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

Sorry..Aspen (!)..sorry..mixed up Vail and Aspen..the shots are from Aspen, CO... :) Still trying to figure out this darn code here..doesn't seem to dig HTML or UBB or anything else...gonna be switching to "wingding" code here in a second.. ;)Regards..Chris

Alright..went back into FS9 and I'm getting the same thing as is reported in my review. I'll go ahead and ask for some help on this though to make sure I'm reporting the correct facts..could someone else please take some screenshots of their default FS9 installation scenery, at maximum settings, at these 3 locations: Courchevel - France, Aspen - Colorado, and Ambri - Switzerland...I'm curious to see if your default FS9 scenery shows the same as mine (?)... Here are the shots I took a few minutes ago:FS9 Courchevel, France - http://www.mudspike.com/images/FS901.jpgFS9 Aspen (!), Colorado - http://www.mudspike.com/images/FS902.jpgFS9 Ambri, Switzerland - http://www.mudspike.com/images/FS903.jpgI'm trying to compare stock FS9 to stock FSX though..no terrain, scenery or meshes. If my comparison shots in Part V of my review are incorrect, I will correct them...but I need some verification.. Heck...I dunno how to make those pics into URLs..I didn't want to post full images here...Regards..Chris "BeachAV8R" Frishmuth

Dillon - Thanks for the comments. I wrote the review (except Part IV) and I can assure you that my FS9 comparative screenshots were taken at the exact same resolution and anti-aliasing settings (1280 x 1024 & 4xFSAA) with all of the FS9 sliders to the right and ALL features turned on (on which I'm able to get blazing fast FPS of course). Autogen was on maximum. Prior to doing the review I had USA Roads installed, but unchecked that in the add-on scenery tab to make sure it didn't load..so it shouldn't. I will go back and double-check that and assure that the scenery is the same..but I can assure you that I tried to put "stock" FS9 at maximum scenery detail for the comparison. I definitely wanted to compare both products out-of-the box to each other and there was no bias at all. I'll go back right now and check out my setting and have some screens posted here within a half-hour. :) I'm all about integrity and don't want there to be any doubt that I wasn't "crippling" FS9..Regards..Chris "BeachAV8R" Frishmuth

>enjoy your default aircraft, default scenery, sparse custom>AI if your computer can even handle it, not to mention the>awful landclass and data for outside the coverage area of N>America and Western Europe!Ladies and gentlemen..the first example has stepped forward.. ;)I'll answer your assertions (opinions?) with evidence instead of wildy inaccurate statements. Part V of this piece I wrote has plenty of FSX - FS9 comparison shots...some were examples of unflyable, dense scenery and other were fluid as glass and show the huge difference and superior scenery, landclass, and data across the entire world:http://www.simhq.com/_air7/air_263a.html>FSX is going to be great in a few years, hopefully. Until>then, don't pick on people who stick with FS9 and who are too>upset at all the complete hype that came for FSX but it never>lived up to itI'm not picking on anyone...don't get defensive..that is a trait reserved for us FSX a really excited user.. ;)Regards...BeachAV8R

I've been trying to stay above the fray on this one and I hesitate to even post this because just throwing my hat in the ring, if ever so briefly, will only encourage more of the same. BUT, it has been difficult to watch thread after thread scroll down the page and witness people who are enjoying FSX, for whatever reasons, be assailed by those that aren't enjoying FSX. We get it: you don't like it. You have FS9 + your hundreds of dollars of mods (just like me) and we really are fine with that. But please, don't tell me I'm not enjoying FSX. Don't tell me that 15 or 20 or 25 FPS isn't satisfactory for me. Don't tell me that I have hardware that doesn't exist yet. Don't tell me that my perceptions and feelings about FSX are invalid.Basically, don't rain on my personal parade.I like FSX and I've been pretty clear about that. It runs great on MY system, looks great on MY system, and I feel is a major improvement over FS9 based on MY direct observations and comparisons. Does it do everything well? No, certainly not. Do I wish for improvements in some areas? Absolutely. I could go on and on, but basically my message is that I'm tired of seeing posts that are so sarcastic and condescending to those of us that are enjoying FSX, as if we are somehow blind to the issues that are out there. Obviously we have worked through OUR issues and have reached what we consider acceptable solutions. I was happy with FSX out of the box, and I've grown happier with a few tweaks (that took minutes, not weeks or months to do). I pretty much know which posts to bother reading and which not to continue reading based on the first few sentences of the original topic. The people with criticism of Aces or Microsoft that are able to put together a post with genuine, tactfully language that contributes to the discussion of problems and solutions are great. I have no problems with reasoned logic that is presented with a reasonable attitude. Some of the posts in the past few weeks have just been over-the-top ridiculous though and I'm embarassed for the community to be seen in such a light. Of course, it is a free country and I realize different people approach issues using various and highly personalized styles, so it isn't surprising to see such a range of effective and ineffective communication. But to summarize, if you are having fun with FSX, don't sweat the belittling comments and snide remarks, you are having fun and you don't have to justify that to anyone. On the flip side, embrace the genuine criticism and thoughtful comments and recognize that all is not perfect with the FSX world and there are considerable issues that would really make this gem shine brighter. And don't feel the need to make a "choice" between FS9 and FSX as if you could never go back or never alternate between your old and new installs. Just some non-specific thoughts by a relatively "old-hand" in this simming hobby...Chris "BeachAV8R" Frishmuth

Hehe..if you liked that one you might like this little story I wrote too:http://tinyurl.com/ye8q2t:)BeachAV8R

>ditto--have about 2000hrs real-world fast jet time in F-15E>($55M) and 300hrs in C-21 (Lear 35)...currently doing "time">at the Pentagon on staff...enjoy FS9/X inside and out...don't>mention it to my viper bros, but would love to see Kirk>Olsson's Viper migrate over to FSX soon...feel the need to>pull some virtual Gs.Oh man..the -15E...my favorite fighter/attack aircraft. I'll bet those were some exciting 2000 hours! I've often been driving back and forth between Charlotte and Myrtle Beach and been buzzed by F-15Es doing low-level flights on the Military Training Routes around the eastern Carolinas. What a rush! At least after getting out of the F-15E you were able to step into one of the most "fighter-like" civilian jets out there (Lear 35).. :)Thanks for your service...Chris "BeachAV8R"

>Greeting from a little north of you in the Albemarle, NC area.Hey there! My regular first officer (Lefty Larry) has taken a couple days of vacation this week and is over in your neck of the woods (literally - Uwharrie) doing some hunting.. :) >I see you fly the KA 200. Can you comment on the real>aircraft's flight and ground handling characteristics compared>to the FSX KA350? To be honest..the KA350 is the plane in FSX that I've flown the LEAST (along with the G1000 panel Mooney..yuck!). The *only* reason I've spent so little time with it is because I'm so spoiled by the Aeroworx B200 for FS9..it is so good that it is painful to use the default King Air in FS9 or FSX. :D I wrote two articles for SimHQ on the Aeroworx B200 and how it compares to real life...the articles are interesting because they show direct side-by-side comparisons and the results are simply stunning:Aeroworx B200 Version 1: http://www.simhq.com/_air3/air_112a.htmlAeroworx B200 Version 2: http://www.simhq.com/_air4/air_157a.htmlIf you still have FS9 and are looking for a well done aircraft..these guys have hit a homerun. I'm looking forward to working with them on the FSX version...Regards..BeachAV8R

>BeachAV8R, what are your computer specs?* Alienware Pentium 4, 3.4GHz* 2 GB DDR2 SDRAM* NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT PCI Express 256MB* Saitek X52 and CH Yoke & Pro PedalsI'm flying with most of my sliders maxed out..except for AUTOGEN..which I have at LOW because those darn trees kill me. With that rig and those setting I get 20+ FPS except in some of the major cities..then I get dropped down into the mid-teens. So I stay away from the large cities.. :(>A lot of people using FSX have some, or maybe a lot, of>stuttering when looking around with the hat switch. So how is>stuttering affected with the TIR4? (does it get better or>worse or goes away)Hmm...I don't notice large stutters with TIR4 unless I really whip my head around quickly, which obviously forces FS to load textures really quickly. The only time that happens is in big cities if I move my head rapidly (sort of unrealistically). Other than that..just smooth head movements seem to cause no problems. I've found a good balance of sliders and performance though for my hardware...>Do you get a stiff neck with using the TIR4?No..but I do find I get stiff shoulders sometimes because I've kept my hands on the stick and throttle much longer without having to go down and mess with my mouse or keyboard..hehe..>Do you wear glasses?I do..but I wear contact lenses 99% of the time..interesting thought though...I'll have to check out TIR when wearing my glasses. Are you thinking there is a reflectivity issue with the TIR maybe? Good thought..hadn't thought of that!>Is the TIR4 easy to set up?I didn't even use the CD-ROM that came with it. I just downloaded the most recent software from Natural Point. Installed the software, plugged in the TIR, put the reflector thingy on the hat, and started flying. FSX recognized the TIR automatically and I didn't have to tweak it or anything. Although now that I've read some of the responses in this thread I do think I'm going to tweak my dead-zone so that I don't have to remain quite as still during the center-forward view. That is a good suggestion...(thanks AstroDave) and thanks Cruachan for the suggestion on the light sensitivity feature...although after having done some experiments I found it is only one light in particular that makes my TIR act freaky..Regards..BeachAV8R

I'm using the default profile that installed with the beta-download of the newest Natural Point release. The sensitivity works fine for me. I have mine on top of my monitor. Vertical distance above my head (or where the sensor pickups are) is about 6 inches. Horizontal distance is 24 inches. The only problem I had..which to me a bit to figure out, was that my TrackIR worked fine the first day..then the 2nd day I was getting all screwed up tracking. I couldn't figure it out..adjusted my TrackIR hat and tilted the receiver..but it wouldn't work. Then I went into the View -> Tracking menu and saw that there were some other dots that the sensor was picking up. Bizzare..but I went into my other room and turned the light off and that fixed it...so I don't know if the sensor can pick-up reflected light or something off of other surfaces? Whatever the case..it went away and it works great!Good luck!BeachAV8R

>Great stuff--what's the specs on your computer and what impact>does TIR4 have on FPS (if any)?Glad everyone is enjoying the little demo video. I had owned a TrackIR2 before..so I knew what that was all about..but really had no idea how cool the TrackIR4 is. The ability to zoom in and out and crane your neck just like you do in the real airplane is cool. Very often when you are wing down on the base leg you have to stoop down in the real aircraft to see the end of the runway...TIR4 duplicates that movement pretty well.TIR doesn't seem to have any affect on frame-rates..although if you yank your head around quickly you can invoke a stutter as the scenery tries to load real quick. Smooth movements with your head are the key.I'm putting together another video here soon...just featuring some flying in FSX..mostly external views and stuff..but some TrackIR shots too.My specs: * Alienware Pentium 4, 3.4GHz * 2 GB DDR2 SDRAM * NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT PCI Express 256MB * Saitek X52 and CH Yoke & Pro PedalsI'm doing pretty well with that rig...medium settings though..and medium auto-gen in particular. Those trees are a killer...Regards..BeachAV8R

Mike T - That's a funny post... I tell ya'..I considered going to the airlines..but I'm glad I haven't. I enjoy the job I have now and I've seen and heard a lot of the bad stuff that goes with the good at the airlines. Every year I go out to SimuFlite in Dallas for re-current training on the Citation. The DFW area is loaded with retired American Airlines guys..and a lot of them teach at SimuFlite. They have the best stories...of the glory days of aviation (the 70s - 80s). This one DC-10 guy would recount some of his finest moments flying internationally with something like 10 or 12 flight attendants on the airplane..and the 24 hour layer over Paris or Rio or wherever.. Man..what a life! Anyway...guess I'm wandering now...hehe..BeachAV8R

Umm..if you are getting a green screen you might need to install the codec to run the video (it is DIVX encoded)...sorry about the unfriendly format..I just find DIVX to do a pretty good job of small file size vs. quality. So if you want..find the DIVX codec online..Vulcan - Yeah..I actually DO have a TrackIR2..but Natural Point is no longer supporting it (unfortunate). I used TIR2 with my combat sims and loved it for LOMAC and EECH..and used it in FS9 a good bit. Strider - Though I appreciate your stance..I think you are missing out..particularly in those aircraft where button pushing and switch flipping is minimal (light GA type planes)..that is where TrackIR shines. And my FPS is very solid in FSX..I've balanced the sliders and performance to my liking..so I'm pretty happy. Cruachan - Yep..I'm using the newest "Alpha" drivers with FSX. It is available on the Natural Point web-site. I'm not crazy about the 2D cockpit implementation..but the suggestion to map the TIR on/off switch to a controller button is a good one. By no means is TIR4 perfect..but it does enhance the overall flight sim (and combat flight sim) experience...Regards..BeachAV8R