Great Ozzie

Here's to hoping Sara's short summation is sufficient to put this thread to bed.

Seems it already has. :lol:

We who? You and the OP? You are right... I did miss that.

Dave... I have no idea how to help. I have one copy (I think Gold... could be the separately boxed version... dunno as I have like 3 or 4) that installed on XP x64 Pro... no problems there. Recent build on Win 7 x64 Pro using the Gold boxed set and no problems with missions that I see so far. Only thing I see different from you (maybe) is I installed the SDK... dunno if that makes a difference or not (I would think not but :unknw: ). Not sure what you are trying to do here or why... but to answer the question (I think)... just do a wildcard search in the Missions folder for *.FLT and they should appear... then copy / paste of course. Rob

Sorry Gerard... I am having a difficult time understanding how this applies to the OP. Seems it has already (again) :Sigh:

How bizarre. --------------------- Guys... I am the first one to go OT... but this isn't a whether or not to use X-Plane or P3D or FSX. The nigel just wanted to know if his system can run FSX (well).

Ryan... Tho your post is useful, the captain420 did not read the OP closely enough as it concerns going from xplane back to fsx.

The only way to know "for sure" is to try. Why not load it up and try a few missions. A few suggestions would be for you to try "Executive Tour", "Carrier Landing - IMC" and "Africa Relief" (or choose your poison). If you are reasonably happy with the performance in those missions, I think going for the NGX (or upcoming 777) would be a 'safe bet' (i.e. I'd imagine you will be ok with it). You can have some fun in the process. Worse thing is (checking with the missions) you'll delete FSX from your drive.

Well I'd imagine the question is will the pumps / sumps be able to draw from the tanks... this would include hydraulics too. Think of Bob Hoover pouring tea into a glass while rolling the plane (I get a kick out of that everytime I watch it :lol: ). Look Peter, Took me a few minutes thinking about this... finally I realized... If you want to talk about sustained inverted flight... don't use quotes... it is too ambiguous (why the confusion with a number of us). If you mean that, just say "inverted flight". Just using the word inverted is not going to cut it, however bracketed, for what it appears you really mean (i.e. sustained inverted flight). Best, -Rob

Oh Larry... that really saddens me to hear this. I don't know what else to say...

Then what did you mean by your "inverted"? Who cares about g loading... inverted is inverted...

"Fighter jets" are designed / built with much higher structural G limits than (most) civilian types. What a civilian type is rated for (i.e. "limit maneuvering load factors") is going to depend on the Category of Airworthiness Standards. I say "most" civilian types as there are examples of some extremely stout airframes. One would be the Extra 300L... it's G-Load Limit is +/- 10gs. If you know anything at all about g loading and the effects on structures / the human body... those are very impressive numbers. A typical trainer e.g. your Piper Warrior can have certification limits of +3.8g for the "Normal" Category and +4.4g for "Utility" Category ops (Airworthiness Certification regs currently require the Negative Load Limit to be 0.4 times the positive limit for Normal & Utility Categories). What Category you are flying in the Warrior is based on Weight and C.G. and there is a chart provided in the POH to determine the Category. Ok... talking about a Transport Category here. Currently... Minimum (not less than) is +2.5g and -1.0g (there is an exception where maneuvering load factors can be lower... in "practice" you can see lower values sometimes for the "landing configuration"). Been quite some time since I have done a Barrel Roll but I can certainly tell you this... it is a very low positive g maneuver... probably half (if done correctly) than what you would experience in a Loop (Inside Loop, that is). So a test pilot like Tex Johnston (c'mon guys... it is with a "t") who knew precisely what he was doing, could perform a maneuver such as Barrel Roll w/o concern of overstressing the airframe. Lest anyone think otherwise, by no means am I diminishing how spectacular that feat was. :im Not Worthy: Btw... go to Wiki and you will see it was actually the 707 prototype (for decades I thought it was the 707)... the B367-80. A little anecdotal nugget in there about the 777... something I will let you find and enjoy yourself. Found this too on youtube (not sure why he called it a "chandelle").

I was able to get to street view. Seems like an old factory. But there is something there with a small stack just to the west of that green looking "pool". Maybe that is why the big smoke stack.

Yes sir... with the six gigantic barrel-looking thingys. Thanks. -Rob As soon as he answers this post.

lol... then Ron - I was looking on google maps where the smokestack appears to be in FSX - what is that large building next to BAE Systems (next building to the East) on Marconi Road (by "B1008")? Is it a water treatment facility?

To help fatten up that logbook? :LMAO: Cheers Smitty :smile:

Ah... don't sweat it Bimmer... "he get his" :LMAO:

Yeah I meant a number of airports over a short period of time... I was not aware of FSX Wx being "broke" - again. I believe when it did work correctly, there was some lag to the updates e.g. it might be time for the 15z METAR and FSX would be using the 12z METAR. I've heard there was a six hour lag... I really don't know. Although it did a decent job at providing wx conditions, it was not ever as good as e.g. Active Sky (in simulating / replicating conditions). Stand-by for a number of answers here as can already be seen by the above posts.

Sorry FP... read your post but overlooked who you were replying to.

The only thing "bad" (and I personally would not term it bad) with the Cal Classics stuff is "some assembly required" since there are a number of versions (and updates). I have a dozen hours in their DC-4 and 30 some hours in their Connie (thanks fsxlogbook!) and really enjoyed the time spent in them.

It's ok Diego... it does require one to read:

He has it in his info (if accurate)... the "why I listed" EDXB. Even now? Cause I checked Indy when I checked his region and wasn't even close (to AS2012 / current METAR from ADDS). LOL... 270kts at the Marker. Mike I may ask you to join the RTWR Team... however we do need to work on getting a bit slower so you don't have to execute that low-level "turn and burn". That NOE flying impressive too... just wondering where the terrain following radar is in the NGX. :lol:

:Doh: If you really need a "fix"... try Cal Classics DC-6. Not PMDG... but it won't cost you anything and they produce some very nice models.

Why not just plug in a few airports and check the Real Time Wx using FSX and compare to known METARs? My guess it won't be close... just checking EDXB, I bet it is closer (at this moment) to e.g. -2°C than 14°C. And just looking at Toenning (ETNH) from Intellicast.com, it is using the same METAR AS2012 is using (ETNH 252120Z 09011KT 9999 SCT030 M01/M07 Q1023 BLU/) which is quite a ways off than FSX RT which is reporting Wind Calm, Temp / Dew Point 14 / 4 and Q1013.

I'd put a few wraps of detcord around it first...