Pict

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!

MJC's Q300 and Q400 are both excellent. Also, you have PMDG's Jetstream 41 and PAOB's Fokker 50/60 as well which are both very good. I've read the Flight1 ATR is very good but I don't own it (on my system I don't see a difference if an aircraft is fsx native or not other than the weird effect of the propellers and clouds/scenery - nor is there any performance hit either). --Xavier [edit] ohhhh and look up Rick Piper's HS748 too (well look for anything from him or Fraser Mckay for that matter - they're all great!!)

Yes I agree It harks back from 2005, but seeing how many persons here and elsewhere label a perfectly servicable addon as simply "old hat", "unflyable" or "outdated" just because some of the buttons in the cockpit do not protrude to me is a bit unreasonable. It's right up there in outright systems depth with the other addons mentioned a couple posts earlier, just not as pretty. For me I use my simming time mostly as a hobby, but also I keep sharp on my instrument scan and flows. FSX's vc field of view is limited in that regard as in real life I'm not tilting my head to view different panels...I'm simply moving my eyes - hence 2D panels being important [for me] as they present the gauges normally present in my field of view forward, up, down, etc...thus I'm able to keep flow and scan techniques. In the VC i have to be panning around and/or zooming out (to see a typical forward view) or zooming in (to read labells) - In a real cockpit I have my primary instruments, engine Instruments and radios in my forward field of vision, In FSX at default zoom that's not the case. I'm not hitting VC's or anything as im perfectly at home in both 2D/VC. In short, whether the VC differentiates if a panel screw is a phillips, flathead or allen, or if it has a vc at all, is not a game changer for me. What matters is how accurately the aircraft FDM itself, systems (including instruments), panel layout, model, and sounds (i.e. reasonable accuracy) are protrayed.

The Level D 767 to me is still one of my all-time favourites as well...even if the vc isn't up to "today's standards" (whatever that's supposed to mean...) she's still an all around excellent addon for both fs9 and x. But i guess some need the screw heads to be in 3d before they'll ever acknowledge an addon as good it seems...

Eaglesoft's Cirrus SR-22 and Diamond DA42 are pretty excellent as well --Xavier

The amount of right rudder needed in the real 172 (at least in the 172n and 172p) seemed to vary depending on whether the metal manual trim tab on the rudder was adjusted or not. My instructor loved to bend it towards the right to force me to use more right rudder (was "simulating" a higher performance aircraft as i was continuing onwards to the malibu and mu-2). One of the 172s at the flight i did remember having to stomp on the right rudder as it has a rudder balance issue..buuut it was the easiest 172 to spin so it was my favourite (the others seemed too docile in stalls/spin).

A real c172 (did my ppl and ir in a 172n as well) doesn't have that much torque on takeoff or climbout from my experience - most times i'm just resting my right foot on the rudder pedal without much pressure to keep her coordinated (i always made sure the small metal manual tab on the rudder had some left curve in it on my preflight so that was probably why). The default 172 doesn't have much torque/p-factor even with the sliders all to the right - but FSX's native fdm harks back to the fs5.0 days at it's most basic (when a fast processor was 66mhz) so like its predecessors, it doesn't model torque/p-factor/prop gyro effects perfectly or rather it only models them at a very basic level. To me the A2A's doing the smart thing by not modelling it in the basic fdm, as this will probably allow their Accusim addon to model these effects properly without having to waste processor cycles cancelling out the effects first, before modelling them itself. --Xavier

Boeing certified or Boeing Licensed ?(trust me...there's a big difference there...) Turboprop flight dynamics modelling is inherently much more complex (and also much more difficult) than that of a jet aircraft. Jets do not have to deal with torque, p-factor, assymetrical thrust with all engines running (present in props with the propellers spinning the same direction), induced lift (from propwash), triple-shaft engine with fadec (pw150a) etc.... That's why it's easy to assume that at a code level and fdm level it's more complex than pmdg's offerings. Case in point...i'm sure changing a parameter in the .air file would affect a parameter in the NGX's operation as it still reads its information from the basic msfs fdm system...mjc's q400 will be unaffected as it's basically just a standalone simulation with it's own fdm engine running entirely separate (and on a separate core) from msfs (hence the need for the thread sync options in the config panel)...laymans term, fsx is just the Q400s graphics platform. MJC to me has managed to capture perfectly what happens when you couple 10,000shp - with a vertical tail, rudders and yaw damper system designed for an airplane with 4700shp... Long story short....yes it's that good..

sorry i actually should have said the buttons themselves are disabled on the overhead (or rather automatically operated)

From my experience they're both good in their current iterations (with the Airsimmer though you'll notice some features a bit stripped down, like no hydraulics and some MCDU pages inaccessible). Personally I've never had any fun breaking issues with either (I've only owned the Airsimmer v1.3+ though). Buuut I'm biased towards MD80s (my first airplane ride was on an MD83) soooo....lol It boils down to which you want to fly more at the end of the day....

If you read the earlier posts you'll see that both myself and several others explained why it doesn't seem to react to turbulence. it's a side effect of making the FDM entirely external. It's most likely a real challenge to Frolov and his team to change that as well, probably because the q400's fdm runs at a much higher clockspeed (30mhz i think?) than fsx's native fdm and its effect algorithms (i think i've read it runs at 12-15mhz thereabouts...pretty much unchanged from fs98 if that's the case). --Xavier

+1 agreed :-D

The complaints of it being "too smooth" are mainly from persons who are used to seeing the instantaneous wind gusts/shears and raggedy "drive-on-gravel" bouncy motion fsx portrays...while turbulence is certainly bumpy in real life...the way its displayed in fsx looks more like movie camera effects somewhat... Buuuut that's probably because i'm seeing it on a screen rather than feeling it - it's a bit difficult to explain (3d simulation limitation that probably can't be helped). Real flight is certainly a very smooth affair when turbulence is absent. (Like being above the cloud level on a hot summer day). Part of the smoothness also comes from the higher frequency or "resolution" of the external flight dynamics model (JSBsim) - msfs's flight model appears somewhat 'clunky' at times even at 30+ fps (if you use flightgear or x-plane you'll notice it fairly quickly). Regarding 3rd party programs, the only one i use is FS global real weather so i can't really speak much to to them. I will say though that some tweaks (particularly those affecting fsx's processor core usage) may give some weird effects and behaviours with the q400 as it uses a/the spare core for its FDM. Nb: i'm in no way bashing msfs at all in my post above (i use all four - fs9/10, flightgear and x-plane - i like them all equally lol).

the Q400 actually get's battered about by wind gusts and windshear as well (and also its performance is affected by icing too!!)...its just not affected by FSX's native turbulence due to the external FDM that's all...nobody ever said it was completely unaffected by FSX weather :-D --Xavier

Basically in the mu-2 there aren't any 'tabs' at the wings' trailing edges...it has full span double slotted flaps..roll is controlled entirely by roll spoilers. The checklist item is 'Trims .....set' meaning roll spoilers one mark to the left...and in the aircraft i fly...rudder trim to the scotch tape line placed by the chief pilot to the left lol. Once set, the roll and yaw on take off is very minimal. She's beautiful to fly...as long as you respect her limits! :-D Induced lift comes from the accelerated airflow over the wings from the props (in the vicinity/behind of the prop). I fly by matching the egts in the mu2 (because of the SRL system and they're more of a limit at altitude than torque). The roll that you mentioned from an engine failure earlier isnt from being close stall speed necessarily...it's called a Vmca-roll...some airplanes its (the Vmca) above the stall speed...others its below...but its a speed to beware of in an engine failure (red radial line on a kingairs airspeed indicator for example). Sorry to be so marconic in my sentences (my thumbs are tired from the phone screen). Edit...a couple pics from one of my text books show it better. Mods and op: sorry for straying from topic

@L.Adamson - i only said msfs doesn't simulate torque well...not that it didnt at all - and that's from comparing it with my experiences flying in real life. What i was just saying was that simmers who use xplane and flightgear would be more used to seeing and handling the more visible p-factor and torque effects as well induced lift. I was not implying msfs fdm isn't any good. Torque/p-factor is most noticable on climbout when angle of attack and power are both high...the the mu2 you'll get a sharp roll to the right if you dont apply roll trim prior to taking off for example...it diminishes as speed increases and the aircraft is levelled (the heavy wing effect...). X-plane is twitchy but also a lot of that sensitivity can be helped by calibrating your controls a bit...problem is its how the .acf maker models the aircrafts fdm itself. Also i'm not aware that msfs takes into account propeller rotation direction other than all rotating clockwise when viewed from behind- buuuuut i could be wrong. Planes are generally easy to fly in real life but there are some which are pretty challenging eg q400s, mu2s (i can speak for the mu2 as its what i logged most my hours in), early learjets...

Because the fdm is external fsx realism settings do not have any effect on it...buuuut i keep all those sliders to the right at any rate (crash tolerance is irrelevant as i disabled the crash detection because of some nuances of fsx that is rather unrealistic). Most fsx users who haven't used x-plane or flightgear would find the handling a bit challenging (particularly labding) as fsx natively does not model p-factor or torque well (plus i don't see induced lift being simulated by fsx natively at all...) Xavier

@Q400_Flyer yup the p-factor is pretty nasty on the real -400 (not to mention the torque roll) from what i've heard speaking with a few q-drivers...right aileron + a stomp on the right rudder immediately after leaving the ground is the norm to keep her coordinated. (It's what we get for having 10000shp driving two huge 13.5'(?) propellers @1050rpm)