Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Most people understand that clouds are different arround the world, and some just don't get it.
  2. > snip...>>..."there's a psychology">>..."a better Wizard system that would show off>... some kind of What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get slider arrangement">I agree in part with the psychology of the slider. And would like to see more emphasis into the "WYSIWYG", or at least a complete individualized text description of each setting, so that expectations could be "set" as well. Right now the description is generic for the whole slider.I'm not sure whether it was the Scenery or Graphics slider that let you remove taxiway signs. This always seemed like a sacrificial level that should not even be permissible with a slider. Somewhat like TS without rails I'd imagine.
  3. The default aircraft included with FSXI are lame! Sure, Airbus acquired Boeing last year and then grounded the entire fleet. But is it fair to us simmers that the Microsoft division of Minitel was forced to remove the venerable old 747 and include the Airbus 380 by decree of the European Plutocracy settlement?Even the automatic update SP3 ( released far ahead of schedule ) for FSX removed the Boeings. But I'm still blocking it with my trusted Vista firewall, those European Gestapos can come over and pry the yoke from my dead hand.I hope they can't traceroute my IPvXI.
  4. Look for FSAutoStart. Hasn't been updated in a while. But, it is highly configurable with profiles that can be launched in a script. Kills tasks and services and works on Vista. It can perform a defrag on memory too ( questionable value with Vista's memory management ).Take a look at BlackViper's site for services and recommendations to stop or not.
  5. This is going to sound like a smart-a$$ reply, but isn't ...Is the plane started?I thought the same as you till I realized the engines were stopped because the fuel tanks were empty post-Acceleration upgrade.- NetNinja
  6. I just walked out of Circuit City in Temple, TX with mine.Hurry on down! Only 3 more left!-NetNinja
  7. >>If we can have an intelligent, rational discussion I will>>participate. >>>>See http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor>>Innovation... accelerated>>Acceleration looks to add value, this I agree with. >Acceleration is a good title for the ACES official add-on as I>believe that ACES is accelerating change and innovation within>the FS engine which is having some interesting follow-on>effects. There are also interesting changes afoot within the>operating system which MSFS is expected to run on. Thus, FSX>is clearly a transitional title, much as Vista and .NET>3.0/3.5 are as well.>>Talking to the people and expectations>>I think the new openness that ACES is engaging in with the>"community" is welcome; however, this openness also>constitutes a transition for both ACES and the simming public.> With FS2004, simmers were accustomed to having a vast variety>of add-on aircraft and such and the technology/back-end>transitions with FSX have slowed the 3rd party market down. >People want their toys and MSFS has evolved into the>playground in which those toys are deployed. The release of>two Service Packs for FSX within the first year of release>highlights the growing pains of the technology transition>which FSX represents. We can observe further evidence of the>technology growing pains when we consider how long it has>taken "first-class" FSX add-ons to emerge: PMDG's 747-x comes>to mind. Why is this? I think it has to do with performance>- these products most likely need SP1 and SP2 to even be>"playable.">>The modeling programs required to make aircraft are roughly>unchanged with the FSX SDK. The gauge programming aspects are>roughly unchanged since FS2004 SDK (XML-based gauges work in>the same manner as do C/C++ gauges). Don't get me wrong, I've>studied the SDK closely and recognized that there are many new>features and changes (SimConnect) which require mastery. >However, people expect 3rd-party stuff and want it soonest. >As FSX is so transitionary, fulfilling this need is>challenging. Since the tools are more the same than not, then>the underlying MSFS engine must have changed to the point that>performance with the "toys" won't be acceptable. This is what>makes FSX transitionary: technology innovations are so taxing>that 3rd party stuff is stifled. Thus, we await the next>evolution.>>The effects of flux>>While I am happy to see Microsoft/ACES release their own>add-on content for the first time in decade or more, the flux>brought by FSX and its transitory nature with respect to the>FS "engine" understandibly abrades on the masses. We are in a>time of technology instability with things like FS2004 to FSX,>Windows XP to Windows Vista and DirectX 9 to DirectX 10. I>suppose ACES picked a doosey of a time to start talking to the>people face-to-face. There are so many changes afoot that [a>href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt]FUD[/a]>and emotions are very likely to whip up. Again, we want our>toys! In this sense, ACES has entered into the fray to give>us extra toys with Acceleration.>>The trouble with setting high expectations>>With all that said, we must accept some acpects of>expectation. ACES DID hype us up with the promises of "God>rays" and other such fantasia with the "magic screenies.">Regardless of the regret expressed by ACES concerning the>"magic screenies," the die has been cast and the jig is up. >The skeptics were doubtful concerning the "magic screenes">(and right they were to be) and Phil's SP2/Acceleration>announcement is clearly a let down. Ending up with a DX10>"preview" at the end of the life cycle of a product which was>to be a "flagship" for DX10 is a clear indictment of DX10>itself. Nobody is/was ready for DX10 (hardware manufacturers,>game studios (ACES to be sure) and consumers). >>Such is the way of things when paradigmatic technology changes>are attempted. People invest a lot of time and money in their>toys and want them to last for some time to come. The 3rd>party market with FS2004 boomed as FS2004 was a relatively>stable instatiation of MSFS at the tail-end of the>FS2002/FS2004 era of the engine and SDK. Performance was>great on most folks' hardware in FS2004 and people were>content. We all know what a struggle it has been to make FSX>smooth in the first year. Of course, I know this is to be>expected and we've seen this pattern before. Again...>managing expectations: we are all guilty.>>In the last 18 months expectations and promises regarding FSX,>Vista and DX10 have been enflamed based on both fact and>fiction. This fact and fiction have come from a variety of>sources, including ACES/Microsoft.>>[a]Marketing?[/a]>>While many see [a>href=http://www.marketingprofs.com/2/whatismarketing.asp]marketing[/a]>as a dirty word, one facet of marketing is delivering. >Partial delivery is a common fact-of-life in markets, but>partial delivery does tarnish consumer confidence. If there>were more viable alternatives, perhaps consumers could react>in effective ways beyond whining, bargaining and venting. For>all intents and purposes, there are few alternatives to MSFS. >>>It may sound like I hate MSFS; quite the contrary, I've been a>fan since a young age and can proudly state that I've been>around since the "wireframe" days. You see, MSFS has such as>strong legacy that ACES are in a precarious situation as>stewards of the legacy. I must point out that I believe ACES>is certainly moving the franchise forward and bring great>things and great hope for MSFS. In short, I believe ACES are>good stewards of the legacy. However, promises made and not>delivered have occured (and will likely continue). Again...>managing expectations: we are all guilty.>>[a]Oh well, there's always FS11[/a]>>The good part of all of this is the fact that MSFS marches on>(The King is Dead, Long Live the King!). I've enjoyed FSX on>the whole and realize that it will continue to come into its>own. I'm certain that both the community and ACES have>learned alot with FSX and the open communications that have>surrounded the lead-up and release of FSX. ACES have given us>a good installment of MSFS with FSX and there is plenty to be>happy about. Among the greatest lessons might be managing>expectations and reading the market: both facets of marketing.> Will the missions pan out in the long run? I don't know,>many people like them, but buzz surrounding the missions is>low. The problem is, the people that ACES talks to are the>"hard core" and their expectations are hard to manage.>>So, has this post even addressed the main topic of this thread>(Acceleration, DX10 and SP2)? I believe so. In our new open>dialog, all parties are learning how to talk to each other. >ACES, you can't bandy about pie-in-the-sky expectations and>then wonder about irrationality when these expectations don't>materialize. Community, you must realize that a) Rome wasn't>built in a day and :( being a for-profit concern, ACES/MSFS>operates under constraints. No matter how cool/human ACES>are, they are under contract/employ of a large>entertainment/software company which must deliver products at>an interval such that income continues to roll in. We'll>never know the machinations behind the scenes which constrain>ACES, but we, the community, should realize by now that when>they promise us the Moon, realize you'll likely end up getting>to the Moon in the same way that the Apollo program got to the>Moon: in stages.>>Thank you ACES>>Phil, the openness of your team (and the team which took us up>to release) is obviously appreciated. You know that hobbyists>will always be a crazy lot - I hope that both sides will>continue to learn to manage their expecations.---------------------------------------------------------------------I find myself to be in such whole-hearted agreement with this post as to suggest that it be reposted, locked, pinned, and titled "MUST read before posting"
  8. That should fix some weird stuff.Thanks for your response.- Net1Ninja
  9. I think I inadvertantly renamed a couple of the RTM aircraft folders, and may have broken some Addons. Can somebody upload their directory listing? Deluxe version please.Thanks in advance,Net1NinjaDirectory of C:Program FilesMicrosoft GamesMicrosoft Flight Simulator XSimObjectsAirplanes03/24/2007 02:23 PM
  10. KB935280 - July 2007 Windows Vista Application Compatibility Updatehttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/935280"These fixes improve support in Windows Vista for the following applications: ...Microsoft Flight Simulator X..."Noticed this on my automatic update list, and wanted to share the info.No difference noticed on my FSX.Post your observations here.- NetNinja
  11. Time for me to speak up.First let me express my appreciation to Bell417 for posting his discovery regarding how to get rid of the menu bar. Fact is, it was annoying the bejebees out of me also trying to get rid of it.I too have found a way to get rid the menu, but lacked the courage to share my find.Why? I
  12. FYI:March 2007 Windows Vista Application Compatibility Updatehttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/932246These fixes improve support in Windows Vista for the following applications:
  13. >My panel lights do work in the day. Makes quite a>difference. I usually turn them on because it can get >a bit dark if the sun is in front of you. >MKThanks, MK. That confirms that panel lights will address the issue with sunshine effect vs. panel readability as I thought. I got to get back under the hood... EdT :-hmmm
  14. >i guess the brightness of the light could be adjusted in the>fx file, no?>>as to "shading"--you could try and adjust monitor gamma curve.>you can profile it so it lightens up the dark areas more>dramatically than it affects the light ones>I did adjust the monitor color Gamma settings and this improved the readability of the panel to my level of satisfaction. However the gamma change did "washout" the scenery and terrain a bit so more adjustments may be in order.I checked these areas in FSX.CFG[Display][PANELS][GRAPHICS]But did not see anything relate to the panel brightness or a way to disable the sunshine shadows/shading effects on the panel.Also, I looked in the aircraft.cfg for the Cessna 172 and nothing really stands out.Then I checked the panel.cfg and found a setting for "no_luminous"; may be something beneficialREF: http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/howto/pink.htmThanks for the suggestions. EdT
  • Create New...