Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,260 Excellent

About OzWhitey

  • Rank
    "Who's the best pilot you ever saw?"
  • Birthday March 21

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Republic of Kiribati

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

4,526 profile views
  1. I’d recommend using FSUIPC as I find it much more flexible and predictable with the Honeycomb Alpha in P3D. It does depend on what type of flying you are doing, though, if you’re just flying GA then the honeycomb default settings may suit your needs.
  2. Hi, that’s a very well known issue with some scenery that is not SDK compliant, seen when using EA. Although it’s the fault of developers being lazy, it might get fixed by LM in the future. What addon scenery are you using in this shot?
  3. Thanks Mark. I couldn’t find any mention of a v2 on either of your links, but i trust you that it’s actually a thing! I’ll check out simmarket again and see if there’s any change. I only bought this (v1) a few weeks ago, so i’m late to the FACT party. 🙂
  4. I think you're mistaken here. According to your Simmarket link. AVAILABLE SINCE 10/31/2018 I own that airport, bought it earlier this year, and it has always worked fine for me in Prepar3d v5. Your Aerosoft link also goes to the existing v1 product, no mention of a FACT v2 on either page.
  5. I seem to have missed some subreddit drama here. i presume we’re talking about the owner of a series of products that provide night lighting? Why is his name not allowed, what led to that??
  6. You’ve listed three devs that i respect, and i’ve spent hundreds of dollars on their airports since MSFS was released. I will buy anything that flightbeam releases, and almost anything from MK-studios. Fly Tampa also deserve to be on that list. As for Taxi2Gate - they’re not a developer that has impressed me over the past year or so. Largely missing in action, and this does seem like a minimal-work-possible release (no dynamic lighting on a full-price payware release in 2021??) I’m all for supporting devs who support the p3d platform, but i also have no issue with others calling out a lazy cash-grab when they see it. As for me, i’ll buy LFPG because I want the airport in question, but I won’t do so with the enthusiasm that I reserve for developers like Flightbeam, FlyTampa and MK-Studios.
  7. I find these kinds of comments ironically amusing when you consider that you’re posting on a website that is specifically focused on aviation simulation rather than gaming. You notice there is no subforum for Hawx or similar games here, right? There are so many straw-man assumptions in your post that I wouldn’t know where to start, but i’m bemused that you seem to think using an office or replicating RW ATC is somehow worthy of mockery. If you are happy with playing a plane game, bully for you, but that’s no reason to throw shade on people who are trying to make a genuine effort to simulate real-world aviation for recreational, training or other purposes.
  8. Ah, see that's the trick - you need to know which addons are actually fun to fly out of given the aircraft we have available and the surrounding scenery. I've got about 20 payware airports, mainly Orbx and their partners from when they are are sale. Dundee that you mention here is a good one. I also like some of the Norwegian airports that they sell. Will have to look into some of your other suggestions.
  9. Lol, there's nowhere near 2 million current users of MSFS. Peak players on Steam was 60,000 last year, now down to 10,000. Average players at any time is half that. There's 4986 people playing it now, which places it in 112th place, behind some pretty obscure titles. If we compare it with some other sim titles: Euro Truck Simulator 2: 21,473 War Thunder: 20,511 Farming simulator 19 15,242 FSX-SE: 1316 My take: given the cost of making, updating and delivering orthoscenery to this program, MS would have been hoping for a much higher player base than what these (Steam-only) stats suggest.
  10. Hi Harpsi, I used to own the 2080Ti MSI Gaming X Trio version before upgrading to the 3090. You can get a bit of an overclock with the 3090 using afterburner, but the benefits are minimal. I usually run at stock GPU clock, CPU matter entirely - I'll crank the CPU up as high as I can get away with whilst maintaining stability. I almost bought the Trio X again in the 3090. MSI make great cards and I really like their software. However, I went just a little higher-spec and bought the MSI 3090 Suprim. It wasn't much more expensive than the Trio X, and I think it's worth the small price premium.
  11. 1. Stability. 2. You could actually follow the correct taxiways! Just for starters.
  12. Clouds look nice but are buggy. Try flying that with a VR headset and watch the jitters. 2.7 has potential, but I'd currently choose P3D clouds due to this problem, so hardly a "leapfrog", more an interesting but flawed beta release.
  13. No one has argued that it was due to poor sales, in any post in this thread. The sales were good, but community reaction was very negative (much more so than when fs9 was released). Cyberpunk 2077 has good sales, but the product has very much damaged cdpr’s reputation. I don’t know for sure, but i think a stuttering 8 fps sim with scenery menus that don;’t even work (seriously??) was not buying ms a lot pf good will, hence easy to cut when downsizing time arrived.
  14. We're getting off topic, but that's way oversimplified. You mention a factor in passing later in your post - Steve Ballmer. Gates was a flightsim fan and protected the franchise, Ballmer wanted to be rid of it once he was boss. Now, the performance issue leading to ACES cancellation is hard to prove, but the vibe amongst simmers at the time was VERY hostile towards Microsoft (which is supported by your posts). The ACES guys used to come here occasionally, until the reaction got too toxic. My opinion back then was that FSX was selling a lot of copies - it got some pretty heavy marketing - but was also disappointing a lot of people because it was S L O W, and buggy to boot. A Windows PC running FS9 made MS look good. Early-era FSX, not so much. I personally think this was part of what pushed ACES studio over into the "liabilities" category. Now, history has shown that ACES actually built a good foundation that despite a few stupid bugs has stood the test of time very well indeed. It's a shame they never lived to see its success!
  15. They've got a good-looking engine, but performance is poor. Trying flying in VR with the clouds on normal settings some time, it's not pretty. Maybe DX12 will fix this, who knows.
  • Create New...