KenG

Members
  • Content Count

    609
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

160 Excellent

About KenG

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. KenG

    How's the CRJ with the new update?

    Seems to me they are adding a constant for leading turns, which is never going to work. It also looks like the formula they are using is a no wind formula. (If they are talking about the standard FAA turn formula.) There is a book on Amazon about GPS math that includes computing turns in a wind environment and with changing airspeeds. Math was above my pay grade as a simple Instructor Pilot. Too many Greek letters!
  2. KenG

    Most realistic turboprop for P3D?

    I pulled the Maintenance / Install manual for the weather radar. The system and a 12" array the weight is 16.2 pounds. I also randomly selected one of our BE20s and pulled its weight and balance. Since all of our King Airs are have weather radars installed I reversed the calculations to determine the change in CG from the basic weight. With a WX Radar installed the CG was 186.674" and removing the radar (16.2 lbs from FS30) changed the CG aft to 186.979". We are talking a change of 0.305"! Put another way the %MAC with the WX Radar is 21.93% and without one is 22.36% or a 0.43% change in %MAC. Since the limits are 13.9% (19.6% at 12.5k) to 35.7% the change is well within the limits of the aircraft. Thus I know exactly how it is going to affect a real airplane. Since Flight 1 defined their aircraft model based on the FS default datum as opposed to the actual aircraft datum (with is located 14.2" in front of the nose) none of their weight and balance information properly follows the Flight Stations of the real aircraft. I opened the FDE in Airwrench which provides me a very good view of the weight and balance in %MAC. The basic weight %MAC is 25% while the loaded is 24.81% and the fueled is 24.87%. Looks to me like they basically balanced the aircraft around the 25% MAC point. Thus their FDE is already more tail heavy than the real airplane and a small 0.43% change in MAC should not be a problem for this class of airplane. That is if their original FDE is correct, which was one of the reasons their lead developer gave.
  3. KenG

    Most realistic turboprop for P3D?

    It actually isn't. It is a simple change in basic weight and moment. That is it. Performance charts and autopilot are exactly the same. This misdirection and misinformation may pass for some, but as someone with decades of experience in King Airs and my own share of FDE work I know better. A well designed FDE can easily accept a change within the normal weight and balance limits of the documented aircraft they modeled the project off. Great product, but with a lead developer who thinks it is acceptable to lie to his customers as to one of the reasons they can't add a feature.
  4. KenG

    Most realistic turboprop for P3D?

    The 12" Xband dish does not weight enough to make a difference. Anyone who has ever actually flown the airplane realizes what a ridiculous statement that was.
  5. KenG

    Most realistic turboprop for P3D?

    Actually, I can no longer recommend the F1 B200. When the developer used as one of the reasons he could not add a Weather Radar was the significant change in the FDE they lost all my respect. -> Yoda on F1 Forums: "And because radar in the real airplane adds weight, doing it realistically would force us to go back into the flight model and redevelop that -- itself a lengthy, expensive process." The radome does not change regardless if the Wx Radar is installed or not. I've heard some zingers in my day, but that is the best.
  6. KenG

    Most realistic turboprop for P3D?

    Unless I am missing something, the Flight1 PC-12 is a very old FS2004 version overhauled to work in FSX and never really built for P3D. The Carenado PC-12 is typical Carenado product; great looking textures and modeling. OK FDE and poor avionics / AFCS implementation. There was a patched FDE in the Carenado forums. I never really liked the FDE for the PC-12 as it always had an aggressive nose down attitude on landing. I know some felt it was realistic, but speaking with PC-12 pilot's when upgrading them to the King Air it was not really that different than a King Air landing with full flaps. I never got around to trying their version 2. I preferred the TBM-850 and the PA46T from Carenado. Both have mods in the Carenado forums for integrating the F1 GTN750 into the G1000 system. Nowhere near the systems integration of the Dash 8, but they are fun and simple flyers.
  7. There will always be the nay sayers. When W7 came out there were many who swore by the vastly superior Windows XP. Prior to that, it was Windows 95. I could remember running W3.11 and people could not understand why anyone would abandon MSDOS.
  8. KenG

    P3Dv4 Graphics Overlay Problem

    Just checked all my fonts in P3D font folder. They all display correctly.
  9. KenG

    P3Dv4 Graphics Overlay Problem

    Thank you, I already tried turning on and off mipmap vc. It was working previously so doubt it was a font unless a font was corrupted.
  10. Anyone run into this problem. I am having graphic layer issues where the graphics are not showing text in gauges. Below is the Flysimware LJ35 and the chronometer, Altimeters, and Altitude Preselector are all missing the text (red circles.) I have the same problem on the AS CRJ700/900 where the chronometer and Transponder are missing text (chronometer shown below.) I am running W10 Pro 1703 nVidia Drivers 385.41 on GTX1070FE (I've tried rolling back drivers.) I have also cleared the shaders, reloaded Reshade, reset everything in PTA and tried nearly every graphics setting in P3DV4. I have also uninstalled and reinstalled the client. This seems to have started 2 weeks ago. Any hints would be appreciated. Thanks.
  11. I also own the Premier 1 and per usual for Carenado it is a slight improvement over their last PL21, but nowhere close to accurate. (I've got real world PL21 experience both using and teaching the system.) Carenado is and will always be good looking but simple aircraft. There are Carenado specific rules to using their systems effectively. For someone used to PMDG level accuracy Carenado will continue to be a letdown. That being said, the accuracy of the FDE is fairly nice and the airplane does have enjoyability while simulating. I have used Carenado and Alabeo aircraft online and just work with the controllers when I reach a point the aircraft is unable to perform to standard. I tell them I am /G minus. Most are more than willing to give me an initial heading or radar vector.
  12. Every now and then Garmin will release a software update to a newer database. If you have a 5xx, 6xx or 7xx device in a real aircraft you can copy the files from the SD NAVDATA card and install it onto the PC with the trainer. Realize that the GTN Trainer is an avionics CBT for pilots who use this product in an actual aircraft. It is a push button level trainer and accurate Navdatabase is secondary to procedural training.
  13. Ron, Thanks for the update. Not trying to stomp on the good work you are doing.
  14. I'd highly suggest searching for Wilco Falcon on this forum (a thread locked by AVSIM) where multiple people who have purchased this product complained about the many, many issues with this aircraft. I purchased a copy and it's in the garbage bin because of the problems. I put it under the label of I should have known better than to purchase a Wilco product.
  15. Yes, but the truth is the real avionics are held to very high aviation standards of safety and reliability. Thus an aircraft with a modern avionics is rarely downgraded to a lesser avionics package. What you do generally see is older aircraft that are not RNAV1 / RNP1 upgrading their pits. Older King Airs, Citations, and even Lears are making the jump to either a Garmin Based or one of many avionics packages like the Universal Avionics 890. You may see an old EFIS 85 get a GTN750 added on, but I am unaware of any real aircraft that ripped out a Pro Line 21 or G1000 for a GTN750.