tttocs

Jon, this looks like some amazing work. Thanks for being one of those who pushes limits - the lone negative comment absolutely mystifies me. Looking forward to seeing where you go with this. Scott

Good luck Barry. Hope you get it squared away. BTW, I did get a chance to load the plane just a bit ago and verify that my memory was correct. Everything does indeed work as it should on my RG. A couple of other things if this is the first time you've installed RXP in either Carenado or Alabeo planes - unlike RealAir one thing they do NOT do is build an rxpgns.ini file for you. You'll need to either build one or copy one in from another plane. And if you want clicking on the GPS to trigger the popup instead of just using Shift-1, you'll need to disable instrument reflections (it's a bug that shows up in some Carenado/Alabeo planes, including this one) and to make sure that you set ident=xx in window00 in panel.cfg to match what you've set for popup=xx in your rxpgns.ini. Scott

I'm not at my FS machine right now and haven't flown the Cardinal in a while, but I had no issues that i can recall with the 530 integration. In fact, one of my first flights was into KRDD hand flying the RNAV (GPS) RWY 34 LPV approach using it. All of the buttons and knobs were properly lined up and functional in the VC. Sounds like something glitched in your install. I'd try running 'ala530177.exe' to put things back, and then re-try 'rxp530177.exe'. Scott

I think the discrepency in opinions here depend on what you mean by "flying". Frankly, I agree with the idea that a sim is intuitively more difficult to hand fly than the real thing is, simply because it is missing the mechanical cues needed to provide control feedback. When I did instrument training, I hated my sim sessions because of the lack of feedback in the sims (FAA approved and logged as instruction time) we flew. That said, I also agree with your position as flying - in the broader and more encompassing sense - is more difficult and more involved when it's for real. I may have sweated doing partial panel in the sim, but I SWEATED doing partial panel under the hood in the plane in the more cramped, loud and chaotic moving world of the real thing. Scott

Yep. And the good news is, the wait should be relatively short. In an update on Sept. 3rd, they mentioned they hoped to be able to release "within the next few weeks" though the weren't ready to commit to a firm date quite yet. Scott

I certainly agree with this suggestion - however note TJ's posting above. The V2 B60 (piston) Duke is out and a real treat, but the V2 Turbine Duke is still in the "real soon now" category. Not that there's much wrong with the V1 version, but based on the upgrade from V1 to V2 on the B60, the V2 Turbine Duke is definitely worth waiting for just a bit. Scott

Ditto. Just had a nice flight in the B55 with NO bleedthrough. Thanks much, Fr. Bill! Scott

The persistent model thing is genuinely fun, isn't it? But yes, I'm with you. While I fully recognize and appreciate what a fine job A2A have done in modeling the 172, at the end of the day it's... a 172 and I just don't fly it that much. When I want to do basic IFR procedures practice, I use it or the Carenado 337, but it otherwise sits idle. IRL, I went from the 152, to the 172 - which was basically the same thing but with room for my (then) young family - to, well, planes that were simply more fun to fly. I flew a lot of hours in the 172 and still like and appreciate the plane (and you'll never catch me using the word "boring", as I think the word says more about the person saying it than the thing it's intended to describe), but the fact of the matter is I enjoy flying more complex models just as I did IRL. For me, it's not about faster, per se, it's about more complexity and a higher workload and level of interest. I want what A2A brought to the 172, but I want it in a complex single or twin! I've flown their 172 and loved it, but I now want them to do my next step up plane so I can continue on just as I did IRL. Please? Scott

The updates on the aero.sors.fr site take care of all off-airport navaids world-wide and work quite well. They also update on-airport navaids for all of Europe (I thought it was only some, but the gentleman who puts these updates together kindly corrected me the last time the topic came up). For the rest of the world, you're going to have to grab updated afcads if available or depend on updated payware airports as Gregg notes above. Not sure what problems you're having, as the process is actually pretty straightforward. Just be sure you've read the caveats, including the fact that you will not be able to use the built-in FSX flight planner once you've done this. (BTW, I'm not the surly guy with the coffee cup Gregg refers to, though I am occasionally surly and do drink coffee, but most importantly, I'm a satisfied user of the updated data and have been for several years now.) Scott

Indeed. I see this on some other FSX aircraft as well, including the B55. Will give this a try - thanks! Scott

Gregg, I wouldn't extrapolate too much from the 152's and 182 you've flown as far as engine characteristics are concerned. Keep in mind that this is modeled on a much newer plane which, in addition to other things, is fuel injected, not carburated as the 152/182 stuff you've flown would have been. Scott Edit: I also meant to note that there will be substantial differences depending on prop pitch on the planes you've flown. For example, amongst the 152 fleet I used when I did my primary training, we had a 152 Aerobat with a very steep pitched prop. It was like flying a completely different plane as compared to all of the cruise props on the rest of the 152s.

Nice article. Thanks much for the link. Scott

The RealAir B60 (piston) Duke V2 is hands down my favorite. Honorable mention to my longtime standby the Carenado 337. And a shout out to one other plane in heavy rotation as of late, the Carenado Malibu Mirage. The addition of an Arezone soundset and some tweaks from the community have taken a good plane and made it even better. Note that each of these feature solid RXP integration. I currently use dual 530's in the Duke (yes, I finally broke down and bought the unlimited pack and yes, I should've done it long ago), a single 530 in the 337 and 530/430 combo in the Malibu. Scott

And I think Ian's point (with which I agree) is that it's still not necessary, nor even desirable, to have a sim which tries to satisfy everyone with everything, everywhere in large part because that's almost impossible. Better to have one which has a greatly improved base platform and hooks which allow talented 3rd parties easy access. Why? Well look at your examples. Sure, DCS and ROF might have better looking wx than default FSX, but do they support real-time, real-world in the incredibly detailed way that products like ASN do? And as already noted (and you've acknowledged), the products you've named, while highly detailed in some ways, still aren't world products. Fleshing out an entire world to high standards, complete with RW wx, traffic, airports (and of course, I mean the ones I want), is tougher than just one limited region with features tailored to a specific use. ROF and DCS, good as they are, still don't offer the kind of flexibility which would support an entire world with the kind of completeness and specificity most here demand. It's many faults aside, no one yet has done as good a job of supporting a whole world product as FSX has done in large part due to 3rd parties. I can't help but think that the next great sim will still be best if it's a really solid base platform with a great SDK. Scott Edit: This is precisely why I remain excited about the possibilities of Outerra. A solid base for a world product, with an ever-expanding toolkit and a great deal of interest on the part of talented creators.

Actually, some scenery stuff doesn't need to be there. I run all of my photoscenery on a second (and third) drive. So long as the path points to the right place in the scenery library, you're golden. Scott

Any improvements are appreciated of course. Fixing the digital transponder would be nice, but for now I use the analog version so that I can properly use standby and so forth. The annunciator panel test working without the avionics master on would be even nicer. But the two things that I'd love to see work properly are: The cabin pressurization control. Wouldn't it be great if it actually responded to setting the cabin altitude without endlessly spinning the mouse wheel before it finally responded. And it would be even nicer if the rate control worked. The second thing that I would be forever grateful for would be if you could make the 'Ground Clear' switch work. Scott

Ears perk up... What did you fix in the Mirage, Gregg? Scott

This vertical cloud thing exists in FSX as well. It's strange because I'll go months without seeing it, and then suddenly I'll get hit with a rash of them for a few flights. Then it disappears and I'll forget all about it again. Have seen this with Opus, ASN and Rex wx engines as well as with straight FSX wx themes. Bottom line is that I think the underlying bug has been there forever in both FSX and now P3D, but something has to happen to trigger the issue and perhaps a change in 2.4 is doing exactly that. Scott

Yeah, that would indicate the first time ever, wouldn't it... :blush: Scott

DIdn't realize Mr. Obama was headed back to Chicago, but it looks like the decision to land in Gary was made to help O'Hare continue to try to get things back to normal after last week's ATC fiasco at Chicago Center. O'Hare is apparently still running at capacity trying to catch up. I wonder if AF 1 has ever been to Gary before? Scott

Now THAT's funny! Scott

My apologies for the partial misinformation. It's been a while since I've read the documentation. :-) And yes, even for those of us who don't regularly fly in Europe, your efforts are still very much appreciated. Scott

Indeed, many of us have been using the updates for some time now. As others said, however, read the information on the site to see the tradeoffs. Highly recommended IF you understand the drawbacks and they're unimportant to you. Among other things, the FSX flightplanner is not going to work for you once you've done this. But most who are serious enough to want to do this (and who have Navigraph subscriptions) don't use the built-in flightplanner anyway. Also, keep in mind that on-airport navaids are not updated, except for a few European airports. Scott

Here's to being around for several more PMDG releases, Phil! Scott

Yes, of course. Sorry, had the Seneca with its two 430's on the brain tonight as that's what I was working on, having finally picked up the Arezone soundset and Bert's V5 mods. Scott