tttocs

The buildings you're seeing displayed are scenery objects and work fine with photo scenery. It's autogen that doesn't work, as its tied to landclass. It can be made to work and lots of vendors do this in limited areas (eg MSX SoCal - Las Vegas etc, Orbx regions and airports with areas of photoscenery and so forth), with custom annotation. The problem is, doing so accurately over a large area would require a lot of effort. Combining Orbx and photoscenery like BlueSky is sorta-kinda possible in a limited sort of way on a tile by tile basis. That is, you carefully choose a BlueSky tile that you want to display in a given area, and you enable only that tile or groups of tiles to overlay that area of your Orbx region But it's tedious, and it's still/either or. It just breaks the either/or into smaller chunks. Scott Edit: Ah, I see Jim beat me to it, and he knows WAY, WAY more about the subject than I do. S.

I expect this is more than just placebo, Craig. I have this disabled on the Seneca as well and it absolutely helps with performance. The wx radar doesn't really add meaningful value much beyond eye candy, so it's worth a try at disabling if you're having performance issues on any of the recent Carenados that use this dll. Scott

Leaving aside whether that's a true statement or not, I would think even your "untrained hobbyists" would be a bit put off by the price, as it's well above "I just want to fly" levels. At this price point most of us expect more. Other vendors are doing some extraordinary things for this kind of money. Scott

How is making this simple statement "drag[ging] DTG and FSX-SE through the coals"? I think Rob is spot on in this comment, don't you? It's not criticism, it's simply pointing out their business model. Scott

Agreed, but that's the deal. Indeed - video and stills are not a good way to judge light colors, as white balance is extremely dicey and almost never quite correct in night shots featuring lighting. The only way to judge is seeing the lights in person. Scott

To register, go to http://www.flycay.com/contact.php, select "Other" as the type of query, fill out your contact information and let them know you're wanting to register for the LatinVFR forums. It actually says this on the forum pages, but it's not obvious. Scott

I wonder if anyone has found information on LVFR's new KSNA compatibility with other add-ons - specifically MSX SoCal and US Cities X Los Angeles. When KSAN released I recall compatibility information being readily available, but I haven't been able to find anything about KSNA. Scott

Correct. Scott

Remember, this is a model of an aftermarket conversion - done by Rocket Engineering in Spokane, WA, just as the RealAir Turbine Duke is. There are limitations, but when flown the way the plane was designed to be flown the advantages can outweigh the disadvantages. Basically, you take off, climb as rapidly as possible into the flight levels where the turbine's advantages are not limited by the airframe, and go places. Down low, the plane is woefully inefficient and airframe limited. It's not a plane you'd cruise along in at 8,000'. PM Bert and I'm sure he can get you a copy. Among other things, it puts DME displays on the G500 for both nav radios.. Scott

Do you mean it feels overpowered compared to the RW plane, or just in general. I ask, because I actually think the JetProp is modeled very well (with the usual proviso about the FSX turboprop modelling limitations). The RW plane is a rather odd bird which only works well if flown the way it would be IRL. Don't get me wrong, I think the Mirage is a far more pleasant plane to fly, and I too would recommend it over the JetProp, but I still find the JetProp fun to fly on occasion. Gregg, did you ever try the G500 Mods that Bert and Bliksimpie collaborated on? I ask because I've used those from the beginning, and I've never had a CTD in the plane using the RXPs, and I'm wondering if that's the difference. Scott

I don't think the majority of us feel that way at all. Unfortunately, I see axe grinding exaggerations from some Opus users just as I do from some ASN users. Most of us recognize that both packages have value, but that one or the other suits our preferences better. No you don't have to, but as I understand it, the flight plan will optimize what you're getting along your route of flight. Just as Opus will function better if you give it your destination airport and alternates. In both cases, a little additional information makes the package work better. In my experience with both packages (I've been an Opus customer for several years now) both give accurate, if sometimes slightly different depictions of wx conditions. This is based on literally hundreds of comparisons between Opus, REX and now ASN. There's no real magic here, as all are fundamentally based on METARS. Most of the time when I see folks reporting substantial differences it's due to either a misconfiguration, a misunderstanding of how the programs work, or it's because they're looking at one side or the other of a METAR that changed recently. Remember that in general, METARS only update hourly. Even if you live next door to a reporting station, a METAR approaching its one hour mark may be wildly off from the current wx you see outside your window. ALL of these packages have these limitations, and the "MY package matched it almost exactly when yours didn't" comment has been made in almost every wx package comparison I've seen at one point or another, and in pretty much every case there's been a solid reason for the mismatch which had nothing to do with which one was most "accurate". Sorry to sound a bit frustrated, but the "did the software give me the wx that was going on outside my window" test is to my mind one of the least important, and most misunderstood "tests" out there. Given a level playing field, there's little difference between the major wx packages in this simple test. You just have to understand how they work to understand why there are sometimes big differences. Scott

I would think so, as the shutdown checklist includes setting them to OFF. I'll have to look tonight, but I thought mine were set to off CandD. Or am I misunderstanding what you're asking? Scott

The NGX is not (yet) supported in P3D. I don't recall if there were installer issue in FSX-SE, but if there are I'm sure they'll be taken care of soon. Eventually most of us who move from disk-based FSX will need to decide on one or the other for the purposes of add-on purchases. Sure some products install on both platforms, but many don't, or do but only with additional licenses and expense. While I agree that there's no harm (and often great value) in running multiple sims, most of us will ultimately pick one as the home for most of our add-ons and sim time. Scott

Blargh! :blink: Scott

Even stranger for me, Rob. I honestly don't know how I can be any clearer in either my argument or my intent, so I expect we've reached the point of diminishing returns. I've honestly got no desire butt heads. Really. Scott

Rob, you're reacting to things I specifically didn't write, as I took pains to make sure you knew I was NOT accusing you of misleading. I do NOT believe you're trying to mislead (and I certainly don't believe Tom is - I'm not sure where that statement even comes from, particularly since Tom notes that the numbers themselves are what's most important.) I simply disagree with your interpretation of the numbers as you explained it. The statement you made that raised my eyebrows was "... the only value the quantity numbers have are in determining the %." The absolute numbers DO matter, and percentages without context don't present a complete story. That's what I disagreed with, nothing more. I look at these numbers and see growth, yes. What I said was: "In this regard, I find the P3D numbers vis a vis FSX neither particularly compelling, nor particularly disappointing. The numbers are simply too small to say much more than that P3D is showing some growth while FSX continues to dominate while declining very slightly amongst Avsim users." The P3D community here is an active and vibrant one which is a very good and positive thing. Given the level of excitement and interest in the forums, I actually expected the P3D numbers to be stronger than they were. Scott

I'm pretty sure the tutorial was done with FSX, but any differences should be small enough to not matter too much. Once you have the tutorial, I think the biggest issue you'll run into is simply finding all the switches. Once you figure out where everything is, it gets easier. Be sure to pay attention to some of the details, however. For example, it's critical when bringing up takeoff power to get both prop governors settled (prop RPM stabilized at max RPM) before applying takeoff power, (which will not be full throttles) and to be sure both throttles are advanced evenly. Fail to do that, and you'll find yourself veering all over the runway. Also, I see you don't mention rudder pedals in your setup. I'm not sure how well this flies with auto-rudder on, as I haven't tried it that way, but the plane can get very squirrely in yaw if there's much in the way of asymmetrical thrust. Best of luck, Scott

Paul, there is an excellent tutorial by Kurt "Yoda" Kalbfleisch in the Avsim library. http://library.avsim.net/sendfile.php?Location=AVSIM&Proto=ftp&DLID=168021 . I think you'll find it most helpful. The C90 is actually a very nicely done plane, once you figure out a few things. Hope this helps, Scott

Sorry Rob, but I'd have to strongly disagree as this is a classic way in which statistics are often misinterpreted. Note in BIG LETTERS I'm NOT in ANY WAY suggesting you're trying to intentionally mislead - I'm only pointing out what I see as a fallacy in your statement and thus in your interpretation of the numbers. In cases like this it's very important to understand the sample size to see how much statistical relevance exists. To use an extreme example, if Acme Flight Sim's user base grew from two to four, then I could honestly argue that Acme's product is showing significant growth, as the user base has doubled! in the last year. Or to put another way, the base has grown by 100%! Looking at the raw numbers, however, tells us there's not much to get excited about. Bottom line, you still want to look at the raw numbers to be able to understand the percentages' relevance in context. In this regard, I find the P3D numbers vis a vis FSX neither particularly compelling, nor particularly disappointing. The numbers are simply too small to say much more than that P3D is showing some growth while FSX continues to dominate while declining very slightly amongst Avsim users. Factor in what's happening with Steam right now, and it would be fair to speculate that you might see significantly different FSX/P3D share numbers in next year's survey. Scott

I understand where you're coming from Zoran, but remember we all sim for different reasons. In my case, while I'm no longer current and actively flying I hope to again before long, and planes available in local rental fleets feature 430's and a few 530's. I'm not aware of any GTN's. I agree that Garmin didn't build the most intuitive UI when they did these older units, but the functionality is solid and I greatly enjoy and appreciate the fact that I get to "fly" with them regularly so that when I do step into a 430 or 530 equipped plane, futzing with the GPS will be the least of my concerns. I've been using them for years in a wide range of scenarios, and they're old friends now. I would hate to see developers drop support for the 430 and 530 in favor of the newer, sexier GTNs. My hat's off to RealAir for providing support for all of the above! Scott

The biggest thing to be careful about are things that require power. Too much current draw and you can absolutely have issues which may be easily solved by a decent powered hub. But this time of year in the northern hemisphere, many of us also have issues in our homes with static electricity, and it's possible to zap a port as well. All that aside, ports can start to fail for no good reason other than age and wear. Scott

Hmm... 1100 HP vs about 100 HP (or less - depends on which Eaglet). Yep, that shifted decimal point seems about right! Scott

My "products that I love" list would be long, but when thinking about products that have really made a broad difference, revolutionizing my sim experience, the list changes a bit. 1) ASN - finally brought the wx experience up to what I want it to be, eliminating almost every issue I had with real world wx 2) RXP GPS - the 430 and/or 530 are in almost every panel I fly with full Garmin functionality. Yes, the developer has disappeared from the scene, but still these have to go near the top of my list. 3) Orbx regions and airports - as a purely GA flyer, Orbx is almost the only game in town for top quality regional and smaller airports. Couple with full-fat regions and it just doesn't get much better. 4) FSUIPC - once you start to add more controls, the value of this set of tools just jumps out at you. A learning curve, yes, but once you catch on, the power and flexibility makes sim life easier So there you go. No disrespect meant to some of the fine aircraft developers who's products I'm so enjoying (RealAir and A2A, I'm looking at you!). If this were a list of favorite products, planes from these developers would definitely be on it. But the 4 products listed impact virtually every sim flight I make in an incredibly positive way. Scott

My initial impression was that they were quieter as well, but I've changed my mind on that a bit over time. They're different. The added prop sounds produce some deeper bass notes that weren't there before (louder definitely) while the turbine whine seems a bit less pronounced (so quieter). Net, net - yep different and to my mind significantly better. More importantly though, engine management is definitely different. As I've noted in other posts, the relationship between, and limitations of, Torque, ITT and Ng seem to be improved so you need to monitor all three more carefully, and the startup sequence seems more realistic without the drastic over-speed we're used to in most FSX turbine starts. But the plane still pins your ears back on takeoff, and still climbs like a rocketship so all the power we've loved in the past is still on tap. Scott

No, no tutorial, but the information that is presented is rock solid and very helpful. I'm a real world pilot, but with no PIC time or experience in turbine aircraft - piston only. When I first bought the Turbine Duke (and Carenado's JetProp) several years back turbine power management was a complete mystery to me. RealAir's flying guide got me past all the rough spots. Their docs are like their planes - among the very best out there. Scott