Highiron

Clearly it has wing flex. But, will it have engine nacelle wobble?... Looking great!

I have heard from those that use it that the Milviz MD 530F is excellent. I don't have it myself, but those that do seem to rave about it.

"So what would the best copter that works fine 100% in P3D 2.5 be?" That would depend on what your definition of "best copter" would be. Milviz has a selection of helicopters that are made 100% for Prepar3D, Alabeo has a R66 and Flysimware has a few other offerings. I've seen some also being showcased on the AirDailyX website, but I'm not sure who makes them. Google search will be your friend to help you out. If you find something that might interest you, Google a review of it. Hope this helps. Cheers, Thad

It can be installed and used, but some of the sounds are missing. The sounds it can't find are in the folder as they should be, but for some reason the simulator can't find and use them. Are you saying you are getting all the sounds such as the warning alarms when the power is swithched on? Althought the Bell 222 is flyable, there are some things that do not function. if you have seen how it works in FSX you will notice these. Cheers, Thad

I bought the MD-11 for FSX when I used it way in the past and loved it. I moved forward and onward with Prepar3D, having to leave it behind. I understand if PMDG does not want to revisit and rework the aircraft, as it appears to have left a bad taste in their mouth in terms of production time vs rate of return. But I am not comfortable about leaving it un-deservedly in the proverbial dust bin of the past. It was, and still is a great product. I would be willing to fork over $15 - $20 USD to be able to have an installer that just puts things where they belong in the folders in Prepar3D and allows it to function as is. I keep my fingers crossed that the MD-11 will not pass in flight simulation as it has has in reality. As a commercial pilot who has great affection and appreciation of these type of aircraft, I would see this as a great loss, and I hope they see it as well as one too. One can only hope they reconsider. Cheers, Thad

I flew one of these for several years, both as an instructor and for charter flights as well. The plane is very much like the real thing. I had no issues or handling that were different from the real thing. It is missing it's OAT gauge on the gasper vent, and the Takeoff index is missing on the trim wheel, but other than that, it appears to be the real McCoy. I believe the weak lighting we are seeing in P3Dv2 is due to having the HDR lighting disabled at the moment due to the black screen issue. I've notice the weak light on Carenado aircraft as well. I'll wait until L.M.'s next patch before I get too concerned about it. The landing and taxi lights look great though. It is faster than a regular 172 and it is a very good single engine IFR trainer. It's a good aircraft to fly when transitioning to twins, it saves a lot of money on the multi-engine rating. The crooked "Cutlass" stickers on the yokes do not bother me. Most of the time they were either bent or missing all together. It still is a fun aircraft to fly.

Yeah I know, I had Ultimate Terrain X when I used FSX. It gave the positions of roads and rail, but unfortunately yes roads went though buildings and other object. I believe VECTOR is on the right path in the sense that perhaps in the near future there will not be a requirement for as much use of urban land class. With UTX, I disliked the vector roads clashing over top of the urban texture. If you recall, it puts roads over top of other roads and buildings within the textures. I thought it was a mess and discontinued using it. I hope that with Global, Vector, and Open Landclass, this issue will be resolved. It sure would be nice to see fairly accurate roads with proper landclass around them that doesn't clash. I'm hoping this is the beginning of this process. Fingers crossed.

It's interesting to see from the screenshots how incorrect default object placement is. It's unfortunate that by accurately placing roads, railways, rivers, and coastlines really highlights these errors. It really shows how much work is ahead to get it right. In time, I'm sure we will by enlarge be quite happy with the results of Global, Vector, and Open Landclass as they mature. I believe for the first time, we really are seeing how bad or incorrect the stock data is. It goes to show, how much developers have to break P3D/FSX to fix it and get it right. If things are getting broken, then that's good. That's progress. Broken things need to be replaced...

I believe you will have to wait until REX 4 Weather Direct is released before you will have the weather engine, unless you already have REX Extreme, then you just run it in the meantime. REX 4 Textures Direct are textures only, no weather engine. They will however work with manually created weather themes as Prepar3D does not have a built in weather engine like FSX does using Microsoft's own weather servers. REX 4 Weather Direct and REX 4 Weather Architect should be coming out fairly shortly. Hope this helps. Cheers, Thad

You may want to try to re-calibrate through the Devices and Printer options, and not through the simulator. I have had this issue in the past as well with my CH products. I believe it is a problem within Windows it's self and not even the flight sims. I've had to go through the Device and Printer option of Windows with the simulator not running and do a calibration again. I have a registered version of FSUIPC so I usually also have to reset my controller range settings in there as well after doing the re-calibration. This problem with Windows and controllers was one of the main reasons I purchased a registration key for FSUIPC years ago, it does a wonderful job of fixing these issues when Windows decides to act up in this department.

Hi mohsenfff, There is absolutely no difference between any of the licenses other than the Pro Plus versions which allow installation of weapons. At $2300 let me know how well it works. Nothing has been disabled or dumbed down between any of the Academic, Professional, or Developer licenses. They all have identical functionality. The Academic version does have a very small virtually unnoticeable water mark in the top right corner on the screen. If you Google the P3D watermark, you will find lots of images of it to determine if you find it too intrusive to your experience.

:blink:

Hi Larry, Will you be taking off and landing? Conducting flying? Yes? Then congratulations, you qualify for an Academic license. If you believe you are better than the average pilot, then go Pro. If you plan on doing some tinkering with aircraft, scenery, or anything that suits your fancy, try the Developers license. All you need to do is publicly announce that you promise not to make airplane sounds yourself while using the simulator, regardless of your choice of license. If you choose to run around your house with your arms outstretched like an airplane, you are required to turn Prepar3D off. This will NOT be asked of you during installation, but it's the secret for all licenses. Hope this helps...

The problem for developers who where also beta testers Steve is that the Beta version of P3Dv2 was a fast and quick moving target. The developers themselves did not even know what the release version was gong to look like right to the hour of upload to the L.M. servers. It was not clear what was or wasn't going to be included in the initial release based on problems found during the testing. Even after testing, there was no way that developers could change their products in such short order to guarantee 100% compatibility. Almost all the products that are directly marketed as P3D "ready" or P3D "compatible" as you put it, are..., for P3D v1.4 that is, so they are not lying. Products that are native to P3D v2.x will not be compatible with FSX/P3Dv1.x, so there will be differences. At the moment I see no P3Dv2 native products. Everything is a port over, including default aircraft, autogen, and textures in P3Dv2. The developers are very excited about what they see in Prepar3D v2.x. Those who had beta versions where able to look into the SDK and the core of the program to see how it worked and glean new options not available to them in the past. They can see huge potential in what they are looking at. Remember, these are things that to date, nothing made for FSX can take advantage of or even showcase for us in any way that will do it justice. I believe from the undercurrents going on in the development community we are going to be knocked over by what this platform is capable of, it will just take time for them to expose it. If the developers are excited by what they see, then so too should we. Give it time, they will need it. Keep it simple, don't try to jamb 50 add-ons into it, things will fail. I have a small number of aircraft that are confirmed to function, usually the more simple ones, and I use those until developers can test and modify their products to work in P3Dv2. The more complex the aircraft, the greater chance of issues as they worked around the SDK to get things to work in FSX. Fixes will take time. Orbx is not immune to this fact, let's also give them some patients as they work through the issues. They know when we're happy, they are too. They don't need to be told or reminded. I'm sure this also applies to the majority of developers out there. L.M. had a huge lead on these developers with P3Dv2, lets cut these developers a little slack while they try to catch up in double time. I'm sure some are drinking from a fire hose at the moment.

cvearl, Sorry to see your question so late. Almost a year! For some reason the post did not show any new replies (not bolded). I know AVSIM has had problems with their site over the year. I was going to give a long winded answer to your question, but I see in another thread that you saved me the time. TAS is tied to temperature and pressure altitude so TAS will vary greatly as you had discovered yourself. Any power setting can be used for cruise within the green band so using 30" of MP is allowed, however fuel burn to TAS gain is not that great. When determining optimum cruise power settings we generally look for the point where increasing MP no longer gives us a efficient increase in TAS for a given Pressure Altitude. For example if each 1" of MP increase yields a 5 Kts increase in TAS from a specific benchmark, we look for the point where there is a significantly less increase in TAS for that 1" MP increase such as increasing a further 1" of MP now only increases the TAS by 3 Kts. We would use the last power setting where the gains were the most. Of course some pilots just want to go as fast as possible regardless of the efficiency, so they will use much higher MP settings, regardless of excessive fuel burn for little airspeed gain. In certain cases where range is also not the issue this can also be done. Also running higher MP settings with lower RPM's is much harder on the engine and can reduce it's life. Its really all about personal choice and discipline on how one operates their aircraft.

I find it rather interesting reading all the posts about problems with P3Dv2. Some objective, others with hostility, and some rather like little children throwing a tantrum. Given the thousands of different systems and configurations out in computer land that this platform will run on, how can L.M. guarantee there will be no problems with all of them? Even with beta testers, they will be lucky if they even encounter 1% of the possibilities. From low end laptops to over the top PC systems. Think about this and how likely 100% problem free operation will be. People have no patience with software, their computers, or themselves. Many people complaining are the architects of their own problems. Some installed P3Dv2 and immediately edited the .cfg file with all the old FSX tweaks before even trying the simulator first with a raw .cfg file. They are under the misinformation that P3Dv2 is nothing more than a beefed up FSX, not realizing that old FSX tweaks can actually do more harm than good to P3Dv2, and that major changes have occurred in the rendering engine code. For this error, they will blame L.M. People read P3Dv2 will put more work on the GPU and use multiple cores more effectively on their CPU. This immediately implies one can crank all the sliders to the right because for once a simulator can finally utilize all the power under the hood of their 5 year old computer build. For this error, they will blame L.M. People in all their excitement, like the first night with their new bride, hastily start installing all their FSX/P3Dv1 favorite aircraft and scenery only to realize the excitement is over all too quickly rather than taking it slowly and seeing exactly what it can and can not do. For this error, they will blame L.M. and 3PDs. I challenge anyone to install P3Dv2 on their computer, leave the sliders and .cfg file alone, select a default aircraft and find the massive glowing errors outside a few current known issues. They just won't be there for most users I'm afraid. All the add on material we are trying to use was made and intended for FSX. Not a single product has been made exclusively for P3Dv2 or to take full advantage of its potential as of date. If it was, it would not be compatible with FSX, simple as that. Even the default aircraft are FSX native in their initial inception. Since the majority of users are still using FSX, this will prove a challenge. If a product is made compatible for FSX and P3Dv2, it will likely not be optimized to take advantage of P3Dv2 capabilities but more sales will be made. If a product is made compatible for only P3Dv2, it will likely perform very well, but will not be compatible with FSX resulting is less sales. This whole issue was experienced with the release of FSX after FS9, why should it be any different with FSX to P3Dv2? Since P3Dv2 is a much larger step, this will require two complete and separate products for each platform. Not an easy situation for developers both on time and monetary resources. Orbx material was made and designed for FSX compatibility. It uses DX9, not DX10 or DX11. I would be almost willing to wager that if Orbx made FTX Global 100% native to P3Dv2 there would be no issues and it would look amazing. Remember, there is not a single add on utilizing DX11 yet for P3Dv2. This move however to the benefit of the P3Dv2 user would render the software useless in FSX. I believe the challenge for Orbx will to be ensure their products are compatible with P3Dv2 and pushing it's capabilities whilst at the same time not destroying backward compatibility with FSX. This is deja vu all over again. Before we start to weigh in on the value of P3Dv2 over FSX, perhaps in fairness, we should ensure that we are comparing apples to apples if those testing or comparing want to ensure integrity in their findings and quality of data that actually can be repeated by all and measured. Comparing FSX with all native and optimized material for that platform to P3Dv2 with that same FSX material is junk science. Rather compare it to P3Dv2 native and optimized material and compare the results, that's sound measurement. But wait! We can't do that yet because it doesn't exist does it... Given these facts, why do people persist to blame L.M. for issues that resulted from making a better platform than what we had? Why do some slam down hard on developers who's products don't function optimally in P3Dv2 when they were never designed and optimized for it in the first place? Do we want products that work in FSX, but are not optimized for P3Dv2, or do we want products that are optimized for P3Dv2 but won't work in FSX. We can not have both without separate products. This is a dilemma we must choose as well as developers. FSX DX9 material is castrating P3Dv2 so why do individuals expect it to perform better than the FSX material was designed for. We are still putting lip stick on a pig. When P3Dv2 native and exclusive aircraft, scenery, and weather are used, let's then make those comparisons and see what comes out on top and which has the greater stability and less issues. Then, and only then, will we have that apples to apples comparison. For now and the near future I believe there will have to be a compromise that we will have to endure through, until FSX usage starts to become the exception and not the norm.

Simply outstanding is the word. Thanks for posting the video.

Keep dreaming about that new computer...

The Microsoft FS franchise was an evolving product. They likely figured they would just get to the issues at a later date. Seeing how a lot of problematic code got carried through revision after revision its probable the focus was always on the next release. The fact that is took L.M. over 2.5 years to yield an FSX equivalent that was stable and nearly bug free is a testament of how much was wrong within FSX. That's a lot of man hours and money just to create a version of Prepar3D that ran as FSX should have. It makes one think about how much of a mess it was. They completely ripped out the DX10 preview mode and even somewhat simplified the simulator just in part to achieve this. I'm just glad it's finally cleaned up and for once in many many years we will have a simulator we can spend more time using than time fiddling with. It will also hopefully decrease the amount of time developers need to spend in support forums trying to fix issues that are more at the core of FSX than with the product they created. I have always taken note that most Prepar3D support forums for products are a fraction of the size of the ones for FSX. Coincidence or smaller user base? Perhaps, but there just does not seem to be the same amount of problems. Lets hope this becomes the norm so developers can spend more time making things and fixing real issues in their software than trying to figure out if the problem is on their end or with FSX.

With DX11 and the total rework of how P3D handles memory, I believe V2.0 will finally put the smackdown on OOM errors, at least for the foreseeable future anyway.

No Sir, you're too late. That already played out when the 777 was released...

Did I just hear some ice cracking under someone's footsteps?... :unsure:

ATC is stock FSX. A user of Oncourse Software's ATC Pro Flight 2000 stated it worked in P3D v1.4. I can't see that changing for v2.0 but we'll have to see when it comes out. The developer of My Traffic, Burkhard, has made a P3D compatible version called My Traffic 3D. He was offering a discount for an upgrade for existing users so this option is available for us. No one can state whether all your add-ons will work or not as V2.0 has not been released yet, so no light can be shed on that topic, but I believe if it works in v1.4 it will work in v2.0. Your best bet is to conduct searches on your items on their forums to determine their compatibility with V2.0 as the list of available add-ons is just too large and outside the scope of anyone giving you a blanket answer.

Thanks for the good laugh! I'm sure there is more truth in there than fiction, although I think it might be more appropriate for the day after the Prepar3D release.

Even if P3D was 64 bit, you would have to give up your PMDG 777 to get the benefits. It is designed not to work in Prepar3D so you will be stuck with your issue. P3D with it's new DX11 engine and vast VAS memory usage improved would likely fix the problem around Vancouver but it's moot as PMDG will not allow you to benefit from it.