Griphos

Well, as most everyone has said, A2A makes the best GA. RealAir are also very good and you can't go wrong with any of them. The Aerosoft Twotter is quite good. I have Ant's Tecnam, and it's nicely done, as you suggest. The only other one that comes to mind for GA is Sibwings AN-2 Colt. Slow, but what an incredibly well-done model. I second the vote for the v3 version of the C-47. Very well done. Payware quality. Actually, I don't really have much more than those install anymore on my sim. Why fly anything but the best? I don't have any of the newer Carenado planes, but I seriously doubt whether they are any better than they used to be. When it's ready for P3D, the Milviz King Air will be very good.

Johnman is referring to something not related to this release. The readme file in the package is all you need for this release, and the manual included in the aircraft folder, which is pretty complete. As I said, a correctly downloaded and complete package will include all the sound subfolders and cfg files in the main aircraft folder and all sounds will work in all versions of FSX and P3D without further work to be done. A complete package will have a "Sound" subfolder with 48 files and "SoundAI" subfolder with a config file. The "Panel" subfolder will also have a DGSounds subfolder with many, many files and a Checklist subfolder (also with many files) that is the source for all voice audio and cockpit switches. The engine sounds are in the "Sounds" subfolder. Just to be sure, have you muted sounds (Q key)? Cockpit sounds will play even with sounds muted, but engine sounds will not.

No, they do not have to be installed separately. There really should be no issue with sounds, since the install involves merely adding the folder to simobjects/airplanes, and all the sounds are present in subfolders of the main aircraft folder. Perhaps download again to make sure you got a fully correct package?

Yeah, I checked. Does appear to be the correct version, but still believe it wasn't an authorized upload, for whatever that is worth.

Should be available at avsim and flightsim.com soon. I don't believe the simviation package is the correct one. At least it hasn't been officially posted there, I don't believe (Jan hasn't mentioned that he posted there). Ickie has shut down access at SOH for the time being (1350 downloads so far has overwhelmed them).

I haven't noticed needing it yet at higher distances. I don't have PTA.

Don't need PTA to remove hard edges or add haze in the new version AS16.

It's worth reading the manual, if I do say so myself. The lights are a work in progress still, working in P3D, I believe, but not FSX (I don't fly at night, so haven't checked for sure). Gordon has the paint kit ready, I believe, but I suspect it's been hard to get on to SOH to post it.

A setting of 130 sometimes helped with the hard edge fog and haze in P3D with ASN. That's been fixed in AS16, so 110 or whatever you prefer is fine. Higher than 150 and your performance will suffer.

Well, I downloaded the trial version of AS16 (still using REX soft clouds). Looked at the map and picked a spot with overcast and limited visibility. Flew from Darrington (1S2) to Orcas Island (KORS). I'm very impressed. I don't have cloud density at maximum in P3D (in fact, it's left of center on the scale), but it looked pretty much like overcast to me. Beautifully rendered cloud intersections with the mountains. Looked very realistic. Flew into and out of clouds and the visibility transitions were very smooth. Just very realistic depictions overall! Lot's of cloud drift and spindle against the mountains and utterly convincing cloud layers. Sorry, I was too busy admiring the atmosphere to remember to take pics. I'm off to find some place with haze to test whether that ridiculous hard upper edge of fog and haze has been fixed. If so, I think the investment to upgrade from ASN will be worth the money.

The Milviz King Air is very good. It's still in Alpha, and they are re-working the FMC and some other things, but I enjoy it a great deal. When they finish it, it should be at the top of the list for twins. I don't have the B55, so can't advise.

EMT doesn't always work, though. I used it yesterday to install Tongass Fjords (and still had to relocate the terrain.cfg to the correct folder), and several older aircraft without current installers. It worked on some (Classics Hangar Taifun, Aerosoft Mitchell Wing), but not on others that really should work (Aerosoft Wilga and Huey for instance). I'm able to install most aircraft without current v3 installers without using EMT, just pointing them in the right direction. I prefer this method where it works (as it does for all RealAir and Sibwings aircraft). Scare posts about the tool messing up one's "system" and being outdated seem more partisan that informative. I suppose you could mess up your sim install, but I find it hard to imagine how using the tool would harm your "system," if that means your OS and other software.

Ouch. Yeah, a notebook with on board graphics card and Pentium is really going to struggle. And notebooks are hard to upgrade. You'll find a lot of info on this issue with a little searching, but, in general, FSX is CPU bound rather than GPU limited. Generally, you need at least 4 ghz to use higher settings in complex areas and still get decent FPS. Once you have a top end CPU, like an i7 that you can run at 4.5 ghz or better, then upgrading your GPU can help a bit with some aspects of graphics, but the CPU really has to come first. I run FSX on an i5 2550k I've had for a few years now that I oc to 4.3 ghz and a new GTX 970. I can do most areas at very high to high settings, but Seattle and San Fran and LA/San Diego still slow things down into the 20s, particularly when overcast or in more demanding aircraft. The FSX graphics engine just wasn't built for the kinds of architecture we have now. And most of our current addons are pushing that engine as far as it can go. Perhaps what DTG is doing with it will make a difference. Perhaps not.

Well....problem fixed, I think. I got to thinking. Missing wings is sometimes a sign of an addon that thinks it was installed illegally. I don't know why that would all of a sudden be the case, but I downloaded the Flight1 installer again, reactivated it and reinstalled, and tried again, and all seems to be working fine. Perhaps the new license generated at the reinstall convinced it that it was legit. I'm not sure this is what was going on, of course, but it does seem to be working now. Strange....

Yeah, always did for me too. Can't imagine what is going on, although I do seem to recall some issues with DX10 on the support forum. Too bad that's not available any more. What a shame. It's a great plane, but totally unusable for me now, and although I've gotten my money's worth out of it, when you pay a pretty penny for an add-on, you expect it to continue working in the same sim you bought it for.

Back to Baytower, if I can resuscitate this thread. The support forum has closed down. I haven't flown this beauty in a while (I bought it way back during beta days). It was one of my old favorites. I just haven't flown FSX much lately. But today, I wanted to take her out for a spin. I fly FSX-MS with Steve's DX10 fixer. It's always worked fine for me. Today, everytime I selected it, it CTD, even if I started in another plane and switched to it. So, I uninstalled and installed again (latest version 1.06.08). This time it started briefly and then crashed. Then, after trying again, started up fine. However, there was no canopy, wings, or tail feathers. Battery switch wouldn't work. I know the configurator has some fix for this, but when I unlock and click fix, the configurator crashes. This is getting pretty frustrating. Any old hands around here might know what the heck is going on? I never had any problems with it before.

If you are looking for helos for FSX that compare to DCS, you are going to be disappointed. There is only one that even comes close, the Dodo Bell 206. It's graphics are dated, but it's the only FSX helo with at all realistic FD. They are working on a new version, and have made significant progress, but it is on the back burner for them, so no telling how much longer it will take.

The CH pro pedals are indestructible, with pots that last forever. I'm into the second decade with mine now. Best piece of flight sim hardware I've bought, and I've bought a lot!

I think part of the confusion stems from your use of the word "fidelity" to mean something like high quality visuals. Fidelity normally refers to realism, not graphics quality. The Dodo graphics are quite dated, but there is no other helo in FSX that even comes close to its realism. The Aerosoft Huey might be a distant second. If you want fidelity and high quality graphics, skip FSX and get the DCS Huey. The new terrain engine and Nevada map should be out soon. There's probably no more realistic and visually pleasing helo simulation out there.

The B-17 is both a very well modeled and enjoyable plane to fly. I find myself, like you, flying the wonderful CotS less than other A2A planes because of the workload. The B-17 is much easier to just hop in and fly. There is stuff to do, but it's more like the GA aircraft in terms of pilot demand. The Comanche is the best plane they've done to date, and different enough from the very nice Cherokee to be worth it I think. I have the C172, but don't fly it much. I prefer both the Cherokee and the Comanche. The Comanche is my favorite A2A plane. I have all the warbirds, but don't fly them as much. I think the quite lovely Spit is probably the most demanding of the bunch. I fly the P-40 the most myself. They just got the flight model so right on that one. The civvie Mustang might be a better choice for you than the Spit. Kind of the best of both worlds.

What is outrageous is how many people are fussing at Milviz who didn't even buy the alpha. In fact, those that did buy it are mostly not fussing because of the many updates and the fact that whatever it is called...alpha, beta, pre-release...it is quite polished and mostly complete at this point, as has been said by a number of people who actually have bought it in this thread. Forums are strange places sometimes.

Which part of "I have the product and it is almost feature complete at this early alpha stage, with further improvement at no extra cost to me (and I got a discount for buying early) so that I can and do fly it all the time with great enjoyment" do you not understand? I don't care how long they take to finish it since flying it in its current state is thoroughly enjoyable. Just now flying it from KRDD to KHQM. I really don't understand this bashing by people that don't have it. You don't want something that isn't fully finished? Fine, don't buy it. I did want it, and bought an alpha product at a discount and use it all the time and it works as well or better than pretty much every other plane in my hangar except A2A and perhaps RA. I guess you could always just buy a Carenado plane, which is finished, and never will be improved, and get something for almost the same money that in no way realistically represents either flight dynamics or systems depth of the plane modeled. To each his own, I suppose.

Well, you have a lot of responses about the Milviz from people who don't have the Milviz. So, take that for what it's worth. I do have the Milviz. I don't have the Flight 1, so I can't compare, and I don't like glass cockpits with the G1000, so I doubt I'll ever get it, although I hear it is very nice. The Milviz is likewise a very nice airplane, one of my favorites in FSX, and that's saying something, as I am very picky. The graphics are wonderful with little FPS impact, about the same as RealAir on my system. The flight modeling is very good, and it's a wonderful hand flyer. The systems depth is already very good. There are a few issues still being worked on: the prop response to torque inputs still needs work. The FMC is a bit glitchy, switching destinations sometimes. For a beta product, it is at least 95% complete, and in a better state with more depth than many full release aircraft. It's also beautiful, and for FSE flying, has a better payload capacity and flies higher and faster than just about any other KA. The Flight 1 models some wear and tear, so that is a nice feature. I don't think there are any plans for the Milviz to do anything like that. I think they both are the best King Airs we're likely to get for FSX, and for me, the Milviz fills the bill enough that I don't need any others. An FSE buddy flies KA 350i's for a living, and he says the Milviz product is pretty much spot on relative to the real thing, and that is a pretty good recommendation, if you ask me.

No payware comes with the GTN750. It's a separate purchase, but fits a number of addons. FSX doesn't do Turbo-props well. But some developers get it better than others. I don't have the Dash 8 Q400, but most people rave about it. Many people would argue it's the best. There are several decent models that aren't too unrealistic, but Carenado doesn't make any of them. In increasing order of quality of simulation of turbo-props, I'd make it: The Aerosoft Twotter is a decent simulation, with some problems. The Razbam Metro III, although a quirky plane, and far from modern in terms of avionics, does a decent job of modeling the Garrett engines. The Flight 1 King Air B200 is supposed to be very good (I don't have it). The Milviz King Air 350i is really quite good, even though it's still alpha and some work remains to be done. As it stands now, though, prop response is far from accurate. It's speedy. The Real Air Turbine Duke is indeed a very nice aircraft. And it's a homesick angel (climbs like a banshee). You need to fly high to make the most of its engines. Below 12,000, you'll be limited to just over 200 kts. I have the PMDG J41, and it is excellent, but, like the Q400, is more of a small commercial airplane than a commuter or GA.

My landings are usually under 100 FPM. I aim for under 50 FPM, but don't always get there, particularly in windy or crosswind conditions.