Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

127 Excellent

1 Follower

About spesimen

  • Rank
    Member - 1,000+
  • Birthday 03/13/1973

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    san frandisco

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

4,864 profile views
  1. 2.7billion is a drop in the bucket of the usa budget. the military gets 250x that, not just once, but every single year. americans spend more than 140x that just gassing up their cars, every single year.. you could easily argue that neither of those things should be a priority. or that you could chop them by 1% and spend it on something better. if it's poverty or science, i don't care, but here we are. just keep in mind that there is quite a bit of value to scientific research on other planets even if the practical applications may not be immediately obvious. meanwhile if you divide up the 2.7 billion among the 750 million or so people living in poverty across the globe, it works out to a couple bucks each. it could maybe help them for a day or two but isn't going to do squat for fixing the systemic, cultural, or resource issues that allow for hundreds of millions of people to be in poverty in the first place, while jeff bezos can earn $13billion just in a single day. heck, if he paid taxes on those capital gains at the same rate normal americans pay on their income it would cover the cost of the mars launch right there. (hint: he doesn't pay taxes at the same rate either) now obviously food aid programs and other development programs are, or at least can be, more effective than just dividing up the money, so saying that just giving everybody a few bucks doesn't really solve anything is somewhat disingenuous of an argument i will freely admit. but keep in mind we already participate in those too. (the usa spends around 3-4billion every year on food aid.) now you can easily say that number should be higher and i would totally agree !!! but i'm not convinced that chopping scientific research is the place to go to find that money. remember that the usa just recently cut corporate taxes by more than 800 billion dollars so they could spend it buying back their stock. sad to say but solving human problems is simply not a priority for americans and most likely never will be. cheers!,-andy crosby
  2. hmm, i learned on the pmdg tutorial also. first with the original v1 747 and then with the ngx. they look intimidating because of the old school calculator interface. it can seem cryptic because some of the shorthand abbreviations and flow aren't immediately obvious. but really it is just like a flight planning app that has a list of waypoints and lets you adjust/edit them, and pick approaches etc. that's really just about it! most have places to enter some important information about your fight like weights and intended speeds and so forth that help it calculate correctly. once you get the hang of it they are actually quite easy to use. good luck! cheers, -andy crosby
  3. TOPER is another alternative. toper-web.com ....its not very full featured, doesn't support de-rates. but it does sel temp. i use it for -600 and -900 which are not included in TOPCAT. not the best alternative but it works well enough. i need to try out qsimplanner. or finally make the switch to p3d so i can use the NGXu :) cheers,-andy crosby
  4. thanks dave. really interesting to read! cheers,-andy crosby
  5. just curious but do you have a citation for this? the situation you describe doesn't seem like something that the president (or the vice pres for that matter) normally has control over. i couldn't really find any specific bills or news items regarding this either. wouldn't decisions like this happen at the procurement level like with congressional budgeting? cheers,-andy crosby
  6. well, it's easy enough to reproduce if you are curious to see it. check out the other thread i linked there is a much more specific example with high CI and weights. i don't know precisely why the situation where it blanks out all of the calculations in the STAR is different than the "Unable/unacheiaveable" messages but i've seen both behaviors. i think the latter errors show up when you can correctly calculate the descent but then deviate too much from it, whereas the blanked entries occur if you have not yet started/calculated the descent and it is simply unable to calculate it due to the ambiguity i mentioned earlier. i believe in practice it is somewhat rare as it requires a STAR with a speed restriction and also an unusually aggressive CI, in the other example thread it was because the last waypoint before the star was commanding a 330 knot descent followed by a 280 restriction only a few nm later. with a more conservative CI the descent is already going to be in the 280 neighborhood. happy flying cheers,-andy crosby
  7. check your descent speed.... often it can be too high with a high cost index. the behavior you describe can occur if it is set too high/fast for the the aircraft to be able to meet the numerous speed and altitude restrictions that are in that STAR... you can get into a state where it is ambiguous because you are telling it to go one speed but it can't hit the restriction and do the commanded speed at the same time so it blanks out the calculations. typically for a STAR like that where there is a hard speed limit it can be helpful to set that speed in the descent page instead of using the econ value (set it to 280/.78 for example). alternatively setting a lower cost index that results in an econ value that is closer to the restriction is also possible.. there is another thread about it here from some time ago. happy flying! cheers,-andy crosby
  8. just for reference, FSX sold at least a million copies just in the first year of release (according to wikipedia) and it's been active for more than a decade.. dovetail sold at least 600,000 copies and that was several years later (albeit at reduced prices).. those are the only numbers i could find online but that's a pretty decent amount. (edit: i found another ancient reference from a 2003 post on avsim that claimed they had sold 22 million copies of the various versions of the franchise, before the 2002 version of the sim was out and that 2002 sold 1.7-2.2 mil...) i think the potential sales numbers are possibly much higher than you are theorizing . the new one looks so amazing that it has been getting tons of press over the mainstream gaming sites not just on enthusiast ones like avsim.. cheers,-andy crosby
  9. somebody from ign asked the devs about that. “In general, whenever an area is blurred in Bing, or is otherwise restricted, we will use procedural techniques to fill in the blanks. Those areas won’t be fully authentic, but we will have something that generally fits into the area.” article here: https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/08/how-will-microsoft-flight-simulator-deal-with-what-governments-dont-want-you-to-see cheers, -andy crosby
  10. maybe check that your CLB page has reasonable settings for the rate. if you have max rate set it will probably do full thrust the whole way. maybe try to override it from econ to just 280/.76 . ....an unusually high cost index setting might have a similar effect maybe.
  11. a few quick suggestions would be, is the autothrottle and both FDs engaged? in that case and with lnav/vnav engaged your throttle should follow the prescribed power pretty much on it's own so i'd check those first. is your vertical path looking like it is supposed to in the FMC? well, so one thing that nobody wants to hear of course is did you try flying the tutorials, but they are pretty good at hitting every step. if you have the issue with even following them exactly, it might be something with your setup. maybe check that your settings in the FMC setup menus so that your throttle isn't overriding the prescribed power if you accidentally tap it to full. perhaps if you post a screenshot of your instruments it might be easier to point out if there is any unusual or missing settings. good luck! -andy crosby
  12. if you're interested in saving time and not tweaking i'd suggest just getting the steam version of fsx and not messing around with trying to install the old version. it is significantly more stable and bug-free and will also most likely install seamlessly on a win10 machine without any fuss. i'd also advise to stick with win10. a lot of newer hardware will require it to take full advantage. and win7 support is gone for good in 6 months or so, so you'll have to look at upgrading anyway if you want to keep your machine secure good luck! cheers,-andy crosby
  13. i don't know how to fix your issue but on mine it seems to show the correct runways cheers,-andy crosby
  14. you didn't mention if you're only interested in airliners... most of the A2A planes also qualify for 'study-level' status, in particular the engine/oil simulation and management is very sophisticated on their products. they tend to be quite good on performance too. cheers,-andy crosby
  15. preferences->camera->cinematic mode->auto-enable slider. you can use the slider to adjust the time delay before it turns on the mode or you can turn it off by setting the slider to the leftmost position (it will say "Auto-Enable Disabled") cheers,-andy crosby
  • Create New...