Benjamin J

I'm curious. I used to have the iFly way back when when they were one of the last to still actively developed for FS2004, and I really liked their 737 for that platform. I then didn't really pay much attention to them as PMDG was always the top. However, I've heard a fair bit about iFly's 737 MAX and I'd be interested in giving it a go. How does it compare, of course aside from being MAX rather than the NG? As for the Fenix, it has become my favorite aircraft in the sim, to be honest. I do think it's a much smoother plane in every sense of the word: how it flies, how it handles, system simulation, but also in terms of the 'gimmicks', with a tablet that I think is much better than PMDG's, some sort of cabin crew simulation and integrated GSX. Overall it just provides a much more seamless experience. And combined with all of WinWing's hardware, it's a true pleasure to fly (of course, I'm not pilot, so take my word with a grain of salt).

Just noticed yesterday that Traffic was released for all! I’d been waiting for that before buying BATC but finally bit the bullet now. Just had a lovely flight from Athens to Corfu. BATC really brings my flying to a whole new level!! Very happy with it so far. A really seamless experience and I don’t need to setup it do anything… connects to simbrief and the sim just like that and is ready to go. That’s how these sorts of addons should be, in my opinion!

I agree I was hoping ACO would be a little better than it ended up being. Still leagues ahead of DoubleT which is almost entirely inaccurate. No other RCTP that I’m aware of.

I compared the data in Little NavMap with the data in the Navigraph Charts app and didn't see any discrepancies, so went into MSFS and actually I do have all procedures listed... You sure you don't have any duplicate sceneries that are messing things up for you?

Exactly what @Fiorentoni said. The problem is usually that the runway designators of the scenery don’t match what’s in the approach procedures. Usually it means a scenery update is necessary if they are old, or there may be a mistake that needs to be fixed. I have the scenery in question but haven’t looked into it… I can look later today.

Since we are talking about what FB scenery will next be scooped, it’s KMSP. BMWorld/Amsim just posted a preview on Facebook that I’m pretty sure is KMSP https://www.facebook.com/100066830710698/posts/pfbid031U63MF9A2CkoudHvn5XDNTAkMGRg1Fs5DbErzKfF2jAFAPi2WPr4ELTViybmWtZAl/

Hey all, So, my situation is that I'm on a laptop. Overall it runs FSX pretty nicely out of the box, though it struggles with denser scenery etc etc, basically the usual complaints. Now with P3Dv3 being out, I'd like to finally take the plunge and go for it. My problem is that I don't have much disk space and P3D being the huge program it is, I can't feasibly have P3D and all the add ons on my internal SSD. So, I want to get an external drive for my add ons, such as AI traffic and scenery. With P3D requiring programs to be installed outside the main sim folder, this is the perfect opportunity to make this kind of structuring change. My question is, however, what I should get, and how it will impact my experience: SSD or HDD? And what type connection should I get? Will USB 3.0 be good enough, or should I go with Thunderbolt (though I'm not even sure this is really supported in Windows...)? Any pointers would be very helpful... Best, Benjamin

Fantastic-looking plane as always. Ah, the fond memories I have of the 'old' 747-400X... Looking forward to this one!

Hm, interesting. The LDS767 has always been one of the best performing tubeliners for me. I know about the sliders not always working. I have found that certain sliders do nothing for performance on my setup, and some clearly do. The thing about setting sliders at minimal worsening performance is something I have seldom seen, though. As always, performance and how to setup FSX is highly variable across computers.

Erm... are you implying that a computer can only actually handle the 777 when scenery is on max? Because by that logic, I'm pretty sure your computer can't handle the 777 too. Or do you have all your settings maxed out without seeing a slideshow? It's strange. I always thought it was the most normal thing in the world that you decrease scenery complexity ("dumb down") in order to get a better experience flying complex aircraft. The 777 runs better for you than the LDS767? I find that hard to be believe, honestly. Do you have some figures to go with that statement?

Indeed. My computer can handle the T7, I'm sure of that, but it would require dumbing down the scenery so much that I won't recognize where at all I would be flying. Contrary to the belief of some, I do want eye candy. So there. LDS767 it is.

I don't do politics - it was a genuine question. I didn't expect the answer to be any different, but the thing is, my computer really can't handle those big messy aircraft very well. So there's another reason for me to stick with what I've already got, at least until I get a better computer... Thanks for the answer!

Out of curisiosity, how is the performance of the T7 compared to the LDS767?

So I was reading up over at simFlight Russia, and found this link in a post: http://forum.simrussia.com/index.php?/topic/134-сценарий-Домодедово-uudd-скоро/ It seems like we have a beautiful Domodedovo coming our way! Sadly, you need to have an account to actually see the pictures. I did make an account especially for it, and found it quite worthwhile. The pics look great!

It is my call indeed: Pay $50 for a plane that many have already said is stunning and, knowing A2A is sure to be fixed in due course, or pay $40 extra on a plane I'll fly twice in the period of 3 months. Hm, difficult. I think I know what I'm going to buy... Nope, not going to "waste" those $40. Instead, I'll buy food from that. That said, I won't buy the A2A C172 for another few weeks. Let's see what the situation of that plane is, then and there.

People, of course I'm just speaking for myself, but reading back most comments (including my own) about the price of the T777, I don't think most people are implying that $90 is too much for what you get. People are saying that the price is probably right, but that $90 is simply a lot of cash, regardless of the product you're being, full stop. For something that is just a luxury commodity, $90 is a big number. Ergo, no reason to defend the price of the T777! It's a question of wanting to spend $90 on a FSX addon or not, and that's highly personal.

I'm also looking forward to this one. I've been getting more and more into small props, with the A2A C172 currently high on my list, but what I still don't have is rather common, fast propliner type aircraft. I think the 1900D would fit the bill really well.

I agree that $90 is a lot of money. I'll be buying the A2A C172 first, and then the 777 perhaps sometime later... or never. I'm undecided yet. But right now, I just can't cough up the money. To all that bought it already, have fun!

Well look at that! I might actually get the DC-8, as it's still in active service as a cargo plane and I always liked its looks.

I have had no problems in any other games or when working on my computer in general, so I'm assuming the graphics card is okay. The effect that is created is very distinct: colors become less saturated, as if the contrast is being changed. basically, what you'd expect when enabling bloom. Plus, the performance goes down by about half the normal FPS. Sounds like FSX's default bloom to me, but of course I can be mistaken. It stays in that state for 2 to 3 seconds, than it goes away. Colors and contrast become normal again, and FPS goes back to where it should be. Nope, nothing of the kind. Didn't install anything new before doing the relevant flight that should only have an effect on approaching OrbX Bella Coola. I should do another test flight in multiple locations and see if the bloom problem has disappeared, is consistent in all locations, or is restricted to Bella Coola. If anybody has any more ideas, I'm all ear.

Hey guys, Suffered a strange problem yesterday about 20 miles out of Bella Coola. Out of nowhere, bloom started turning itself on and off again, consistently, like the sirens of a police car, with the difference that I was suffering from 3-second intervals of bad performance instead of a high-pitched noise. Bloom is squarely turned off, so I have no idea why it would suddenly start turning itself on and off all the time. Anyvody have any idea what might have caused this? Haven't flown since yesterday, so I don't know if the problem is still there. It started about 20 miles out of OrbX's Bella Coola, and haven't had any problem like this before.

I have myself also started watching Flying Wild Alaska, but I had been flying small planes around PNW already before that. Mostly related to performance issues with big plans at big airports; problems I simply don't have when flying Cessna's around (most of) OrbX PNW. As for planes, here's a list of planes I very much enjoy: 1) RealAir Scout: My top-favorite small plane for exploring. Won't be much good when trying to simulate Era flights, but it's a great little thing for "private" flights. 2) Carenado C208B: In all honesty, I fly this plane because it's such a good-looking, highly useful plane. It can go anywhere and everywhere. I usually use it for my FedEx Feeder flights. Fact is though that I find the FDE very finicky, which makes it a pain to control on some approaches. Anybody know of good third-party FDEs? Or is this really the way the plane handles? 3) Sibwings BirdDog: I love this plane. It's similar to the RealAir Scout, but it feels much more clunky and old due to the WW2 military style liveries. I only list it third because I fly the C208B more often, but in enjoyment I'd list it square next to the RealAir Scout. 4) Carenado C210: Beautiful and also highly sueful plane. Smaller than the C208B, for less "packed" flights and "vacation flying with friends", or something along those lines. I do not like its very touchy handling though; the same complaints I have on the C208B handling apply to the C210. 5) Flight1/Virtavia BN2 Islander. This plane handles beautifully, has amazing sounds and looks great. It's the biggest "small plane" I fly around the PNW, most often between Skagit/Anacortes/Jefferson County Intl. Its problem is that its very slow, so that whenever I need to fly far with a bigger "small plane", I take the C208B. 6) A2A Piper Cub: Stunning little plane and lots of fun! Its problem is that it is also very slow. I usually take the RealAir Scout instead, because its faster, but the Cub definitely makes you feel like you are actually piloting the plane, and aren't just a kind of virtual passenger. But yeah, it's slow... In the future there are some other planes I would really like to have. The Sibwings AN-2 is top priority here; would love to fly this plane in my sim! The other some others, like the Milviz 310, and the future Carenado B1900D for instance. Hope this helps.

Thanks for the info, a USB 3 connection in combination with a non-SSD should suffice, then. What about partitioning the FSX drive? If I get a big, 3TB drive, I'm not gonna use it solely for FSX. Is portioning it an option, or will that somehow degrade FSX performance?

Hey all, As I described in another thread, my next computer will be a laptop, out of necessity. Because the intrnal drive won't be that big, I'd like to run FSX completely of an external HD, but I'm not sure about the connections and sort of drive to use. I estimate that all of FSX will take up between 100 and 200GB, so I was thinking perhaps of a 256GB SSD with USB3.0 connections. Now my question: Does this give sufficient data transfer speeds to make FSX load somewhat fast, or will it be just the same/slower than putting it on an internal 7200RPM drive? Are there any external configurations you would recommend?

Very useful, thanks!