tttocs

And a double amen. Scott

Different discussion. Scott

Fair's fair. Please read what others are saying. There's no "wailing and gnashing of teeth", only people pointing out that NEW USERS who are coming to FSX for the first time through the new Steam Edition will not have the tools necessary to get into the developers side of the hobby. NEW USERS. Scott

No problem - glad we could help. Sometimes it takes a few tries before we're all communicating on the same playing field. Essentially, yes. You can set up different profiles for each configuration you like. These profiles will automatically detect the plane you're flying and set the config as appropriate. Is there a learning curve to FSUIPC? Sure, but once you get past it its incredibly flexible and basically automatic once configured. It also works around the Saitek drivers which can be problematic. Most of us have long since ditched the Saitek program which controls those modes. Best of luck and enjoy the Duke. It's one of the very best out there. Scott

You're most welcome. Sorry to duplicate your and others' responses - I think we were all typing at the same time. Scott

Install the plane. Go into the config program before you ever start the plane - the config program is a separate program so there's no need to start the plane to do this. Disable 3D lights. You will never see the problem. You need to run the config program first to get everything set up anyway. Not really sure what your concern is here. Doesn't matter if A2A does this differently when the net result is exactly the same. Scott

I've had little time to fly of late, so haven't been able to participate. Squeezed in a flight last night from PAYA to PAJN. ASN historic wx from July 1, 2014. REX 4 clouds. Orbx SAK, PAJN. Grand Plateau Glacier Enroute over miles of mountains Glacier Bay out the window RNAV (GPS) V into Juneau Shutting down - PAJN Scott

Spectacular shots, Jim! Scott

I'm sure Rob understands this completely and it sounds as if Rob and others have discussed this with Dovetail (though doubtless not the CEO). But Rob obviously wants the community to hear and understand his perspective, and for that I'm most grateful. I've found this discussion useful and informative, and really don't understand your desire to stifle it. I certainly understand if you're not interested in the discussion and don't care to participate, but the solution for that is pretty obvious. That's not meant to be offensive, it's just that I really don't get why you want to stop what's been for the most part a reasoned and valuable discussion. Scott

In fairness, I think what may be "news" to some is that there are ill affects even if you are otherwise physically active and regularly exercise outside of the work environment. The key, as you note, is to make sure you keep moving during your office day, but while this may be easy to do in your job, there are some workers who are almost literally chained to their desks during the day. I'm thinking, for example, of call center workers who will pretty much be in their seats except for lunch and morning and afternoon breaks. There are other workers who have similar constraints. Sit/stand work areas such as Ryan mentions are becoming increasingly popular to allow workers some ability to move while continuing to work. Scott

Dean, I'm glad you pulled up this old post as I'd completely forgotten about your products. I think when I last looked most of what I was interested in was still being developed, but now you have several states that I'm very interested in looking at. Will definitely be giving either Utah, Arizona or Colorado a shot. Scott

3rd party doesn't necessarily mean "Mega Airport" and even when it does, that doesn't mean poor performance - see my comments on the excellent KDEN for example. Huge airport, excellent detail and amazing performance. Nevertheless, you're right - some compromise will always be necessary. As I'm a GA guy and most of my airports are not air carrier, my compromise is with AI traffic. I have airline and airport vehicle traffic turned waaay down, and keep GA traffic to about 25%. I gladly sacrifice airline traffic (which I typically don't interact with much) for detailed ground environments. And of course - you're right. No matter what, the first priority is the airplane. Scott

I'd been an ATI/AMD guy for years before finally biting the bullet and switching a few years back and yes... Nvidia really is the way to go for FSX. The ONLY way to go. Welcome to the green side of the aisle. Scott

I realize the problem the OP was addressing was/is multifaceted, but I have caught a bit of a "if I have payware airports they're all I fly to" vibe from a few posters. But the management side I completely get. Even as a GA guy, with the amount of photoscenery I have, management of the libraries is critical. Leaving memory issues aside, if I leave all of my scenery enabled for every flight, it takes over 15 minutes for me to load a flight. But I do think the key here is to get things set up to make that management easy - something you addressed in your follow-on. With a few modifications, I basically take that kind of "everything off until I need it" sort of approach and that makes things easy to manage. There are a few things I just leave on, as they don't use much in the way of resources, but for the most part off is the default state, so it typically requires a very short time for me to tick off the scenery I'm going to use at the start of any given flight. And in my case, that applies to en route scenery as well as airports. I should also mention that I'm a self-confessed airport junky, however. Both in real life and in the sim. I just love the atmosphere of a good airport - GA or commercial - so I'm thrilled there are developers out there who do such a good job of capturing that feel and I'm willing to put up with a bit of scenery management overhead to allow me to satisfy my airport Jones. And yes, I'm a start from cold and dark, full run-up, full checklist, full taxi to parking and shutdown kinda simmer, so I probably get a bit more from my airports than others do. Not suggesting my views are more valid than others - just airing the viewpoint of the loyal opposition. ^_^ Scott

Seems like a good strategy for the way you fly. Scott

There are two questions you need to ask. First will it work? Sure, but as others have noted, only with things turned to minimums and no (or very simple) add-ons and that's a pretty dreary world. Second, will you like what you see, and enjoy the experience. The answer to that is, unfortunately, probably not. You've got plenty of system memory, but not nearly enough processing power (FSX is a CPU hog), video card or video memory. Sorry, Scott

What Orbx does with their region airports is to basically look at the real airport layout and find buildings and textures that are similar to the real world ones, but that exist in the (ever growing) Orbx libs and place them in the appropriate places on the field. This really is one of the great advantages of a full-fat Orbx region, as ALL airports in the region are upgraded from the defaults. While they're not exact replicas of the real things, they at least capture the general spirit. I can fly over a huge region of the western US, Canada and southern Alaska without ever having to see an ugly default FSX airport (and I'm sorry, but those default textures are just plain hideous). I never feel like I'm sacrificing when flying to any airport within my Orbx regions. That said, I'm solidly in the camp who's never gonna give up my payware airports. I also choose very carefully, only buying fields I know I'm going to use fairly regularly. I'm exclusively GA, so these are different from the mix many probably have, but I do have a LOT of them, and they do include a couple of larger air carrier fields, notably KDEN, KLAS, KSAN and KMDW. Of these, I'm going to single out KDEN in particular as an example of a field which allows you to have your cake and eat it too. For such a large and detailed airport, the performance is downright stunning. As others have noted, Orbx has also stepped up of late with the performance of some very detailed fields. Places like KMRY, KRDD, KBZN and PAJN perform beautifully while still retaining excellent complexity and detail. Sure Squamish is a recent exception and quite the heavy hitter, but Squamish was designed and implemented as a statement mini-region, not as a typical small airport. Bottom line, some developers really are giving us more while keeping the resources required to reasonable levels. At any rate, I fly where I want, don't allow myself to be limited to just payware fields, but still value having my large selection of highly detailed fields to travel too and from, and I have a hard time understanding wanting to remove them all because they somehow limit choices. They really don't, they add choices. Scott

Given that many of their releases have included RXP support (pretty much every one that's made sense going back to the 210), I'd bet that aftermarket GPS support has worked very well for them. Scott

As I said, I prefer to have both and ADF and a separate DME, so we don't disagree in this. I was just pointing out why the 750 makes an ADF mostly obsolete and an audio panel might not contain an option for monitoring one. IRL, I might still want an ADF, but I certainly wouldn't hesitate to fly in a plane equipped with a pair of 750s that didn't include an ADF. BTW, the departure at Nampa should be perfectly legal to fly with GPS in lieu of the ADF. As I understand the rules (and after a few searches I realize there's lots of confusion surrounding them) the only time you can't use the GPS in lieu of an ADF is if the NDB in question is used to define the final approach course and there's no GPS overlay. If the NDB is used in a departure or enroute segment or any other part of an approach (say, as part of the missed, or as an IAF or something similar) you're fine. [Edit: I also meant to add that the GPS can be used even if the NDB in question is out of service - a nice advantage.] That said, I went through the 750's pilot's guide and note that the audio panel in the real thing does appear to support ADF monitoring, even if the trainer doesn't show the option. So my whole argument is kinda moot anyway. :huh: Scott

Glenn, I thought your early impressions were favorable. Sorry to hear that this may be another disappointment for you. Scott

Well, certainly anywhere there's an overlay approach you're OK, but while I thought that restriction was gone, I'm less sure now after a second look, so your Key West example may require an ADF. There are some caveats in any case, including the need to have a non-GPS approach available at your alternate, that the NDB must be in the database you have loaded and the database must be current - mostly common sense sorts of things. Looking at Key West, however, if you've got an IFR certified GPS on board I'm not sure why you'd even consider the NDB approach, as there are precision (LPV) GPS approaches to 9 and 27 available. All of this assumes all is well with GPS, of course and with that in mind and being (quite literally) old school my preference would still be to have both DME and ADF as backups. Scott

I expect that it's because Garmin assumes you simply wouldn't have or use an ADF in a GTN750 equipped plane at all since the GPS can be used in lieu of an NDB making the monitoring requirement a moot point. Of course that begs the question of how you'd listen to the ballgame on your ADF as you grind across the countryside. (In all seriousness, I have many fond memories of flights back home to Colorado from Kansas and Nebraska with that 50,000 watt "NDB" :rolleyes: known as 850 KOA tuned to a Bronco's game, while the needle pointed faithfully to the south end of Metro Denver.) Scott

To be fair, I'll follow up and say that I got a very quick response which included my new account credentials. When all's said and done, it was actually easier than most support forums. Scott

Understood Ray. I find myself as both a Carenado fan and a critic, as I've purchased many of their planes, enjoyed several, been disappointed in more than a few, avoided others and provided feedback when I thought appropriate. Will do so in this case as well, but here's both the bottom line and the problem... I'm probably going to find myself buying this one regardless, and also probably hating myself afterwords as Carenado has obviously found themselves a formula that works and I'm (sometimes) a pawn in their strategy. They seem to put just enough effort into their work to make their products hard to resist. Mostly I do manage to stand on my principles, but sometimes not so much. I mean... Just watched Rob Ainscoughs' video and how can you not want this? Felt the same way about the Phenom and barely managed to not buy it. Now this. Email feedback is nice, but it's sales a company responds to and sometimes I don't serve my own best interests as well as i should. Scott

Against my better judgement, Ray and Glenn are starting to get me reluctantly interested. Glenn, I know from previous discussions how critical you've been of other Carenado efforts, so your comments carry particular weight for me. What's getting to me are the comments on how well the flying and engine pieces seem to be modeled, as that's the stuff I care about the most. I really wouldn't have any objection to flying this one "old school" if the AP can be made to behave itself reasonably well, and the existing structure doesn't make it too tough to manually handle ground-based nav (VOR/NDB/DME/Localizer...). Is it relatively easy to mostly ignore the FMC and just tune nav radios? That cockpit is soooo in my sweet spot for this kind of plane. If only they'd offered GTN or RXP integration - with the very positive early comments on flight and engine modeling, I would've already dropped my resistance, despite the price. Scott