qqwertz

https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-artists-appropriation-theft I think flightsim.to is just following US copyright law in their decision. That may be a subject to debate, but it is what it is. Peter

Hi Dragonflight, that is a sad thing to hear that you are not involved anymore. You did a great job on the P3D version, and yes, I recognized the manual from the P3D version. It is a work of love. Peter

This is just a first impression. I haven't had the time for a full flight yet and didn't test the gyro, but at least I now have an idea about the model. What I liked: - Textures and modelling are better than in P3D. Exterior they are really good. Interior they are not the best I have seen in MSFS, but the team has made a very good effort, given how sparse the information about this airplane is. Keep in mind, the last Clipper was scrapped in 1951, I am commending the team to revive that airplane in the first place. - To my great joy, there is now an interior cabin for passengers. That was not included in the P3D version. - I was able to start the plane from cold and dark, feeding from my recollection of the P3D airplane (which I last flew about 2 years ago). What could be improved: - There is no in-game check list. Given that a lot of the engine management happens at the flight engineer's desk, that could make it difficult for most people to start from cold and dark. I have created in-game checklists for other planes in the past (PMDG DC6, Fenix A320), but I couldn't find any hints (Lvars/instrument names) in the configuration files that would enable me to do that for the Clipper. - This airplane is quite special. I strongly recommend tutorial videos, otherwise many people may get lost in it. Just think about the frustration many users will have until they figure out that the mooring buoys are operated using the mooring lights at the back of the engineering/navigation deck. - Compared to the P3D version, quite a few switches are not implemented, although they are mentioned in the recommended operating procedures. Plane heat and radio power are examples. At least they should be declared INOP in the procedures, but I really think they should be implemented. - Camera targets are a bit random. For instance, views of the interior passenger cabin are available under "external 1,2,3,...". Some other views put me into empty space in the nose of the airplane. - The flight model seems a bit random. One time, I was almost unable to get the plane out of the water. Another time, the plane went into steep climb right after losing contact with water. My guess would be that the effect of flaps is exaggertated. All in all, a great start with room for improvement. I am looking forward to the updates. Peter

Just installing. Will report back. I loved the plane in P3D, so unique.

Oh, that's what you mean. I only remember them (very fondly) as Feelthere E-Jets, and you are right, they were excellent. It was my first payware jet and I learned FMC programming on those models 🙂

Thanks! You are right, the drag during approach is much worse than in the previous version

Working Title. They created a GNS 530 GPS system that is now part of the official MSFS release. It can be installed for free from the in-game market place.

Thanks, that helped a lot 🙂

It means I have to authorize all market place updates manually, and I did for WT. I never had WT in my community folder and just deleted all PMS stuff - I never liked it anyway. However, the WT unit still doesn't show up anywhere, neither in the menu nor in the VC 😞 Not too happy right now

Maybe someone can enlighten me as to how to install GPS systems. PMS and WT updated, only PMS GTN shows up, and only as an in-game menu panel, not integrated in the VC. Anyone has anm idea why I do not see the WT GNS 530? And are the GPS systems integrated into the VC, or are they really just an external window, so-to-speak?

I think I better say nothing about that 😕

Thanks for posting that. I should watch videos before commenting on it 😜 What I wrote above refers to an entirely different experiment, which has been performed and is pretty cool. However, that guy with his laser beams is pretty naïve. The energy density of even the strongest laser beams is far (!!) too small to have any sizeable effect on time.

I am pretty much allergic to movies about time travel, they always toy with the nonsensical idea that you could change your own past. Having said that, there are two ways how time travel may be logically possible: (i) if everything we do is pre-determined and time travel is supposed to happen, as part of a grander scheme; (ii) if everything repeats itself, like in the groundhog day movie. I personally don't believe in either of the two possibilities. The article and the research that you posted are actually reasonable, but one has to be careful in understanding what he is trying to do. He is building a toy model of a black hole. That idea is around for about 20 years and uses the fact that light travels through spacetime in a similar way as it travels through optical materials (like prisms, lenses, mirrors etc). The equations are the same, but the physics is very different. I remember vividly how a journalist in a notable magazine was extremely concerned back then. He believed scientists wanted to create a black hole in the lab, which, in his view, could swallow the Earth. Nothing like this will happen, they are just stirring gases or fluids, it is completely harmless. In fact, it has already been done ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_black_hole ). It is conceivable that this guy can create a toy-like time travel in his optical model. However, that would just mean that a wave travels backwards in a gas or a fluid, at a speed that is much slower than the speed of light in vacuum. To do the same in real space and time would require exotic forms of energy (e.g., energy extracted from a vacuum). Most experts believe that it is not possible to do that. So, sorry, no resurrecting will be possible. Peter

I lived in Calgary for 5 years. Grass was only green from early June until mid-July. Then it turned brown until the end of September, then it turned white until May 🙂

I have to turn the wheel before I start MSFS for it to be recognized by Windows. After that, it works fine.

I've read about it somewhere: yes, it takes 7 minutes or so just to open the door, but I think they have a faster option available in the model.

I often fly VFR with visual navigation and no GPS. Navigraph now has an in-game panel that you can use to display VFR charts and air spaces. However, I also used Navigraph charts displayed in the PMS50. It works reasonably well, but the size of the screen is much smaller than for the Navigraph in-game panel.

So, Noel, you're not using charts and still keep a close to 99 rating in Pilot's Life? How do you do that? 😉 But more seriously: I would invest in a 1-month subscription for Navigraph Ultra and see what you miss. I have used Aivlasoft in the past and liked it, but Navigraph Ultra is on the next level. Extremely convenient, very quick access to every data you may need in your flight worldwide. When I fly with a VR headset, I would consider Navigraph Ultra as almost indispensable. As for you, Noel, maybe charts will give you the edge to get above 99 🙂

If I recall correctly it will be payware, but the earnings go to support a good cause.

I guess there are many reasons why people develop freeware addons. I personally just enjoy the creative process and mostly do projects for myself. However, I am very happy to share my work for the enjoyment of others. Does the opinion of end users matter to me? It depends. I am very happy if a nice person likes my work and offers constructive criticism or a suggestion. That can be very motivating and even inspired me to start some projects. However, I couldn't care less about the opinion of a spoiled brat who thinks it is my duty to make everything as perfect as they expect it to be.

You can actually fly any plane you like, but you can only obtain licenses for the planes Noel posted above. If you like to fly the BAe 146 instead, just generate a flight for, say, an A320, and fly it with a BAe 146.

I tried it a few months ago. Looks nice, but has very basic functionality. I would recommend alternatives like Neofly or OnAir.

Here is a free flight generator from Simbitworld (A pilot's life): https://secure.simmarket.com/simbitworld-a-random-flight-generator-free.phtml

I was more wondering about your fs.to activity. I am also a scenery/livery/checklist/.. freeware developer and feel quite left behind by them. For years they hinted at benefits for developers. Now that they ask for money to download under reasonable circumstances, they don't even let their freeware developers download 10 seconds earlier, or without ads. We are just the same to them as normal users. That's their decision. Mine is to become a normal user of their platform, instead of distributing my creations there.

Are you a developer?