Gabe_62

Hehe.... best place for it

And why is a review of an entire flight-sim platform, not even addressing something as fundamental as FPS ** / performance issues ?This is, arguably, THE most important aspect of this as a direct competitor/alternative to FSX/FS9.It also seems to be becoming de rigour for pretty much ALL reviews - even the 'professional' ones.(And, for crying out loud, DON'T use 'absolute numbers' if you do include this vital information. Use 'relative' values: compare a similar situation and aircraft for example, to that in FSX.It's not 'rocket science' guys, yet 90% of reviewers - that actually do us the the courtesy of providing such information - always make this fundamental (if not 'school-boy') error !).

In principle I agree totally with your assertion that control is too impatient. In fact many aspects bug me to death and I've been moaning about it for years. The best one is when you are handed over to approach and there is no time to request the "Full ILS" before you are given vectors. All it would take is a two or three-second pause, for one to hit the relevant keys to request an ILS. But no... there is simply no time to do it. I have suggest just putting pauses between all comms., but it seems a no go. JD suggest there is no problem - presumably as there are not many peeps complaining: clearly those after a realistic experience, don't actually appreciate what constitutes "reality". Oh the irony ! I know STARS should be included in the next release (?)... but as a decent workaround in the meantime, why not just a time gap, allowing one to request an ILS, before you're given vectors. This could have been coded in from the start... and certainly added later... but no. Sad really as it totally shatters any sense of reality on approach.

Warning and important note: although these state "Filmed in HD" on the cover of the box, they are only actually distributed on standard DVDs in DVD format. It is NOT in HD.

Yes, found it today !Thnx a lot. It's really good too.Anyone know where to get some Ai / Flight plans ?I'm using Ult Traffic 2, but there are only the 6 or so scheduled flights a day in that.Cheers

It appears to be for FS9. Does it work OK in FSX ?Think I may update it using Instant Scenery... and maybe put in the new Hangar !!!Thnx.

There are quite a few airfields that are featured in the Flying Wild Alaska program.It would be great to get some decent scenery for those areas.I reckon Bill is the man for the job !Maybe someone could then do some missions featuring 40 mph cross-winds !!!

Just wondering if this is like the 767 or 747 voice controlled versions.ie. can you get FO to change MCP values ?

As a matter of interest, do the checklists incl preparing for an autoland ?If I buy the button control version, SHOULD you (ie. IF !) you bring out a voice control version, would there be a discount ?

Yup, that's the one !!!Sorry for the duff link... can't think what happened.My heart was banging more than it is after an episode of The Sopranos... after watching it.

iFly FS2Crew VideoWhoa !Great video. Gets the adrenaline going.Could have been directed by Scorcese !!!

The problem I have with button editions is that the whole "flow" is much more prescriptive.I found with my short time on the 767 VA edition, that you can easily skip sections or totally ignore them and just use the Co-pilot to change MCP values and change flaps etc.Also, remembering when to press the Primary and Secondary buttons, results in a situation where you have to have have the "script" next to you ALL the time. A real pain!I can imagine that if you use a plane exclusively and often, you may well "learn" it and not need this, but how many people do this ? Most people flip between different aircraft and may not fly in one particular one for weeks.I often find that I have forgotten basic principles relating to flying a particular aircraft after a lay-off, and "re-learning" FS2Crew with it just adds to the torment.The VA editions are much more intuiive and powerful, and flexible....They would be better if the aircraft developers would give you a SDK - PMDG ????? - as these seem to have much less flexibility than others. But clearly that's not your fault.Ideally, creating both versions is the ideal scenario, but this is also much more expensive for you of course, which I appreciate.Having said that, I think you can't lose with the iFly, as when it is released for FSX... hopefully it will be a huge seller. So, you 'll need to see what happens and decide at that point I guess.

Hmmm... apart from voice activation !Having played with a mates 767 VA version, I'm actually considering getting the 767 even though I don't really like it much!!! The VA element is utterly superb.I'm afraid it appears you have made a rod for your own back by introducing voice activation. Once you try it, you don't want to go back to button pressing and entering MCP values yourself.Bit of a hollow victory ?As for the iFLY 737, I'd fly it exclusively if it had FS2Crew VA... I really hope you can do it - especially given that the FSX version of iFly's 737 will smash PMDG sales IF..... and I say IF, they are savvy enough to make the "unique sales point": better FPS performance.PMDG's 737 will need a very good PC to run it, in anything but a sterile environment, so iFly could make theirs to provide say. 'twice the FPS performance' and aim it at the majority market with modest PC specs.If they don't, they've missed out. The only way they can compete is to "tone down" the graphics etc. and literally market it as "not quite as pretty... but twice the FPS performance" of the PMDG.You too, will then have a large potential market... and believe me when I say that the VA - for peeps that can use it - is 10x better than the button version.RegardsGabe

Thnx for that.Could you elaborate on FS2Crew "MODE".And, how do you skip Cold and Dark - I thought that FS2Crew needed to be started from scratch ?Also, have yo seen the Fly The Maddog DVD ?I'm considering getting the whole package.

Hi there,I note that all the voice activated editions of FS2Crew, except the PMDG 747, allow you to tell the FO to change values in the MCP and flick switches to activate various modes etc.This would be particularly useful in the Maddog, as you can currently only change the numbers on the MCP and operate switches using the middle mouse button - which in FS9 using the F1 view dll, is not possible as the middle mouse button zooms the cockipit view ! (why they did this the Lord only knows !!! ?? Doh ! - but that's a nother story I guess)So, this functionality is very attractive.However, my question is: is it possible to "skip" certain procedures/checklists etc. of FS2Crew, and ONLY use it to give general commands to the FO ?In other words, do you have to use it to its full extent - from Cold and Dark, all checklists etc - or can you choose which elements you use ?Cheers.

Jee.... and I was hoping the Win 7 may steamline the voice recognition stuff somewhat !!!

And, I find the push-button versions very restrictive and prescriptive... I like the sound of the voice activated versions as it addsanother layer to the sim: being able to use it as a copilot who can make changes to the MCP etc. at yourcommand.For me, that alone is worth the entry price.What would be better still, is if you could switch off the checklist stuff and only use the basic copilot commands as and when... ala "Its Your Plane" or MC Experience.The choice of one or the other, or both, elevates the product substantially.

And also, you appear to use a laptop for your review.I use a fast overclocked Core 2 Duo with an 8800GTS GPU, and get appalling framerates - comparable to some other MilViz / Eaglesoft aircraft, the F1 Mustang Jet and Captain Sim airliners !!!Do you feel a review should completely omit any reference to framerate performance, particulary for an FSX addon ?Were you using a resolution of 1200x800, low Ai and other settings per chance ?MAybe it would be useful to know this information before people part with £20 for an a/c that really needs a "very good" PC to run it smoothly ?

Thnx for your input.However, the post is clear that we all know the ways of "manipulating" the program... and we all have to do it. Another classic is to massively increase the margins of tolerance for heading deviation, altitude and so forth.The point is: why should we have to ? Particularly when it can easily be fixed.Many people I am sure, are hoping that RC5, may take on board this constant problem of "nagging"... and simply increase time delays to make it more realistic and less like a robot stuck on a futile cycle. An extra 30 seconds between... "instruction" ....... and........ "check to see if user is complying" THEN "tell-off user" ........ I am sure is not beyond the programming skills of JD & Co. It ithe fact that they do not feel this is a problem is what is really worrying. Moreover, it is sad, because I end up switching it off 9 times out of ten and am seriously considering switching over to VATSIM... which I don't really want to to do.Give users a minute to react to instructions... it will rarely make a difference particularly 50 miles from approach.It is quite ironic that at times, RC cannot wait to issue instructions, yet at other times I don't receive "permisssion to land" until I'm over the threshold !!!

Hehe....And, clearly you're not married to my missus.... I don't even get the warnings before being reminded how utterly useless I am !!!.... Yes there is no doubt that RC5 will benefit for increased delays between instructions and reaction. 90% of the time, I barely get time to ARM my MCP for the new crossing restriction altitude when I'm being told off.It happens A LOT. This is why sending logs is pointless. It is hardwired into the program and needs to be tweaked..... End of.The time delays can easily be programed and therefore they can be changed. JD should really look at this as to my mind it the only real bug-bear in the program as it stands. In fact it often ruins the entire experience. And, I know I'm not alone here, but it must be "fixable"... surely ?

Thnx for the detailed info.I currently use FS Commander but will look at FSBuild, as I hear good things about it.It is sometimes difficult to match up databases unless you subscribe to the latest AIRACS, so some typ of workaround is always going to be desirable.BUT... I still maintain my original assertion, that RC would signifcantly benefit from including a decent pause between instructions, so that one can actually utilise the available commands AFTER having "acknowledged" an instruction. Sometimes RC ATC is just TOO damn fast and in a hurry to get home for dinner !!!Clearly RC is the best thing out there, and I'm grateful it exists and the support is great... but even the "best" can be improved upon.Unfortunately I know naff all about coding, so I can only 'request' things in the full knowledge of my ignorance regarding the 'practicalities' of such issues! 8-)Cheers.

Unfortunately there are 2 problems there.Firstly, I already "manipulate" the program in a number of ways, which shouldn't be necessary really, when 95% of the exasperation I encounter using RC, could be avoided by increasing the delay between: "instruction - wait for user response - second instruction (OR repeat of first instruction due to non-compliance".When I need to make a user-command, such as "Request Direct Checkpoint", to prevent the cycling of an instruction, I can't as the ONLY possible response, is "Acknowledge". ie. "Acknowledge"... user menu pops up... but I then have no time to make a selection before the "bollocking" is repeated, Ad Naseum.So, manipulation in this situation is simply not possible.Secondly, the other 5% of the time - and what must be the most annoying feature - is how ATC expects to me to climb or descend in a 'micro-second'. Avoiding the 'Ack' is okay I guess, but due to the badgering that results, nonetheless, infuriating. Can you not appreciate how a simple delay put into every instruction - repsonse - reaction, could solve all of this ?

I hope you can increase the time delays between instruction and complaining from ATC.When I'm asked to climb or descend, it will often expect me to perform impossible tasks like climing at 10,000 ft per minute ! ATC will tell me over and over that I've "busted my blah, blah, blah...." after giving me like 10 seconds to start descending or climbing. Equally, if I miss a waypoint - maybe my FMC and RC flightplans are slightly different - it will tell me to "Fly heading of x degrees"... (to get back on course), and then as soon as I acknowledge, it tells me I'm not following the instruction... this cycle can continue for 6 iterations, before I get the time to ask for a direct to... ckkpt.... and get out of the appalling cycle.It is simply not always practical to make an immediate turn to a heading, and not going to happen if you're heading to your "correct" (as per FMC) waypoint. It also happens when I'm about to ask for a full ILS instead of vectors... if they just paused for 10 seconds between instructions, I could actually use the menu and make certain requests. They are available generally, but due to the often TOTAL lack of ANY delay between instruction 1 - acknowledgment - instruction 2... I can rarely get a word in.There should be a "pause" button where you can simply shut them the heck up while you think etc.But whatever, the delays between issuing instructions and bollockings (for not immediately following their instruction), is seriously FAR too short.Moreover, it happens so often and in so many different circumstances that it should really be looked at for Version 5. I end up switching the thing off at least 50% of the time as it so frustrating... ironically, it should be simple to fix it.In logic, it would go "... after command x... wait for 10 seconds before issuing next command AFTER ''acknowledgement' has been received.'Acknowledge' should not be seen as a 'command'... unfortunately the coding sees it as just that, and goes on its merry way issuing the next command... usually a repeat of the earlier one... and so it goes on - an endless, futile and highly irritating cycle.Thnx.

Listen Matey.1. 99% of my original post was how to show both STARS and the Transition on your FSC plan, by using a manual workaround.I wrote one short sentence about FMC progrmaming, and not needing to put in your SIDS and STARS and transitions, before you fly.2. You are not using this progam in the 'real world' and as such, those 'procedures' are totally irrelevant. What matters is how thing happen in the flight sim world.3. The above "quotes" from the VATSIM training posts together with a lot of comments made by the likes of Captain Mike Ray, means that in practice when flight simming using VATSIM or Radar contact, you will often not get to fly the STAR you are hoping for - therefore it is not the end of the world if you cannot plot both the STAR and transition in the FSC plan before the flight. In fact, you often get your plan changed when you enter SIDS or STARS that they do not want you to use. Are you following thus far ????4. It is clear, that altohugh you may be a greatly experienced "pretend pilot", you have an inability to follow the simple logic of my argument... and you have blown-up a throw-away comment into something major.5. I have not tried to "instruct" anyone as to procedures... just offered a simple manual workaround for the inability of the FSC program to allow both Transitions and STARs on the flightplan.I use the words: "often", "not always", "sometimes" so as to demonstrate that things do not "always" go to plan... literally. Therefore - now listen carefully (!!!) - you don't really need to be able to include the STAR TOGETHER WITH the Transition... as "often" ................. you will not actually get to fly this precise planned route.In fact VATSIM do say it is not necessary to file a SID or STAR, as "these will often" be changed.So, note the intention of the words "often", "sometimes", "not always" etc. They are important words if you are to follow the argument, and not go off on a patronising ramble about how little I know.A throwaway comment about FMC SOPs, does not deserve such a personal assuallt - particularly when the rest of the (reasonably long) post pointed out a simple way to get the full route into the FSC plan - simply, a common-sense approach that no-one had actually pointed out !!!

From the guide to flightplanning from the VATSIM website:"...In the normal course of events a SID will be given to you when you have copied your clearance with Clearance or Ground or whichever controller is online. Because each runway has different Standard Departures, the contoller who gives you clearance will most likely tell you which SID you are to fly. After you copy your clearance you have the luxury of a little time before requesting startup or taxi to program that SID into your Flight Computer and program in your initial altitude, heading and speed into your autopilot. "So... you ain't gonna have much time to add it to FSC either !!!And, another post on the VATSIM website - "... Correct, at least thats what I do. If there is a flyin though at that airport or the airport you headed to, controllers may have a specific route and SID and STAR they want you to follow. In cases like that, they will simply tell you the new route and amend you FP... "Here's another:... "... You select your own based on active runways (sometimes), other fields operations (sometimes, see the charts) and on your overall direction of flight - in the US. In many other countries, controllers assign you your STAR/SID"As I said in my original - and getting tired to be honest - post, you cannot ALWAYS expect to be able to fly the exact SID and STAR of your choosing. I'm no expert and not a RW pilot, so I can only go by what I read and learn as I go along... so I think my original proposition was quite reaonable: filing a SID and STAR, entering in your FMC and onto an FSC flight plan, before flying, is likely - at some point - to leave you high and dry !!! This is why many SOPs for FMC useage etc., actually suggest that choosing STARS and approaches can often be left until you know for sure which you will use. In fact, in my ATR 72-500 FMC, I cannot re-enter a different STAR once activated - I have to restart the damn thing to make any significant changes. So, I am definitely better off waiting for the final STAR to be "confirmed" (ieI know that I will be flying it) - BEFORE I enter it into the FMC, or I may have to fly the resulting STAR by hand.