JoTayhen

For me? Lancair Legasy.

I guess I take a view opposite from olli4740. I'm expressing the view of a singe, long-time GA pilot now. Since you're using the default calibration, I would start with a modest amount of null and sensitivity. See how that feels to you. The more sensitivity and the less null values you inject the less you will be able to physically move your controls. I would suggest, if you are a pilot interested in GA flight, view some RW videos and pay particular attention to the amount of ambient movement pilots make to their controls, especially the flight stick or yoke. I realize it varies considerably but you should witness a certain amount of constant movement and some significant movement during maneuvers and turbulence. For me, the best calibration of my flight controls (CH Yoke and Pedals) is derived by allowing them to be controlled by FSUIPC. I like the ability to utilize the built-in "slope" feature. This feature allows me to better control the amount of sensitivity throughout the "travel distance" or "play" of both the yoke and pedals. I suggest you start by using the default FSX calibration feature and, when you believe you are ready to try something that allows for a little more control and realism, try FSUIPC.

Thanks, Bert. The problem I was running into was a typographical error on the initial install page of the RxP integration pgms found in the location you describe above. In fact, the four pgms present there allow the user to install/re-install the original Carenado gauges and either or both the Realty RxP gauges. The user should go by the title of each pgm which appears in bold print when you open each pgm, not the accompanying description of what the pgm does. On my system the pgm that permits the user to install the Realty 530 and the Carenado 430 as a stack in the C210T states it will install the "Realty 430" instead of the "Realty 530". That confused me. I finally resolved the issue by simply trying the pgms one at a time and going back and looking at the newly configured cockpit. Thanks very much, Bert. Your support and assistance has been invaluable - to say nothing of your patience! John

Hey fellas, I'm reporting back. If you navigate to the "SimObjects/Aircraft/Carenado Centurion T210" folder you will find a sub-folder entitled, "Realty XP Integration". Opening that file, you will find four files designed to both install and un-install the Realty gauges. Unfortunately there is not a file that installs the RxP 530 alone. I used the next best thing, the file that will install both the RxP 530 & 430. As a result, my VC cockpit, at the moment, shows a newly installed RxP 530 in place of the Carenado 530 and an overlay that represents the un-installed ( I did not purchase the RxP 430) RxP 430. I will work around that but I did want y'all to know that these files exist in the above location. Thanks again for your help! John

Thanks again, fellas! I'll go over to the respective forums and do my due diligence. In the meantime, let me tell y'all once again how much I appreciate your patience and your guidance. I will certainly report back, Bert. Your guidance is valuable to all of us here! Thank you!

Thank you all very much! I really appreciate the quick responses and guidance. The mouse-wheel click doesn't work for me but moving the cursor off to the left and right does work. Hey Barry, Thanks for the insight. I tried to install the RxP 530 into the Carenado Cessna 210T after reading your response above. Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful. Here's what I did: After calling up the Reality Config pgm and selecting the "Carenado Cessna 210T" line, I receive the "Failed to load [Window00] bitmap" error. I clicked through the error msg and then clicked on the "configure" button. I loaded the aircraft and found the original 530 still in the a/c cockpit panel so I opened the applicable panel.cgf file and discovered the Reality configuration pgm had placed an entry at the very bottom of the panel.cfg file under a new title of "[window 04]". In an attempt to insert the new RxP 530, I then moved that entry to various other locations within the panel.cfg file with no success. I have removed the panel.cfg file that the Reality Config pgm created and replaced it with the original panel.cfg file. I suspect there is a simple answer here and I'm sorry to be bothering y'all with my ignorance. Once someone can help me to understand this process, I should be able to place this gauge in most of my other aircraft. I really do appreciate your patience with me! Thanks! John

Hey fellas - I just purchased and installed the RxP 530 in my Lancair using RealAir's config pgm. All went well until I tried to click on the lower right small knob to select the cursor. No go. When I mouse-click on that knob all I can get it to do is turn. I've made sure I'm far enough back to see the tip of the knob so I believe my view point is not too close. I've tried to activate the cursor with the unit on the cockpit panel and also bringing up the pop-up window, neither works. I've gone into the RealAir Lancair config panel and changed the mouse-click method - left/right click or click-and-drag I know this gauge has been successfully integrated into this Lancair many times and so I hope I can get some help from someone more knowledgeable than I am. Maybe someone has run into this issue and resolved it? Thanks! BTW - I also am having an issue trying to use the Reality gauge configuration pgm. Specifically, when I click on some of the aircraft entries in the config pgm to attempt to install the RxP 530, I receive an error message saying, "The application failed to load the [Window00] bitmap." This doesn't happen with all of my installed aircraft. just some of them. Any suggestions and/or guidance? Again, thanks! John EDIT: Thought I better give you some addn info. Here's what I'm running: Windows7 64 bit 3 monitors, Nvidia surround (5760X1080) - I tried moving FSX to one monitor (1920X1080) but that didn't work either. TrackIR5 through OpusFSX

Orbx has "Bob". Take a look on their site.

Thanks, Danny! I will look into purchasing a joystick at some point in time. I also will check out the hovercontrol.com site. I appreciate your passing that info on! John

Thanks for your comments and the information, Danny. This will be my first venture into Rotary aircraft operation and I'm excited about it. I have used the default Bell 206 just to determine if I really wanted to try a helicopter and I did enjoy it however the cruising speed as too slow. I really appreciate your taking the time to answer! Regards, John

I am interested in purchasing a helicopter that offers both a relatively high cruising speed and great maneuverability. I am looking at three choices: NemethDesign MD 902, Milviz AW 109 and Cera's 412. I fly with a CH yoke and pedals. I value the views and opinions of my fellow simmers on AVSIM and so I would really appreciate any suggestions, opinions, and recommendations. Finally, since I use FSX and have installed Orbx's scenery packages and airports covering the PNW/BC/Alaska area, that is where I will use this aircraft the most. Thanks very much for your input!

I just do not have the stomach for this. Pure and simple.

One thing that did throw me a bit when I went to configure the Extended-Tundra (TIR5 & OpusFSX camera settings) was I simply could not find the master switch for the avionics. I was used to finding that switch in the overhead panel (under the windshield wiper control) and when I looked - no switch. I'll bet I looked for the better part of an hour all over the cockpit. I was determined not to admit I couldn't find that switch! Finally having to admit defeat and in desperation, I asked for guidance over on the FTX forum. Finn came to my rescue and told me that model does not have a avionics master switch! All units must be activated individually. :blush: :blush:

Hey Steve, I believe the new Twin Otter Extended will prove to be the ideal mid-sized GA aircraft for the folks who like to get to know their a/c well and operate it according to the manual. The Twin Otter has always possessed a large flight envelope making it capable of operating in a wide variety of environments and so this model will be very much at home in a bush environment or hauling passengers and freight to and from more civilized facilities. Those of us who enjoy the A2A and RealAir GA products have come to appreciate the detail, "feel", and overall quality of those offerings. I do believe this a/c will soon carve out its own nitch and develop a following of simmers who will put it to good use in a variety of environments.

Thanks, Griphos. That's the kind of information I am most interested in. Your experience is very valuable to me and tells me the new FDE appears to be pretty comprehensive indeed. I am wondering now whether or not the new FDE is sensitive enough to reflect flight characteristic changes brought about by fuel consumption? I suspect, if it monitors overall weight during the flight I might very well. If you have the time and are inclined, how about monitoring your turbine temp and pressure gauges during the cruise portion of a flight and let us know the changes that take place when you vary the prop RPM? Great information, Griphos! Thanks!

Well then, Wayne - that's new info! I suspect your comments added to those above and coupled with the news that the tundra-tired Twin Otter is now available has pushed me over the top! Thanks!

Hey Ryan! Thanks for jumping in here. I've flown the Kodiak, BN-2 and the original Twotter for some time now and have enjoyed them all. The new Extended Twotter has caught my eye as it appears to represent a step up in terms of authenticity of not only the systems but also the flight characteristics. At least that's the feeling I'm getting from those who have reported on their experiences with it to date. I'm very interested in settling down with a mid-sized a/c that has a robust carrying capacity and STOL capabilities. I enjoy getting to know an individual aircraft well and staying with it until my interests wander in a different direction. I really place a lot of emphasis on authenticity of both systems and flight characteristics and prefer to utilize the RW manuals and information on the aircraft when it can be realistically applied. Thank you for taking the time and effort to post on this thread, Ryan. I appreciate your contribution.

Thanks for the comments, Griphos. That's the perspective I'm looking for. I'm interested in the opinions of folks who have some time in the new Twotter and also have had at least a little experience in the older version. For instance, the older version is a rather docile aircraft under most conditions and loads which, I suspect the actual aircraft also is. I can easily trim it out on my system. Rates of climb and descent are very manageable, on my system at least. I wonder a bit about the response/torque/temperature model present in the older version, especially the pressure variance due to changing prop RPM. Have you noticed in the new modal if the powerplants react appropriately as you vary the Prop RPM? Does the new version reflect the different performance parameters brought about by varying payloads? Are the stall speeds, flap settings, etc. pretty much static regardless of the a/c's weight? Thanks very much for taking the time to join in here! I really appreciate it.

Hey fellas, Thanks for your feelings and opinions. I do have the BN-2 and love it. I have been over at the Aerosoft forums and I believe the general feeling over there is the new Extended is a definite improvement. I appreciate being able to garner that information. I have a great respect for the folks here and I really do value your feedback. I am an inveterate GA, low & slow, bush sim pilot who does enjoy some complexity. If the Extended, as Ray suggests, represents a step up in that direction not only in systems but also in flight characteristics then I suspect I would enjoy it very much. Howard, I know you to be a thoughtful, thorough critic and so I look forward to your thoughts as you get to know the new Extended. Thanks again!

I have and enjoy Aerosoft's Twin Otter X. I am interested in purchasing their Extended version and I would greatly appreciate the opinions of folks who now have both. I believe the new Extended version is a more complex model with additional features. Does anyone notice any changes in the FDE? How about sounds? More virtual cockpit functionality - switches, etc? In short, given your experience with the Twin Otter X, does the Twin Otter Extended "feel" any different?

Servers loaded, scans completed, will hit the streets tonight! Hats off to JV and the Orbx team for the way in which they have treated their customer base! I've never seen a developer so forthcoming with information on such a timely basis.

As of 5:35AM, EDT here in South Carolina: speed is back to normal! Wonderful and may it continue.

I am in South Carolina on a high speed internet connection (direct cable). In addition to the initial download from the web address I am experiencing significant (30 - 90 sec) delays when I click on individual posts, "new content", etc. It feels as though something is slowing the site down but I do not sufficient technical expertise to describe my experiences with the AVSIM site more accurately than that. Sorry.

Good morning all. Just wanted to pass on my most recent experiences with downloading AVSIM. As of this morning (7/9/13) AVSIM is taking approx 4 minutes to download a total of 248 forum elements. This represents a considerable increase in download time on my system. Previously, my AVSIM forum download times were consistently in the very few seconds. I am very aware of the difficulties AVSIM has been experiencing and I hope and pray the conditions I am presently experiencing with AVSIM are both temporary and not indicative of continuing and ongoing difficulties that can't be resolved. I have a robust system, use Windows 7, 54 bit and presently use Opera as my browser.

A while back I hopped into my American Champion Scout and took her from my home base in Camden, SC all the way out to KHQM. Each leg was no more than 200 miles and I essentially "barnstormed" my way across the country. I tried to keep a journal which I posted here. I filled it with tales of my "experiences" and the "folks I'd met" using lots of journalistic license of course. I ended up having a bunch of friends here sharing the trip with me and offering comments and suggestions for places to visit, crossing points, etc. It was great fun and something I've really thought about doing again only on a larger scale. Please consider keeping us informed of your progress and all the great folks you meet along the way! Good Luck !