Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lateagain

  1. Checking release updates at the official site this morning I noticed some new screenshots by Ian Emms for Goodwood. Now I know that FTX are very proud of their new 3D grass but........ If you look at photographs of the real airport, as I suspected, Goodwood seems to have a set of fully functioning mowers! :lol: Indeed I can't imagine many UK fields as busy as Goodwood tolerating the "Nature Garden" look that they seem to have gone for. Grass seeds don't half bugger up air intake filters! :rolleyes: I never visited a UK field in my years flying that wasn't well mowed. Seems also reading through this that the delay is down to a copyright issue with some signs or trademarks at the real airfield? Just don't get this silliness from companies. Virtual recreations of their facilities and or trade marks in simulators is like FREE advertising and yet the lawyers persue it as if it were real world competition or worse :rolleyes: . Happened a few times in Train Simming too. JV admits this should have been sorted first, but frankly it seems a pretty silly argument when the virtual model is to such a high standard? After all if they renamed it "Notgood" :lol: and changed all the signs folk would still buy the airfield and the real company would just lose face? Whilst you're sorting this one out guys ....lose the grass? Geoff
  2. I always get confused about which Mesh had big issues with Plateaus and Canyons but one of them has a whole "fix" add-on to address this. Anyone else remeber which that was? Geoff Sorry but best I can do. Check the sites for the Meshes you've installed because if it's either the fix should be apparent in their support (if it's the one I'm thinking of).
  3. An interesting Video and sadly 4 years old now. Those of us awaiting the very close to release (?) MSTS2 where staggered when the Beancounters closed Aces. One of the lead developers of that title went on to found Cascade Games Foundry (with other ex Aces people) and they've released the scuba sim. The big diffrenec between Train Simming and Flight Simming to that point is that Microsoft (M$) had released four versions of FS in the lifetime of MSTS. MSTS2 (Take 1) was actually shown at one of the big games preview shows and then just died inexplicably. Picking up on Ian's point a huge issue with Train Simmers was backward compatability with existing add-ons. Whilst the Commercial Add-on industry for MSTS never reached the levels it has for MSFS there was none the less a thriving and improving market and many of us "punters" had spent a fair few £,$,€ on these releases. Of course in the Flight Sim World you'd been used to discovering you had to buy the latest ...again?! The main difference between Train Sims and Flight Sims is that given a "reasonable" virtual world to fly in our main concerns are realistic aircraft, weather and airports. Given those you go where your fancy takes you? Trains however need tracks, points, signalling and AI traffic that complies with those limitations. Add to that scenery for the whole route that needs to be as good as a reasonable FS airport and you see it's a lot harder to make something convincing and that works when folk start creating their own "activities". When MSTS2 was, much to all train simmers amazement, resurrected (years after the first attempt) it was yet again a totally new sim and it's main "revolutionary" feature was to be "World of Rails". Because of NDA's only a handful of folk got to see this and the few released videos and screenshots never really showed how this concept would work with the complexity of European railways, dense cityscapes, signalling or older era's (much more important/interesting to train simmers). Long before we got close to any answers we were left reeling from the shock of the Aces closure announcement like the FS community. The good news is that it prompted a freeware development called Open Rails. This is a community effort and has been years in development but does have backward compatability. Stuck with one sim (to 3-4 FS versions) the developers, freeware and commercial, pushed the envelope and even came up with significant functionality improvements in the Sim. Meanwhile RailSimulatorwas released and has transformed through Railworks to Rail Simulator 2013. Not a very loved sim by many and although it's the prettiest yet this comes with a price tag, both financial and in funcional issues. I'm sure the accountants (Know the cost of everything and the value of nothing) pulled the plug on numbers on a spreadsheet and so we'll never know how close the Aces and ESP teams work came to furthering our simming hobbies. In the meantime P3D seems at worst a great "lifeboat" for FSX and at best may bring a future development with some backward compatability for add-ons? The trouble with totally NEW sims is that you have to pay again for what you already have. I ran FS9 alongside FSX but found that the newer got my money. Will P3D V2.0 mean much of that expenditure will cease to be compatible? Will 1.4 still be available in that case so that this dual development stuff still has a platform? Speculation of course, but unless you've limitless resources worth considering? Geoff
  4. Well he who laughs last, laughs longest ....because if you actually read what that poster said it's not the same thing at all. The Topic starter said Regretful. Try and keep up... :lol:
  5. Yes don't be too quick to remove it unless it's absolutely necessary Richard. I'm hoping there'll be a patch or two. The UK2000 Airfields work fine with FTX and for all it's faults it has a good number of plusses that the Photoreal stuff hasn't and 5 seasons are pretty much up there in that list? Geoff
  6. The Bird Dog is one of my all time favourites and the Safir gets good reviews if rather a rare bird? The Pitts also got many excellent reviews but is a tads specialist for me. At that Sale Price and with a month long offer I'd buy your 1st choice and give it a whirl. If you like it the offers on til Jan15th so time to buy others. Waiting for the AN-2 and if it's as good as the Bird Dog it'll get my purchase. BTW loads of repaints here http://aussiex.org/f...h&fromMainBar=1 for various models. Check the detail on the Bird Dog because it's more than one variant and comes with 4 (I think?) excellent cockpits with superb "wear and tear". http://www.sibwings.com/ssbd.php Just love this one. Geoff PS if anyone's read "The Ravens" about FAC's in Laos during the VietNam war there are repaints of Ravens BirdDogs in the link above. Great read even if you don't want the model. ....NOW if someone could create that theatre with it's scenery, AI fast jets and some AAA and small arms fire and make it work in FSX/P3D I'd be queing up with my CC ^_^
  7. Well with GA the only voice you usually hear is your own muttering what's perhaps the most common "last words" on many cockpit voice rcorders The difference being of course that the latter is tragic whereas your own mutterings merely represent a waste of time?! I think perhaps an English Lesson is in order? The subtle difference between "REGRETFUL" and "REGRETTABLE" (see the thread title) is that the former refers to one's own feelings about one's own actions. The Latter more usually referes to feelings about the actions of others? When I read reviews of anything I look at the bad reviews and faults first. It "cuts to the chase". If there are issues you won't find them in the "Awesome, Wonderful, Superb etc.etc." reviews. Often the bad reviews highlight specifics and not always to do with the product but the way it is being used by the reviewer. Once you can see what the issue is and why it's reported you can make your own mind up about it's validity to your own needs. If the points are irrelevant to your potential needs then they still might be valid to others. This thread is about REGRETFUL purchases and so far it's been a very instructive and useful one.
  8. Whilst the islands have some undoubtedly stunning scenery it's worth considering that one of the many complaints about FLIGHT was "why Hawaii!?". Anywhere's good IMO but it obviously wasn't on the top of many folks list?
  9. Hi Richard, I have to say that living as I do some 6 miles East of LHR (EGLL) I too am very disappointed in the depiction of Greater London. There seems to be a huge difference between what I see there with what I see in screenshots of other parts of the country. HUH?! No I don’t mean green fields v 3D buildings ....I’m talking about detail. In some recent screenshots on the FTX site by one of the Beta Testers there are for instance 3D bridges. Most of what I see in the London Area has a “Salvador Dali” melted look with bridges melting into rivers or other roads they cross . :wacko: The Autogen for both the suburbs and the inner city areas is totally wrong for both the style and density of buildings. I’ll say AGAIN at this point to underline the fact. I know its land class AND I know it’s not photoreal. However there are many styles of 3d models in the autogen and those used in much of London are just wrong. I agree with your comments on the Roads and the railways seem far less clear than in the NA series ....or is that just in certain areas? I think the poster that suggested in now locked threads that entire areas had their towns displaced may have been on to something? Certainly many towns I know that are built around roads seem to be represented as if bypassed by the very roads that run through them? Obviously living where we do the first areas we’ll look at are those we know. Moving further afield, the wider countryside looks better than the land class in GEX/UTX and a flight “over the ORBX border in Wales gives a good impression of the differences. However neither has done the wide variety of coastal land class in the UK much justice and many costal landmarks, white cliffs, sandy beaches, piers, harbours, are either wrong, badly done or just missing. No big deal for PMDG jockeys but glaringly obvious in my A2A cub ...or the ubiquitous 172? As a VFR GA/Bush (when I fly where there’s “bush” ) pilot I don’t like the flatness of photoreal but the fact is that FTX ENG looks best at the altitudes that Photoreal comes into its own. :huh: Whilst looking at comparison videos of FSX and P3D I stumbled across this the other day. A picture is worth a thousand words.... B) Even though the poster admits his recording settings aren’t optimal the poor depiction of Dover Harbour as a bunch of prefab industrial units on the edge of a grassy inlet occupied by models of river crossing ferries is very poor. Any SE UK RW pilot making a cross channel crossing will look to Dover’s unmissable port as a landmark and its considerable size and the 30000ton ferries can be seen for miles. :unsure: They’ve done so much in one chunk that there are areas I’ve not had a chance to explore but I’ve cherry picked those I know well or have flown over. Everyone cries “It’s just because you know this area and didn’t know the ones they did previously” There is some truth in that BUT there is also a fundamental difference between England and most of Europe that is VERY different to the areas ORBX has done so far. Europe is old and its landmass and cities have developed over centuries. If Europe was as young as Oz or the US “we wouldn’t have built it like that?” Or would we? We’re more densely populated, have smaller denser housing, roads and railways that don’t run in straight lines or on grid systems for good reasons. I’m not a scenery designer but it strikes me that if land class with autogen can be made convincingly for the newer lands it can be done for Europe but it obviously needs to be different? It strikes me that what we’ve bought is an above average Beta, that still needs months of honing to be on a par with ORBX’s best areas? I do hope they’ll work on improving what they’ve released before they proceed with any other region because I think that some of the issues are fundamental to the rest of the UK and Europe. Best bit about my purchase is that it made me look at UK2000 VFR airfields but until the basic scenery is improved my home field still won’t be my area of choice.
  10. Well the launcher looks excellent anyway ^_^ and it's here in the library http://library.avsim...php?DLID=172983 Funnily enough I saws pictures of this on a P3D link I followed yesterday but revisiting the P3D site today I can't find them? Maybe I had an outdated link? In any case I'll be trying this out with FSX as it looks like a big improvement on the current launcher. Thanks for the heads up Ian. 3rd party donationware to make a programme do what it should have done to start with?! Hmmm thought I strayed back into the world of MSTS by mistake :lol: ....but I feel right at home with that as will any other fellow tarin simmers... ^_^ I'd be amazed if this doesn't find it's way into V2.0? Geoff
  11. Hi Dave, Thanks for the heads up on the comparison videos on YouTube. Not sure they showed me much as there is no commentary and just a list of add-ons used. I have to say that with the limitations of SWMBO's laptop even at 720HD setting I saw differences but nothing that made P3D look much better. In fact FPS seemed steadier but always lower than FSX and scenery pop-ups were about the same. There was a rather bad cloud rendition in one Video of P3D where FSX had none but a fine and realistic haze. Trouble is we don't know why that is? I have no doubt that P3D has potential as anything resurrected and looked at again ought to have? I’m a Sim addict, hook line and sinker, but 12 years into Simming I know a major improvement when I see one and so far nobodies shown me anything that made me go “Wow”. Whilst P3D’s money back offer is fair, it in itself is hardly compensation for the time it would take me to port over hundreds of pounds worth of add-ons. I’m not here to trash P3D. I want to see more evidence of what it offers and so far I don’t see much. OK my loss you can rightly say? But given some of the issues raised I’m surprised that no one can actually demonstrate the plusses and minuses? As a community the Sim community of any type is hardly backward in posting screenshots and videos but even those need the discipline of an objective comparison to mean much. Nothing ever got fixed by discussing what was right with it. Only by examinig what was wrong and trying to fix it. When V2.0 is released I’ll be more interested, but we don’t all have unlimited budgets or time and I spend mine on what can be shown or reviewed to be worthwhile. I’ll have another look at the videos on my FS machine where I can view in top quality but the lack of frame by frame commentary doesn’t give much to focus on. Your mention of the Sim Launcher programme is the sort of level of detail I (and I'm sure many others?) are after. The basics that those of you using it take for granted are all of interest to potential users and yet this detail seems rather lacking in anything I've found to read up on? Even a download of a pdf user manual would be informative ....er that is I hope it would? What a review would do is summarise "where we're at" so that potential customers can decide what to do. There's hardly any reason for LM not joining in forums with input and feedback. It's not as though the competition is lining up to oust their market position is it?! Anyway thanks for some useful input and feedback. I don't dismiss the forums but after 11 years simming they do have their limitations because this thread like many will fall rapidly off the radar where a review or reviews stay indexed for future reference. Geoff
  12. ORBX ENG works fine in Win7 64bit. Buying Win8 (and pro at that) is a whole different debate :huh: I seem to recall someone else reporting the same phenomenum here so do a search of the forums. Sounds like a possible FTX central or scenery settings issue to me but you haven't gone into any detail? Geoff
  13. :lol: no you're good Ian! It's a forum edit (that I've asked about before) and I suggested that "Overly Enthusiastic" or "Critically Challenged" might be reasonable substitutes. GOG? Yeah nought wrong with that ....is there? ....if so live with it ....because there's a lot of us around and you'll all be one one day! :lol: I suspect that the agreement between M$ and LM which enabled them to develop the FSX platform was worded in such a way as to ensure no competition with Flight or future FS involvement in Flight Sim programmes. My logic leads me to think that this is the reason for the convoluted EULA situation and that this in turn has discouraged formal comparison reviews because they may be seen as in some way to encourage disregard for the EULA?? Whatever, it seems strange to me who arrived after having installed FS98, thought it laughable and uninstalled it immediately only to return to FS with a copy of FS9 long after FSX was released, that I found it easy to find what the fundamental differences between FS9 and FSX are in any number of reviews. Hopefully the release of Vers 2.0 of P3D will see an end to some of the much debated issues and a decent review. FSX works for me most of the time but I'd invest in something that will improve it long term. At my age on a fixed income I read reviews before I buy and if a something is about to be upgraded or replaced I wait for the new. Don't buy that either till it gets a review or several. I regret every cent I spent on a new Train Sim now and wish I'd saved it for FS add-ons. But the wisdom of hindsight ain't worth anything. Geoff
  14. Ian you seem to have missed the point of a forum? A forum is an arena for discussion. If people ask questions you see no point in or that "irritate" you it's probably best not to participate? The fact that just about every aspect of flight Simming has been dissected, discussed and reviewed for years appears to be news to you! The fact that you are happy with P3D is of note. It is however only one opinion amongst many. One has to ask why so few people have taken up P3D? When you read reviews on ANYTHING you will find there everything from the sycophantic, gushing and non critical through to the downright malicious and mischievous. Amongst that spectrum you will often find common threads, common complaints, omissions, malfunctions or reports of poor performance. To suggest that anyone here not agreeing with or questioning other simmers experience is DEMANDING anything is rather bizarre in a forum devoted to discussing aspects of our hobby. When you buy a car don't you read the road tests and reviews? There’s hardly any product marketed today that doesn’t get reviewed by someone. I often post reviews of items I purchase as I value the effort others make in doing the same. Why you should take my comments on LM's marketing as a personal affront frankly escapes me and if you're speaking on behalf of anyone ("us") then I missed who that is? Since reading this new thread I've discovered that there are some point by point comparisons on SimOuthose's forums. There also seems to be an update on LM's site since I last visited which seems to address some issues others have raised here. I keep an open mind on P3D and look forward to further development, information and a decent review. I suspect my current thinking on awaiting feedback on Vers 2.0 is by no means unique? At the moment I'm sad to say I find aspects of Deja Vu from my years train simming. When the latest train simulator was released it had much that was good and much that was poor. Those who'd bought into the new sim set about Rottweillering any discussion that raised any reasonable questions about the shortcomings. IMHO this set back development and take up of the new Sim and drove many folk who'd contributed to the forums constructively for years away. I wouldn't want to see that here. <_< Geoff
  15. :lol: With all due respect Ian : We know all that. P3D advocates, like the advocates for anything new, keep telling us how much better it is ....err except those who don't find it so. What they don't provide is any comparative evidence of that. Many posters in this thread actually cast doubt on that?! Seeing is believing. Comparative screenshots are hardly rocket science. A list of what's in the box is hardly rocket science either. The issue of the relationship between, ownership of and development of the ESP between M$ and LM is also a given, although I suspect that the truth is not exactly spelt out here. What is totally unclear to me, and judging by the take up many others, is the fundemental detail. The rather ludicrous (IMO) EULA situation and promise of a "significant" upgrade (?) in version 2.0, whilst giving those of us "in the dark" absolutely no idea about cost, features and an end to the rather silly idea that it's not a flight simulator but something to teach children (what?) with...... means I'll be sitting on the sideline watching and waiting for a proper review. Interviews with PR reps from LM and a series of Articles in certain FS magazines trotting out more LM blurbs with a few far from stunning screengrabs does not constitute a review OR a comparison. I n the past there have been many "reasonably" objective comparative reviews of FS add-ons. Even the magazines that give everything 80% to protect their advertising revenue have produced them with tables of pros and cons, included features etc. The fact that this forum has started an entire thread to try and clarify what publishers are supporting P3D and those who are not is positive proof that the issues are far from clear. BTW your analogy that P3D is like FSX with vitamins is unfortunate considering the widely held opinion that taking vitamins does nothing for you! :LMAO: Frankly I'd hoped someone would post a link to a decent review I'd missed? ...because it does seem odd to me that if P3D is such a significant improvement there hasn't been one? Geoff
  16. I've yet to see a good feature by feature comparison test/review of FSX and P3D. The marketing from Lockheed itself is probably the LEAST informative I’ve ever seen for ANY product ever! The desperate attempt (part of the deal with Microsoft?) to promote it as a teaching aid with pictures of school children sitting at computers (........and just where is flight simulation on any school curriculum?) tells me nothing about the programme or it’s features. Surely now there's enough experience to write one? I'm talking a totally objective scientific comparison. First we need to know “what’s in the box” and how that compares with FSX Gold (last version?) Then we need screenshots to compare where features differ. Then we need performance differences We need “set-up” and “interface” differences. Only when all these basics are covered do we need to know about the “icing” of add-ons. Also with a major upgrade promised as a prospective customer I want to know what changes that will make to functionality, price, features etc.etc. It’s not that I don’t respect the opinions on the forums. They are mostly subjective and deal with specifics. What I want is a review and proper description of what comes out of the box and how that differs. I have searched for this. PC Pilot ran a multi part article on it that left me ....not much the wiser. Geoff
  17. I think that's about spot on Ernie. If you say you're developing features B & G and then find you can't get G to work well enough they'll damn you for not doing it and if you say you're not going to include D & F but find F works well so include it they'll complain that you didn't spec that in the first place :lol: If finding out G won't work or developing F takes a bit longer they'll criticise you for taking too long to release it :blink: . Release it with glitches and they'll harangue you for not testing thoroughly :( . Screenshots work for me. An updated forum is better .....but when the Tri pacer was released recently it came as a pleasant (but complete) surprise to me. So I bought it. I suffered no angst during it's development ......because I didn't know it was underway . If you change demand for "expect" or "value" we're singing from the same song sheet. If you take your custom anywhere where you actually meet face to face you remember and value the greeting, an exchanged joke, banter a good natured haggle etc. ...and you'll go again. Online we miss that but it comes across in responses to support issues and general word of mouth feedback on how helpful the dev was? Geoff
  18. Ernie your selective quote of my previous post is out of context :unsure: I think you need to read it again because I responded to two seperate issues ...and I still don't get why folk think they need, or have a right to, "step by step" updates? If they're available great! But if not just be patient?
  19. Well I have to disagree with both of your points for the reasons below There's an old saying "If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen". Once you start to SELL add-ons you are a commercial producer and be that part or full time (and they aren't ALL part timers) you must expect the same treatment as any other person selling any other product. Having helped on Train Sim Freeware add-ons I have a lot of sympathy for simulator add-on developers and certainly many critics have no idea how impractical or beyond the control of the developers actual input some of their requests and criticisms are ....BUT if Ford make a lousy model car or Sony a bad TV you don't hear people calling the justifiable criticism "bashing". If you create something and sell it in the public domain the great unwashed are going to feel free to criticise it. Criticism can be good, constructive, bad or downright malicious ....but if you can't take it stay out of the kitchen. Most creative folk can decide what could be improved, what's beyond the Sims capability and who's just having a dig. The good ones fix stuff and grow thick skins. They also improve their skills as they learn the tricks and skills of their craft. I've no experience of FS development but I know from Train Sim projects that there is a lot of "one step forward, two steps back" in any project. You do some screen grabs of how things are progressing and then someone testing the project finds a major flaw in some aspect and you find yourself back before those shiny screengrabs. Now you can waste time on the PR or you can roll up your sleeves and fix the problem. Bringing you back to my earlier post do you harass Fords or Sony because they're not keeping you abreast of their latest products? I doubt it? You may read the Motoring Press and Tech sites to keep abreast of new developments but you don't expect manufacturers to document each stage of their latest models do you? :huh: When the next PMDG (which doesn't interest me) is released those who want it will buy it. When the new C172's and An-2 are released I'll buy at least one of each of those. It's great that I CAN follow development through forums of those but I wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit if I couldn't :lol: . I'd just be pleased that they were in the pipeline. Geoff
  20. I don't really understand why folk see FS Add-ons as any different to any other consumer product? Car manufacturers announce new models but don't release images until they're ready. They all make different sized and purpose vehicles. They all test these before releasing them. They all pitch their product at a level/type of consumer. They often have recalls, patches, fixes. You read the review and you make your choice. You pay your money and your satisfaction by word of mouth makes the cars reputation. Enough good individual car reputations enhances the entire manufacturer's reputation ....or otherwise? If you buy a new TV don't you read the reviews of the current models? Check out the latest features and technology? Of course there are those who ALWAYS have to have the latest. There are the badge snobs. There are those who swallow the hype hook line and sinker. There are several projects from several developers in the course of completion at the moment that interest me. the C172 and An-2 are both being developed by different developers. When they're released someone will review them. When I've seen some feedback I'll buy one. In the meantime I've still got (and I'm sure I'm not alone here?) a load of aircraft I've bought and not explored or mastered already :unsure: Like your Car or your TV you can only use one at a time :huh: . Chill out...... Geoff
  21. Can't say I've ever had an issue with the FTX landclass scenery as far as FPS. Some denser autogen regions obviously take a hit but nothing dramatic for me (with a new'ish but far from overclocked machine) Works for me and flying across the "border" of FTX ENG into UTX/GEX Wales is seamless. Just different ^_^ . Despite my criticism the FTX scenery is the best out there for GA Low n Slow virtual pilots like me. The PNW and Rockies regions have had a few patches and makeovers and have by far the most add-on airfields and that's the best yet in terms of coverage. Having said that the UK2000 airfields work well with the FTX ENG scenery so the two in combination gives one of the best coverages of any VFR area yet? Geoff
  22. :lol: Lets be clear here. No personal slight intended :huh: AND I'd recommend anyone to buy FTX ENG if they're into VFR flying or GA. Sorry if I come across as harsh but check out the official forum? <_< I failed to notice that we're in the FSX forum as most posts on this are in the unofficial ORBX forum. My comments were aimed at the detractors of the critics there. <_< FTX has done better, and hopefully will improve FTX ENG, but there are one or two skimped areas that really spoil it for me personally. I'm not into tubes myself and when I see the excellent screengrabs the tube jockeys post here I often note that the photoreal sceneries look pretty good from 5000'. Of course as we all know that illusion turns into a blurred disappointment on finals with the excellent airports available sticking out like oasis in a deserted landscape. FTX corrects that and is pretty convincing in most areas. The initial ENG has some areas that need a lot of work ....BUT it IS the entirety of ENGLAND done better than anyone else has managed. IMO they would have done better doing smaller areas with more attention to local detail. Sure it would cost more but everyone else has chosen a division by latitude. Even the CAA for it's VFR charts! Geoff BTW I have ALL the FTX landclass and quite a few PNW airfields so my comments are those of a customer ....not a troll
  23. Well I can't say I've seen that. :huh: I have seen a lot of constructive criticism and some rather silly or OTT responses to that. It's not bad but it could and should be a lot better. It's the best option yet. The UK is a challenging place to scenery as it has so many different types in very small geographic areas within what is already a pretty small area. What makes it challenging for landclass scenery is the sheer range of architecture from hundreds of years of architectural heritage and the random nature of UK development and cities. You only have to compare satelitte imagery of different areas in the ORBX regions (Oz NZ PNW and ENG) to see how different these are. Just take an objective look at the differences in the way buildings are laid out and the styles and colours of buildings in different European Cities. There are few areas in the UK with "Californian" size plots and usually the closer to a city centre you get the denser the building is. As a first pass this beats anything yet but a bit (lot?) more work on the landclass and autogen would make what's OK into something outstanding. The rather silly comments that people are happy with other areas because they don't know them frankly don't stand up. We can safely assume that anyone enjoying FSX has reasonable eyesight and you can see for yourself how well various areas are covered just by looking at the real thing. I don't have to live in the PNW to know what it looks like. It's there on Google Earth, Virtual Earth, Street View etc.etc. As I pointed out above much GA VFR aviation in the UK is carried out with a ceiling of 2500' (weather permitting) and it's from there on down it needs to excel? My generation was taught in a regime where there were passes and failures, % marks, form position, "good effort"s, "poor effort"s, "Very little effort appears to have gone into this piece of work SEE ME." This awfully un PC world had no concept of everything being on a scale of a good effort, even when the work was blatantly below par. In fact we got thrashed for not making an effort. So you see the idea that anyone has "bashed this into the ground" is just daft to me. BTW hope the talk of thrashing doesn't bring the tone down even further :lol: I've used the analogy before. If a car manufacturer makes a model that has faults or fails to perform as advertised everyone is interested in the feedback. The manufacturer doesn't ridicule their critics. It sets to and improves the areas needing further attention. It gains respect, reassures customers and upholds the brands reputation. Geoff
  24. Actually the UK, especially in the South has far greater obstacles than the Rockies or the Alps. Unlike these natural barriers some of the UK's descend from the sky ....and they're invisble except to the ATC radar operators and the VFR pilot really "eyeballing" landmarks and VRPs to make sure he doesn't fall foul of a CAA summons :huh: . Sadly neither ORBX or FSX provide anything like the complexity of a real UK VFR chart so unless you want to fork out for one (or more to cover the entire island) you can just blunder around as if they didn't exist. Of course tube jockeys "assume" the priviledges of flying in controlled airspace but GA pilots need SVFR clearances (sort of covered in FSX ATC where they mark such areas) to venture there and over London you need to be in a twin. So ...to "simulate" a GA VFR flight in Southern England is far from easy as long detours around controlled airspace is the reality as well as specific minimum AND maximum altitudes in some areas. Of course you have to "simulate" this for yourself and I don't think the CAA charts are available online as the FAA ones are? Correct me if I'm wrong? The other thing that makes the UK a real challenge is REAL weather and the speed with which it changes. That ought to be do'able with all the weather add-ons out there. Of course built up areas and VFR minimums means that in reality there are occassions when the GA VFR pilot just gets to sit in the clubhouse and drink bad instant coffee. ALWAYS bad INSTANT coffee. I would say it's better in wilder parts but then you find military exercise areas ....just in case one or other of the RAFs aircraft are actually servicable to fly :lol: ....but even so usually a no go area. Geoff
  25. All three Regions VFR airfields on offer for download from UK2000's own site currently about $115-120 and that works out at about $0.57c per field!!! They don't have ORBX's 3D grass and romping dogs but they are excellent and include major airports too. BTW IMHO the screenshots don't do the fields justice. At that price they're a no brainer and nice as ORBX's detailed fields are they're more expensive than UK2000 Airports, take ages to develop, and would cost Thousands of Dollars for as complete a coverage. The UK2000 Xtreme Airports had a 3 for 2 offer on for Christmas and as the airports in lesser detail are in the VFR fields you can upgrade those as you want them. These have been through several upgrades too so you may want to wait for newer versions or new fields under development? At $55 for three that's about $18 each for some of the best reviewed UK airports out there and noted for good fps too. http://www.simflight.com/2012/05/27/articlereview-ultimate-city-london/ You'll still be able to pay your taxes too ....well $800 worth?! BTW the UK2000 fields come with a selector tool that allows you to exclude fields you don't want or that you may have alternatives for. Check out Just Flights "Real Scenery Denham" and their "White Waltham" too. Both close to Heathrow (within the CTA) these are excellent and reasonably priced http://www.mutleysha.../ncm/denham.htm The portacabin behind the blister hanger in the screenshots used to be where I flew from several years ago. Sadly the recession has closed the main flying school and the GA activity there is a mere shadow of it's former levels. It is used for refuelling various emergency helicopters though so eggbeater jockeys should have it. Looking forward to a service pack for FTX ENG to correct a few areas and hopefully fill in some major landmarks. Meanwhile I'll be exploring Misty Moorings. Geoff
  • Create New...