Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ccaughie

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines
  1. On the other hand, the OP never said he had the PMDG or indeed any add-on aircraft. Assuming you don't, and are just flying the default aircraft, taking off in those is even simpler than it looks from this video.I can heartily recommend the lessons that come with the sim -- that's how I learned to "fly". I also recommend starting with the Cessna 172, not the Boeing 747.Colin
  2. >Does a better video card solve this problem???Problem??? I wish FSX looked like that for me! I _really_ need a new computer.Incidentally, where is that?Colin
  3. This topic has been moved by the moderator of this forum. It can be found at:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...&topic_id=33493
  4. Thanks for all the replies folks. I think I'll try the freeware versions of these airports to see what they're like, then maybe buy one or both of the payware ones depending on my experience with them.Colin
  5. Probably just displaying my ignorance here, but how are these products (Neuroflight's Courchevel and Aerosoft's Lukla X) possible in a sim that supposably only supports flat airports?And with the techie question out of the way, the real question is: Which one should I buy first? :)Colin
  6. >This is a magic bullet for me, and im not imagining it!>any ideas why?I've seen this a lot in my work, albeit with 2D video rendering rather than 3D rendering, but I imagine the principle is the same.A lot of video drivers are optimized for the case where the horizontal resolution of the display surface is a multiple of 4 (or sometimes 2, or possibly even 8 or 16 depending on the driver and the hardware). I'm guessing that your frame rate shoots up whenever your window size hits such a multiple, and drops when the resolution is an "odd" number.Obviously in full screen mode this shouldn't be an issue since the horizontal resolution will always be a multiple of some fairly high power of 2.Colin
  7. I guess that makes sense. The best solution to that problem is TrackIR... but I guess the W key is somewhat cheaper. :)As I recall in a glider you didn't have that much mobility at all as you were strapped in pretty tight, but then visibility wasn't much of a problem as the canopy was only inches away.Colin
  8. >All true, however, FYI... BEWARE the glaring change (bug)>that SP1 introduces in the views. I've yet to understand what all the fuss is about with this W key thing (but then I never used it when it was available).The way I see it, MS Flight Simulator simulates flying planes. The only real planes I've flown have been gliders, and I'm pretty certain they didn't have a button anywhere that made the structure of the plane invisible so that I could see through it to the ground. (Good thing too, it would have been a little disconcerting if I'd pressed it by accident).I know everyone uses FS differently, but I'd have thought that flying with a first person perspective view but without being able to see the interior of the plane would dampen the immersion factor somewhat. Surely it would make flying more difficult as well, as you wouldn't have a frame of reference to help you figure out which way you're pointing.I do get the point about a previously working feature not working any more though, this is always annoying if it happens to be a feature you're used to using. I'm just curious to know what the perceived benefit of this particular feature actually is?Colin
  9. >This one off Norfolk looks less like the barren desert.Where exactly did you find that? The other day I flew around Norfolk for ages trying to find a carrier, figuring there would be one around somewhere. Couldn't find one though.My parents-in-law live in Norfolk. I've been a few times but I still haven't quite figured out the geography of the place.Thanks,Colin
  10. >Just how hard is it to load the default flight, shut>everything down, and then (re)Save the flight, marking the box>"Make this flight the default flight?"... :-hmmm Given that the default flight in FSX puts you in an airborne microlight that could make life quite interesting! :)Colin
  11. >Is FS11 going to be VISTA only???Well if it's DirectX 10 only that would kind of follow wouldn't it, since DirectX 10 is Vista only. I guess ACES are going to have to look closely at the adoption rate of Vista. If 50% of users are still running XP at the time of release, they may opt to keep that compatibility mode in.As for the rants about FSX, it runs just fine on my two year old... yawn... zzzzzzzzzzzzColin
  12. I wouldn't bother upgrading now with a view to getting a PC that can run FS11. If history is anything to go by ACES will be targeting the hardware that will be available when FS11 comes out (as they should IMO), which presumably will be a good deal more capable than anything you can buy today, or even 12-18 months before it is released.I'd say now is probably a pretty good time to upgrade to something that can run FSX on the other hand. Or as good as any; the trouble with upgrading a PC is that there's never a good time to do it, the next big thing is always just around the corner...As for FS11 being DX10 only, I'd put my money on it. Why wouldn't it be?Colin
  13. Thanks for this clarification Tim. I'm really looking forward to seeing what comes out of this!Colin
  • Create New...