JAP

Thanks! PM sent :)

One thing I'm trying to figure out is: which of these add-ons change the default FSX textures?

Hello!I seem to have hit analysis paralysis when trying to figure out the correct order of installing my "eye candy" :) I hope you could lend me a helping hand!I now have a totally new system and would like to get the following purchases installed: GEX Europe UTX Europe AS2012 REX v2 FTX US terrains Is this the correct order of install and do I have to restore default textures from AS2012 before installing REX v2?I purchased AS2012, REX and FTX products during the holidays and have never used them before. Many of these products seem to overlap (especially AS2012 and REX). Do I need to mix and match (let's say REX clouds and AS2012 water) to get least possible drop in performance?I currently use ASE so I would like to use the AS2012 weather engine.Here's my new build if that helps: 2600K, 8GB mem, GTX 580 1.5G, SSD (OS), 2TB drive for FSX.Thanks for the help!Jarkko

Here's my list: EFHK from A-Flight (http://www.a-flight.com/products.html) FSLabs A320 PFPX PMDG 777 QW BAe 146 Personal wishlist: enough free time to program my own flight planner

You do make a great point!I just realized that I might be one of these people. This might be because, in real life, i've only been onboard a Boeing plane four times. Twice on 747 and twice on 777 (100+ flights onboard DCs and Airbuses).When I get my new system up and running, I have to buy the 737 and widen my horizon :)

I didn't know they had problems selling MD-11.Kind of sad, as MD-11 is the only PMDG plane that I currently fly (it's become my favorite plane).Mainly because AOA's tutorials, (my computer isn't able to run Js4100) and PMDG's eye for detail. Secondly because I can remember my father working on DC9, DC10s when I was a young :)Great plane! (If PMDG is reading, please fix the authorization bugs)Sorry for going of topic!

First of all: I can't thank you enough for taking the time to help me!NOTAMs is something that I haven't (yet) completely understood so I will go through the manual when I get home. I will also check if EFB or FSC would support common waypoints.It seems that the EDDV Warburg SID is a bit problematic. The first common waypoint (TOLTA) is ~47nm from the airport (if my calculations are correct).

Thanks ronzie! I remember reading this, but the parts about FSBuild somehow confused me as I have never used FSBuild. I think my workflow should be changed somehow to support the exporting of SID waypoints.Lets see if someone could point out what I could do differently ( I'm using the following add-ons: RC, AirHauler, ASE, AivlaSoft EFB and FSCommander.).Here are some of the steps I go through:1. Select a flight to complete from AirHauler. (This gives my departure and arrival airports)2. Plan the route using EFB and RouteFinder. (I now have the route without SIDs and STARs)3. I enter the planned route to ASE and FSCommander (After this, I'm able to calculate the amount of fuel required)4. I'll export the route (without SID's and STARs) from either EFB or FSC to RC.5. I launch RC to get the ATIS which gives my an indication of current runway in use.6. After receiving taxi instructions, I plan which SID I will be flying. (Many times, active runway has been, lets say 09R, but ground has requested my to taxi to 09C).So if I understand this correctly, I should have exported my SID's nav points in step 4, but I won't know what SIDs are available to my, until step 6.Should I have used ASE's METAR to decide which runway I want to use and the request it from RC if other runway is given? By doing so, I could export SID nav points before launching RC.

Thank you for the tips! I have to try them out.

Hello,Is there a way to increase the distance for flying a SID? Here's what happened to me a couple of weeks ago:I took from EDDV and flew a SID that ended at WRB (Warburg) VOR. Just before the last turn that would take me to WRB, ATC told me that I was of my course and fly heading XXX.My autopilot was flying the SID and was spot on. I think that WRB VOR is so far away from EDDV that Radar Contact didn't allow me to fly the SID as filed.Is my assumption correct and is there a easy fix for flying SIDs that end far away from the airport?EDIT:I think I found the plates from here: http://www.google.fi/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=eddv%20departures&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CF4QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.team-niederbayern.de%2FCharts%2FEDDV%2FEDDV.pdf&ei=TCrfTvrUMer74QSxs5zYBg&usg=AFQjCNHRzq-f6sckUiSVd8aLmzbqV15xZg&sig2=rMydAS7AIOSSDr55nEn0awI must have flown from 9R and SID WRB6G

Aivlasoft "plans" can be saved for radar contact. I usually export plans to RC4 and ASE from EFB (both use FS flight plan format).Please note that Aivlasoft's EFB doesn't generate routes. You can use (for example) routefinder from EFB (without the need for copy/pasting plans between your browser and EFB).

I'm very new to virtual aviation and have never read the MD11 manual but here goes nothing ;)I think this means that the plane should start accelerating to the next allowed speed after reaching certain hight above ground.If the airport was say 250ft above sea level, your acceleration altitude would be 3250ft.I think that the plane would maintain speed of V2 ( + 10?) Before reaching 3250ft. Then it would start to accelerating to the next allowed speed which might be 250 knots for example.

KC-10 seems to have a mind of it's own. I've seen it doing somersaults in the sea, landing on top of 747, doing 360s on the taxi way and now departing using "the whole width of the runway" :)

As far as I can see, X-Plane should work in same way as FSX. Currently I'm using TrafficX with FSX. I also follow the AI traffic movement with FSCommander.If I'm correct, TrafficX flight plans seem to be direct routes from A to B (only using airways by accident). AI traffic appears and disappears when they reach a certain radius from your aircraft. This seems to be very similar to XP10.With FSX and TrafficX, there might be more than 20 planes around you but they very light models of airplanes. Also the take-offs and landings are far from perfect and mostly defy the rules of physics.As a software developer (not a games developer), what kind of sounds odd to me is that every AI plane gets it's own "thread/core". With zero knowledge of XP10, I would have thought that it would be easier/less error prone to give one core for AI traffic, one for flight model, scenery handling and so on. Good concurrent programming skills required :)Haven't flown XP9 for a while, but I have to say that XP10 looks very promising. Keep up the good work and hope that the integration phase goes smoothly!

+1