Pict

All have some degree of licensing from the respective manufacturers - you can't be making money off their products (or any likeness thereof) without it.

I barely see much flex in the A320s wings in reality myself, so for me if omitting it from the visual model will save on resources and make the flight smoother frameratewise, then by all means do away with it. No point it going all out for realism when the most basic realistic factor in a flight (fluidity) is sacrificed in favor of eye candy that's barely noticable in reality. Same goes for others like the DC9, A300/310, CRJ, ERJ, and older GA all-metal aircraft. Photos/videos (particularly those taken from a quartering angle, ie wings close to the edge of the frame) taken with a zoom lens are prone to being distorted slightly by spherical aberration, which makes the curve more pronounced than it actually is.

Indeed I've flown Senecas through moderate turbulence (found myself under a Cb west of KPBI over the canals once) - but I've never seen the wings flex at all (sure the flaps rattle when deployed, but thats about it)...so I'm not to sure if Carenado is being entirely realistic in that regard.

It's not a bug, have a good read of the manual(s). -Xavier

In most turboprops with non-counter rotating propellers its the same principle. The aircraft will react to power changes all the time, some are benign (like kingairs, dash 8 300/100), while others are rather aggressive, needing frequent retrimming (q400, i heard cheyennes as well and mu-2s). The trick is to counter these changes by being smooth and gradual with power changes and control inputs. Adjust power ahead of time, never when it gets to the time you'll need it, and while doing so, counter with your ailerons/rudders. It takes a bit of time to get your "groove" regarding this. During the landing keep the power up and keep the approach stable - dont fluctuate in the airspeed or descent rate too much. In most turboprops with non-counter rotating propellers its the same principle. The aircraft will react to power changes all the time, some are benign (like kingairs, dash 8 300/100), while others are rather aggressive, needing frequent retrimming (q400, i heard cheyennes as well and mu-2s). The trick is to counter these changes by being smooth and gradual with power changes and control inputs. Adjust power ahead of time, never when it gets to the time you'll need it, and while doing so, counter with your ailerons/rudders. It takes a bit of time to get your "groove" regarding this. During the landing keep the power up and keep the approach stable - dont fluctuate in the airspeed or descent rate too much.

Do you think it's simply a case of disabling the engaged authrottle mode and simply forgetting to renable them afterward? I'm doubting the automation had anything to do with this accident - unless the 777s fbw is supposed to trigger TOGA power like in airbus fbw aircraft. I forsee a recomendation for more emphasis on stall recognition in the works post NTSB report. Xavier

It will both roll and yaw left at full power due to the torque (roll- from the engines) and p-factor (yaw- spiralling slipstream off the propellers)...they use an external fdm for this aircraft so it'll handle a bit differently than an aircraft using FSX's native fdm. [edit - 1208z] This will happen even if the controls (your joystick/yoke rather) are set up properly. About 8-10 right rudder trim units eases this quite a bit on takeoff (you can add about 5-6% right airleron as well if you like - just remember to reset that to zero before engaging autopilot). -pict/xavier

Even the A340-200/300's can't really be considered as underpowered, as they're the only widebodies (outside of the 747/md-11) that can takeoff from SXM/TNCM 7003' runway and clear the terrain just after with an engine out - 777's/A330's are often weight restricted and often takeoff with little fuel to do a fuel stop in PTP/TFFR prior to doing the transatlantic return to Paris; With typical transatlantic load/fuel, the big twins are unable to clear the terrain after losing an engine. -Xavier

Flaps 15 for most runways, Flaps 30 for short runways (or if the runway is wet/contaminated). --Xavier

It actually uses the PSS native navdata (via a conversion tool in the aircrafts folder) --Xavier

To date the best Aztecs are available for X-Plane 9/10 (fdm/systemswise/visual model-wise and external model). None have 2d cockpits though (I find x-plane's vc system easier to navigate at any rate)

A high quality freeware (and accurate fde/systems/visual model-wise) example would be the Tinmouse 737-200 - no vc but excellent all around. It's very fps friendly on lower end systems and can be integrated with both the default garmin or a few other navigational systems like ISG, Realityxp and CIVA INS. It's one of my personal favourites.

Unfortunately I had a staunch British instructor who insisted I refer to it as "Roof Panel" lol hence my habit lol....one wrong word and I got whacked on my head (like he referred to throttle detents/gates as "balks"). Indeed I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same designer at all...maybe he/she retired to Vero Beach after the war. There's a nice early aztec as well (straight tail-blunt nose-square bar yoke) over on either flightsim or simviation too (I forgot where I downloaded it first).

There are a few freeware Aztecs for FS2004 (That can be ported over to FSX) that I currently know of (over at simviation). In the payware arena there are a couple for X-plane 9/10 that I can vouch for regarding accuracy of handling - not the best VC-wise (read: no 3D instruments and only a few knobs pop out - not a deal breaker for me though), but external model and FDM are spot on. @ttocs true..side by side the C310 looked like an Albatross while the Aztec looked like an overweight chicken...but I found the Aztec to feel more "solid" in handling somewhat - especially when flying in IMC down to minimums in turbulence...just the trim wheels was something I was never able to get over.....I mean on the ROOF?! Seriously Piper? the roof? I'd love to see one of the more prominent devs make an Aztec for FS2004 and/or X (I use both so it doesn't matter to me which one) - Just that my personal wish would be one with the regular air driven gauges - no garmin glass...maybe a simple kln90 gps at most..I feel that anything more will kill the spirit of it.

The one I flew had a long sharper nose...but for sone odd reason Piper chose to mount the trim wheels on the roof/overhead panel (incredibly awkward!)....plus it had a REAL critical engine (ie all the utilities on the left engine only). She had charm though.

Seems the site is down again (based on the original URL that I have at least). Hopefully it stays down. The scary thing I'm finding with them based on their current behaviour is that when NLS releases their A380, I will not be surprised if they alter their site to make it look like they are in a "partnership" - i.e. an authorised retailer of NLS' aircraft. --Xavier

Awesome news indeed! I really hope someone cans their website for sure...sadly these types of scams are becoming more and more common (like the repeated attempts to sell flightgear under different names). Does anyone know if Peter Hager (Author of x-plane 9/10 A380) is aware of them using his images as well? --Xavier

I reported them to Facebook as well as they're also using images from Pete's A380 for X-Plane 9/10...even their website is littered with typos - the hallmark of scam sites. Let's hope no innocents get burned by them. -Xavier

For me it tends to happen if I either run fsx then switch to fs9, or if i haven't connected to the internet while running fs9 for a while. That's the pattern I'm observing. I'm (like Ian) thinking it's probably an addon that triggers it, or even fsx itself too (possible registry interference). It's more a nuiscance than anything else really, as after a couple tries it starts and runs with no problems. --Xavier

I've had the same issue as well - fs9.exe showing 0% in task manager but rundll32 showing about 40% processor load - it rectifies after I kill both and try again. Sometimes it takes 2-3 tries on my system (I'm using Windows 7). -Xavier

You'll need to register at the QW's forums (qwsim.flight1.net) for any support. --Xavier

I run the f1 mustang on a fairly mid-high range system with no problems. It's a complete G1000 simulation minus one or two sim-irrelevant pages. In 2D/spot modes I get a consistent 25-30fps, with the VC inducing a performance hit dropping it to 15-20fps (no stuttering on my end). Soundwise it's ok and FDM is very responsive to control inputs/trim, flying very close to cessna's published numbers (from an actual C510 manual that I own) in performance. Note: regarding my system performance - I do not run my sim with all graphics settings at max as I'm one who prefers a smooth running (and stable, OOM-free) simulation. Nor do I run any graphics enhancement addons with my sim setup either - just a weather engine (FSGRW). --Xavier

For you it is.....for myself and many others I believe I can safely say she's just as relevant today as she was when she first appeared. ...plus no OOM's or CTD's with her (for me) either....

Also there's a great freeware vintage piaggio pd808 (?) bizjet/recon/trainer available in the file library too.

....haha or when there are two toddlers next to me singing and dancing while watching Bubble Guppies. I agree, get both!