qqwertz

So, you recognize that this is a different version? Do you know which one?

Manual and checklist are in the resources folder, but no performance data (max payload etc). Anyone knows where to get that?

Great that you enjoy it, good for you. However, this is a matter of taste; I have it but only flew it twice..

I think many competing developers underestimate the quality of Simaddons products, maybe because Ralph started slowly with MSFS. I got his CYWG pretty early when it was available, and I was not impressed. It used photogrammetric data from the default Winnipeg scenery for some of the less important buildings. However, Ralph is very diligent in improving his products, and by now his CYWG is a very fine scenery. Plus, he adds extra features like de-icing, moving people, or - just recently - hangar doors that can be opened from anywhere on the airport. Judging from screen shots, I would guess that FSimStudios CYWG has better textures and pays more attention to finer details at the airport. However, given that I only occasionally fly to CYWG, I will likely stick with Simaddons as well.

Mitsubishi MU-2. I am really looking forward to this one, the FlySimware model for P3D was great, and the airplane has a very unique flight model (no ailerons, large flaps, fast speed but slow landing speed).

Interesting. Did you report that to the developer? That shouldn't happen.

On the dashboard, I think bottom right somewhere there is an event button. They are announced about a week before start and you can sign up for an alert in your in-game inbox.

I am glad I got the BMW when it was on sale 1-2 months ago.

Hmm. Thanks for the point, but I aspire to be better 🙂 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rrXR6n0RTY

This one's for Martin 🙂

Me too. The most amazing place I've ever seen.

Hi Dave, Asobo provides a development kit for MSFS that can be installed free of charge. I have used ADE in FSX/P3D, but the new kit works reasonably well and the results are way better than they used to be for P3D. Most people post their sceneries on Flightsim.to, that's why you don't see a lot on Avsim. https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/ is a great resource for all matters regarding scenery development for MSFS. Peter

Ah! I get it: ChatGPT ... Just trying to put in some humor. The thread seems to get a bit tense 🙂

Loved the movie, but the idea behind it is much older: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley That is correct. There is impressive evidence for the Big Bang theory based on observations, that's why so many people believe in it. But since it cannot be verified by independent experiments on other universes, it will never be scientifically provable.

All fine and dandy, as long as you define "proving a theory" properly. I am only objecting to labelling the creation theory as "scientific". Science has very clear definitions on how to prove a hypothesis: through repeatable experiments that have the potential to prove it wrong. Apart from cosmology, virtually all established hypotheses in science pass this test. I don't see that happening with intelligent design. Don't get me wrong: a hypothesis can be correct, useful, life-changing without bearing the label "scientific". And everyone is invited to challenge established scientific hypotheses, as long as they adhere to the same scientific standards. You can even challenge it without meeting those standards, but you won't convince scientists then. Peter

Sorry, but I beg to differ. How would you falsify intelligent design as a hypothesis?

Nice post; we're getting into the finer points of epistemology 🙂 I was keeping my post short, but there is more to successful theories. Take Newton's second law, for instance. It has been proven wrong a lot of times since it has to be severely modified for very fast particles, and does not work at all for atoms and molecules. And yet, it is used everyday by engineers in the construction of houses, bridges, airplanes etc. The trick is that successful theories have a range of validity, and Newton's second law works perfectly well for almost everything between the size of a virus and that of a star system. Pretty impressive, given that it is about 350 years old. As for General Relativity and the Standard Model, I would say the verdict is still out. The latter is so successful that high energy physicists are desperate to find new phenomena, otherwise they are running out of jobs 😉 . Yes, there are some experimental results that suggest new physics beyond the SM, but they are not conclusive yet. GR's anomalies are mostly on cosmological scales (see below) or on galactic scales. The latter can be explained by adding dark matter that we cannot observe. Nobody knows what that is and whether it exists at all, but the fundamental laws of gravity won't have to be changed then. A caveat: there is one recent publication by a Korean astronomer that casts doubt on dark matter. That is really interesting work, but needs to be confirmed by other groups before one can really say that we have a problem with dark matter. As for the multiverse, you won't find me defending that. I personally find the idea absurd that one would need a (literally) infinite set of universes just to explain the one in which we are living. IMHO, that doesn't pass Occam's razor. The idea originates not from cosmology, but from quantum physics, where one needs to distinguish between a system to be measured, and the measurement apparatus. Now, the measurement apparatus consists of atoms, so it must be a quantum system itself. Hence, you need a bigger apparatus to measure both together. One can continue that argument until the entire universe is included, and then you run out of bigger apparatuses. Basically, the multiverse is needed as the biggest measurement apparatus at the end of that chain. The multiverse is popular among cosmologists, but, ironically, not so much among quantum physicists. The reason is that, for practical purposes, one can stop that chain of devices very quickly. A measurement is not necessarily deliberate. Every time a molecule collides with your system or your measurement apparatus, it can be considered as a kind of measurement. Since we cannot track these collisions, we very quickly lose information about weird quantum effects such as entanglement between the experiment and the rest of the universe. Problems only arise on cosmological scales, and then we are strictly speaking not about science anymore: science deals with repeatable experiments, and we only have one universe. As impressive and significant Big Bang cosmology is (and I believe (!) in most of their explanations), it is strictly speaking natural philosophy, not science. Peter

Thanks for asking about Lee, Dugald. It was fine in our area. Lots of short power outages and two longer ones, but no damage. Pauli was very critical of statements that do not make scientific sense. For a hypothesis to be of scientific value, it should be falsifiable. That means, it must make a prediction that one can test experimentally, and if the experiment disagrees, the hypothesis is not valid. Of course, you can make hypotheses that are not falsifiable, there is nothing wrong with that. It will just not be a scientific hypothesis. The falsifiability criterion was proposed by Sir Karl Popper. Pauli's quote predates it, but is often considered as a concise way of saying that something is not a scientific hypothesis.

That is not only not right; it is not even wrong. (Wolfgang Pauli)

I remember how they asked me to pay the full price again for P3D, 2 months after having bought the Conc for FSX. Not gonna bite again.

I am not sure what exactly you want to do. Use FSTraffic instead of FSHud + FSLTL? Then you just should not start the two programs and use FSTraffic instead. Or do you mean using FSTraffic models with FSLTL injector? When I tried that, I got bad results: the FSTraffic models have names that look a bit like random numbers, and they were displayed by FSLTL as the flight number. Also, on my system the difference in performance between FSLTL and FSTRaffic models is not that big, it is more important to limit the maximum number of planes.

Priceless I'm on your side, I will wait for FSimStudios as well. I like to support developers that care about Canada.

In addition, Simbrief creates a proper dispatch briefing with a ton of information about weather, speed, timing, fuel, weights, step climb, ....

In case anyone is interested: Simbitworld has announced a payware extension for A Pilot's Life 2, which simulates passengers as well. They plan to release it next week on Simmarket.

Good thing you are perfect all around ... Yes, he is not the great communicator, but with version 1.6 he also demonstrated that he can create a very good addon. That's good enough for me. I am grateful for the work that he put into 1.6, despite all the headwind he received.