palafox
-
Content Count
74 -
Donations
$0.00 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by palafox
-
-
They all, including AirHauler, simulate system failures, though the range may differ from one addon to another. In FSPassengers you may find fuel leaks, landing gears not retracting/not extending, flaps not extending/blocked, cabin descompression, brake failured when landing, engine flameouts, bird strikes, engine dyssimtries during takeoff, and so on.Regarding FSCaptain, you can find lots of failures listed in its user's guide (available for download for free), both mechanical and avionics-related.I know AirHauler implements system failures also, according to its manual, but what are, I can't tell you (I've read about gear and flaps failures).fspassengers and fscaptain they both ad in failures?? I thinkbut Airhauler does not, if I'm correct. -
I've been using FsPassengers with FS9 for year and think it's a must. Have got and used FSPassengersX too, but since I use FSX for more relaxed VFR flights, have less experience about it, though it seems to be an straight adaptation to the newer sim, with some minor additions. Regarding FSCaptain, is a more technical and demanding addon, and a very good alternative. Also its developer is actively improving the program al the time; that's not the case with FSPassengersX (the last update was long time ago, IIRC). Anyway, I think both addons have a trial option, with some restrictions. Give them a try and decide by yourself. Also, if you are more cargo- and business-oriented, AirHauler, by JustFlight, is a superb alternative.Now that I've been flying a for while on FSX, I'm looking to inject a bit more purpose and challenge to my flights. I've briefly looked at FSPassengers and FSCaptain and they both look interesting. I can't afford to buy both and while I understand that an evaluation/demo copy is available for both of them, I'd appreciate some views as to how they compare, just some pros/cons for both.I have a few airliners I fly regularly, eg PMDG J41, Level-D 767 Feelthere ERJ195 and also enjoy GA flights, with all my activity so far based in the UK. Thanks -
If memory serves me well, I have seen that at least in two ocassions. The first time I can recall, I was cleared and ready to take off from LEZL at RWY 09, and could see another aircraft landing on RWY 27 at the same time. Another time, I was cleared to land at LEVC RWY 30 and on final approach, and then another fellow was cleared to land at 12. Hope it's not a peculiarity of local controllers here in Spain, according to FSX. Maybe the sim switches dynamically the active runways (both times I was using current weather), but forgets to take into account the clearances actually given.Nikos, have you really been cleared to land by the default ATC? I'm asking, because I have seen/experienced many flaws of the default ATC, but never that FSX ATC has cleared 2 aircraft to take off/land in opposite direction at the same time. In FSX and FS4 runways are never open for operation in both directions simultaneously (just like it is in real life).Wolfgang -
I have the same bad experience: very hard hit on FPS in the VC, useless in practice. And the look is not that amazing. Dunno if the FSX version has gone more mature, but I'm very disappointed. Last time Wilco gets money from me. On the other hand, very pleased with E-jets v2 from Feelthere... Waiting for the PIC 737 update.I bought this plane two days ago and I'm disappointed: My framerate dropped from usually 30fps over KSEA to 12fps. So I'm not keen on flying this plane furthermore... -
-
-
I've been simming with this bird for a couple of weeks or so. Nice aircraft and, being familiar with the Wilco 737 Classic, the transition has been straightforward. My only issue is related to ILS approaches. Usually it works as intended, but from time to time, once armed the APP mode and when the locator is intercepted, or immediatly before that, the plane suddenly starts to climb, as if it would try to capture the glideslope. I've observed that this behaviour uses to happen when approaching at more than 3000 ft AGL, or when still descending to FAF altitude at the moment of capturing the LOC. Dunno whether this is significant or not.Thought that using the APP mode, the aircraft should capture the LOC and remain at the altitude set, until intercepting the GS. TIA,Jes
-
In your opinion, what would be a good age to initiate a child to simflight? I can't speak from my own experience, since I was first exposed at 22, so many years ago. My 6-year old boy is asking me to let him messing with daddy's cool looking planes. Of course, sharing this hobby with him would be great, but I'm afraid he's too young and I tell him so. I mean, I'd like to introduce him to simflying as seriously as possible, not as a mere game.Thanks in advance.JAMM
-
Hi, Martin. What instructions state -in a rather clumsy way even for a Spaniard- is:1. Assuming <FS9> is the root folder of your FS9 installation, you must create the folder <FS9>\Addon Scenery EspaHi. I've been abroad for several months - and this is my first post in the reincarnated forums! What a pleasure to be able to get back here: thanks to everyone's hard work at AVSIM...OK, I just installed a new scenery for LEST:www.simugalicia.com/noticias/Novedad-_-Aeropuerto-de-Santiago-de-Compostela-LEST-para-FS9.htmlIt looks pretty nice, but I am a bit nonplussed at the huge number of extra bitmaps that the instructions (assuming I understood the Spanish) say to put into the main FS9/texture folder - well over 2000 of them. Some of these (the Nova ones) I have already, but even so, this almost doubles the size of the folder. Even when I do put the files into the FS9 main texture folder and load up the airport, I can see nothing extra over and above when I leave them out.So, can anyone say what these files are supposed to add, and why, if they really are necessary (else, I suppose, why would the developer have included them?) they cannot be placed in the LEST/texture folder? 90% of them are new to my (very extensive!) setup, so are not going to be used by any other scenery.Or did I misunderstand something?Thanks!Martin S -
The "magic" number here is the 768MB reserved for the kernel code and data. This value is somehow arbitrary but AFAIK it falls on the safe side. Please note this value only applies to Windows XP 32 bits running a typical configuration. For another OS version or an unusual configuration, a different value should be used. For example, a server edition (ie Windows 2003 Server) would probably require a higher one. So this formula is merely orientative. As usual, only thru experimenting you'll get the best suited and tuned for you.Hi,I follow Palafox advice and it works for me now, but I also visit simviation forum and get this replay from the Guru NickN, maybe it solve the problem you have.... Good luck.---------That information is correct but the numbers presented are not exact.. they are calculated based on subtracting the video memory amout from the base value specified for address space... but those values, although ok as a rule of thumb, are to always required to be that low. If you read what I said about tuning that value in the FSX tuning threadhttp://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=29041you will find I said if OOM's still occur, to DROP the value by 64 until the OOMs cease which is basically the same information as above, except my method tunes it 'exactly'If it works, leave it.. if you wish to tune it to the exact value, go back to 2560 and start by reducing that value by lots of 64 until the OOMs stop. -
Scoobie quickly replied my post there and referred me to another thread full of useful info about E-jets. Thank you, Scoobie.PS.: Yes, I've posted to the Feelthere forums too, but in the past I've got no very helpful response there. -
Ah, yes! I had them but for some reason I didn't realize they included the Vac and Vref, in addition to the takeoff speeds :( Thank you, RafalMaybe the one from the Wilco site will be fine?https://freedownload.s3.amazonaws.com/E190_Performances.pdf -
Hi,I have the last version of this awesome package, and have flown exclusively the E-170 version. Now I'm going to try the E-190, but it seems the Landing Speeds chart for the E-190 is missing. There is one (in fact two, for icing/no icing condx) but I'm afraid it's intended only for the E-170, since the maximum value for the landing Gross Weight is 37000 Kg/81500 Lb. I've found a previous post about this topic in the Feelthere forums dated back to September 2008, but no solution is given.Anyone please? Thank you.PS.: Yes, I've posted to the Feelthere forums too, but in the past I've got no very helpful response there.
-
An afterthought, Mike, probably not necessary, but maybe you'd like to know: If you're using non-standard fonts in your source Word document and you're going to use a PDF converter or pseudo-printer tool, be sure to instruct this to embed all or your special fonts into the PDF document. Otherwise, you'll probably have no problems to see them on your rig, but anyone not having installed the font in their system will see annoying signs or other font instead, probably not suited to your intentions.
-
Thank you, Neil. I greatly appreciate your comments and impressions, and, of course, I've never discarded Leonardo's. I've seen and read diverse praising reviews and comments about it. The only con I saw when I learned about it for the first time, was it had no VC, but it seems the last version sports a functional one. So it's in my wishlist, though I'll have to wait until the next month (budgetary issues here).Palafox,After your 3rd OOM using the FS9 Flight1 MD80, you will probably find yourself switching over to the Leonardo effort.And you won't regret it. The Leonardo Maddog is in many people's opinion the best aircraft in FS9.It has one of the finest flight models in the sim (try putting slats out in your Flight 1 aircraft. You will notice it goes nose down??????????? - also, the Autothrottle doesn't keep the EPR selected by the TRP. The Leonardo is spot on).It also has systems simulated better than any other (including PMDG) and a failures generator which takes thing to the next level (with an MEL system built in).The flight 1 MD is a game compared with the Leonardo.Neilps. Dillo110, try flipping the flood light switch on the overhead if you have trouble seing at night :-) -
Hi,I have FSX Accelerator installed. Down below are my spec. from Belarc.Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 3 (build 2600)2,20 gigahertz AMD Athlon 64256 kilobyte primary memory cache2048 kilobyte secondary memory cache64-bit readyNot hyper-threadedBoard: MSI AMETHYST-M 1.0Bus Clock: 200 megahertzBIOS: Phoenix Technologies, LTD 3.47 03/03/20063328 Megabytes Usable Installed Memoryc: (NTFS on drive 0) 1000,19 GB 785,87 GB freed: (NTFS on drive 1) 293,59 GB 129,71 GB freee: (NTFS on drive 6) 160,04 GB 104,51 GB freeNVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT [Display adapter]Samsung S/M 1100p+ [Monitor] (19,7"vis, s/n H3NRB02269, november 2001)Standardbildsk -
Thank you for the advice, I like better good old steam gauges for a change. I've just purchased a boxed version from Amazon.uk. A real bargain, abt 14EUR (abt US $20), shipping included :(Leonardo's is harder to get into. Ultimate Airliners - The Super 80 has a great VC and many training aids to help you get into understanding the MD80. Flight1 sells the Ultimate Airliners version for FS2k4. The training aids actually walk you through startup procedures in real time, truly unique in FS add-ons. Once you've mastered Flight1's option then you could move on to Leonardo's version.Speaking of versions Ultimate Airliners is the older steam gauge model where as Leaonardo's is the newer glass panel version (not to be confused with the 717 though, more like MD88 speed). To me Ultimate Airliners has a better looking VC and night lighting than the Leonardo version. What sells the Leonardo effort is it's attention to detail and specifics on proper procedures. I wouldn't want to be caught in the Leonardo version after dark with no option for dome lighting so I can see the switches (gauges are lite up but it's still too dark) because the MD88 is one complicated cockpit. For me the Ultimate Airliners package is more accessible and teachable offering hours of enjoyment... -
I can't say about the add-ons 1-4, but I remember I set up the Freight Dogs pack in my old box and had similar problems with the airfields included. I thought there were some compatibility issues with the mesh add-on I used (FS Global 2005, I think it was), so at last I disabled the sceneries in the package, that were some cut-down version of the genuine Tongass Fjords, IIRC.And yes, the Misty and Tongass Fjords seem to be great sceneries, but after my experience with Freight Dogs, I've felt discouraged to try them.Does anyone else running FS2004 with the above "sceneries" have the problem of "high water" or incorrect shore lines.Over the last few days I installed 1. FS2004 Misty Fjords 2. FS2004 Tongass Fjords 3. FS2004 FS Cargo 4. FS2004 Glacier Bay When I finished the install of all of them I noticed that the shoreline in a lot of places( mostly Misty and Tongass were incorrect and that it seemed that the water level was too high. Some airports had water on the runways. I also tried to install Freight Dogs, but when I went to "Shorty's Farm" the runway was about 1/2 mile out into the WATER. I uninstalled Freight Dogs. These are GREAT scenery programs, but I cannt torlerate the incorrect water level. PLEASE advise. Thanks jerrycwo4 PS I have also posted this in the FS Addon forum -
Ok, Mike. Feel free to send your files to my email address that follows (previous anti-spam trick application) and I'd try to do my best.My faked address: notme@potatonics.comAnd please replace: notme--> marburg potatonics.com --> telefonica.netEDIT: Have you tried the free/shareware tools fellows suggest? Maybe some works for you...Thanks for all the replies guys! :( Hi palafox. I just need access to a web based conversion service such as http://www.convertfiles.com/ . But what I was after was, maybe if a Word 97 .doc file seriously doesn't work at all anywhere, then I'd ask someone with Word 2000 or above to have my file sent to them, along with the font I used (or just send an 'Arial' font version) , and to check it looks the same, by comparing with pictures of each individual page as it appears on my system, which is how I want it to appear, exactly, as a pdf. Then once this is checked, a web based conversion service could be used to convert, or if someone has there own application that converts doc files to pdf fail safe, and is free of charge to use, then this is the best option.The file itself has a table (literally the table of contents) and a few banner pictures, the rest is all in text boxes, and there's just a few other pictures with captions overlaying them. It would seem though this makes it all rather difficult. Should there be no tables or text boxes whatsoever? What about pictures? If all this sounds good to you then let's get rid of this stupid problem! :(JSkorna, will do, but first, can you meet all the things and deal with all the stuff above? Looks like you might know your stuff. -
I think I meet the three first requirements and almost surely the 4th one, unless your documentation uses really weird edition features. I'd gladly lend you a hand absolutely for free, of course. What type of access/Internet sevices do you require?So, my somewhat unusual request is this:If anyone has all of the following I'd be very content if someone could reply:- Microsoft Office with Word 2000 or above- Access to the Internet- 30 minutes to an hour to sparePreferably someone with these would help, but it's not necessary:- Access to preferably a free, or maybe paying pdf conversion service, they know works every time.- Some little or moderate experience in designing electronic leaflets, manuals etc for a similar type of 'market' :(Anyone with preferably the first three above, and possibly the last two will be perfect, and you'll get 'acknowledged' in my dreaded 'Info-manual'! :( Any replies and we can discuss this unusual, frustrating, but no doubt easy to fix problem further and sort it! I'd like to release my 'proffesional' repaint soon! Thanks in advance. -
Dunno whether yours is a CRT or a TFT/LCD monitor. Mine is a TFT 19" and running at its native resolution (1280x1024) have no problems to read the items in the menu bar, and my eyes are not so good as they used to be when I was younger... And I need no AA nor AF nor anything else to enhance the legibility of them. If it's a TFT as a fellow said before I'd go for its native resolution: it renders the most clear images. Not sure now if at greater resolutions FS9 scales the fonts though.
-
Which one? Leonardo's "Fly the Maddog"? Please can you tell us anything else about your experience with Maddogs? I'd like to try a MD-80 series bird, but not sure which one to choose (for FS9). Thanks.How about the MADDOG?JimCYWG -
I'm afraid this afternoon when back at home I'll put my credit card to work :( Darn! Can see you're working on a Citation XLS and a Dornier 328. You're gonna get me to go broken... As for now, have all your corporate jets for FS9 and enjoyed them a lot. They all went smooth and without a glitch on my old not-so-state-of-the-art box.Correct. The Eaglesoft FS9 Citation X Extreme 2.0 is perfectly flyable as released.With full Documentation and dedicated Support Forums we believe that users will be well satisfied with their purchase choice.The Navdata Service Upgrade is our no extra cost fullfillment of our commitment to building the most accurate and realistic Citation X ever built for either FS9 or FSX.The Navdata Service Upgrade simply completes the SID/STAR support along with all of the more complex routines including Altitude and Airspeed Restrictions.The Navdata Service Upgrade also supports Navigraph Subscriptions under the name Eaglesoft/Mindstar for those interested in Navigraph Subscription Service.The Navdata Service Upgrade includes an Out of Date Database and users who wish to keep their Databases Updated should subscribe to Navigraph Service.PS: Beta Testing of the Navdata Service Upgrade is going very well and it is hoped that Navigraph will have the Eaglesoft/Mindstar Version available for the September Cycle. :( -
Pretty simple question, Ron: if I purchase right now the Citation X v2.0 for FS9, once the Navigraph-related components are fixed/validated, it will be available as a free update, I guess.Have some bucks here looking for good stuff to be exchanged for...A word about our FS9/FSX Citation X Extreme v2.0 seems in order here..The FS9 Version with Navdata Service Upgrade which completes SID/STAR support and other complex routines thru Navigraph Subscription is currently in Beta Testing.The FSX Version with Navdata Service Upgrade which completes SID/STAR support and other complex routines thru Navigraph Subscription is scheduled for Beta Testing as soon as we complete the FS9 Beta Tests. :( More information and plenty of screenshots are available in our dedicated FS9 or FSX Citation X Extreme v2.0 Support Forums and all are welcome to register and login for accurate information on either of these projects. :(
Graphics corruption in FSX
in MS FSX | FSX-SE Forum
Posted
Greetings.
I've set up a PC with a dual boot installation: Win7 64 bit and WinXP SP3. On both systems I have installed FSX, with the same configuration for the simulator and the grapichs card (via nVidia Inspector).
On WinXP there are no apparent issues, but on Win7 it's rather common problem the corruption of gauge textures, in the VC view and on pop-up windows.
This screenshot shows this issue in a number of gauges:
Any hint? Thank you in advance.
EDIT: Sorry. I was in a hurry and forgot to include info about the configuration:
Here you'll find my fsx.cfg (in short, a bojotified fsx.cfg -¡Eres el más grande, tocayo!- with almost anything set to max) file: http://www.telefonica.net/web/jamoram62/fsx.CFG.txt
and here the graphic card configuration: http://www.telefonica.net/web/jamoram62/nVidia_Inspector_FSX.jpg