TheBFG

That's awesome.

Anything running in the background? A scheduled Windows Defender scan or something silly could do that.

While we're doing airports and airlines, here are some aircraft identifiers: http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/table_accodes_en.php

I have seen some addon aircraft that require acceleration. Probably something to do with aliasing sounds/gauges to the aircraft that come with acceleration, which is never a good sign for the addon aircraft involved but still... not entirely useless

Yep! Remember that enbseries.ini isn't the first thing "loaded"... to FSX it's just a pointless file. Only the file called d3d9.dll is loaded automatically, in this case the enbseries version, which then looks for enbseries.ini for its startup settings. Thankfully enbseries allows you to then load another dll, the renamed antilag dll in our case. So it has to be like this. The antilag dll doesn't support loading another dll.

But... that's why we love flightsimming! Can you afford even 1% of the aircraft you fly in flightsim? I must say this model does look beautiful.

Hi! First thing to do, in your FSX display settings > aircraft tab > Default cockpit view (set to "3-D virtual cockpit") Then exit fsx to save it. Now go to the folder where your fsx.cfg lives. You'll find a file called cameras.cfg. Open it and find the following: [CameraDefinition.002] Title = Virtual Cockpit ... InitialZoom = 0.7 Set the initial zoom to whatever you want it to be. Mine is 0.7 for 70%. While you're there you can also adjust the panning speed if desired (PitchPanRate and HeadingPanRate) Save the file, start FSX and all should be well.

Fascinating as always. I've also occasionally seen this but never would've guessed the cause. Does anyone know what mesh complexity actually does? The other one is pretty obvious.

If you see no difference then that's great. Your hardware is working well together without having to shunt tasks from the CPU to GPU etc... so you should be happy that 0.33 works well :) For some of us, it's a great tweak because smoothness is more important than the occasional blurry ground texture. I'd certainly also leave mine at the default if I could but the lower value certainly improves the experience for me when using complex aircraft. I do use a higher value when flying basic, low & slow aircraft though, when the blurry textures are more prevalent anyway. You just don't notice them so much in fast and high machinery so the compromise works well.

Mine is set to 0.1 Definitely makes a difference. There are many placebo tweaks out there but this isn't one of them. It goes hand in hand with several things though so have a good read.

The views you refer to are defined in each aeroplane's aircraft.cfg, not cameras.cfg :)

Oh wow wow wow! This is quickly turning into the best ever year for flightsimming :) This is just awesome.

The fact that I completely understand everything you're talking about makes me realise how much I've learnt from you (and others). Thanks once again :)

Yeah that sounds a bit... unlikely. But I've seen stranger things.

Yeah. My average "flight" goes like this: 7pm: Try deciding what to fly and where. While looking at aeroplanes, spot the one I've been meaning to repaint. 8pm: Downloading some kind of software to convert repaint textures. 9pm: Repaint done. Remember that I was going to fly somewhere. Visit AVSIM forums. 10pm: Still reading AVSIM forums. 11pm: Finally open FSX. Start flight plan. Open Google Earth. 12pm: Downloading new freeware scenery for the route I'm wanting to fly. 1am: New scenery installed. Going to bed.

I know this may sound ridiculous but.... if you're REALLY on a budget, have a look at the 550Ti. Don't shoot me yet... I'm planning on upgrading my complete system in December, but my old 8800 Ultra died last month. I didn't want to spend all the cash on the 580GTX like I want for my new system yet, so I picked up the 550Ti. Now the 8800 Ultra was already a big surprise with FSX. I could run fairly simple aircraft with the sliders almost maxed out. The 550Ti is miles better especially with anti-aliasing. In fact, heavy clouds just don't make a difference at all anymore. I'm now very CPU-bound of course but for a quick, budget replacement, you could honestly do a lot worse than a 550Ti.

I don't think ORBX employees should waste their valuable time with things like, for example, sleeping. And eating. I think they should work 24 hours a day until the whole world is done. For the greater good.

I did not! And I'm sure he'll come and chew my theory out, but I look forward to it as I'm also learning :) I don't mean to sound like a Boeing fan or anything, I just find this approach by Airbus to be very interesting as I'm not sure it's for the better at all. That's right. If you move the stick left a certain amount, the aircraft will roll left by a certain amount, no matter what the conditions. The ailerons will increase/decrease deflection to maintain the amount of roll that the sidestick commands. Now if you've banked to 25 degrees, the aircraft will also automatically adjust the elevator to maintain altitude, something we normally do by applying back pressure to the stick. Now return the stick to center, and the aircraft will stay at 25 degrees of bank and keep flying in circles all day long at the same altitude. This isn't with any autopilot engaged. The idea is wonderful and I'm sure it makes for some extremely accurate flying, but... you're not really flying the plane are you?

It's both really. Let me put it this way... a few years ago Citroen started selling their cars with a device that makes your seat vibrate when you stray out of your lane on the motorway. This was received with great enthusiasm by many. I think it's absolutely awful. If you can't stay in your lane, then you shouldn't be driving. Staying in your lane is easier than walking. I find it quite amazing that such a device was invented, never mind needed. There's no doubt in my mind that stuff like this makes for lazy, and worse drivers. So onto Airbus, and it's more of the same. Maybe it's a French thing :) I just do not trust these airplanes. While I'm sure they've saved the day on occasion, the situation they corrected should never arise in the first place, and the fact that these airplanes protect you so much means that these situations will arise more frequently because well hey who cares? The airplane will save us. As for the controls, yes that too. Setting pitch and bank instead of control surfaces is unlike any other aircraft. These guys spend years on end flying like this, with no exposure to anything else. You tell me they could fly a Cessna 172 after a 20 year career flying an Airbus? There is no way. And if the Airbus' computers fail? Suddenly they are "flying a plane" for the first time in who knows how long. I just don't see how this is in any way good or safe. The Airbus philosophy saves a few lives today but in the process starts a slow rot in basic flying skills and airmanship that is now beginning to bite us, and will worsen with time. They are awesome machines, I have respect for the technology. I just don't think it's being used in the right place or for the right purpose. Thousands of pilots have completed their careers without ever getting into a highly dangerous situation, with no help at all from computers. To make a rather sweeping statement, I'm pretty sure that in the hands of highly skilled and experienced pilots, traditional aircraft are safer than an Airbus. In the hands of unskilled pilots, an Airbus is probably safer than a traditional aircraft. The tail is wagging the dog. No pilot is ever truly in full control of an Airbus.

For anyone interested: http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601.en/pdf/f-cp090601.en.pdf

CAT III C isn't actually used anywhere in the world. It's basically for zero visibility, there is no decision height and no RVR minimum. So I guess you could drop the visibility to as low as it will go and use that, but good luck finding the taxiways :) CAT III B requires 50m visibility and a 50 foot ceiling.

This is brilliant. I also have several fsx.cfg files for use with various aircraft/scenery, but I use a batch file to copy them into place. I never realised that renaming fsx.exe would have it looking for the corresponding cfg file. Pure gold! This makes it even easier, thanks!

I've read thousands of pages about it over the last couple of years! And I maintain my dislike of the Airbus philosophy. I'll be getting one of these addons though. I find them very interesting and they should be a blast to fly. I get the impression that people don't really understand how an Airbus handles so it would be interesting to see people's reactions when these addons finally arrive. The fact that, for example, you don't command a certain amount of aileron deflection with the stick but rather a certain amount of roll, no matter the conditions, is a really strange feeling that is very different to flying traditional aircraft.

I make a new folder called SimObjects\Airplanes\~hold (with a shortcut to it on the desktop) Then I simply go there and move the airplanes I'm not using into the ~hold folder and grab the ones I want. You can even make different folders called ~ga, ~jets etc. The ~ makes sure they stay at the top of the list in the Aircraft folder. Primitive but quick & simple. Just be careful with moving some default aircraft as lots of addons, especially my myriad of freeware, use the default aircraft gauges, sounds etc. 777fan's method is quite tidy, but actually moving the aircraft folders out of the root Airplanes folder makes a nice difference to initial FSX startup times.

This is so cool.