pilots wish we would refurb our other B200 to the same panel. Regards, BeachAV8R

Is it just me..or does the river water in the first screen look like it has some pretty big ocean-type swells on it? You'll notice that with inland water in Hawaii too..the wave textures are a bit too large for those types of bodies of water (lakes, rivers, etc..) BeachAV8R

Got if figured out! Didn't realize I could use the FS2004 repaint for the Wilco/FeelThere A318 for the FSX version..!Woot! Thanks...!BeachAV8R

Yeah, I saw that one. But I do need it for the A318 specifically unfortunately. Thank you though.. :)

I have done some searching, but I can't seem to find one for the A-318 specifically... I'll keep looking though! Regards,BeachAV8R

Hey All..I have a special request - can anyone possibly do a British Airways repaint of the Wilco Airbus A318. I'd love to have the livery for the A318 they fly into London City airport...The author of the repaint will get a mention/credit in PC Pilot magazine...(lol..that's the best I can do I'm afraid!)Thanks for any assistance... I can write, but I can't paint.. <g>Regards,BeachAV8R

If you want to see what TrackIR looks like in action..and how it can help with the problem you describe (not being able to see over the nose)..you can check out the 2 videos I have on the Track IR web-site used with FSX:http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/02-pro...uct-videos.htmlHope you get it sorted..landing without seeing the runway can make things interesting.. ;)BeachAV8R

>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

>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

>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

>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

>I too wish I could help here but my FS9 installation is far>from stock. In some of your comparison shots in the review>'USA Roads' was diffidently active. Autogen was far from max>because of it (the pics looked more like FS2000 versus>FS2004). You are perfectly correct on that Dillon! Good catch. I think what I did was I unchecked all of the add-on scenery databases that I had installed in FS9 but FORGOT that you have to exit then re-start to re-index the scenery! BUT..the good news is..I went back and re-examined all the shot comparisons and only 1 needs to be changed..the one you pointed out (the Atlanta screen). On the other comparative shots the autogen scenery still isn't generated because they are rural areas (Aspen & Sedona) and the other ones lie outside of the USA Roads database (I also checked those to make sure they hadn't changed as well though just in case!). So I'll ship this new image to the editor and have it replace the other FS9 Atlanta shot.http://www.mudspike.com/images/ATLFIX.jpgThe other screen though..I can assure your..aren't dumbed down to make FSX look better than FS9. Really the only thing I was pointing out there is that the terrain mesh and resolution of the terrain is much tighter (finer?) in FSX than default FS9. The best examples are the Ambri and Courchevel shots where you can see the data points for the scenery elevations are vastly improved over FS9. No doubt that FS9 + add-on scenery meshes and packages can meet or even exceed FSX..but for an apples-to-apples comparison I was trying to compare stock to stock (except for my botched inclusion of USA Roads in those couple pics...)...Thanks for pointing that out and I truly do appreciate constructive criticism...it helps get things right and I'm all for that. Regards...Chris "BeachAV8R" Frishmuth