Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14,193 Excellent

About Chock

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Her Brittanic Majesty's Kingdom of Englandshire
  • Interests

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Profile Fields

  • About Me
    I'm lovely. Ask anyone.

Recent Profile Visitors

22,606 profile views
  1. My friend was on an exercise that night at the base where that sighting occurred at Cosford, he said there was definitely some mad stuff going on there in terms of people running about and being alarmed. It's worth bearing in mind however, that (at the time) there were fact two military bases with their entrances adjacent to one another there, one was Cosford and other one was the main SAS base, Stirling Lines. I used to go there a fair bit years ago and rather unsurprisingly, security is fairly tight for obvious reasons. So there is plenty of reason for freaky military ops there there. There would certainly have been some operations at that location which would remain highly classified, thus not part of the records which could be easily examined even by people with a very high clearance to look at records. Some records in the UK don't get released for a long time (occasionally never). The standard protocol for secret stuff in the UK, is the 'thirty year rule', which following the Freedom of Information Act in 2000, amended the reach of the Official Secrets Act so that only things which genuinely were 'in the public interest' being kept secret could genuinely call upon this reason to prevent them from being released to public record after thirty years and thus being in that vault you see in the film. So what you are seeing in this film is the public record stuff in the archive; not the stuff which requires other clearances, as evidenced by the fact that they are filming in there and conducting an interview in the records vault. Thus when people say that there is no official explanation for something, this does not mean there is no explanation at all, it just means there is no explanation available which might be contained in still classified documentation which has not been released to the public. We also have to bear in mind that, as noted in the film, there are occasions where people who were witnesses to stuff get things wrong for any number of reasons, such as confirmation bias, and of course things we recall from years before are prone to being embellished when we have indulged in such human tendencies. Anyone call be susceptible to this. I am sure you have heard of witnesses to things sometimes reporting wildly differing recollections of events in spite of being genuinely honest in their intent to say what happened, such as people saying a getaway car was several different colours and that sort of thing, or sometimes not even seeing stuff at all when it was right in front of them. I did this once when witnessing a crash where I went to recue the people from it, which is a good illustration of how inaccurate you can be as a witness. Here's what happened: I saw a car go across a set of lights on red at night. It got clipped on its back end by a motorhome which was going though the lights on green. The car skidded back and forth a couple of times as the driver over-controlled the skid, then it flipped over, rolled several times, skidded along the road on its roof and eventually came to a halt upside down. I immediately ran up the road to pull the people out of this car and help them even before it had come to a halt, despite my girlfriend at the time yelling to me not to do so because petrol was pouring out of its tank and sparks were coming off the shorted out battery whilst it was upside down, thus making it potentially possible for it to burst into flames or explode. When I got to the car as it came to a halt, I immediately headed to the drivers door, which was crushed and so would not open, but it had a broken window, so reached into the car to try to get the people out, moments later a guy intent on doing the same thing as me reached the passenger door and also reached in from that side. We were both puzzled to find that there was no-one in the car at all, in spite of us looking in the footwells, rear seats etc. Bizarrely, I have a vivid recollection of there being loads of fluorescent green tennis balls in the thing, on the roof lining and the back window, which is another indication of us as humans taking in some weird stuff in certain situations. Both that other guy and myself were so intent on watching the crashing car and running up to help the persons in it, that were literally never saw the other car which had followed it through the red light, stopped alongside the crashed car, nor saw the guy getting out of the crashed car, jumping into the other car which then sped off, yet numerous people confirmed that was what had occurred. Apparently he had stolen the car and his mates were in the other car behind it. Neither me or that other guy could recall having seen that other car at all when we spoke to the police who attended the incident, and we were literally the first people to get to the crash and had no desire to report things inaccurately or be dishonest about what we saw. So what that tells you is that you tend to tune out what you think is not factually important to you when observing things in stressful situations, and that you can become so focused on what you believe to be the case, that you sometimes won't see what is right in front of you. Effectively having your own version of events which might very well not match reality. Sometimes you only see what you want to see. This doesn't absolutely mean there wasn't some freaky alien ship over that base, but it's far more likely it was some classified military stuff that people saw and they joined the dots up incorrectly because it's 'cool' to have seen something unexplained.
  2. I would presume you could do so by simply trial and error around the recommended cruise speed setting, or it would possibly be in the manual for the real thing if the tab was on its factory setting.
  3. Probably not, but you can phone up the NSA and tell them you've got some interesting bits of a state of the art Chinese ballistic missile which they might want to buy off you so they can analyse them, and I suspect that'd be worth a few quid.
  4. The 152 does have a rudder trim tab, but it's a ground-adjustable one, i.e. it's a thin metal tab on the tail which can be bent by hand prior to boarding the aeroplane. So it emulates what a fully adjustable rudder tab can do at a certain setting, but obviously since you set it and forget it, this means it will only be trimming the aeroplane to fly perfectly straight at one specific airspeed, and it's not much use to you in a flight sim unless you replicate having bent it a bit on the ground by altering the simulated version's config file. Many aeroplanes are in fact designed to fly 'hands-off' at their most commonly used cruise speed by having an asymmetrically shaped rudder which imparts the correct amount of corrective force at a specific speed. The asymmetric rudder is very obvious when you look at early Messerschmitt bf109 variants for example, because it wasn't until the very late variants that the 109 actually got properly useful rudder tabs. So you can try flying at different speeds and altitudes to see if you can achieve this designed-in feature of most aeroplanes, although obviously it has its limitations in only working at specific speeds and altitudes. On the subject of the 109 and for the curious, most WW2 fighters were designed to be fairly hands off at about 250 mph. You have to know what you are doing when adjusting those ground adjustable tabs on real aeroplanes, but you could emulate this in a flight sim by tweaking the aircraft's config file, although again you have to know what you are doing with that too. If you don't want to do that with the config file, there are some other things you can try, the most obvious one of which is to deliberately imbalance the aeroplane to counter the tendency for it to turn, either with passenger weight distribution, or the fuel payload, i.e. keeping it slightly imbalanced to make it go the other way to its turning tendency, thus cancelling the tendency out, although you could potentially be flying a bit crabwise or with a wing down, which isn't ideal, so that's something to be aware of. This is not as drastic a technique as it sounds incidentally; there are many aeroplanes which are often trimmed out by using fuel in different locations, among these is the Boeing 747, which can carry fuel in the rear stabiliser, although when Boeing resigned the aeroplane to create the 747-8, they initially had to lock out the tail tank because it was found to be causing flutter when it was carrying fuel, so you have to also be aware that there can sometimes be issues with that sort of thing. So in short, if you don't want to simulate bending the rudder tab by tweaking the config file, then try getting the fuel in the wing tanks slightly imbalanced.
  5. Same here. Downloaded the latest driver, plugged it in and it worked, although it is worth bearing in mind that there are some MSFS aeroplanes it does not work with, so to make sure this is not what you are experiencing. Definitely works on the default Diamond DA62.
  6. You could say something sort of similar about pretty much every other developer too, Their Airbuses remain flyable products, they just keep getting tweaks and additions; if they'd instead have put the spin on it, of releasing them as they were and saying they were a finished product instead of a 'prologue' as they do, then kept on adding stuff to them periodically as they do, people would be saying how wonderful they are for constantly supporting, tweaking and updating their released products. I've got all their Airbus products for FSX and P3D; they're not as bad as some people would have you believe and they have a better load manager than any of the other airbuses from other developers too. Their PR abilities leave a lot to be desired, and they've done themselves no favours in that regard over the years, but their reputation lingers because a lot of people are inclined to criticise their products without actually owning them, and obviously, opinions like that are worthless, particularly when one can download and try free demos of all their FSX/P3D products and thereby easily gain an informed opinion.
  7. Oh I know. The 70s was not a good era for colours, I seem to recall my parents having some truly horrendous colours on the walls in that decade.
  8. Nicely done paint job, but I can't help thinking the colours they picked for the real aeroplane look like someone said: 'okay, get me the three worst colours from the 1970s - you know, the ones we painted that asylum's corridors with - and let's paint this sucker up!'
  9. Gotta love the typo on that fsaddons news story about this: 'At the time of its release last September, this taildragger (their Bird Dog) was mildly received, but the developers have put consistent work on updating and improving the aircraft in such a way that it’s now well-beloved among costumers, which is definitely promising looking into the release of the BN-2 Islander. I'm quite into nice clothes - hats in particular - so I'll be interested to see if this sartorial trend continues with their Islander.
  10. Only if it is either installing first time, or updating, any other normal time it won't be affected.
  11. Clearly FSX/P3D must have come close to having been an enjoyable experience, or you wouldn't actually be missing that aeroplane now, would you? And it obviously did compare to MSFS and even surpass it if you felt so strongly about what it was able to do that you went to the extent of creating a topic on a forum about how much you miss the experience it gave you. You could try flying the aeroplane you like at dusk or at night or in IMC if the terrain is such a deal-breaker in P3D. Sure the view can be nice, but there is more to flying aeroplane than what is going on out of the window. You might also try importing the aeroplane into MSFS too. Dunno if it would work, but I guess it is worth a shot.
  12. Well, if people give you heat for it, just tell them: 'I'll get my coat...' You'll find it on a hanger. 🤣
  13. Don't normally get too picky about spelling on the internet, but you'd think someone complaining about the hangars being incorrect on that link, would themselves be careful not to make the mistake of spelling hangar incorrectly. 🤣
  14. The Carenado 182T is almost certainly the least impressive of their MSFS releases; it is the one I'd be least likely to recommend. It was significant in being the first payware plane to make it out of the door for MSFS, and on the subject of making it out of the door, it does at least demonstrate you can have them working in MSFS, but beyond that it is hard to recommend it in favour of other offerings. Taken in isolation as something to fly about in it is alright, but on a side-by-side test with the default 172, it's not significantly different from that 172 in flight characteristics, such as having better penetration as the real thing does, given its increased weight, different wing, engine, prop etc. The real 182 is far better in IMC than a 172 which is why Cessna makes them and why people buy them, but not in MSFS with the Carenado depiction of it. Ultimately this means there isn't really much justification for having it in your virtual hangar since you've already got an aeroplane which does pretty much everything it can do by default, and in fact you have two if you bought the Premium Deluxe version of the sim. I was glad when the 182T showed up however, since it proved we would not be waiting forever to get some add-on aeroplanes for MSFS and I think the fact that Carenado got the first punch in was a shock to some developers and gave them a bit of a spur to up their game too, so even if I don't fly it much, I do still kind of approve of it for these reasons at least.
  • Create New...