Sekstifire

There could be, if you fly online and the controller is supporting Hoppies ACARS. In that case, ACARS can be used for its data link feature and can be used for stuff like clearance and position reports,

I dont know about the specific procedure you are talking about, but no, you should not delete waypoints from the procedures stored in the FMC, unless the data in the FMC is incorrect of course. While its true that Navigraphs AIRAC data is inaccurate and contains many flaws, I have never seen it contain a waypoint that was not supposed to be there. I would very highly doubt that your procedure contains a waypoint that doesnt exist in real life. Just double check with the chart, it should be obvious what youre supposed to do. As for a waypoint named D1, it almost certainly stands for 1nm DME, probably from the runway threshold (or possibly from a VOR located at the field)

I get better framerates in windowed mode as well.

This is in plain English :P As others have suggested, I would very highly recommend flying the tutorials. They will teach you most of the stuff you need (although they might give you bad habits like always autolanding, but thats another topic alltogether)

I thought at least some of the flight attendands have received some kind of training for this specific scenario. If so, they would fare far better than a random person

They would use flight attendants. They would never use random passengers

They would never EVER allow a passenger that doesnt hold at least a PPL to land an airplane, no matter if he has 10 000 hours in the NGX.

I'd say the Maddog is more advanced than the NGX. It has many things modelled that the NGX doesnt have, like WX radar (I know, it doesnt show precipitation, it just shows where the clouds are), working circuit breakers, digital flight data recorder etc. Its also very fully featured, having had things like shared cockpit for years already. It does of course look far worse than the NGX.

http://www.virtualnorwegian.net/ got real life routes, checklists and other procedures plus a ton of extra goodies.

Wow, what a long answer, I wish I was half as good of a poster as you are! I dont want to argue, so I'm just going to say that online ATC has it's own set of problems, particularly the issue where you have to monitor unicom when there's no online ATC for the airspace you fly in. I can see how that would turn people off. As for up to date charts for LIRF, you can get them straight from Eurocontrols website, for free. They only require you to sign up. Their website is at http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/publicuser/public/pu/login.do From there you click 'Enter Applications', click OK on the disclaimer, click PAMS Light [AIP] in the nav menu, select authority code 'Italy', AIP type 'Charts', Part 'AD' then click the search button. The website should now list all the current charts it has for Italian airdromes. You can find charts for most european airports from the same website.

Usually the inaccuracies are quite small, like a missing or incorrect altitude restriction. These things can be hard to notice unless the pilot studies the charts along with the programmed flight plan route. Most people probably doesnt even care if the data isnt 100% accurate. I understand that, people are after different things when it comes to their simming. Some people just want the VC to look like the cockpit of their favorite plane, even if the sim plane flies nothing like the real plane. Other people are more into systems realism and might not care too much if the graphics arent 100% accurate. Another group is into procedure realism etc. Different people want different levels of realism. Personally I like systems and procedure realism. That said, I love great graphics as well, but not at the expense of reduced realism in other areas. But now I'm digressing I do get response, yes, as I fly exclusively online. Online ATC are trained for local real life procedures. I really like the realism it gives in regards to aviation rules, regulations and procedures. Online ATC is actually capable of providing separation between two aircraft, something I unfortunately cannot say about the default ATC :( (I know, such a basic thing. The default isnt even capable of providing the primary function of real life ATC). I havent tried RC so I dont know how it fares in regards to real life procedures, locally as well as globally

Tinmouse Delco Carousel IV-A INS RealWX

Pretty much every European chart published are available for free from Eurocontrol and for those countries that arent supported by Eurocontrol you can find those charts really, really easily as well, usually (I'd say 98% of the time) found on the first page of a google search. Its incredibly straight forward and easy to get charts for the European airspace. That said, I'm not a huge fan of using EFBs either, as they only show the data that navigraph has in their procedures. This data is frequently incorrect, infact, I would say that it is incorrect more often than not. Usually some altitude restriction or speed restriction is wrong. Thats why I always 100% of the time use real life charts, as they are accurate, besides, they often contains lots of information that an EFB doesnt contain, for example that the pilot should contact a specific frequency right after takeoff, or that a specific procedure is only available at a certain time of day. There are of course countless other examples of info provided in the charts that will be lost when solely using an EFB. TL;DR: OP is correct, using an EFB as the sole source of the procedures / as an alternative to using charts will reduce the realism. Singling out Aivlasoft EFB as a waste of money seems to be a bit too much tho, as they are providing refunds for whoever did not enjoy their product

Just go straight to whatever plane you want to fly. Its really straight forward and easy, just read the manual. I dont recommend getting a "lite" plane to ease the way into the more complete airliner simulations at all. I recommend getting great simulations that also has great tutorials.

You need to convert the flight planes in WoAI to FSX format to be able to use it properly (or simply only use the FS9 format AI flightplans). When you mix FS9 and FS10 AI flightplans there will be problems

Let me recommend naming the thread something relevant to the topic instead of calling the thread "Something interesting". "Something interesting" is a very selfish title in many ways. Personally I dont even bother reading topics with selfish titles. I'm sure a lot of other very experienced internet users feels the same way

Personally I never use DH unless I'm autolanding (which I havent done in over two years)

Even if you use the old coordinates the IRS should still align, it would just think that your position is at a different place than what it is

I agree about your point, but using caps and a different font for getting your point across is very bad etiquette.

I'm gonna be selfish and say Scandinavia

No, you should be able to move the plane, then align the IRSes afterwards without any issues. Starting the alignment, then moving wont work of course.

RealAir scout package! High wing, great visibility, simple cockpit, great FDE. Its slow, but at least you can do aerobatics while going slow!

I'm looking for freeware GA AI that I can use for online traffic. As VATSIMs VatVenture is currently running I'm looking for a package that has a bunch of GA AI (or controllable, it doesnt really matter as long as the 3d model is quite light in regards to framerate) that I can use for the other aircraft in the pattern. The pattern has been really really busy at KOSH the last few days, and it would be nice if the other planes looked like different types and not all just default C172s. Does anybody know about such a package?

How good is it compared to his freeware trainer (I believe it was a Goshawk if I remember correctly)

I'd say that at all. There are huge holes in the sim, and developers keeps saying "we didnt do this because it was impossible with the platfom". Things like wx radar comes to mind. There are of course countless of other issues, the whole wx system is broken at best, the AI system is not very good, the ATC system is a joke, performance is abmyssal, its not very well suited for the future with its 32bit executable etc. We definitely deserve better, but OK, its far better than what MS tried to give us with Flight