ColonelMustard

Well - then you can stick with MS. But just accept that there are some of us, who would like a backbone that offers top notch quality and not a half finished mediocre product like FSX with all it's limitations - even if we have to pay 10 times the price.

JD345 - the Microsoft Model sucks big time - it is badly coded and a huge mess on every level and because it is the very backbone of the Sim, every third party is having tremendous headaches and surely one of the reasons why a product like the NGX took so long to develop. That is the whole point of the discussion here. Many of us doubt, that Microsoft will make a better job of this in the future, because it is not part of their philosophy to create software for real pilots and those hobby simmers with higher expectations. Yes - Microsoft did sort of work because there was nothing else, but with too many drawbacks. Thanks to ******* and the guys, there was a lot of improvement on some levels, but not on others.

I think a new simulator should not be produced and programmed as a complete finished product by a single developer but more like a group of developers that collaborate, cooperate and contribute that part of the overall simulator that they understand best. First of all you need a developer group that produces a well coded realistic visual simulation model of the planet (WGS-84, Laws of Physics, 3D terrain, atmosphere - including a new WX engine, topography, scenery urban structures etc). On Top of all that there would be a world database of realistic airports. Programming that engine should be that groups only objective and they should not be tasked with anything else. It is also their task to further improve the engine in form of future updates and to add features, as new hardware becomes available to improve that Earth modell. There would be a user upgrade price policy subscription to cover the financial aspect in the long run. Now all the other following groups in the collaboration already exist: Next you have another group, e.g. such as Navigraph to provide, support and service the whole world wide Nav-Aids, AIRACs. and Charts. The user would pay a monthly subscription to update their 28 day cycle. This would ensure that the whole Sim would always be up to date with the real world navigation structure, if the user wishes to do this. The next group would be aircraft and special scenery designers - like the way they already exist to this day. As we all know they already produce really awesome products - but as pointed out: for a really bad simulation model with tons of issues and no support from the developer. Microsoft will ALWAYS be a compromise. So the user can then purchase each new aircraft for his virtual hangar separately. Free ware developers could be presented with an official SDK. So no more aircraft you don't specifically want or need. Last but not least, there would be all the VATSIM and IVAO stuff, to provide online ATC etc. It already exists. Computer AI is outdated and just eats resources, so is unrealistic Computer ATC. Now the an interesting question that comes to my mind is: could Xplane become a possible collaborator? There are some good things in there but also a whole lot of weaknesses and the chances are big, that they want to keep their product (and therefore the profits) for themselves. In that case it is sort of the same problem that we have with MS: too many things out of the same hand, will probably lead to some kind of compromise or limitation. So all what the simulation community really needs, is the developer group, that would build that engine and earth model in the same non compromising dedicated way, as for instance PMDG developed their NGX. The other parts of Developers already exists (I know I have repeated this too many times - but it is just a fact), they just need to adopt the new backbone system. So now the ultimate question is: who will make a business plan and DO IT ? (I am just a poor pilot that spent all his capital for an ATP ;-) )

It would probably be better if PMDG make their own Simulator from scratch than relying on Microsoft - but that would probably surely only come at a high price. MSFS although it has improved much over the years is and always has been a very poorly programmed Simulator and I consider FSX sort of left unfinished and completely out of date by now with today's available hardware (well FSX still needs todays hardware to even cope with the crappy code of yesterday...). I doubt very much that Microsoft will ever change their philosophy about this product in the future - for them it is just another game. How about a modern high quality Sim backbone which models physics, aerodynamics and environment realistically intigrated, that comes running stable without tons of individual tweaks out of the box ? With todays modern average hardware performance it should be possible to produce. AND it must be built from scratch completely even if there is no backward compatibility - it is time for something completely new.

I also use the Saitek with dual throttle quadrants in the same way (with just the HAT functions - everything else is handled by FSUIPC) and have absolutely no issues with any axes - they work perfectly. The only problem is configuring buttons for heading bug, speed, altitude etc. - but the way PMDG has set up the virtual cockpit, I do manage to set the MCP using my mouse. One way around that, would be to set up mouse makros - but it is not so ideal - so I hope there will be a different solution - maybe through a special LUA file or something.

Firstly I am with Terry all the way. It is always better to have something else to fall back on and it surely does not hurt to mature as a person in general. Sure, if BA offers to train you as an ab initio cadet - then go for it (or if daddy has a really fat wallet...). Anything else self-sponsored as the modular ATP route, try and get a job - having debt is the most horrible trap you could imagine to fall into - I promise you: your dream will turn into a nightmare for quite a while. Being 16 you have all the time in the world at your side to do all the things you want to, step by step. Do yourself a favor and be patient and be intelligent.Flying in the UK is pretty expensive. Going to the local flying club is really the best thing you are doing right now. There are many different career paths possible and no real set of rules, all of my mates including me all went about it a different way - depending on the opportunities we had at the time. Look for the open doors as much as you can, but sometimes you just have to hang in there and wait.just my 2 cents...

I can confirm with the Eaglesoft panel setting Ctrl F4 is correct however with the Mindstar it seems to be inverted - I then have to set the props to feather by pressing Ctrl F1.

Ok - I am using a Saitek Yoke Throttle System running solely through FSUIPC. I mapped only 2 Throttles and Flaps. Maybe the prop pitch is misaligned by the FADEC. I will test later this evening. Thank you so far - at least I know how to get in touch so, this thread has served it's purpose.

I'm not in the US, that's the point. I am quite aware of the phone number - thx for the hint anyway. I am sure glassman2005 will get back to me soon and we will sort things out.

Yes as I wrote - sending an Email to [email protected] and it bounced. I will try again now and see if the mailserver will push it through to you - if it works we can carry on the correspondence there. Decided to post here first, before registering in yet another forum.I am quite sure I installed it right - 2 Models of the DA42 have been modified and are distinctly different to the others. I installed the DA42 first and then the GPS directly after. There is now also another C172 and a C182 added with the panel so I think everything installed correctly without issues.EDIT - ok I tried again and I get the delivery failure message from the MAILER DEAMON:We're sorry. There's a problem with the e-mail address(es) you're trying to send to. Please verify the address(es) and try again. If you continue to have problems, please contact Customer Support at (480) 624-2500. <[email protected]>: child status 100...The e-mail message could not be delivered because the user's mailfolder is full.

I went and bought the Eaglesoft DA42 and the Mindstar G1000 this weekend in order to familiarize myself with the equipment because I will be doing some training in real life on it pretty soon.There are definitely some issues, that I wanted to address, so I wrote an email to the Mindstar support - however I received a MAILER DEAMON response, that their mailfolder is FULL. Also in their forum, there is not much happening since December - are they on holiday ? Does somebody know ? One reason I bought the Mindstar G1000 is, because it was also highly recommended by the Eaglesoft Team - but now it feels like I have spent 50$ on a dead Product in beta and it can not really do so much more than the G1000 that Eaglesoft has adapted from FSX. Overall I am a bit disappointed - after all there was also no way to test this software before buying. Is there any way to get a later beta version ?Here just an adapted version of my email to Mindstar Support - maybe someone can give me some more information or relay it to the authors:The issue with the Prop-RPM not being correctly depicted and being shown far too high (as others have mentioned in the Mindstarforum) is an issue for me too - will there be a fix ? I have noticed when loading the the default C182 with the Mindstar panel, the RPM is definitely faulty as well - never giving me above 2400RPM even when Pitch selected fully fine for takeoff and landing. On the DA42, the oil pressure constantly remains in the yellow caution area, which I don't think is normal if the engine is warm.OBS also doesn't seem to be working. A lot of functions remain gray.I can build up a flightplan, but once activated, trying to modify it does not seem to be working.The Topo mode colours look really ugly and worse than in the default GPS. I hope they will get it running with Navigraph soon - that is one major worthwhile advantage if it would work! Otherwise with the current state of issues, that I am experiencing, a refund would be appropriate in my eyes. If I can't reach support - who else is there to talk to - therefor my post in this forum.I am running FSX SP2 on a Win7-64 machine.

To go high on short or longhaul trips is equally beneficial for constant descent procedures that are being adopted and accepted more and more by ATC (esp. Eurocontrol) i.e. when the traffic situation allows, ATC clears you direct from TOD cruise level to "ILS established" starting a constant minimum drag low power cruise-descent (depending on height sometimes from over 200 miles from the threshold) and only changing configuration when passing the final approach fix or outer marker. Saves fuel, catering, less noise and better for the environment.

It basically depends on the individual on how deep you want or need to go into the functioning of FSX as this tool offers many small tweeks to get into parameters and override limitations which may not accessible otherwise. I use it mostly to calibrate multiple axis controllers (e.g yoke, r-pedals, throttles etc) and there are possibilities of creating mouse macros for certain panels, which you could otherwise not address directly by pressing a button. I also use it with Wide-FS which allows me to link FSX to programmes running on a second computer. The GPS out function is also great to link FSX to any third party moving Map programs. Also a lot of little bugs (like com radio incrementations etc) can be fixed with a mouseclick.I would suggest you go to Pete's forum and download the user manual as you will get an overview of what this program actually does and then decide if the functions are of any use or benefit to your personal sim-experience.Athough I have only come around it the other day - there is also a program called "Flusifix" which is freeware, that might also suffice for some of the issues and others, if you are just looking for a tweek program.

This topic has already been going for ever. Those new visuals of XPlane sure look convincingly exiting and is surely an advance in the field of flight simulation, whether it may be on a home PC or if it is utilized as external model in real simulators. It is other fields where Xplane falls tremendously short and those shortcomings have been named here and elsewhere on numerous platforms - so I will just add my personal opinion on the 2 biggest PC-Simulator issues for me, as a professional pilot.1.)I disagree with those, that XPlane's flight dynamics are far better than FSX. This is what Austin always claims and advertises, but that makes the experience with that sim so much more disappointing - it is not much better than FSX. (Small plane, large plane=makes no real difference). There is in fact much to be desired and still a lot of room for possible improvement from developers side.Even though Austin claims that he has the most realistic flight modeling of aerodynamics, his model, though different from the flawed FSX, feels even less realistic to me. To do it by the laws of physics is a very complicated issue and I do feel there are still too many variables missing in XPlane's equations and FSX feels more realistic to me, although it's modeling may be far more simple. Taking both simulators to the boundaries of the flight envelope - both of them tend to behave in an increasing unrealistic fashion. Disappointing is the fact, that neither of them even get to model a simple aircraft like the C172 to behave aerodynamically realistically. What has always bugged me in FSX is the difficulty of flying a normal coordinated turn with the ball kept nicely centered with constant angle of bank. Xplane might make a better job of that, but also tends to fail increasingly,when the the parameters approach the models boundary limitations. After all what Austin claims - I would expect a better performance and Xplane simply does not deliver - I might as well stick to FSX. Maybe the commercial version of Xplane is better - I would like to try, however the second issue is what would still keep me away from their product:2.)Where FSX definitely beats XPlane is with the aircraft panels. Even the default C172, B58 and other less complex aircraft beat XPlanes by far (I have to mention that I have not tested Caranedo's products in Xplane, but those are 3rd party anyway). Thanks to devs like PMDG also complex aircraft in FSX are of no comparison. The look of the working panel and its functionality, next to the flight dynamic model, is the most important aspect of the simulator. If Xplane does not offer a drastic improvement to this, there is no real point to switch - the look and feel of the cockpit should represent the type of aircraft and not just be sort of generic.I do not expect Xplane to iron out those issues mentioned. In the same breath it is also a pity, that FSX as a product with the hugh backing of Microsoft did not have a chance to be optimized and reprogrammed for performance and better flight modeling. We will see if "MSFlight" we cure this or be more of a game, than a tool.All this said I am of course also aware that many FSTD and FNPT devices and even real Simulators also have some major issues when it comes to simulating the real thing, even though they have been approved by the authority. However I do believe that it must be possible to come up with better solutions in future, also for the so called "home cockpit" i.e. it can be done. Better eye candy is always nice, but it should go in hand with making the whole simulation machine more realistic as a top priority.Those of you, that fly as real life pilots will know what I am talking about - for everybody else: if you can afford it, go for a few introductory lessons in a real aircraft and you will instantly feel what PC simulation is lacking and you start thinking: why didn't they try to get this right in the first place ? (I am not referring to thing like motion and seat of the pants feeling etc - just plain exact representation basic aerodynamic principles and behaviours - it is probably more difficult and complex than anybody would think it is - just as the Bernoully principle is only responsible for a fraction of why lift is generated by a wing planform in the first place). If that is the case, then Xplane should not claim that they have got it all figured out in the way that they claim and admit, that there is still much room for improvement. I do not think that much will actually happen in the near furure. But that is just my humble opinion.Greetz !

Yes, lock to closest is checked on. The program can't automatically load the new weather for some reason after the download. If I manually choose the LastDownLoaded.wx, the correct Station and Data is shown TAF included, in fact I can also look at other stations with this option checked off. I have installed it with AntiVirus off and with Admin rights. I have no problems on this computer and it is a brand new Vista Home Premium machine with only FSX installed.