perigee
Frozen-Inactivity-
Content Count
23 -
Donations
$0.00 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
AVSIM
Media Demo
Downloads
Gallery
Blogs
Forms
Everything posted by perigee
-
malware trojan horse Fuery.B!cl found in rxpGtnSim32.dll
perigee replied to marcfsx's topic in RXP GTN 750/650 Touch
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"
-
Hopes for a new Flight Simulator fizzled?
perigee replied to dighost's topic in Microsoft FLIGHT Archive
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.
-
FSX: Not a simulator, but an action game?
perigee replied to thepilot's topic in MS FSX | FSX-SE Forum
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. -
Am I the only one who flies mostly from external views?
perigee replied to a topic in MS FSX | FSX-SE Forum
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?
-
Flight Sim is as realistic as you make it. I often use FSX as part of my real flight planning. It's actually a lot of fun. After doing everything I'd normally do for a real flight, I'll sit down with my charts and everything and fly the flight using FSX. I even have the Tablet PC I use in my plane connected to FSX so I can practice using that.I say all this with one big disclaimer. I agree with the people who say you need to fly in a real plane first, to then be able to make the most out of Flight Sim. In fact, I think you need to have several hours of real flight instruction before FS "clicks". A "discovery flight" will give you a taste, but not enough (my opinion). I've been flying Flight Sim since FS2, and I finally got my private certificate in 2006 and my instrument rating in June '07. My Flight Sim experience was forever changed after flying for real. Did the years of flying FS help during my actual flight training? You bet it did! I already understood the basics of straight and level, climbs and turns, etc. Does this mean my first landing was a greaser? Nope! One thing I absolutely did NOT learn from FS (after all those years) was how to properly land an airplane. It actually took me quite a long time to finally be able to land without having a sore back the next day (ok, it was only THAT bad a few times...) If anything my KNOWLEDGE of aviation was a huge advantage. I already understood most of the flight instruments, the radios, how to intercept and track a VOR, etc. What I really lacked was all the supporting knowledge, such as FARs (regulations), procedures, staying proficient, being a safe pilot, checking weather, decision making, etc, etc... "Flying" is really only part of being a good pilot. To me, FSX is just another part of the equation, as an excellent tool.There's nothing like going on a flight to somewhere new in FSX, practicing a few instrument approaches.... then the next day doing it for real. Once your mind is able to make the mental bridge between real-world flying and Flight Sim, it's amazing how easy it is to swap one for the other. In fact, this past weekend I was on a short (real-world) flight. I flew it in FSX the day before. I had my autopilot on in heading mode... As I turned the heading bug to the heading I wanted, I actually thought to myself, "Hmm... this feels like flight simulator." I had also practiced a few instrument approaches at my destination in FSX. I filed IFR (in good weather) for my flight and requested the ILS. The whole approach was fresh in my mind from practicing in FSX the day before... The view of the airport was exactly what it looked like in FSX. I felt like I had already done the flight... in fact, in a way, I really had.In summary, FS is extremely helpful as a training aid if used correctly. After you get your certificate, FSX becomes even more useful -- especially if you're instrument rated.-Mike
-
What were you attempting to do? You only need a DUAT account to take advantage of the services it provides (weather briefing, filing flight plans, etc). I'm pretty sure Voyager should still function as a standalone flight planner without DUAT or DUATS configured. I'm fairly certain you shouldn't need an account. I could be wrong though, as I don't use the free version since I've purchased it.
-
I use Voyager from Seattle Avionics for part of my real-world flight planning. They have a free version, Voyager Freeflight. It lets you export to FS.http://www.seattleavionics.com
-
Why do you caution not to use it for real flying? Obviously it should never be your primary means of navigation, but I'm curious what you feel is wrong with it.
-
Last week, my wife and I were planning to take a nice day trip flight to Luray, Virginia from Tipton Airport (FME) which is just outside of Baltimore. Since this would have been my first time heading west over some mountains (I'm used to flat land), I spent a while longer than usual doing my flight planning last Friday night. The weather forecasts weren't looking too great, however. Clear skies, but a lot of strong winds... I figured I'd wait till morning to make a final decision. Saturday morning, the winds on the surface were dying down pretty nicely, but were still strong aloft. I figured it may be a bit bumpy while we're climbing out, but I don't mind. We decide to drive to the airport to see what other people who may have been up there already thought. We walk into the FBO where several pilots had just come back from flying. All of them were talking about how bumpy it was up there. One shaken up student looked at me and agreed. That convinced my wife and I that we should wait to go another time... Disappointed, we left the airport in hopes next week would have better weather (unfortunately, it's even windier today, so I'm posting this instead of flying).When I got back home, I decided to fire up FSX and fully carry out the entire flight that I had planned. I had never seriously done this before in flight sim. I brought my flightbag to the computer, strapped my kneeboard on my leg, got my TAC and Sectional ready and opened up the navlog I had just printed up that morning intending to use in real life. What happened over the next hour completely took me by surprise. The entire experience felt so real that when I landed in Luray in FSX, I wanted to get my logbook out and put an entry in. The Garmin GPS functioned almost exactly like the panel-mounted Garmin I have in the real plane I rent. I usually monitor VORs as a backup, which I did as well. The most impressive part -- in real life, even though I have GPS / VOR and a handheld backup GPS, I like to still primarily fly via pilotage (looking out the window at landmarks and following along on the chart). Every single landmark I correlated from my chart, I could find in FSX by panning around in the virtual cockpit. Slight bends in rivers, the small rolling mountain ridges, even smoke stacks with antennas around it on the chart and little towns along the way. Basically, I was able to find all the landmarks I expected to find when I was doing my flight planning. While arriving in Luray, I entered the pattern as planned and had a smooth touchdown. Everything was where I expected it to be. I'd like to add a note here that I am using Cloud9 XClass USA, which probably helped the arrangement of towns, etc.I still had a flight plan in my kneeboard from a flight I did a few weeks ago in real life. I decided to recreate that flight in FSX to validate the experience... I wanted to compare the experience of a flight I had never done (Luray) to one I've done several times. I departed Tipton airport and headed up north to a small airport in New Jersey. Again, I was amazed at how real the entire experience felt. There's a cooling tower in NJ sitting on the Delaware Bay that you can see from 50 miles away on a clear day... sure enough, it was there in FSX. Just about anything interesting enough to be on a TAC or Sectional chart was there in FSX. I flew the entire flight to NJ in FSX via pilotage based on my real life experience. Again, I wanted to log the time... too bad I can't.For my flights, I used the default 172 SP, which is one of the planes I fly in real life. The performance and handling was close enough, although I hate the ground handling in FSX (only real complaint). I'm using a CH Yoke and rudder pedals. Also, I've made several tweaks to FSX and am getting decent performance, but I look forward to SP1.A little more background info for those still reading :) I've been flight simming since FS2. I recently obtained my Private certificate last year and am coming close to my 200 hour mark. Before flying in real life, I used to just fire up flight sim and do whatever I thought was realistic. During my flight training and up until recently, for some reason, I took a break from Flight Sim and never fired it up. Now that I've been flying for a little while, it is amazing to come back with such a different perspective. Since FS2, I saw flight simming from the perspective of someone who just wonders "is this realistic?" ... the answer is... it's as realistic as you make it. The problem I see is that someone really needs to experience real life flight training to get the most use out of FSX. I don't mean just going up in a Cessna and going home to compare the experience. It's the entire experience of being a pilot, from obsessing over the weather, to drawing lines on your sectional chart, pulling all the radio frequencies together, and so on. For the first time ever, I did all this and then used FSX as my tool to tie it all together. All this provided such a real experience for me, that once I do actually fly to Luray, I'm going to feel like I had done it before. In fact, I'm going to make sure I recreate any new flight in FSX just to familiarize myself with a new area before I go (in addition to my other planning, of course).Anyway, after years of "lurking" on the Avsim forums, I thought I'd just share this experience.
-
Tips for getting back after minimize or windowing?
perigee replied to BobP's topic in MS FSX | FSX-SE Forum
Here's a good tip, slightly different from those already mentioned.If you alt-tab out of FSX, then click it or try to alt-tab back in and it does not come back, don't give up. It isn't frozen. Simply click the FSX icon in your taskbar to "activate" it. It may look frozen since it doesn't come back. Even though it doesn't maximize back to full screen, it is still listening to keystrokes. Hit Alt-ENTER to put it into Window mode after you click it in the taskbar. It will become a window. Hit Alt-Enter again, and you're back to full screen! -
I got FSX Friday night from Best Buy. I spent all night tweaking setting after setting getting hypnotized by the progress bar each time all the scenery had to reload. Same thing for a good portion of Saturday.A bit of history. I've been using Flight Sim since FS2 (on my 8088). I basically grew up with it. For what it's worth, I'm now a real life student pilot and I'm about to schedule my checkride for my PPL (just finished up my long solo cross country). I'll save my game vs sim opinion for another time, but basically all I have to say is game or not, my years worth of flying the various versions of Flight Simulator GREATLY enhanced my real life flight training.I've also been an Avsim forum lurker since about 1997, checking messages almost daily in silence, so hello to everyone.Anyway, to the point of this post. Around Saturday afternoon (about a day worth of testing FSX), I was fed up. I almost came to the forum to post my own complaint about poor performance. With all past versions of FS, I knew my system would have to be upgraded to really see all the new features in their full glory, but in the past I could at least find a balance where I could test out a couple of new enhancments without completely bringing my system to a halt. I just couldn't find this balance with FSX... it seemed as if no matter what I did to the sliders, I couldn't even get it to at least look like FS9, which was very disappointing.However, before running over here to add to the complaints, I waited and gave myself another day. Finally this afternoon, I gave in to the suggestion to disable autogen. I also disabled ALL AI traffic (boats, planes, cars, etc). My FPS finally jumped up to the 30s+. Just for testing, I then maxed out the other scenery sliders (mesh resolution, texture resolution, water to 2.x max, etc). To my surprise, I still got decent FPS in the 16-20 range with a bunch of settings maxed out. I was very happy, because now I could test out FSX while enjoying some of the new features.I then started exploring. I loaded up the 747-400 and began looking at the various new camera views. I was amazed with the detail. On the ground, the 747's wings flexed down a bit. I wondered if they'd flex up as I became airborne and they seemed to. I pulled back on the yoke and pushed forward from the chase cam view and sure enough, the wings flexed and vapor trails accurately started and stopped from the wingtips, one wing at a time as appropriate. The passenger-like wing view of the heavy planes is amazing as well... the sounds, the way the wing flexes... For the first time in my Flight Sim history, I really felt like I was in an airliner (out of the box).I switched to the Bell 206 helicopter. I fly remote control helicopters, so I have a general sense of how they should fly. For the first time in FS, I could auto-rotate the helicopter. The hover was stable and smooth. It seems as if rotorcraft fans finally have a more accurate depiction in this version of FS. I'm VERY happy about this as I love helicopters as well.Am I disappointed that I have to disable autogen and the traffic? Yes, I really am as this is a feature that I could use in FS9 and have now lost. The road/car traffic I don't mind losing so much, since its new (as a side note, I found I could actually re-enable air traffic without a serious performance hit. The road traffic is the real killer, leave that off for now). However (this is a really important point), I could see into the future of FS today and suddenly it clicked what we are in for. Just forgetting about performance for a minute, I maxed everything out to see what it would look like. At 2-3 FPS, I saw highways packed with traffic, the sun setting and reflecting off powerline towers, buildings... it just looked extremely real and alive.In conclusion, this sim is definitely an investment for the future. I think that this version of FS is going to last longer than others, serving as a platform for years to come that we continue to grow into. I actually hope MS slows down the release cycle a bit so we can get more life out of FSX. My only request to MS at this point is to please put out a patch for autogen so that we can at least enable a baseline of features that we could all realistically run so we don't LOSE anything we had in FS9. I realize some well respected people in the forum are indicating that they prefer the clear textures without autogen anyway, and I agree that it does look great. However, I disagree with having to turn that feature off. The textures do look great with some altitude... but at an airport on the ground with auto-gen disabled, I feel like I'm in a barren world that reminds me of much older versions of FS. I'm just surprised the "Sparse" setting of autogen is so high. With "Sparse", I see full forests packed with trees, which is anything but sparse. I want more sliders, such as trees vs buildings, with options for even more sparse settings. All in all, I'm very happy with FSX. I suggest that everyone just disable the CPU hogging settings and go USE the sim. Explore the new camera system, sounds, aircraft, helicopter models, etc. The glass cockpits and other flight systems seem pretty detailed as well. I think you'll be as pleased as I was at the attention to detail some things received in this version.ACES, we just need a patch that gives us a better balance of settings so we can enjoy some of the new features on today's hardware, then we can continue to grow into FSX over the next few years.My system specs:Intel P4 2.8 (overclocked to 3.0)Radeon 9800 Pro1GB RAMWindows XP SP2
-
This tip needs to be emphasized more. I bought FSX retail at Best Buy last night and spent hours very disappointed with the blurries. I was convinced I somehow purchased the first Beta since the blurry "fix" didn't seem to be there. Then I searched Avsim and found this post saying that the CFG setting is NOT included in the Retail. I went ahead and put that in and performance is now great...I think this setting does more than just fix the blurries. Without it, whenever I would pan around the VC, FSX would stutter and choke as the blurries popped up everywhere... then it would continue to stutter as it tried to catch up with the textures. Now that the blurries are gone, everything is also more fluid with less stutters.I'm disappointed this tweak isn't set by default... it worries me it will turn off newcomers to FSX who don't necessarily read Avsim, let alone find this tip.