Jump to content

leeflet

Members
  • Content Count

    74
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About leeflet

  • Birthday March 1

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    ARD350007
  • Interests
    Flying (actual and simulation), PC tweaking and assorted geeky proclivities, writing and multimedia production, animal medicine

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    Other
  • Virtual Airlines
    No
  1. I like United-Virtual - but for some of the reasons that may turn off others. While anyone can join, the route selection is limited and aircraft type is as well (narrow-body "trainers"). For more complete access to aircraft and routes, a check ride is required (practice, practice, and practice a "canned route" - then record it... and if you think it's up to par - submit). Those rides are graded very similar to the grading regimen I had in USN flight school. A very thorough critique is given and while it is accurate and respectful, there is no cheap, unearned praise. Beyond the main check ride, there are advanced check rides one can take for type ratings, but those are completely optional and not required for type if the pilot decides to qualify by hours instead (a slower but certainly less-stressful way to go). Coming into flight sim from real-world aviation (mil, com - and general as a CFII), I do appreciate the more professional, disciplined and standardized approach they take. The resources and training material are very comprehensive as well. I'd be interested to know if there are similar approaches out there with other VAs. I have flown for AlaskaVA, OneWorld, Star Alliance, and SkyTeam virtual airlines as well. But of those, I find that United-Virtual is the best for me - but quite possibly for the same reason that it may not be best for others.
  2. Driftdown, one thing I noticed in those spot images posted here is that the cloud cover perspective is from an oblique angle. From that perspective it is hard to see the "holes" in the overcast below. The breaks in overcast - in my situation at least - are immediately around and below the aircraft (while looking out towards the horizon gives me a perspective similar to the images posted here).Setting MaximumCloudLayers = 20 in FSXOptions.cfg and CLOUD_COVERAGE_DENSITY=12 in FSX.cfg did not resolve the issue for me.Maybe it's because I'm just a little delirious from the flu (yuck) but do I understand correctly that PREVENTING cloud redraws MAINTAINS the overcast? I got a little lost in your wording - sorry...
  3. This is definitely one of the strangest threads I've read in the AVSIM forums, culminating with Ronnie throwing a tantrum of obscenities and calling everyone babies... ?Joe Pa had an opportunity to save those boys from a monster that he knew - despite reporting him to the university administration - likely still preyed upon them for years afterwards. Those among us who have survived similar childhood sexual abuse would find the idea of honoring such a "flawed hero" as curious as it is disturbing.
  4. I fly a lot around Lake Ponchartrain and New Orleans. The Mississippi River and Lake Ponchartrain are both generally brown, muddy waters. Using the default graphics with AS2012, Lake Ponchartrain looks like the turquois waters around Key West, so I figured it was not treated as "inland" but rather "tropical" water by AS (probably - I assume - because FSX classifies it as such). No problem - I merely customized the theme and recolored my selected tropical water choice. It worked - to a point. It appears that the water changes from my recolored brown to the AS2012's turquois blue about 5.2 NM from the airport - making me think that the custom-colored graphics have a limited range before the default AS2012 graphics kick in. I tried redefining the application range for wx but the brown water changes to blue at the same point regardless.Interestingly, I recolored the inland waters to a greenish-brown, but the Mississippi River shows up as purplish, and maintains that color well beyond the range at which the tropical water fails to maintain it's recolorization. In fact, as far as I know, if I recolor the inland waters, there is no limited diameter to the application of the recoloring, unlike the tropical.Is there a work-around to this? It seems like I need to be better educated about how the graphics work?
  5. Well, that was an incredibly awesome video. It was a religious experience to watch.I'm in awe now of what my FSX experience could be like. Could you comment on (1) the incredible realistic textures (is it all REX?), (2) where you got the detailed ground handling animations from, and (3) why - after all those animated add-ons - your frame rates are still better than frame rates in real life?LeeF
  6. We use the Garmin stand-alone G1000 glass cockpit simulator software as a procedure trainer for actual flights in G1000-equipped 172S and 182T Nav III aircraft. It would be awesome to have this product interface with FSX. Obviously the default G1000 is woefully inadequate.In our search for a solution, we remain impressed - yet unsold - with the MindStar product. Despite impressive fidelity, there are several issues. It is missing the AUX page groups (an essential part of our set-up routines), lack of North Up/Track Up switching, map declutter configuration and map cursor functionality. And the navigation database does not appear upgradable.It also appears that it was last updated January 2007 - almost 5 years ago - and so seems abandoned or shelved.That said, the MindStar was certainly on the right track - very detailed and it's frustrating that it was "almost" there as a viable FS9/FSX trainer.Is anyone aware of a product that has picked up where MindStar left off?LeeF
  7. Fun video to watch, but a bit challenging to judge the landing without a cockpit panel view.showing set-up, approach speeds, flap settings, etc. Looks like you may have been hanging a bit deeper on the backside of the power curve than necessary from the (apparent) high AOA, but I didn't see a tail strike. Especially being a night landing makes it even tougher to see from the perspectives you provide.
  8. At the risk of sounding a bit simple-minded, I really can't help but ask - have you considered that it may have nothing at all to do with the hardware?In my case, CTD issues turned out to be as simple as having an NGX default flight (something apparently you cannot do). I luckily figured that out before starting the process of uninstall/reinstall.
  9. Thanks, Art - the scenery was freeware anyways, so I just switched to Glenn Johnson's FSX New Orleans scenery and added a few items (his FSX is nowhere near the masterpiece that his FS9 KMSY is). The parking and gates are actually more accurate than Alpha India, so for a very fledgling and not-so-committed scenery designer, it seems a better platform to modify.
  10. I think I figured it out. Turns out the parking radii for the gates was set to other than the standard default radius in the library object. Once I reset the parking radius, the mesh between jetway and cabin door is perfect! BUT - my buildings have disappeared and there remains just a field of jetways. No errors in compiling were given, so I now have to figure that out (hints are very welcome)....
  11. Thanks, Scott - I went ahead and rebuilt a flight from scratch, selecting KMSY and Gate D5 for a completely fresh start. Same issue. Moved down to Gate D1 (a smaller gate.) The exact same jetway interface anomaly occurs there as well. I substituted the default 737 (vs my PMDG) and the Level-D - in both cases the jetway aligns just ahead of the front door in the same exact manner as the PMDG (I retracted and redeployed the jetway in all those cases). Moving/slewing the aircraft to align with the jetway, then retracting and redeploying the jetway results in the same deviations. Finally, to establish that this was indeed the scenery and not the airplane(s), I set my 737NGX at a totally different airport (KSEA), and the jetway interface was normal. So it definitely is something with the scenery. It's a strange problem, and I'm just climbing the learning curve with ADE (the program used to design the KMSY scenery). The fact that the jetway interfaces in the same relative position to the door in 3 different models makes me think that perhaps the entire airport reference is askew? Is that possible?
  12. I am grateful to have found this thread - was having the exact same problem and was beginning to suspect the condition of my disc. FreeCommander worked like a charm - can be found here.
  13. First, I am an end user, not a designer (although I am considering dabbling). Here is my question. In FSX, I installed the wonderfully executed Alpha India Group AFCAD scenery for New Orleans airport (download aig_kmsy_new_orleans_armstrong_fsx_default.zip in the FSX -> AFCAD File Section). The aircraft that I typically use (the PMDG 737-NGX) has not changed. However, now the jetways miss the hatch and dock against the aircraft too far forward and at an angle (the best way to describe it is that once the jetways are fully deployed, I need to slew the aircraft forward a few feet and yaw the heading a few degrees counterclockwise in order to align it properly. I had always thought that the fully deployed jetway had interfaced at a specific spot on the aircraft fuselage based on parameters delineated in the aircraft.cfg file. However, seeing that this misalignment is scenery-specific, I am reluctant to modify the aircraft.cfg file. Is there an AFCAD-level fix for this? Can I edit the bgl?
  14. Hi Johan - Loading it the way I suggested will preload the FSX ATC, essentially having ATC "assign" the SID as you mentioned. This is as close to realism as I can manage with FSX. In my real-life flying this is not the case (at least in the US). ATC directs the transition from enroute to approach, often modifying the STAR to accommodate their own requirements for separation and spacing. Agree. Default ATC does a poor job of AI separation, although FS AI Approach Traffic Manager does an acceptable job in reducing conflicts (in my experience). That really is an issue only in congested corridors, however, so I still believe the FSX ATC to be useful. I have yet to try VATSIM - my only hesitation being the "manning" issue. Can I really fly a completely controlled flight of my choosing from ground control at the departure airport to ground control at the arrival base?
×
×
  • Create New...