FlyingsCool

Members
  • Content count

    1,785
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About FlyingsCool

  • Rank
    Member - 1,000+
  • Birthday 05/21/1963

Flight Sim Profile

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

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.flyingscool.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Littleton, MA
  • Interests
    Flying, Flight Simulation, Guitar, Standing by the Sea
  1. But I'm nearly totally uninterested in setting up my own weather. I hope this isn't too stupid a question, but do ASA and REX integrate with real weather so I can just load and go and fly in actual current conditions?
  2. FlyingsCool

    FSX real weather updater

    The weather seems to be working for me. I flew around Tyngsboro, MA/Manchester, NH area today, and the weather about matched what was going on (low clouds and intermittent rain). Fast moving thunderstorms are hard for FS to catch sometimes, as they may pass the weather stations in between reports and never get caught.
  3. FlyingsCool

    Pitch and power in turn

    Modeling flight is an art. There are so many forces that need to be simulated and balanced, plus there are so many approximations that are made to get it to run on the computer in the first place, it's extremely hard to get anything "perfect". As you'll notice there aren't many really good aircraft designers out there who understand all the nuances involved.PMDG is one of the most respected system modelers out there. If they say they've done the best they could to approximate the flight characteristics of a 737, I'd believe them.Could somebody do a better job? It's possible (but not entirely likely). Maybe they could get turning to better approximate what you are expecting, but my intuition tells me that if they did, performance in some other area would suffer.As with the design of anything, there are compromises and choices to be made, and the answers to those compromises and choices depend on your priorities. If it's true that turning performance is not modelled well, my guess is that cruise, fuel consumption, takeoff and final approach performance had a higher priority for PMDG than turning performance had.I have heard time and again that turning is not well modeled in FS in regards to bank angle and time to turn, and that the problem still exists in FSX.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180
  4. My 8800 GTS 640 works fine. (???)Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180
  5. FlyingsCool

    Just Flight FC prop fix for sp2

    Mr. Heath,I'm sure you understand what you are talking about, but for those of us who don't, could you please add a little more explanation about what this is for?Thanks,Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180
  6. FlyingsCool

    view point movement FSX

    For those out there who are also struggling with this, or read your thread and became interested in doing this, it's nice to also remark on HOW you sorted out your issue. No matter how silly your mistake might seem to you, I can assure you there are a thousand guys and gals out there who made the same mistake and couldn't figure out the answer.I assume you either:1. Weren't providing a unique GUID for each camera?2. Weren't titleing/numbering the cameras appropriately?Thanks!Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180
  7. FlyingsCool

    FSX downloads...It 's sooo... easy!

    So Tom, I like the comment above, lol. I wonder if there's a way of putting yellow "police" tape around the dead threads like this (no offense intended). Move along, move along.In defence of threads like this, however, often times around here, english is not the first language, and that doesn't help. And then there are times when even if english is the first language, you get what seems like a good thought, but it just doesn't quite get expressed in written word the way it sounded in your head. It would be nice to have a delete function sometimes.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180
  8. Hi Phil,I find it amazing that you still spend time to read in detail through these forums and respond to people's comments, even though it's basically different people repeating the same things that have been said before (and often "wive tales" that I don't bother to pay attention to anymore (not a comment on anything said here, I haven't read it in detail nor put much thought into it)).Thank you Phil,Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180
  9. Hi Carlos,Different Tom here (we're everywhere). To ease your mind a little, I believe, and I could be wrong, but I have used it, the 3DSMax interface is very similar to GMax (GMax was developed from 3DSMax with less functionality). At least it was. I haven't seen 3DSMax for a couple of versions I believe. I do believe, however, that the price of 3DSMax is very prohibitive, and freeware would be virtually killed off. So I agree with you Carlos; on that point, it is also my opinion that a move to 3DSMax would be bad.Unfortunately, it may also be true that Phil's hands are tied on this, unless they want to develop their own tool. GMax is no longer supported, and perhaps they've caught wind that whoever owns GMax now will no longer make it available to the public?Phil - How about adapting Google Sketchup or something like that for the job? Hmm, perhaps a bad choice for a Microsoft company. But, in the interests of your user base, could it work?Tough problem this - the need for a very functional yet somewhat esoteric tool at a reasonable price.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180
  10. True, true - that's what you are supPOSED to do...Let's see now, just where is that itemized list of everything I've purchased on the internet? hmmm.But no states around here have added a 20% tax anyway. Max is typically 8%.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180
  11. FlyingsCool

    Looking for a specific aircraft

    Have you tried the AFG King Air 300? I created an FSX upgrade for it. The link to the upgrade is on this board somewhere and in the main forum for AFG www.alliedfsgroup.com . If the props bother you, I can edit that, too (I haven't really checked it out to see if there's any isssue).Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180
  12. FlyingsCool

    Microsoft Culture?

    This is my take on it.1. I don't tend to fly the default aircraft. Their flight characteristics are typically too "mushy" or skittish.2. I use FSX to practice my real world flights, to see what the runways are like, and what the surrounding landscape is like and to practice procedures. I also like to try out and fly other aircraft, especially older aircraft.3. I started to design scenery back in FS4. Fortunately, I hadn't gotten into it too much when FS95 came out. Then Airport was starting to get good and Airport 2.0 was around the corner. And I made my home airport and I was starting to get into it. Then FS98 came out and I had to redo it. And I pretty much lost interest. Then FS2000 came out and totally changed everything, and I didn't even bother to upgrade, especially given the change in hardware requirements. I didn't come back till late 2004.4. Now I'm in the mode that I'm sort of keeping up with hardware. So at least that's not stopping my upgrading. But I do have a whole lot of time invested in the aircraft I download and get working to my satisfaction. It's upsetting when they don't work anymore.5. Then again I would like to see the FS franchise continue to improve.But, as in everything in life, there are never any sudden increases in functionality. Who in their right mind would EVER believe that a change from DX9 to DX10 would allow users to see an 8X improvement in speed. Are you crazy? Perhaps some function might have been increased by 8X, but overall, each upgrade in software brings with it other baggage that keeps it nice and slow.And I can't stand all these people running around saying "Oh, if backwards compatibility is broken or unheeded, it'll solve all our problems". "If FS could be completely rewritten, it'll be the fastest thing on the planet". If it were that easy, it would have been done LONNNGGGG ago, and there would be a thousand competitors out there doing the same thing. I'm sorry to say you are all setting yourself up for huge disappointment and another round of hateful forum posts blaming people for what failures they are for not meeting your totally unrealistic expectations.Plus, anytime software is rewritten, it literally takes years to reach the same level of functionality as the previous platform. So say goodbye to some functions that are very important to you (like custom textures on the ground, for instance).There is no magic bullet folks.Point is, I happen to support backward compatibility, understand that functionality from 3 versions ago can be dropped, and am willing to compromise for increases in functionality. And expect honesty on why functionality is dropped, and what can be done to fix it.I still don't understand what happened in this whole VCRain texture thing. If all it took was to include the FS9 textures, why wasn't that done? Why were they dropped in the first place? If I understand why, it makes it a whole lot easier for me to accept.But in the end, I wanna fly my planes.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180
  13. FlyingsCool

    Microsoft Culture?

    There's a half hour long discussion on Channel 9 about IE8 and its development and passing the Acid2 test. From the sound of the development staff there, and they spent quite a long time talking about it, IE8 will maintain compatibility with the bugs of the past so it doesn't break old web pages, but still be forward thinking and support standards, too.So I don't see where that is similar to the breaking of compatability of FSX. To be fair, IE8 I imagine has a much larger development staff with a whole lot more time to get things done in.I do wonder why, however that backwards compatibility was broken mid-stream. Then again, I am also wondering what the real breakage is. The W key doesn't really bother me (though I imagine it does bother others), and if the VCRain thing just needs the FS9 textures or the update recently released to fix it, what other problems are there for aircraft? Neither of those are a problem for me, I still have FS9 loaded. I've fixed the broken transparency issues myself of a couple of aircraft, and they seem to work fine with Acceleration installed.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180
  14. FlyingsCool

    My Disappointment with FSX 11!!!!!!!

    I'm waiting for someone to say that their wife asked for an upgrade for her driver.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180
  15. FlyingsCool

    WinXP - HD full, user account gone???

    2.5 gigs is not a whole lot of space these days. Temp files can easily eat that. How big is this drive? A good rule of thumb is to have AT LEAST 10% free disk space. For a 250 GB drive, that's 25 GB. If you start filling even close to 90% of a disk, you're going to start seeing slow downs, and risk fillups very easily.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180