ShawnG

Iirc the old Porter freeware by Piglet works fine in P3dv4. Originally made for fsx.

A long time ago I preferred computer pilot, but to be honest, I was unaware that they were still a thing.

ROFL that's great.

That is not what I said. I said the the frozen water problem can't be fixed because of updates to how p3d works. It is ALSO an issue with the regions, even if you DON'T have vector. The whole feature is alien to FS and always has been. transforming a water class to a landable solid surface is not in the sdk, and while they made it go in fsx, now they can't. you can still turn it on in the winter when you need it, and then turn it off again when you fly somewhere warmer. That subject has nothing to do with the vector/pilots deal other than it's similar to the same feature in that product.

The main issue is that what YOU want out of the development doesn't require 200 million dollars. given that they have 200 million dollars, it behooves them to do more than just a top notch space flight game. now granted all the other stuff might not have any attraction for you specifically, but it does have attraction for other people who have backed the project, quite a few of whom do not ever want to actually pilot a ship in the game, they are more into the social/fps/multicrew/stealth stuff. Just like flightsim. I actually look at "the cockpit experience" as an important, but secondary feature in my flight simming. I use flight sim as a way to explore a virtual earth via all my scenery addons, and to enjoy the immersive aspects as well. I do like learning about flight, and aircraft systems and flying realistically as well, but if you headed up a project which was the most hardcore aircraft procedural simulator possible, and neglected the other things I wouldn't buy it, and I wouldn't back it. Just being honest. Also, lets be honest, If there was a drive down to the pub option in flight sim, we'd all be there. 🙂 As for how I feel about Star Citizen? I backed them for about 65 bucks in 2014. I don't have any regrets about it. I've probably gotten my moneys worth, just in dogfighting with my buddies in the earliest alphas (I haven't even logged on in over a year or so) I'm interested in this, I like the ambition of it, and I really really want them to succeed. It's possible that nothing would be able to live up to the expectations generated by the development so far, and crowd funding is very much a double edged sword in that regard. But the game they wan't to build IS a game I want to play, I'm glad that someone is trying to do it, and even if it becomes a glorious failure, I'd take that over just another Wing Commander rehash for my money. The "pay to win" angle has been hashed to death for years, and I don't have anything new to say there, but if the ships in the full game are freely earnable with in game currency once released, I have few problems with their funding strategy, other than to say that if anyone goes and buys all the ships available now, they are a fool. It must also be said that they would be a fool who still has paid WAY less money than most of us flight simmers have...

Agreed, backers of this thing aren't interested in a unique storyline. If there was one, I doubt they would have raised 100k. much like rock audiences aren't interested in watching their favorite 70's rock gods go all jazz fusion on them. They want the wing commander guy to make the greatest wing commander of all time. I will disagree that Squadron 42 is what most signed up for, it certainly isn't what I and just about every other backer I talk to signed up for. The Open universe space MMO is the selling point. I'm excited for it, and I HATE MMO's. I've probably spent more time just in the Alpha dogfighting arena than I have in Elite Dangerous and the X series games combined. But, to throw this into the flight sim context... what if a major flight sim developer crowd funded 200 million bucks to make the ultimate flight sim. you'd want them to make something marginally better and release it quick, or would you want them to kick out the jams?

It isn't going to be fixed. I read a post by Holger a few years ago on this. apparently (and I'm running on memory here, so forgive me) the workarounds that Holger used to circumvent the problem in older versions of FS have been removed from possibility in later versions of p3d. it's also a problem for their regions, not just vector. And, as mentioned, Vector is a PILOT's product distributed by ORBX, rather than an in house project. It's possible its been abandoned by pilots

right, but if you leave the SID GIRL1Y in the plan you have to use runway 25. you need to remove the GIRL1Y and the UNO07S from your plan, or ProATC can't reassign your SID/STAR/rwy for you. SID's STARS and runways in use are the ATC's responsibility, not the pilot, or airline dispatch.

I use Simbrief, and then copy and paste the plan EXCLUDING SID/STAR into the ProATC planner. How are you setting up the ProATC planner for your flights?

well, right now there really isn't one that I'm aware of. Level D is only available for 32 bit sims, and Captain sim hasn't ported theirs yet. Same story with some of the "light" sims made by folks like CLS etc... No 767 for p3dv4. So I guess the best 767 is a model of the 767's replacement in the form of the QW 787

if the planning apps can use the makerwys info, you can use Lorby's tool to make a faux scenery.cfg that makerwys can get the data from your xml airports from.

I don't know why he wants them, but I've always thought it would be nice to have my planning software able to be synced with the nav database in my non-updateable Garmin trainer based GA GPS units. as an example.

you wouldn't know that during planning, although you might have some idea based on wind forecast. That's why you would use ProATC. it figures all that for you. when you get your clearance from pATC, you get the "expected" runway STAR and approach info before you take off, so you can plan from there. It can change, but most of the time doesn't. But as with real flying, you would not have that info prior to takeoff, and you should make sure you are capable of flying any approach that might be assigned. even visual/weird stuff. Part of the fun. you can check the box that says prefer ILS/LOC/GS approaches, and if possible it will use those

I don't think its a question of means specifically. I have a fair bit of cash I can spend on stuff and I do. 140 bucks in the grand scheme of things isn't actually a lot of money, it's just a lot of money for an FS addon, and since there is an ever increasing assortment of things I can spend my fs cash on, that 140 bucks has to be better spent than whatever else I would spend the 140 on, and for me, I don't find a lot of value in failures and making sure the galley microwave uses the proper voltages and stuff. I did spend exhorbitant cash on 3 PMDG planes (twice, sigh), and I love them, generally, but I haven't gotten value out of them, because I basically fly them in the same way that the Aerosoft is designed to be flown. so... no more of that for me.

"Be careful?" The aerosoft is less than half the price, it performs better. it has features compatible with the sort of flying most flight simmers do. Also fundamental facts. I mentioned that FSL has better system fidelity and failures, its a fair comment. You feel slighted because I didn't come up with some random percentage of difference out of thin air like you did? The FSL is way better as a study sim. I understand this, I mentioned that as a point of fairness to FSL. end of story. I'm NEVER going to buy it, because of cost, because of performance, because I don't want or need the things that set it apart, because I have a problem with the "lets see what we can get away with" pricing model. because of several other reasons we aren't even allowed to discuss here. Sorry my response was anything short of glowingly religious praise for FSL. It's a very fine aircraft by all accounts, but I, and others, don't want it.