factory15

Probably 10 million signatures. And even then, let's not kid ourselves nothing will happen. this is a business decision- not to state the obvious

I believe I could if talked through it by ATC and I could do an autoland. I can't imagine a non RW pilot doing a manually landing right the first time but what do I know

I have in default dir with UAC disabled. I also have not noticed any problems.

Was curious if you PMDG guys think this has any merit? I know you worked very closely with Boeing to get the NGX right and I'm sure you got their expressed permission...curious if you absolutely needed it to depict the aircraft? (assuming you could model it perfectly w/o their help)http://kotaku.com/5874076/ea-invokes-first-amendment-protection-for-video-games-in-trademark-dispute-with-helicopter-maker[kotaku.com]Electronic Arts is asking a federal judge to rule that it has a First Amendment right to depict real-life military helicopters in video games such as Battlefield 3 without the permission of the aircraft's maker.The three helicopters in question are the AH-1Z Viper, an attack helicopter (pictured above); the UH-1Y, a multipurpose/transport helicopter; and the V-22 Osprey, (jointly produced with Boeing) whose distinctive tilt-rotors allow for vertical and short takeoff and landing.Textron lawyers demanded that EA cease its depiction of three Bell aircraft in Battlefield 3. "The parties have been unable to resolve their dispute," EA's complaint says. "EA therefore has a reasonable and strong apprehension that it will soon face a trademark and/or trade dress action from Textron."Electronic Arts asserts that its depiction of the three aircraft "are protected by the First Amendment and the doctrine of nominative fair use." EA notes that Battlefield 3's packaging features a disclaimer stating that the appearance of real-world weapons and vehicles does not constitute any official endorsement by their maker. It adds that "the Bell-manufactured helicopters are not highlighted or given greater prominence than any of the other vehicles within the game."

use fs-recorder

Direct quote from ORBX:MS don't know what they have in the FSX engine source code, or they would not have licensed it to LM. It is by far the most capable and impressive 3D far-horizon engine ever coded - bar none. Nothing, even in 2012 comes close to the number of pixels and terrain the FSX engine can push at a locked 60Hz. Problem is, the code needs a little loving and MS won't fund that. So good thing we have a dev team at LM who are doing just that. Can't wait for that engine to be running close to the metal and off the CPU and onto the GPU. Yes, that's coming and it will rock.As for making our own engine? Been there, done that, talked to a bunch of suppliers. Again, nothing comes close to the FSX core code, it's that good. There is a reason why code from 26 years ago was retained. It would cost us about $30 million to start from scratch, maybe more. Better to just make content for an engine that is working and being developed forward.

Start - run - cmdGoto bat file dir, Run it and look at error msg.

I dont care about points but a detailed flight report would be nice. FsPassengers does this somewhat.

yeah i wouldnt bet my life on it being a "real" plane. no doubt this is NOT a commercial takeoff of any sort...my theory was that this is the plane they use to charter the production crew, equipment, cast, etc to Wilkes-Barre, PA to film the exterior shots...so to get a longer shot in the frame they told the pilot to take off lower?!? i have no ideaCGI didnt even enter my mind...especially from a tv show like the office but of course its possible. Usually you can spot it a mile away though.Also im not sure about the 3000 ft thing...if you look at the sat image...and where she is looking...this is probably 3/4 of the way down 26REDIT: I take that back...at best maybe halfway down the runway.. that's actually a good point...why would you CGI model a dirty plane like that?

Not to keep this going but I'm not sure this is taking off from the taxiway .I agree it appears like its the taxiway- yes the signs are yellow. So I took another look at the HD video and in the beginning the wheels are down beyond the 'brown' area. If you look a sat image of KONT that brown area separates the taxiway from 26R.Also, if you look at the shadow on the window frame its likely the shadow of the plane would be cast onto the taxiway as it lifted off.As far as the ballooning...yes that's the first thing that jumped out at me that it wasnt a normal takeoff. Are you saying a "real" plane can't physically take off like this?

Honestly if you're dying quickly you're better off staying in non-hardcore servers. You will lose the regen health and if you think you die a lot now you will probably double it easily.They are most likely getting headshots on you where you're hitting them much lower.

lol ok buddy gonna get myself checked out right away

ok i did some research and it looks like they filmed this at the Ontario, CA airport. The plane is taking off from 26R and she's looking out from the end of Terminal 2. I did a screengrab from netflix. You see on the Gmaps where the markings match.Not totally convinced on the CGI...I think they chartered a plane and told the pilot to take off low and slow. He probably turned right around to land. In the end maybe I am crazy. :(

To me CG is always so obvious- especially on tv shows. I watched it again in HD on netflix and it looks like a real plane that was chartered to take off like this to get a longer shot of it. I wish there was a better video I could link.At least I can tell her no i'm not crazy...that is NOT a 'real/normal' takeoff:)

maybe it is CGI...I cant find anything better than 480p on youtube of the scene. And the lack of markings on it made me think it was some sort of charter or BBJ.

seriously doubt it was CGI...saw it originally in 1080i and it looked very real.You could park a camera in any airport and see a 1000 planes take off for "free" to get a shot like that. Why pay ILM to generate it?

ok maybe i am nuts...seems like a really low angle takeoff

sorry guys not NGX related per se but if anyone would know this it's you guys...Just watched the episode of The Office where Michael Scott leaves......at one point there is a shot of him taking off from the airport....my first reaction was the plane had a weird low angle take off...do you agree?look at 2:40 in the video maybe they hired the plane to take off low like that to keep it in the frame longer (ie..it wasnt just a real random commercial plane taking off) but something is off right??? We just watched the episode and I was like whoa somethings off with that takeoff. She looked at me like I was nuts.again sorry but she thinks I need help so i need some verification that I'm not crazy :(

For me its the exact opposite. I have something like 150hrs on the game already.I'm also waiting patiently for the REX Essentials update

This should not be taking you 11 minutes. Once you select your theme and load it (the 11 minutes), deselect everything except clouds and sky. No reason to keep loading runway, sun, water, etc textures over and over again. Even on a marginal system it should go down to less than a couple of minutes.

i think AA would hire you no questions asked

that's interesting because my autopilot is usually disengaged- so I just set V/S to +1000 to get back to my former altitude and then I reset A/P. I don't have the undercarriage issue either but I have seen what you're talking about on FS recorder replays

I've posted about this problem before. What makes it annoying for me is that I like to practice finals so I would basically load up and go screaming towards to the ground immediately. Then on some saved flights it'll tend to glide a bit more- might be related to the speed you're at when you save.

It's been asked but I haven't seen a definitive answer.Probably trying to avoid the resulting forum rage that occurs from giving a time frame for something and then letting it slip- like what usually happens around here.

From the REX update I asked about this paragraph:"NEW vertical and horizontal visibility feature. We have spent months researching and testing how to handle the visibility with FSX. We have now integrated this feature within our new weather engine. You can still set a default visibility, but you can now enjoy more realistic vertical and horizontal visibility based upon metar reports."Nothing kills the realism more to me than having rainy overcast conditions on the ground just to have the 'fog' disappear around 2000 ft up. Indeed it was mentioned that making it realistic is an fsx limitation to some extent. But one of the developers said that there have been great strides in improving this.This is a screen shot of REX with the updated engine: