Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

751 Excellent

About dave2013

  • Rank
    Member - 1,000+

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Alabama, USA

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

About Me

  • About Me
    Flight simulation enthusiast since 1984.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,815 profile views
  1. I'm glad I upgraded from v4.5 to v5.3. The performance is much better, and I like the Enhanced Atmospherics, although I don't use the volumetric clouds. Hopefully, the clouds will be improved in future versions. The only downside to v5 IMO is that the vector data in some areas is poor. I'm flying in northern Canada lately and there are many lakes and rivers with improper elevations, creating those ugly artificial "lake mountains" or deep holes. With more accurate addon mesh, the problem is even worse. Maybe LM will fix this stuff in future releases. Dave
  2. The sim is trying to load something it doesn't like, so it just freezes up. Try deactivating any recently installed AI traffic, scenery, or other addon until you find the culprit. If you can't find the offending file, then delete your Prepar3d.cfg file and let the sim build a new one. Dave
  3. Yes, but the renewables are already there and available, it's just not nearly enough. So, what you do is outsource fossil fuel production to other countries and then import those fossil fuels from those countries, all while claiming how clean and green you are. The problem arises when you can't import those awful fossil fuels any more, but you have dismantled your own capacity. Oops. Dave
  4. Because it is a directly related issue. I'm all for electric planes and cars, but it's important to also point out their disadvantages as well. I won't engage in another debate about you-know-what, but as far as I know without a clear policy, there is no prohibition against discussing renewable energy. Anyway, I'll leave you with this: https://www.thelocal.it/20220225/italy-may-reopen-coal-plants-amid-concerns-about-energy-supply-pm-says/ https://www.thelocal.fr/20220628/france-may-restart-coal-fired-power-station-to-avoid-energy-shortage-this-winter/ https://www.marketwatch.com/story/germany-to-restart-coal-plants-11655721425 I promise I'll leave it there, but it's important to be informed. Dave
  5. Exactly. This is true of almost any scientific discipline. There are many establishment scientists who will instantly deride and defame anyone who dares to oppose the "consensus" view. Dave
  6. No, it's not if every single house installs a solar power system, the batteries, inverters, and other necessary equipment. What you're proposing is transitioning to renewable energy at a very local level and on a small scale, not eliminating fossil fuels and trying to produce enough electricity from "renewable" sources for the entire world within 10-15 years. As evidenced lately, it just ain't working. I actually agree that it's doable on a small scale. Can everyone afford their own solar power system? Also, what if you get 10 or 15 consecutive days of cloudy skies? Maybe you live out west where it's sunny most of the time. I'll be curious to know what you think when you install your system. I had a work colleague who was 100% off the grid. He installed a solar power system and a small wind turbine. He did all the work himself as he was an electronics engineer. His entire system could only handle 30 amps, whereas most houses in the USA have at least 100 amps of service. His inverter failed after a few years and a new one cost him around $3,000 - that's for a small one rated at 30 amps. My entire electric bill for a year was around $1,000, and I had 100 amp service. His savings from being off the grid went down the drain for the next several years, and I'm not counting what his up front costs were. I've no doubt that we can eventually get 100% of our electricity from solar plants and wind turbines. The question is: at what cost? "Cost" implies both literal cost as well as all the materials to make all this stuff. How reliable will it be compared with nuclear and natural gas? I've never had a natural gas outage, and my local nuclear plant has never failed. I should have qualified my assessment: switching to 100% renewable energy in 10-15 years is pie in the sky. We'll get there one day. Dave
  7. OK. Why don't you take your message and advice to some places where energy costs have skyrocketed and where they're already rationing natural gas? The real question is: why do those places need all that natural gas and petroleum in the first place? What happened to all the clean, green energy that they've been promised for nearly 25 years? Pie in the sky. Dave
  8. I'm sorry, but if you want to accurately simulate real-world flights then historical weather is a must, unless you only do flights in real-time. You need a full year of historical weather data to include every season. For example, sometimes I like to simulate flights made during a season or date different from the current one, and with historical weather I can go back to the most recent desired season/date and do that. Of course, if you don't care about that then I can understand how it may not be an important feature for you. Dave
  9. I frequently read about this idea that P3D is only about military customers, so don't expect Lockheed Martin to cater to a non-military market. Sorry, but I just don't buy that for 2 main reasons: 1. They offer an academic license which costs a lot less. This is not aimed at commercial defense-related customers. 2. They have an active forum and respond to non-military customers, adding features and fixing bugs that are asked for and reported by non-military customers. In fact, I believe that they actual benefit from the knowledge and experience of thousands of non-professional flightsimmers, and leverage that to improve the product for their military customers. Dave
  10. Well, that's not good. If fusion reactors ever become practical, which I believe they will, then we might have to just use conventional fission reactors to produce the tritium they need until the fusion reactors themselves can be used to make it. Maybe they'll come up with another viable combination of elements to use for the fusion reaction. In the meantime, we need a lot more fission reactors, no matter how much they cost. Dave
  11. The battery technology today is wholly inadequate to fulfill the dream of eliminating fossil fuels. They just don't have enough energy density and don't charge fast enough. Moreover, we would have to build hundreds of new mines in order to extract enough minerals to build the truly massive number of batteries required for every vehicle, solar panel, and wind turbine. I support research and innovations like electric planes and cars, and believe that we should be pouring billions into battery research as well as cleaner energy production, but if we're being realistic it will take several decades before we have an all-electric vehicle and aircraft fleet. A target of 2050-2060 would be realistic, not 2030 or 2035, and that's only if we're willing to fund the research and development which will cost a fortune. Dave
  12. I don't think it's impossible. I am convinced that it is possible to travel faster than light by foreshortening or bending space rather than traveling through it. We just need to figure out how to do that, and then come up with a super-duper power source for the engine, as I'm sure it will require a tremendous amount of power. Dave
  13. This is just my personal opinion based on what I read on ORBX's forum. I would be wary about purchasing anything from them for FSX/P3D. It is clear to me that they have gone full bore with developing for MSFS, and P3D is just a distant afterthought. I would be concerned about future support for P3D addons. They've been promising openLC Asia for almost 2 years now and will not give any updates on its status, only saying that it's being worked on. I just don't think that P3D is a priority for them any more. Dave
  14. I don't know that metar/weather station reports are ActiveSky's *only* data source. I am curious how Meteoblue provides greater granularity than ActiveSky. Meteoblue says that they use weather models based on "NMM (Nonhydrostatic Meso-Scale Modelling) or NEMS (NOAA Environment Monitoring System) technology". I don't know what that data is. They also state that they provide a weather simulation based on models. It would be interesting to see how accurate their depictions are vs the real world conditions as well as vs AcitveSky. Meteoblue does have historical data, so MSFS could use that to provide historical weather. Dave
  15. I'm curious as to how else Meteoblue or anyone else could get greater granularity than metar weather station reports? ActiveSky takes the weather data and does some interpolation and modeling to inject weather for areas where exact weather station data doesn't exist. It also combines data from multiple weather stations to more accurately render weather conditions for a given location. Maybe MSFS/Meteoblue do the same thing, but their data is likely not any better than that used by ActiveSky. Dave
  • Create New...