Jump to content


Inactive Members
  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Speedbyrd

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

717 profile views
  1. OK, I figured out how to change the figures but there are 2 lines that give the value 0.09. Do I change both of them? the value shows on line 2 and line 3Thanks
  2. ok, got that and I'm there, but it won't let me change the value. I've tried inputing 0 but the value doesn't change. is there a trick that I missed?
  3. ok, you lost me. What table? what fuel tank issue?I don't spend a lot of time messing with the aircraft.cfg or the air file. In fact I don't even know how to get into the air file.
  4. Very well. I've done my share of tweaking and usually get things the way I want them. Maybe it's cheating but I like for my aircraft to lift off with a minimum of effort, turn smoothly and get a reasonably accurate fuel burn.My Overland aircraft have been tweaked by Bryan Betts and he's done a phenomenal job. I think they're as close to perfect as it gets. The 747-200 is the only non-Overland product that I use as I'm not as keen on CLS as I am Overland/Simmersky. but the 747-200 is a masterpiece and it works very well for me.I wish I could get a perfect DC-10 but it still eludes me. The visual models are great but the flight dynamics are not much to my liking. If I could get a DC-10 model that handles like the Overland MD-11, I would think that Heaven has smiled on me.I will try your 1.23 fuel scalar in Air Force One which will be leaving KADW next Saturday bound for its first diplomatic stop - the UK.
  5. So is all of this saying we should leave the fuel_flow scalar alone?
  6. I've started at 0.925 and will go from there. Based on the fuel load and range specs, she should burn about 23,000 lb per hr. As it is right now she's only burning about 13K with the scalar at 0.8676 which was the default mine came with.All the other scalars seem pretty good as far as thrust, etc. Don't see anything else that needs tweaking.
  7. The Commercial Level 747's seem very accurate (as much as you can expect in a flightsim) except for the fuel flow. According to my claculations, the aircraft could fly about 28 hours depending on conditions when it should only be good for about 15 hrs (6,600 nm). Has anyone made adjustment on their fuel flow and what figure are you suing?Thanks,
  8. Well, I consistently get between 35-45fps anyway but on the Nvidia card I just go into the Nvidia Control Panel, then into 3D settings, and just set your quality. Higher "quality" settings yields less and less jagged edges, but may sacrafice performance. If you have a fast machine, that won't matter.
  9. I set it up like that and makes all the difference! No more jagged edges! Really purrrty!
  10. Somewhere there's a setting to smooth out the edges but can't seem to find it. My video is very clear and defined, almost too much so. Any idea how I can smooth it out a bit?Thanks
  11. yes, I figured it out after tinkering with it. Got it. Sorry I didn't post the results. Thanks for the reply.
  12. how right you are! just tried it on the default 747. ugly VC is gone, but landing/taxi lights shine bright from INSIDE now. Thanks!
  13. yea, I guess it depends on how much effort you want to put into it. But you're right... it's small price to pay. If your airport has lighted taxiways and with 'progressive taxi' it's not hard to find your way around at night.
  14. >Excellent. I was always under the assumption, that when the>VC was removed, the Landing/taxi lights (When viewed from>inside the 2D cockpit) were removed as well... Guess not.>>LeeI stand corrected. You lose the inside view of the lights. You can see them from exterior view but not from inside. Guess you can't have everything.
  15. HEX Workshop is the answer. No more VC! Lights don't seem to be affected.
  • Create New...