Ramasurinen

@Paul K And to you! 🙂 Your previous post, saying the version of the Albatross you saw on the marketplace was v2.2.1, concerned me though. I see the correct one there (2.2.6) so I'm wondering if you've installed the plane locally and maybe it hasn't been updated yet? Might be worth a quick check. Cheers.

I know it can be a little confusing sometimes. I'm not sure about some of the other aircraft that were updated today, but the only Albatross version updated was the 2020 one, which went to v1.3.0. This update was to bring the 2020 version into parity with the 2024 one. The current 2024 Albatross is v2.2.6, and an update for it (v2.2.7) should come with sim update 4 when it goes public (or shortly thereafter). I will have further updates coming for both the 2020 and 2024 versions, with some fixes and new features, in the new year. Cheers!

@Paul K Added to the wishlist for a future update. Cheers.

@lgcharlot Thank you very much for your nice writeup on the Albatrosses. A couple of quick notes regarding your observations... 1. The white and red livery for the HU-16E was loosely based on a real privately owned aircraft livery, which in turn was a former coast guard airframe, and its livery retained most of the coast guard's original style. However, since this aircraft was initially photographed for reference material it has since been sold and repainted and refurnished, oddly enough. I really wanted to use the actual US Coast Guard livery, as well as a couple of other military ones, but unfortunately it just wasn't possible to license them. MS really tried. The liveries included with 1st party planes must be licensed or fictional. 2. The two private liveries on the G-111 are fictional, but loosely based on real world ones. Anchoring is something I plan to look into later on, if time allows, but I suspect it may eventually be added as a native sim function at some point down the road. Hope so anyway. Regarding prior questions about the G-111 vs G-111T. The G-111 airframes were HU-16s refurbished by Grumman in the early 80s and converted to use as regional airliners. 53 were planned but only 13 completed, all of which went to Chalk Airlines. When they folded most of the G-111s were mothballed in Arizona, but a few were sold to private buyers. The G-111T is the new turbine version that Amphibian Aerospace in Australia intends to produce. They purchased the trademark and production rights from Grumman, and they have a design, but are still developing their first prototype based on a refurbished HU16. I think the first flight is still at least a couple of years away. Cheers! -Mike

Thanks! I hope I didn't bore you guys all to tears or anything though. Speaking into the "void" when you can't read peoples' faces at all.... that's really hard! I had no idea. -Mike

I'm all for the re-branding personally. I miss those old roundels and liveries. Maybe we could save some money by dropping the order for those F-35s, and buying something that... I don't know... works? :) Putting the "Royal" back into the name is going to elicit some funny responses from Quebec too I think. Anyway, I stopped trying to figure why the Canadian govt does what it does years ago. Their actions are so random it hurts my brain. -Mike

I truly understand your complaint Ryan, but Washington and Oregon have it easy, especially this year. They do actually get some sun from time to time. The greater Vancouver area and Vancouver Island trump them both when it comes to endless low overcast and rain. Yay us! ;)The really scary bit happens when a nice day finally does arrive here though. Absolutely *everyone* with any kind of pilots license or student permit immediately takes to the sky. Trying to go anywhere on a sunny day is like flying through a running blender filled with aluminum shrapnel. This past Sunday was the first truly nice day of the year here in Vancouver, 25 deg C and perfect blue skies, so I rented a plane and took my mom to Chilliwack for lunch. Not the best idea! I ended up having to dodge about fifteen Cessnas and Pipers over a distance of only 28 miles. Departing Chilliwack I had to ask two pilots to extend their downwinds just so I could get a twenty second window to takeoff and get home, and then ended up in a holding pattern for 10 mins once I got there. The circuit was jam packed. Insane. I flew for awhile in the Bay Area many years ago and I thought their traffic was bad. Uhhh no.Bring back the clouds! :)-Mike

Some good points again Jahman, and indeed the fonts used in street signs are chosen and created using similar ideas, where the shape or icon of a word is more important than the letters themselves when something must be read quickly. The brain fills in the rest from memory as you say. That memory though is the part I have an issue with. What happens when the original word these mangled icons are based on is inevitably forgotten generations from now due to lack of use? It's a slippery slope. As for typing on small keyboards... stop doing it, and demand something better. We need a direct neural connection, Matrix style, and soon. Our tools for communication in this age, even voice, are just too slow and imprecise.While I love efficiency in all forms, and can see the inherent beauty in this ever contracting "newspeak" (through the layers of hatred I have for it) something important is being lost. Like many things in life, that "something" is only going to be noticed once it's well and truly gone.When it comes to the English language I will happily trade speed for eloquence any day.I think I'll get a "doughnut" at the "drive through" now. ;)-Mike

This is an interesting thread. I think Jahman made some especially great points about the evolution of language, or at least the perception of it from one generation to the next. I wouldn't have a problem with this hideously degraded new vernacular if it added something truly useful to our communication in exchange, but instead it just seems like grunting via keyboard. We think almost exclusively in language, past the age of 4-6 anyway, so, the way I see it, the smaller our vocabulary becomes today the less our ability to translate thoughts into real world substance or action will be in the future. That's a future that scares me. That's a future without great new inventions or space travel, a future without sufficient resolution of language to communicate the differences between one element and another, when everyone has inevitably forgotten how to spell "Hidroj3n".When the Oxford dictionary added "bada bing" to their lexicon, that was the day I realized Queen's English was truly doomed. It was our last hope.The only part that I really can't abide these days though is the addition of "lol" to the end of just about every statement I see online, regardless of whether or not the object of the statement has any humourous properties whatsoever..."That's a tree. lol!"A tree is not funny. It's a tree.I should say that my opinions only concern native English speakers. I hugely applaud anyone who attempts to learn new languages. I am certainly terrible at it myself!Perhaps I'm entirely wrong though. Maybe this is just a necessary and painful step before entering the Matrix. In there we should only have to remember 1 and 0 after all.-Mike

Hi John. I haven't used the target software for much yet, most of my assignments are done through FSUIPC (since I like different settings for different aircraft). I do have usb CH pro pedals, and they work fine with the setup, no issues. Pedals are essential of course with the Warthog has it has no rudder twist functon (of which I am very glad actually!). I don't like the flimsy feeling of twist sticks.Cheers, and I hope you like it. I think you will. Do watch out for that shiny metal ring just below the stick itself, it's a lightning rod haha. :)-Mike

Hi Yellowjack. I've had a warthog for a couple of months and it's a fantastic stick. I'm very happy with the purchase. If you fly fighters or helos a lot it's perfect, though you have to get a bit creative about assignments for mixture or prop pitch if you fly piston aircraft as well, or better yet get a separate controller for those etc. Coming from a Saitek X52 it's a lovely change. I used Thrustmaster sticks in the past (F16 FLCS and TQS) but gave up on them for a few years due to a noticeable drop in the quality of their controllers and potentiometers, but it seems they're really back on their game with this one.One word of warning about it. My first stick died 13 days after purchase after a static discharge from my hand (after walking across some carpet). There's a metal ring around the base of the stick, and it accepts an electrical discharge very readily. Having used plastic sticks for so long I didn't think anything of it until the stick wouldn't post at all. Plugging it into two other computers with no recognition confirmed it was dead. The shop I bought it from replaced it and the new one has been fine for several weeks now, though I'm very conscious to ground myself on my metal table frame before using it hehe.One other note, it's a heavy setup, all metal, so make sure you have the stick and throttle on a sturdy surface. It's a substantial bit of kit, with very rugged components. Aside from the static issue it looks and feels virtually indestructible. It's also VERY precise in use. The hall sensors it uses are miles ahead of the best old style pots. I've never used a stick with zero jitter or play in it before, which is a treat. The only thing I would hope they do differently in the future is back off the tension a bit right around center. I like a stick with a lot of resistance, and once you overcome the centering spring it's easy to hold any particular tension in any direction, but that first 1 mm of travel is a bit too tight in my opinion. You get used to it though.I don't have much to say on the throttle really other than that I like it a lot. The tension adjustment is good, the switches are easy to use, and easy to find by touch once you're accustomed to the setup. The placement of the flaps switch makes it a bit difficult to use if the throttle is at idle, since it completely blocks it, but there's no law that says one must use that particular switch for the function.The supplied Target software for calibration and assignment is also good, but you're likely using a version of that already on your setup. It was new to me, but it seems to work very well.All in all, it's a good buy, though expensive!-Mike

Hi Ryan. FSX does indeed have airframe icing and it can get pretty nasty! I've found that in general flight, using "real world weather" it almost never occurs, and then only in trace amounts. It seems to occur a bit more often when using Activesky, if the conditions are perfect for it. If you want to force it to see how bad it can get though, you certainly can. Set user defined weather, with a massive overcast layer (very thick altitude wise, say 5000-10000 feet thick), and set severe icing in that layer. Set ambient temperature at the surface to somewhere between 2 and 5 deg C, then go flying in the middle of that cloud layer. You'll find that within a few minutes you'll begin to see a drop off in aircraft performance, ie: more drag and weight, and an ever increasing angle of attack. Stay in it long enough, 10-15 mins, and you may not be able to maintain altitude at all in anything less than a pure fighter. FSX doesn't like to maintain those icing conditions though. It seems to dissipate the further you fly from your start point with that user defined weather, so try some lazy circling in the general area. :)-Mike

Sounds like vertical sync is off.Add this line to your fsx.cfg file, in the [GRAPHICS] section:ForceFullScreenVSync=1or...In your nvidia or ati driver control panel set Vsync to "force on".Hope that helps.-Mike

I'm in complete agreement with Ytzpilot about the economic ramifications.I'm a Canadian citizen that lived and worked in California for many years, and I've seen a massive and steady decline in respect from US Customs, then DHS, and now TSA over the last ten of those. After being detained by DHS in a room at JFK for over two hours last year without explanation (and ultimately learning it was because I simply have a common name) my days of flying into the country are over. Like Ytzpilot I don't even connect through American cities when traveling abroad anymore, I go through a Canadian one even if it costs more, because there at least I am treated with some respect. It's a shame that things have gone this far. I used to really look forward to spending time in America and visiting my friends there. Now when I have need to visit I just drive, but I'm really not sure how long that may last either. If these x-rays and demeaning pat downs are allowed to continue at airports then I think it's only a matter of time before they're implemented at road borders and rail stations as well. I understand the desire for safety, but the cost in dignity and freedom is simply too high for me now. Where does it end?-Mike

Yup, you can add this to your C172's aircraft.cfg file. It's in the C172's main folder, one folder above where the models are stored.The aircraft.cfg is a text file like model.cfg. Just open and scroll down to the camera definition entries and add this one after the last one (there should be 3 already in there)...[CameraDefinition.004]Title = "Full Forward View"Guid = {195EAB58-9E4A-4E2A-A34C-A8D9D948F078}Origin = Virtual CockpitMomentumEffect = YesSnapPbhAdjust = SwivelSnapPbhReturn = FalsePanPbhAdjust = SwivelPanPbhReturn = FalseTrack = NoneShowAxis = FALSEAllowZoom = TRUEInitialZoom = 1.0SmoothZoomTime = 2.0ZoomPanScalar = 1.0ShowWeather = YesXyzAdjust = TRUEShowLensFlare=FALSECategory = CockpitPitchPanRate=20HeadingPanRate=60InitialXyz=0, 0, 3InitialPbh=0, 0, 0That will put a camera about 3 feet out in front of the windscreen, in front of the left seat. The second to last line, InitialXyz=, controls how far forward or aft, left or right, and up and down the camera is positioned relative to the default pilot eyepoint position. You'll have to reload the plane after each change to see any effect. To get to that camera view just press the A key or shift-A, which will cycle through the available cockpit cameras when you're in the VC.You might be able to change the values globally by messing with the default cameras stored in Cameras.cfg (next to your fsx.cfg file) but I don't recommend it. Each plane has different eyepoint and datum positions due to size and cockpit locations etc, and there would be no "one size fits all" solution. I'd just add cameras to the planes you fly most often and tune their positions as needed.-Mike

Hi Tom. There are a couple of ways I know of to do this. The sort of view you're asking for was in the original release of FSX, but it was broken either in SP1 or SP2 and unfortunately never repaired. There are probably other ways to go about it with various camera addons around, but I don't have any of those, so can't say.The first way is to create a new VC camera that sits out in front of the airplane, or above it, so that you have an unobstructed view forward and to the sides, though if you look behind you you'll see the cockpit model, and it won't exactly be pretty from the wrong side of the glass, hehe. Not sure if that matters to you.The other way of doing this is a little more complex, and that is to temporarily remove the virtual cockpit model from the model.cfg file for that aircraft. In the case of the Cessna 172 you showed, you would find that file here:(your FSX folder)\SimObjects\Airplanes\C172\model\model.cfgThe model.cfg file is just a text file which you can open in notepad or wordpad. Make a backup copy before changing anything in it of course.The file looks like this inside:[models]normal=Cessna172SPinterior=cessna172sp_interiorIf you remove or comment out the third line in the file, the interior= part, so it looks like the example below, then the plane's VC model will not be loaded and you'll have a full unobstructed view from the standard VC camera in any direction:[models]normal=Cessna172SP//interior=cessna172sp_interiorMake that change, save the file, and run FSX. If you want to change it back, just close FSX, uncomment that line in the file, save it, and reload the sim. This method will only work on true FSX aircraft of course, those with separate external and internal models.Hope that helps.Cheers,-Mike

Sfakman, I completely agree with your suggestions, such an online world would be fantastic, but after 3 years of flying exclusively in multiplayer I can say with certainty that you can have much of that experience today, if you're willing to roll with the punches. The connection issues with gamespy can be almost entirely mitigated by completely avoiding the "Free Flight" lobby. It's constantly overcrowded and disconnections and lag are common problems there. Using any other lobby as your default will give a much smoother gamespy experience. There are fewer sessions in the other lobbies, but also a lot fewer screaming kids ripping around in F18s hehe.The biggest issue when getting into multiplayer is, as you pointed out, finding a good group of like minded and mature people to fly with. That takes some perseverance, no question, but it's absolutely worth pursuing in my opinion. If you fly online regularly, then within a few weeks or months you start running into people you recognize quite often, and eventually I think you would either find a recurring session (and group of pilots) that you really like, or just end up running your own.To give you a really positive gamespy story (among the never ending complaints haha), I met a guy in Australia while flying on some relatively quiet random session one night, shortly after FSX came out. We got to talking as we cruised along in formation for a couple of hours, and found that we had a lot in common. Three years later we've become the best of friends, chatting almost every day through MSN, and fly together online at least a couple of times a week. He started taking real flying lessons about six months ago and since then I've spent a lot of time tutoring and practicing with him in Shared Cockpit, in between his real life sorties. It's fantastic fun and an amazing training aid. In about 5 months we're planning to meet face to face for the first time, in New Zealand, and tour the country together by car for a couple of weeks.Multiplayer rocks. :)-Mike

The effect in question is "fx_WetEngineWash.fx" in your FSX/Effects folder.As its name suggests, it's the jet wash effect that plays whenever you throttle up on a wet runway, but unfortunately it doesn't always turn off. It happens most often if you take off in an area without rain and land in an area with it, and then continue your flight.Renaming that file or removing it from the effects folder will cure the issue. You'll still have spray from the wheels on a wet runway, but they don't cause any issues.Hope that helps. :)Cheers,-Mike

Hey *******. First off, thanks for your tenacity in discovering and testing out all these tweaks so far. :)As the discoverer of the initial "cloud popping fix" with newmaterialusage=false etc a couple of years ago, I just had to try out your new swarmcloud file. It seems to work ok. I can't say anything about a performance difference yet, still some testing to do, but if the newmaterialusage variable in the file is still set to "true" then the popping is still there unfortunately, at least for me (285GTX 1GB, 197.45 driver, all shaders deleted and recompiled after change). The easiest way to test for that cloud popping bug by the way is to find an airport with a large number of animated jetways (LAX etc), set a full overcast cumulus layer, then, using slew mode, move to a position about 0.5-2nm away from the airport terminals (so that the jetways are using their middle or low LOD model). After that, pan your view so that all of the jetways or entire airport are off screen, wait for 10-30 seconds and then rapidly pan back towards them. If the clouds are going to pop, then they will do so every time using this test. The default FSX scenery yacht marinas will also cause this effect in their middle or low LOD form about 70% of the time (depending on how recently they've been loaded), as well as a dozen other default objects.Anyway, thanks for all your efforts so far and keep up the great sleuthing. :)-Mike

Yup, do a search for OV-10 on this site. They have several flight and maintenance manuals available covering the different variants.http://www.eflightmanuals.com/-Mike

Thanks very much for the kind words Gazzareth, glad you're enjoying the L-39. :)Cheers,-Mike

Absolutely awesome. Osprey (my favourite kind of bird) takes out airliner (my least favourite kind of airplane) with fish ordnance. That totally made my day. Thanks for posting that Geof. :)-Mike

Jeroen isn't seeing things, he's right. It is in fact working on Win 7 64 bit, at least for me. I was never able to get it working on Vista, so I'm not sure what changed in Win 7, or whether it was the newer Nvidia drivers or Nhancer that did it, but Vsync works perfectly in it. I've tried to break it by using unlimited frames and using very odd number framerate locks, 23, 25, 27 etc, ones that should nicely fight with the native LCD refresh, and it still works. DX10 was a non-starter for me since screen tearing gives me a headache in minutes, but now it's certainly worth messing with. In windowed mode the tearing is very clear, but in full screen... rock solid. Water that looks great in DX9 still looks a little scary, but that shouldn't be too hard to fix up, and with the progress being made on the taxiway flickering issue I think DX10 may actually be useful to more people soon. :) Performance for me isn't any better, but it isn't any worse either.Cool stuff.-Mike

Simming since 1986 (FS 2.0) and did my PPL in 2003. Have about 250 hours which are pretty much evenly spread across C172s, Piper Warriors and Arrows, plus two hours of single engine jet stick time. :)-Mike

Hi Jimmy. That issue with the landing lights is mostly unavoidable, it's just how FSX shades things at night. The ambient light is quite low, so any colour data in the ground (except grey runways) will end up getting amplified a bit and produce a kaleidoscopic effect sometimes, mostly over brownish ground. This can also be made better or worse by aftermarket sky textures, which have some control over the lighting built into them. You'll notice this side effect mostly on a new moon as well, on a full moon it looks a lot nicer, again because of the higher ambient light level.To increase the brightness at night you can try messing with these two lines in your FSX.cfg (you'll have to add them). It may reduce that issue a bit.In the [GRAPHICS] section of the file:DAY_THRESHOLD=32768NIGHT_THRESHOLD=4096Those values are default, so you can play with them and see if it improves anything. Bumping up the night threshold value should increase the ambient light level at night.As for the banding in the sky, you'll never get rid of it, unless you own a CRT monitor. LCD screens (99% of them anyway) are not true 24 bit, they're 18 bit, only capable of displaying around 230,000 colours. So the darker things get the more of that banding you will see.It makes me miss my old CRT, except for the weight, hehe. Until better monitor technologies come along we're kind stuck with that. There are LCD screens capable of displaying true 24 bit colour, but their pixel refresh is so slow that they're all but useless for anything but Photoshop work. They're also quite expensive.Hope that helps.-Mike (aka lotus)