Chock

Members
  • Content Count

    9,541
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,736 Excellent

3 Followers

About Chock

  • Rank
    Member - 5,000+
  • Birthday 08/27/1965

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    IVAO
  • Virtual Airlines
    Yes

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

15,620 profile views
  1. Chock

    Twin Turboprop (Not Carenado)

    You can still find the boxed version of the Real Air Duke if you look about, even though they are out of business. There were boxed copies of it on sale for a tenner at the Flight sim 2018 show last week for example, and a quick search online will turn one up easily enough: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Beech-Duke-Add-FSX-PC/dp/B002C1B3LA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1539590947&sr=8-2&keywords=Real+Air+Duke
  2. Chock

    Fs2crew voice command Microphone

    Microsoft LifeChat LX-3000 is a good choice. I use one of those with P3D for chatting to ATC and co-pilots etc and they aren't bad for listening to music either. They cost about 20 quid or so.
  3. Chock

    Helicopters!!!!!!!!!!

    If you're 'prepared' to consider DCS, then the UH-1 Huey is definitely worth a look. If you're willing to use FSX-SE, then the best chopper is definitely the Dodosim Bell JetRanger, which is eventually going to be available for P3D V4, but it's gonna be a while. In the meantime, my vote would go to the Nemeth Designs MD 500 Defender (aka the Hughes Cayuse/Loach), which is actually for FSX, however, it does work in P3D V4. The reason I suggest this one is because it is easy and fun to fly and is small, so you can land it pretty much anywhere. It includes both military and civilian versions of it. The real thing is incredibly small in spite of being able to seat four people, and in reality it's a very twitchy and agile chopper, and you can do all that stuff with it in P3D, yet it remains easy to control, which is important for FSX and P3D because choppers in these sims are not particularly realistic and as a result they are often difficult to control, so you want one that is at least easy to fly, which this one is. You could easily land that MD 500 in a car park.
  4. Chock

    Is it worth buy FSLabs a320

    That's not quite an equivalent comparison. The Aerosoft Pro A318/A319/A320/321 is a very good value package in that - when I bought it - I paid £74. For that I got four different Airbus models, which works out at £18.50 for each variant. When I bought the FSL P3D Airbus, I paid £135 for it, which is getting on for twice the price of the Aerosoft bundle of four, to get just one aeroplane, or if you prefer, that FSL 'Bus works out at seven times the price of one Aerosoft Airbus variant. On the face of it, this seems to make the FSL appear very expensive in comparison, and whilst I don't think anyone is going to deny that £135 is quite a lot of money, the price difference becomes somewhat meaningless because there really is no comparison between the two, nor even really any competition, since they are products with two very different aims. This is in fact why I bought both products. They suit different types of usage. Well, that and the fact that there is no FSL A318, or A321. The FSL product's price reflects the amount of time and money FSL spent on developing absolutely the best replication they can make of the real aeroplane, covering almost every facet of it, for both normal and non-normal operations. That and the fact that there is no equivalent product to it as an alternative also means that they can to some extent charge what the hell they like for it, because it's either that, or nothing if you want a full-on simulation of an Airbus, which I did, so I was prepared to pay that price (twice in fact, since I have it for FSX too). Aerosoft on the other hand, make no bones about the fact that their Airbus simulation does not attempt to create a complete simulation of the aeroplane, rather it is a good representation of it for normal operations, and it is to some extent an update of a previous product, so the development time and costs are not comparable either. It's two different approaches to creating two different products with, very obviously, two different target markets. You can of course compare the two products, but to do so is a bit like comparing a Ford Mondeo to a Lamborghini Countach; they both have their uses, but the fact that the Lamborghini is faster and looks better doesn't alter the fact that the Ford Mondeo can fit five people plus a week's shopping in it, costs considerably less and uses a lot less petrol. But aside from the cost, there is nothing really stopping someone from choosing a big performance car over a practical runabout if that is what they want. I have a big stupid American car myself, with a big stupid engine which is in no way practical, but I like it and so that's why I drive it lol. The original thread question asked if the FSL A320 was worth it, so obviously you're going to get a lot of replies praising the FSL A320, since it is the product the original poster was asking about and it is indeed worthy of praise. but this does not mean the Aerosoft one is not worthy of praise too, it's just that this was not the question that was posed. So it is not the same situation as a comparison between the iFly and PMDG 737 NGs if, as has often been the case, someone asked which is the best between them, because these are comparable products, in that their objective as a product was essentially the same; i.e. both of them are realistic and detailed attempts at simulating a Boeing 737 NG. That being the case, obviously there is very little to separate them in terms of what they simulate, and as it turns out, both of them can claim to do one thing better in different areas. But despite this, there is a very large price discrepancy between the two products in terms of the number of variants one gets for the price, and that is indeed why one of them comes in for some criticism. And yes, I've got both of those products too and I think they're both great too, but they're not above criticism, no product is. 🙂
  5. Chock

    Is it worth buy FSLabs a320

    I use a Speedlink Black Widow XE, which is actually a very cheap flight stick. I only bought it as a stopgap when another flight stick broke, but I found it was actually pretty good. What I will say about controls and Airbus sims is that the throttle is pretty important since as you know, like the real thing, the Airbus throttle is not motorised like on a Boeing, so since you place the throttle in various detent positions for various auto throttle functions, it helps to have a precise throttle which does not spike or send spurious signals.
  6. Chock

    v1.2 STILL has issues...

    The engines are supposed to only draw from the main tanks. You're supposed to transfer fuel from the auxiliary tanks into the main tanks, where the engine can then draw that fuel from. Still needs fixing anyway, but that's Carenado for you.
  7. Chock

    Is it worth buy FSLabs a320

    Yup, it's true that you can get a fairly positive touchdown sometimes, but what I mean about the FSL A320 and its flight model, is that it flies so well, you can even do it 'seat of the pants' and know where it's going to end up. Perhaps a video will demonstrate what I mean better, so I've just made one. For this, I literally did not set anything up, just loaded the FSL A320 up on the runway at Liverpool, put a fairly light fuel load on it, took off and flew a rough, tight circuit, then flew a stick and rudder approach with purely what's out of the window and the speed tape on the PFD as reference. I didn't set the altimeters, radios or anything and I still ended up with a passable landing. The video starts with me swinging around to see the airport coming into sight. I'm too high and too fast, which is what I intended to be position-wise in order to demonstrate that you can still get the thing down even in these circumstances, owing to it flying so well and so predictably thanks to its fantastic behaviour which allows you to do things such as what I did in this video, i.e. hold off high to get slow and dirty, then come in steep to get down fast, dip under the glideslope, then come up back into the slope to bleed off speed from a high angle of attack just before touchdown, giving me a main wheel touchdown, right alongside the PAPI lights, at 134 knots from an approach which started off too high and close in and too fast. The fact that you can do this in the FSL A320 if you know how to fly properly, is what I'm talking about when I say that its flight model is great. Not that you really should fly it like that, but this does demonstrate how fab its flight model, drag simulation, engine spool times, ground effect etc are. Note that the video is a bit choppy because of the FRAPS recording, so anyone considering the FSL A320 should not infer anything from the apparent frame rate here, it actually runs pretty smooth when not recording video...
  8. Chock

    Is it worth buy FSLabs a320

    Beyond all the praise for what system is and is not simulated on the FSL A320, and how it compares to other A320 simulations and even other jetliner simulations, one thing which certainly does make it worthwhile which nobody has mentioned too much, is the accuracy of how it flies and the difference this makes to how you can fly it and in particular, how you can land it, even if you have no clue about how a real A320 flies. If you've never actually piloted an aeroplane, you might think the accuracy of a flight model doesn't matter too much. After all, so long as your simulated aeroplane goes through the air in a reasonably convincing manner, how would you know the difference between it flying like a 737 or a B-29 for example? Unfortunately, if you try and fly a lot of FSX and P3D aeroplanes, some of which are not that great in terms of flight modeling, you will know that with many of them, this can and does make a difference; you can fly a perfect manual approach and flare, but the sim will still give you a simulation of crappy bounced/heavy landing when in reality you know it would have been a good landing because you did everything right. This is one of the huge differences with the FSL A320, and it's a difference which definitely sets it apart from other simulated jetliners; if you plant it properly on the runway, it will simulate you having done that every time, and more importantly, since it flies entirely as you would expect it to because it is so well simulated and its systems are so well harmonised with one another, you will find that you can easily plant it properly, exactly where you want it on the runway, because it behaves like a real aeroplane and thus rewards being flown well. If ever there was a simulated jet for FSX/P3D with which you can use the 'TLAR method' to land the thing, the FSL A320 is the one, so beyond all the simulated systems and such being cool to play with, it's really the way those systems all react with one another which is the good thing about it, in that these make it fly the way it does and behave like a real aeroplane. That's what you're paying for and it is why it is almost certainly the best aeroplane you can get for P3D/FSX.
  9. Chock

    Twin Turboprop (Not Carenado)

    For a turboprop twin, try the Flysimware Cessna C441 Conquest II, which simulates the Garrett TPE331. If you do want a turbocharged twin, try Flysimware's Cessna 402C Businessliner, which simulates the tubocharged version of the Continental 520. For a normally-aspirated twin, try the Milviz 310R, which simulates the Continental 520, or wait a couple of weeks and then check out the very soon to be released JF Beech Model 76 Duchess, which simulates the Lycoming 360. Which one suits you best will depend on what you want to do with it.
  10. Chock

    Embraer 190E2

    The last thing I and I imagine everyone else too, is trying to do in responding to this post, is make this person quit the project, nor to dampen any enthusiasm, quite the reverse in fact. There is nothing wrong with the desire to aim high, but even big established software developers realise sometimes you have to temper enthusiastic goals with reality and come at things slowly in order to build experience. Or to quote the legendary Lao Tzu on the matter of becoming at one with the rhythm of life and thus making the way easier when contemplating tackling something difficult: 'Do the difficult things while they are easy and do the great things while they are small. The journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.' PMDG made a 'simpler' DC-6 as a test for developing aircraft for XPlane, and this experience led them to the conclusion that the base program was not able to support everything they wanted to do when it came to creating complex airliners in the way they go about it. Similarly, A2A started out with a desire to make an Accusim F-4 Phantom, and apparently this is still a long term goal, but they are on record as saying that first they'd try a single engined jet fighter - the F-104 Starfighter - and before that they would try something even simpler, to quote them exactly on this matter: 'We have to release an Accu-Sim jet engine first, which would likely be a simpler jet like a T-33 first. We have a few projects on the plate we need to finish first though.'
  11. Chock

    Embraer 190E2

    Can't fault your ambition, but it's a lot of work to get something like that actually done, even to a basic level, let alone to produce something which is approaching a study level simulation. There are all kinds of things to consider and overcome, not least the fact that access to the real aeroplane if one is not in the aviation industry is difficult; you pretty much need that access in order to accurately research dimensions, textures, view angles, placarding, avionics, etc. Maybe you have access to the aeroplane already arranged. I'm inclined to think not, but then again, when I was a design student, I wasn't in a position to be able to afford a £1,740 per annum subscription to 3DSMax, much less have the time to use it; I was too busy stacking shelves at the Co-Op every night after College, in order to pay for my student accommodation lol, so who knows? Similarly, knowledge of the aeroplane's long-term performance data is required if one is to produce an accurate study simulation of its performance, and this I know you won't have because I doubt if even Embraer have all the data gathered on that yet, considering that the real aeroplane only went into revenue service less than five months ago, so has not been tested fully in a commercial operation over a one year cycle. Gathering data like that, much less publishing it/obtaining it is one of the reasons for example, why both iFly and PMDG are projecting a 2020 release date for their versions of the Boeing 737 MAX for P3D. They are presumably in a position to suggest that projected release date I assume, because they have access to the real aeroplane and its performance data. The real 737 MAX went into revenue service a little over seventeen months ago, thus the type has now been flying commercially for long enough to have gathered accurate performance data across all seasons of the year, in many different climatic conditions. The Embraer 190 E2 hasn't been flying long enough commercially to be in a position where anyone at all knows that data at the moment. I've no wish to dampen your enthusiasm, and certainly enthusiasm can go a long way toward driving a project toward completion, but even the best enthusiasm cannot perform miracles and provide data which isn't available, so in considering the above issues, with such a new aeroplane as the 190 E2, I'm inclined to think your projected 2020 release date is optimistic to say the least; you should think carefully about what actually is going to be achievable in terms of access to information and the physical aeroplane itself. But good luck with your efforts.
  12. Chock

    p3d first time purchasing

    Depends where you are, but in most countries, yes, you'll have to pay a bit of tax on top of it's price, as indeed you do for most add-ons. For example, the FSL A320 is listed as approximately £106.00 when you buy it in the UK, but when you go to paypal to actually cough up the cash, it jumps up to £135.00 when the VAT is added to the price.
  13. That's a bit of a stretch to say the least, they were all around well before that series of games even existed. Don't get me wrong, I liked the Wing Commander games and I even thought the movie of it wasn't actually terrible, not great, but watchable, and I'll even grant that sometimes a bit of such cheesy cliches is what you want. But Star Citizen has been touted as intended to push the boundaries, not trawl up the same old stuff with a bit of polish applied to it, which is exactly what that trailer looks like. And there is no way Chris Roberts is the originator of any of that stuff. Even as a motion picture, the cliches and tropes of such space operas well and truly predate the very first Wing Commander game (which came out in 1990) by as much as 54 years if one includes the original Flash Gordon Saturday morning cinema series (which was first filmed in 1936). If you include written fiction, Wing Commander's space opera style is predated by almost 80 years by, for example, Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom stories and characters, most famously, John Carter of Mars. And it's no problem to find many other examples which also predate it, you've got Doctor Who, Star Trek, Dark Star, Silent Running, Space 1999, Thunderbirds, Joe 90, Captain Scarlet, Blake's 7, Battlestar Galactica, Forbidden Planet, Red Dwarf, Star Wars, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, The Last Starfighter, Lost in Space etc, etc, all of which were extant years before the first Wing Commander game. If we include pulp/serious written sci-fi fiction which also predates it, from authors such as HG Wells, Isaac Asimov, L Ron Hubbard, Harry Harrison, Ray Bradbury, Brian Aldiss, JG Ballard, Arthur C Clarke, Robert A. Heinlein etc, some of this stuff was around the best part of a century before Roberts was even born. Even the term 'space opera' itself was coined over two decades before Roberts birth, when it was first used by a writer of sci-fi pulp fiction stories in 1941. There's nothing original, nor inventive in it at all, which is fine if that's what someone wants. But I'd expect more innovation for a budget of the kind which Star Citizen has had. Hell, they could probably have built a real spaceship for that kind of money.
  14. The Great C is not actually one of Philip K Dick's better short stories, since it does have a rather large plot hole. Having said that, since I don't know how this particular adaptation plays out, the makers may have chosen to do something more with the story by addressing that plot hole specifically, which could actually take the story to somewhere a bit more interesting than where the original, rather weak and unsatisfying ending, stops the narrative at.
  15. Chock

    Is it worth buy FSLabs a320

    Couldn't agree more. It's a bit of a toss up as to which is the more impressive of the two between the Majestic Q400 and the FSL A320, they both have very impressive functionality, and I'd throw in A2A's efforts at GA aeroplanes too as ones to be similarly impressed with. I am certainly of the opinion that A2A, FSL and Majestic are the top three developers for P3D add-ons. Nevertheless, it's probably the FSL A320 which is the most impressive of the bunch from a purely 'making it happen' programming standpoint, since the A320 is an inherently more complex aeroplane than either the Dash 8 Q400 or any GA aeroplane. Relating that to the original thread question, there is little doubt that these kind of products certainly are 'worth it' to anyone who wants that level of sophistication and realism, and I don't even think you have to be that familiar with the real things to appreciate this sort of thing either, it's really rather obvious that you've got something a bit special in your hands when you crank up the FSL A320, it just stands apart from every other simulated jetliner in either FSX or P3D, as the Majestic Q400 does for turboprops and the Piper Commanche from A2A does for GA aeroplanes.. As some people on this thread have already pointed out, the FSL A320 feels almost alive; it's difficult to put your finger on exactly what it is that does that, probably a combination of all its microscopically detailed, obsessively accurate features, and certainly its audio is a big factor in that too, but whatever it is, one can hardly fail to notice it, that's for sure.