perigee

I just came here to look for the same info. I had Windows Defender quarantine the GTN750 so I installed Norton and it wouldn't even let me run the installer. Is there no way to run this software without making an exception to antivirus? I'm not saying it isn't a false positive, but I'd prefer to run only software that passes a virus scan.

Solved this myself... In the plugins menu, I had to select the option to use the north american DB. Now it matches what is in the PC trainer.

I bought the RXP GTN 750 for XP10 yesterday and it works pretty well. However, I have some problems with nav data. Some airports are missing when running in the sim. For instance, try going to KFME. KFME is available just fine when running the PC Trainer standalone. It's also available from xplane's default Garmin 530. I've seen this with a few other airports as well. Is there something I need to do to fix the database?

There's much more detail in these Flight screenshots than just landclass, coastlines and tree coverage. Particularly, the attention to detail with lighting and other atmospheric effects. I do quite a bit of real world flying near water, mostly close to the Chesapeake Bay. In screenshot #5, the way the water blends with the sky looks 100% realistic to me. On a somewhat hazy day, that's exactly how water blends with sky. Compared to the FSX screenshot #5, it is far ahead in realism. Then, also pay close attention to how the mountains fade away with a bluish tint in the distance. Very well done.Also, the way they light up the rivers in screenshot 6 is very nice. Water makes up quite a bit of scenery and has its own lighting, and it seems that Flight is starting to really capture that.

I just checked out the screenshots for Flight and immediately recognized the location. I took pictures flying (in real life) of the same place a few years ago. It's a famous location where Jurassic Park was filmed, I believe.

I think any real pilots on this board, or potential pilots, should be aware of what's going on in the aviation community regarding Flight Prep. It's causing quite a stir on many pilot forums around the internet, so I figured I'd also spread the word here...Basically, Flight Prep was awarded a patent claiming they invented online flight planning. They have filed a lawsuit against one site (RunwayFinder), and have approached others such as AOPA, FlightAware, flplan.com, etc. Several free sites have already shut down over this. Some of these tools like RunwayFinder were probably very useful to sim pilots as well, as you could see real IFR and VFR charts online for free. http://www.runwayfinder.comhttp://www.navmonster.comhttp://www.boycottflightprep.comhttp://www.nacomatic.comhttp://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=272e26be-bbb3-4ae0-91e6-b1162e98d9a7or just google "flightprep patent"

I don't understand the obsession with SIDs/STARs either. Just pretend you wrote "NO SIDS/STARS" in the remarks section of your flight plan and you'll be fine.

>P.S I really respect you flying in that area. What a scary mess!I learned to fly in it, post-ADIZ. It's really not so bad once you know the ADIZ rules, but I agree... if I were from out of the area and were trying to plan a flight near the ADIZ, I'd be terrified. IFR, however, the ADIZ rules are much simpler. Had you filed to any airport within the ADIZ while IFR, you would not have noticed much of anything different. For example, had you filed to FME, you probably would have been told to go direct Westminster (EMI), then vectored to FME if in VMC, or cleared for the GPS 10 approach. The only difference in the ADIZ is, *never* squawk 1200. If you cancel IFR in the air, the controller will remind you to "keep your code" until you're on the ground. Other than that, IFR at least, the ADIZ really is transparent... There are some good airports inside of it, so next time you're in the area, don't be afraid to come in!I completely agree with what you're saying about just wanting to file direct, because you just never fly what you're cleared. I have *never* flown a full IFR route without being cleared direct to another waypoint or vectored at some point. HOWEVER, the reason I do try to file what I know I'll be cleared is:1) I can avoid copying a long clearance on the ground or in the air. Filing the preferred routes, I hear "Cleared as filed" nearly 99% of the time. Yes, I know it will change once airborne, but it saves time when copying clearances.2) I think in the busier terminals, ATC expects you to file the preferred routes to some degree. I once filed direct from FME to N14 on one of my early IFR flights and when I called Potomac Approach to get my clearance, the controller actually yelled at me and told me I "cannot do that." He said he has to manually figure out my routing and I need to call back in *15* minutes. After that, I never filed direct again out of FME. HOWEVER, if I were in wide open country, I'd be filing direct all the time.Also, and this is more for the benefit of others reading this thread... Some people may be wondering why ATC bothers to give you these long-winded clearances just to change them once you're airborne. The reason is that the full-length clearance is what ATC is giving you permission to fly. There are a lot more rules, but put simply, in the event of communications failure, this full routing is what ATC will expect you to fly. They will be clearing other traffic out of your way as you proceed on your full routing, even if you can't talk to them. Once you're airborne and communicating, ATC can start giving you short-cuts or vectors / changes for whatever reason.Anyway, trying to figure out ATC is always interesting. Depends where you are, who you're talking to and what's going on that day I guess.

Hi Geof,I am based at FME inside the DC ADIZ and fly IFR all the time. Looking at your flightaware track, seems like you got cleared to MRB then EMI direct to MTN.In my experience, around a busy terminal area (Class :(, if you file the preferred route, that's what you'll get. No matter what I file from under the BWI Class B to anywhere else, or from the NYC area, I always get assigned the preferred route. In fact, I have flightaware alerts set up to SMS my cell phone, so as soon as I file, I get a text message with my preliminary ATC route that the FAA computer spits out, and it's always the same as the pref route.Outside of a busy terminal area, you'll likely get direct. So my advice is, if you're going to be near a busy terminal such as NYC or BWI, check the preferred routes and plan on getting that. If your flight takes you away from a busy area, plan on following the initial fixes of a preferred route, then direct.. then passing through the preferred routes in any busy areas you pass through.What's ironic is, my real-life IFR flight planning generally consists of checking recent flightaware routes, plus recent ATC clearances on fltplan.com. Planning and filing on that, and that's what I generally get. I then familiarize myself with airways / fixes / vors along the way incase I get rerouted, I at least have an idea where they're sending me.In the air, ATC usually clears you direct or gives vectors for traffic anyway, so really, my planning comes down to studying what is most likely to happen on a given flight by studying the above tools... making sure I'm aware of all of the options.

Why do people think FSX has to be placed in such a specific category? Why put it in a category as either a sim or a game?You asked our points of view, so here's mine.I think FSX is BOTH a game and a true simulator.I've made several posts about how I use FSX as an aid to actual flight planning. Every time I fly FSX either before or after a real-world flight, I'm amazed at how it recreates the actual flight environment. Navaids are where they are supposed to be, I can practice procedures, instrument approaches, etc. The views even match the real world close enough to make it feel like I've been there beforeOther times, I start up FSX to just play with it... Actually, for a few years in FS2004, the only thing I would do was load up an X-Wing fighter I downloaded and shoot across the sky at thousands of miles per hour. I loved doing that. That was how I turned flight sim into a game.It all depends how you use it. It's both a sim and a game, and I love the fact that we have such a great tool at our disposal when it's time to get serious.It's a fact that the real world has animals in it. I actually wish FSX simulated more birds. On nearly every real world flight, I'll get a little too close to a bird than I'd like. I just don't understand how people think that by having animals (something the real world actually has) FSX is more of a game. Sure, MS could have spent more time improving more hard-core areas of the sim, but the fact that they chose to spend time on other things doesn't make it any less of a simulator.Use FSX how you want to. Make it as real as you want to. It's up to you whether its a game or a sim.

I actually love going crazy in FS and flying from the outside views. This might sound like it contradicts something I said in a previous post, where I talked about making FS as real as you possibly can, by planning out the flight and flying it as you would do in real life. In that post, I was responding to the concept of using FS as a training aid, in which case you should be careful. As much as I love keeping things "real", I'll often just load up an external view and start spinning around and doing all sorts of crazy things. I'll think to myself how amazed I am how much FS actually simulates and recreates. Then, out of nowhere, I'll switch to a helicopter and dive down and start weaving through trees or mountains and just start playing around. I'll wind up going into Instant Replay and watch everything I've done from the outside views.One big complaint I have with FSX is that not all buildings are "solid". I was really disappointed the other day when I tried landing the helicopter in a baseball stadium, only to find that I sunk down through the turf into the ground below the stadium. That ruins some of the fun :)

Sorry, my post was slightly confusing. :) I meant there's not much lighting around around the airport because its surrounded by all trees, which makes the radius around the airport look pitch black for several miles. The airport itself has runway lights, taxiway lights, a beacon, papis, etc. What I meant was, these lights look like they're floating in the middle of a huge black abyss.

The real world at night is usually very dark. In fact, flight sim can look the most realistic at night since you can't see much detail besides the lights. The airport I'm based out of (real world) is surrounded by several miles of trees... no lights. Landing there at night is like descending into a dark black hole with runway lights floating in the center.

This is a bit off topic, but I feel the need to update some comments I made about Voyager versus ChartCase. Over the past few days, I spoke to sales and technical support at both companies and have new information.As it turns out, Voyager and ChartCase share the same data and approach plates. A problem in one will show up in the other. Both companies verified this, and I demo'd ChartCase (30 day trial) and confirmed that the same geo-referenced chart problems exist in ChartCase as well as Voyager. Seattle Avionics support responded quickly and actually fixed the charts I brought to their attention, and will also be working with the data provider to have it fixed at the source.Given this new information, I can truly recommend Voyager and their excellent support. After demo'ing ChartCase, I'm sticking with Voyager. In my opinion, Voyager wins, hands down, as a flight planner. ChartCase has some nice things in flight, but the new 4.0 version of Voyager coming out soon (and included as a free update) will pretty much make up for anything I see that ChartCase does better.Anyway, just wanted to clear that up since I made it seem like Voyager's data cannot be trusted in my earlier post... when infact, the data between each is from the same source.

I use an LS800 with Voyager GlassView (Seattle Avionics). I was actually just looking at the ChartCase website tonight... I'm getting a little frustrated with Voyager. It's slow and the approach plates and taxi diagrams are not georeferenced reliably. It's hit or miss ... the GPS overlay of the plane on the plate can be in the wrong spot, moving in the wrong direction. I've had to turn this feature off out of safety concerns.Have you experienced anything like this with ChartCase? How is the performance?