Jump to content

CV990A

Members
  • Content Count

    53
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. >Nooooo..... ;)>>However, I cannot imagine the flight models of the 767s you>fly being an issue here and still revert to a potential issue>with your hardware. >>Of course, you could probably easily check this with another>aircraft to confirm.>>Example, try the default 747 and see what you get.>>Of course, we are not talking about the speed at which you are>trying to accomplish this, but even then at a speed of 250>knots you should still be able to toss the plane around a heck>of a lot better than that.>>Regards,>http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpgLou,it actualy is a problem with the 767 he is flying!the Posky 767's and all of their models released afterwards have extremely slow roll rates, it's part of what their FDE modeller calls " feel real" (which is hogwash if you ask me, but thats for another topic). to fix this, go to your aircraft.cfg find the section called flight tuning, find the line called; aileron_effectiveness and increase the value. and if you really likeflying the 767, I'd reccomend you buy the Level-D 767. the FDE is light years ahead of the opensky 767, and the model is not far off either.-Sander
  2. just cast my vote, I voted for KATL as well. the freeware VHHH here in the library is already sufficient IMHO. while KATL hasn't been done since Simflyers FPS hungry ATL for FS2002 and FS9
  3. >The reason for asking about freeware is that I'm not sure how much I would fly a 747 as yet. I thought some experience with something that large might be a good thing before spending any money.if thats the case, why not have a look at the overland collection? their 744 exterior is excellent and you get a bunch of other detailed models as well (both Airbus and Boeing), and with some minor tweaks they are extremely fun to fly as well.. granted, system simulation isn't detailed at all.>I like the PMDG products but I must also confess to being an old "steam gauge" lover, as you can see from my "classic" payware! This makes the 747 RFP an interesting possibility.same here, if it's a jet and 25+ years old I'm flying it :)granted I do enjoy some of the newer jets as well.
  4. in terms of looks the Posky 747 is the best freeware 747... but IMO the FDE's are horrible (not only their 747's I might add), they require a lot of tweaking (at least for me) to get them to feel "right". so I would say stay clear of Posky at all cost unless you have a good replacement FDE and the know how to merge them.the ifly 744 is the best system wise, but it's really heavy on the frames and the model is nothing to write home about.I don't have any experience with the Meljet model as I never used it, but from what I've seen it's just plain old.In my opinion there is no really good freeware 747 available, all have their flaws, which make them frustrating to fly. but I guess it's up to you what you find can tolerate :)
  5. from what I gathered there are no survivors on the choppers :(still watching live feed as we speak.my prayers go to anyone who knew these pilots/journalists, family etc, a real sad event.
  6. >First off, let me start with the usual...Sorry if this has>been discussed elsewhere already. But, I have done some>searching and can't really find the answers I'm looking for so>far.>>My question has to do with simulating real world airline pilot>line flying or maybe aircraft planning. I would like to do>this with real world schedules from the airlines. I used to>work for an airline and have a copy of the last route>schedule(not sure the proper terminology) before I left the>company. With this route schedule, I am able to start at>airport AAA with tail number N#### with scheduled departure of>630a just like an aircraft would do for real and fly to BBB>with scheduled arrival of 900a. Then, from BBB to CCC. Then>from CCC to DDD. Anyway, you get the point. Each scheduled>leg would appear for that given tail number for a given day of>the week.>>I know airlines do this schedule planning of their>aircrafts/pilots. Is this data accessible anywhere?>>So, now, I'd like to fly real lines for a different airline. >Where can I find actual schedule planning for aircraft?>>I have been downloading the AI flight plans from here and then>deciphering them and going off that. That does work for this>purpose. However, these flight plans show actual departure>and arrival times at the airports. What I would like to have>is like what I have for the airline I used to work for which>displays the scheduled departure/arrival times that a>passenger would expect. That way, I can know whether I am "on>time" along the route. Make sense? I know I could also take>and reference the flight number from the AI plan to the>company's website to get the schedule too, just wondering if>what I have from the airline itself is available anywhere out>there for other airlines?>>Thanks.I hope I understand your question correctly, but most major airlines this day have electronic timetable's you can download from their site, the info you can find on these timetables are, departure and arrival time (local time), duration of flight, aircraft type and length of the flight (in SM and KM) for those timetables:American Airlines + Oneworldhttp://www.aa.com/aa/i18nForward.do?anchor...metable.jsp#one United Airlineshttp://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,...itle=timetablesDelta Airlineshttp://www.delta.com/schedules/travel/rese...sched/index.jspStar Alliancehttp://www.staralliance.com/en/travellers/..._timetable.htmlSkyteamhttp://www.skyteam.com/EN/travelPlanner/timetables/index.jsphope this helps :)-Sander
  7. thanks for the reply PARADISE, but it seems to be related to something withing FS rather then just the MAAM DC-3, as I've been flying the DC-3 for 6 months now without any problems, and as I stated it has "spread" to other planes as well. anyway, I will try your suggestion, perhaps they can help me at the MAAM support forum :)
  8. hi there,here goes, a week or so ago I wanted to do a flight in the MAAM Sim DC-3, all nice and well until I selected the DC-3 in the FS Aircraft menu..I immediately got an error message saying maam_C47.gau (or something similar) couldn't be used with FS9. okay I thought, stuff like that can happen, I'll just reinstall the DC-3 some time. but now I'm having the same problem with Paul Golding's Analog MD-80 panel, and the problem remains even after I reinstall the panel and/or replace all the gauge files. is anyone familiar with this?PS, I didn't add any add ons before I tried to fly the DC-3, I did install the CLS DC-10 but that was after the trouble started.thanks in advance!
  9. the problem with the Posky 767 (and all of their latest releases) is the FDE, the FDE designer still believes one can translate the heavy feeling an commercial airliner has to FS via his FDE's, so you find extremely low sensitivity values in the flight tuning section of the aircraft.cfg.I can't really help you with this issue tough,I stopped editing Posky FDE's a while ago, it's just too much work :)
  10. >I'm tempted to do a different topic on the FSX forum. I'll>agree that FS9 is by far the best for many complex aircraft,>and "lavish" airport scenery's at this time.>>However, it's FSX, that has quite an edge in flight qualities,>ranging from trim, to a vastly improved feeling of being>airborne. Yes, I could spend another $38 on Active SKY for>FS9, but still not get that feel of flight combined with>atmospherics, that comes stock with FSX. That's a step>forward!>>I'll title mine.........."How to feel like you're flying at a>desktop, without spending $ thousands $ for additional>addons!" Of course, I'll post this in the FSX forum. :-lol >>L.Adamson-- FSX a really excited user, Pro-Pilot shill, and user of both FSX>& FS9thats all great and all, but does FSX feature wake Turbulence and/or accurate wind aloft data?trim? in what way is it improved? I didn't notice any difference between the latest FSX demo and FS9, both still don't come even close to flying a real plane... besides if you know a bit about tuning FDE's you'd know you can alter the trim in any FS9 aircraft.nice set of shots, but what are they to prove? you can live without autogen, I can't. the real world isn't flat and approaching into an airport like Kai Tak or any airport with a lot of buildings, trees etc surrounding the airport in real life, without autogen that looks just plain wrong to me. besides as an heavy metal pilot, usually coming in at approach speeds of between 130-150 knots you would hardly notice the difference between the FSX high res textures and the lower resolution ones from FS9.also, Activesky deffinetly enhances the FS9 experience, it does simulate turbulence rather well, Wake Turbulence adds a whole new level to flying and thanks to the accurate wind aloft data it make flying at cruise altitude a lot less frustrating then the default "high altitude windshear" often experienced..LA with all respect as I believe you would be a nice guy and all, you're not going to convince us FS9 simmers to switch to FSX.. especialy us heavy metal flyers have no reason to switch.-Sander, a guy who still enjoys every sec out of his FS9 setup.. 3 years after starting with it-
  11. I have it, it's a pretty good deal, all aircraft have high quality exterior models and some nice animations. the A-320 is definably the star of the package and has the best FDE. the Flight dynamics off all aircraft are enjoyable and fun to fly, albeit unrealistic in some regards (the widebodies being overpowered is one of my main gripes). overall it's a good value package, and it provides with a lot of flying fun. if your only into complex airliners tough it's not for you.hope this helps :)-Sander
  12. >>>Project Tupolev TU-154B-2>>>>>beware tough, this plane is not flyable at all without>>reading>>>the manual,>>>>Do you have to learn Russian to read the manual?>>>>:-))>>For me it doesn't surpass the 767... >And there's an english manual included. >well... let's agree to disagree then :)in the end it all boils down to personal preference anyway, I personally prefer the steam gauges and labor intensive systems of the TU-154 over the CRT screens with sophisticated automated systems of the 767.. but thats just me..
  13. no, fortunately you don't, there's an excellent English manual included :) oh, I forgot to add..one thing you perhaps want to know about the project Tupolev TU-154, is that it's , if I'm not mistaken, recognized by PSC Tupolev as an official TU-154 training tool :)
  14. Project Tupolev TU-154B-2www.protu-154.com (site can be viewed in English as well)surpasses every payware aircraft I know (and that does include the PMDG 747, 737, LDS 767 and DF 727) for freeware prices.. beware tough, this plane is not flyable at all without reading the manual, a few training flights are definetly necessary before taking a full flight as well.the other planes on their site are definetly good value as well..in particular the IL-62M
×
×
  • Create New...