Jump to content

snave

The Dungeon
  • Content Count

    236
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About snave

  • Rank
    Banned
  • Birthday 10/19/1963

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    Other
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

2,266 profile views
  1. snave

    Vulcan FSX

    And your reply benefitted the OP how, exactly? At least I provided an answer, not a waste of everbodys time and forums space. And to answer the other question, when rightseater won't or can't:The IRIS Vulcan is expressly a FSX product. The Just Flight Vulcan was originally the PSS Vulcan, originally for FS2002, later adpated for FS2004. It expressly states in the manual that certiain things that worked in FS2004 DON'T work in FSX. But as I don't have it installed I referred you to it explicitly with good reason (the manual expressly recommends one is familiar with default sim commands, which our OP is clearly not). And the FAQ of the Just Flight site because there are topics for the Vulcan mentioned there where one will find the answers.Any other questions, I'm sure we can leave rightseater to answer for you. Expressly.
  2. snave

    Vulcan FSX

    Enjoy the PSS/Just Flight manual!Or even the FAQ on the web site.
  3. You really should check the PPrune forums for the answer. It's waaaaay beyond the scope of FS. To be honest, if they've modelled Looping Error with this degree of accuracy, as well as the lead/lag error from anglesof bank then it would make it the most accurate reflection of an instrument yet seen in a simulation.
  4. snave

    Vulcan FSX

    Assuming you are talking about the Iris Vulcan - because you are not specific we have no idea whether you might be talking about something else - then I have to tell you there is a darn fine manual included with the product and UNLESS YOU READ IT YOU WILL NOT GET THE PLANE OFF THE GROUND.Come back with any questions after you've actually read, digested and implemented the manual.
  5. snave

    CS BUFF

    So a four engined passenger liner glass-cockpit for a dial-gauge steam-driven eight engine bomber? Yes, that makes so much sense.No matter the externals, I fly in the sim from the cockpit and CS make for terrible AI. So it's of no use to me whatsoever. :( I'll pass until/unless they finish it... ...then wait for the price to drop in the inevitable fire sale because these Blocks are truly a terrible idea and they must learn from fiscal experience to meet the simmers needs, not lazily throw out half-finished drivel and expect to get paid for it. No amount of posts seem to affect these people, so they have to be hit in the wallet, the only thing that will bring them to their senses. :(
  6. Also, open FSX.cfg and search for any and all display devices and delete them, including the header. Then restart the sim and you will be able to reset the preferences for resolution and ingame AA and AF. Much quicker than deleting the whole FSX .cfg and should also be done every time you change drivers as FSX creates multiple entries for the display driver when the driver changes the identifier for the card as it doe not delete the old one. This can cause problems like you describe.
  7. As you mention tailwheel may we assume you are talking about a piston engined aircraft? Now, how about telling us which one!?Some common faults: 1: Failing to set take-off trim on rudder. Many piston props have a left- or right-turn tendency on take off following the application of power due to torque reaction to the prop turning. 2: Using too much power on take-off. Although it would be nice to slam the throttle wide open, most WWII single-engined aircraft actually could not take off at full throttle as the torque from the massive engines up front overrode the ability of rudder and steering to keep it straight. Twins without `handed` engines may even need one throttle to open before the other called `leading`.3: You may be raising the tail too early. Airspeed is what gives rudder `bite`. At low speeds or with the tail low things may be blanked or less effective than desirable. Keep the tail DOWN with up elevator until the aircraft is close to take off speed - this also gives the tailwheel more authority.4: Crosswind component. Many taildraggers can show a notable instability on take-off with a crosswind.If these dont help, be more specific in your request for information.
  8. As Jim says this has happened to me not once but twice recently. As I didn't notice immediately it was impossible to track it back a to a particular aircraft (I've installed no new scenery recently), but I keep a complete spare, fresh installation of FSX on a backup drive so with a quick copy'n'paste I was back in business - in my case it was the contents of the Effects/Texture file that had been affected. It's a really good idea to keep a backup of key folders as the repair method is a bit long-winded and clunky.
  9. Pitch is the keyboard equivalent of pulling back on the stick, You want the pitch or elevator TRIM commands mapped
  10. What makes you think it should dip? Wheels long way forward, reasonable CG (not too far aft) so the pitching moment is minimal. And it has a simple sprung steel undercarriage. So why do you think it SHOULD dip?
  11. Accepting that I dont' use FS Global, there is usually only one of two reasons for an installer not finding the root FS directory:1: The Registry entry for FSX is missing or corrupted - use the Flight 1 Registry Repair Tool from HERE2: The installer requires to `see` FSX.exe - simply create a txt file called FSX.exe and that will usually allow the installer to do its job.For any and all sceneries installed in Addon Scenery you need to have a main scenery folder, then two subset folders called `scenery` and `texture` respectively. FS Genesis users can tell you how to construct either a single mighty addon folder called FS Genesis Mesh, or (preferably) a different folder for each area covered, `FSG W Europe 38m`, `FSG Eastern Seaboard USA 19m` or whatever, offering you better control in the scenery menu from within FSX as I explained earlier. Always try to niclude the mesh level in the descriptor as it gets confusing when you have several different meshes and you have them all checked in the scenery menu but don't know which one is actually creating the on-screen visual.I know what you mean about autogen, but until mesh is able to create the bumps that are buildings, the only 3d perspective you get when low down (which is when you need it) is from autogen. I have no doubt that this will in time be seen as a clunky fudge of an excuse, but for now I use Ground Environment X for USA and Europe, which introduces different autogen textures and the trees in particular are much improved. There is also another payware option from Samoshin - Natural World V2 and some freeware alternatives in the Avsim library so there is some choice in the area.Finally, one thing that nobody ever seems to mentions is another simple alternative - if you can't get a realistic view from a low res mesh at high mesh settings, and you get low fps from a high res mesh, just lower the slider from the `normal` 70% down to around 35-40 in the FSX menu. This provides a useful fps improvement by can also smooth the transitions that might otherwise appear to cartoon-like within the sim. Interestingly mist modern rigs can get better sustained fps from a HIGHER mesh at LOWER settings, than from the other way round. I assume the vertices calculations shift the load balance to somewhere else in the CPU cycle, but it'd take a scenery expert to explain why properly, but it does provide a good excuse for using a more detailed meh in the first place!
  12. It's not snow it's granite. Rock faces to which the snow will not stick because the angle is too steep, the slope too severe, or which face direct sunlight so allowing a thaw. Have you actually seen mountains in snow..? Try Google images.
  13. Spam protection is just a red herring. FSD recently upgraded their forum software, yet still kept the same requirement as in their previous software. Other forums using the software do not have the same restrictions... Curiously double-standard too, when they also insist on a `proper` email address when many simmers use a convenience address for forums precisely because the forum security is ineffective at preventing spammers from obtaining the email addresses of customers and using them for spam purposes. Not only that, its laughable coming from a development team that previously utilised an intrusive worm that inserted itself into the users Registry... The status of the email provider has absolutely NO bearing on spam intrusion and I'd be interested in any evidence that FSD might have to back up their specious requirements. I run a technical forum as part of my role in real life and I can assure you that my users - from all over the World including those countries supposedly notorious for spamming - have no such restrictions nor do they pose any greater spam or viral threat than any other service user. I deal with a profusion of first-time posters as well as regular users who use different email addresses and ISP's at different times AND include attachments. A far higher risk state than anything a mere flight simulation developer can encounter. We have no spam problem and we don't require shoe size and mothers maiden name for registration, even though we have more than a thousand accesses to the fora every single day from unknown or first-time users, including linked accesses from information sites.The exploitation of loopholes is actually worse at source than it is at the ISP. We, as part of our ISO certification, protect our acquired information in a very complex way. So what protections - guarantees if you will - can FSD offer that they safeguard such personal information in a way that doesn't lay their forum users open to being abused? No point blaming the users when the provider is most often the source of the risk. What security standards do FSD adhere to? Do they even have an Approved Quality and Safety Assurance system in place? The answer is no, they don't, because as part of that QA one is required to display the assurance or certification on the website. They don't.Sorry, but excuses are only tenable if they are believable - bit like the `promise` of a money back guarantee contradicted in writing by the Terms and Conditions of sale...Most other developers seem able to provide a courteous support service, accessible to legitimate customers without abusing the genuine buyer or being so inconsistent in their business approach. Why are FSD so different? And should that be a cause for concern? (it's a rhetorical question, non-customers here already confirm that the `hoop-jumping` is affecting their business), and if that is the case where is the long-term stability for customers?
  14. Personally, I ALWAYS place mesh in the addon scenery folder, then add it to the FSX installation in the `normal` way by adding it to the scenery menu through the GUI. As a matter of personal choice I also place ALL meshes just above the default scenery installation in the menu, ensuring that all addon scenery sits above it in the menu. However, this is pure `housekeeping` as mesh can appear ANYWHERE in the scenery menu and still have priority - Flight Simulator itself always places mesh before anything that sits on top no matter the menu sequencing but it mean I can keep an eye on what mesh is in use - example: I have 5m mesh for the whole of the UK. I have (default) 76m and addon 38m mesh for France and Germany. Depending in whether I'm flying over the British Isles, lowland France or Germany, or the mountainous regions of either I will load one, other or both meshes for that particular sim session. Simples!REX, GEX and UTX don't care what mesh you have installed. In fact UTX seems to make more sense with higher detail mesh. Simples!Some addons do come with their own mesh but you can have problems with platforms for airports where the airport elevation is averaged based on lower resolution mesh, as FS even after all these years cannot natively accept the concept of a sloped airport and runway. Higher detail mesh can exaggerate the effect. But remember, if you use the stated mesh installation procedure all you need to do is disable the mesh or ask the developer to upgrade their product `flattening`accordingly. Almost simples!Finally, bear this in mind, and it's a contentious statement so expect some disagreement: As a real pilot one of things that FS still gets completely wrong in my opinion is that a pilot can barely make out undulating contours from the air, so it is not always the case that higher detail mesh makes for a more `real` experience. With a slanted eyepoint the pilot has the same level of `slope perception` as a camera - and we all know how pictures can't represent the true slope of a surface. At low-level we take our slope cues from ground features such as the treeline, road or rail networks, usage and shadowing far more than we do from actually being able to SEE the slope of the terrain itself. Above a few thou AGL you cannot make out anything except the most extreme of vertical variations anyway, so if airliners are your bag you don't NEED anything more than 76m or 38m mesh. Much of Europe and USA is already at 76m by default.FS actually starts to exaggerate the error as you move to higher detail mesh as the landclass simply cannot accommodate the variation for all possible permutations of mesh. It is optimised for 76m or 152m - the FS default - and frankly, I think it starts to look more and more false as you move to higher detail EXCEPT in mountainous (as opposed to hilly) terrain, when it really comes into its own. And that is why you need that facility to switch it on and off at will... plus there is a fps hit with higher mesh resolutions that can introduce stutters and `shimmering` as the overlays of terrain and autogen adjust to the precision verticality and move into position as you get closer.Hope this helps!
×
×
  • Create New...