TurboTomato

Will try when I get home (4 hours maybe?).

Wow! Now that is interesting...

I thought you meant to type ruin not run 

Yo yo yo. This is how I roll these days 

 

...I mean, seriously, we are getting excited over DTG recruiting a single artist, it's not even news, lord help us if this is the sum total of staff working on a simulator.

 

The position I was (vaguely) interested in was for a developer role on the new flight sim.

I thought about applying for one of their developer positions, working on the new flight sim, as their offices are about the same distance away from my home as my current employer. And then I thought about the size of them, and who their largest competitor will be (Lockheed Martin). Good luck to them, but it's not for me, not at this point in my life anyway.

Fine with that driver, no crashes. GTX 780.

Can't understand why the new texture folder wouldn't be there? Are you sure you're looking in the correct folder ie you downloaded an IAE engined A320 rather than a CFM one?

They're really getting cocky now....

 

 

:(

Oddly enough I did exactly the same last night, did what Jim said, and it worked fine after that. I figured (and have had it in the past) that the version of the software you download from a reseller isn't always the latest version, so I generally go to the developer's site and see if there are any updates I need to do.

I have a 3.6GHz 3770K with a 3GB GTX780, so a modest system these days. I pretty much exclusively fly the Aerosoft Airbus and use REX Essential Plus to inject weather. I get a frame drop when going through heavy cloud but nothing that makes it unplayable. I would respectfully suggest that ASN may be the problem...

I use it in P3D2 with REX Essential + weather and though the frame rate drops, it's still perfectly playable (maybe 20-25fps) and my system is nothing special these days. Not sure if that really helps sorry! From what I read, I get the impression that ASN injects a lot more cloud layers than REXE+ does.

As TheNerd says:

REX Essential Plus = Weather engine and texture program. Overdrive version (referred to as OD) just gives an even bigger choice of textures.

REX4 Texture Direct = Texture program. Also known as REX4 (without TD after it as at the moment there's only been one REX4 product released).

REX Soft Clouds = Texture program, but just for clouds. Integrates into REX4TD user interface, if you have it.

So really, your choice is REXE+ or REX4TD. Personally, if cost isn't an issue, I'd go with REXE+.

REXE+ can do that as well though, if you're not aware?

REX4TD has a nicer user interface though.

I have both REX Essential+ (I had OD at one point but managed to lose it during an update) and REX4 Texture Direct. REX4TD may be cheaper but it has no-where near the number of texture choices as REXE+. So bear that in mind. And it's very very simple to not use the weather engine from it.

I only said what I like or need etc. and not that I keep things as real as it gets. I never use real world routes. I really love how PFPX creates routes, how I can validate them, how PFPX picks the SID and STAR for me depending on the historic weather I always use, how it gives me correct weights and fuel, how the printed OFP looks, etc. I like to use real world charts because they show me the real data like trans alt, DH, and because they look different all over the world. What EFB offers me, I simply don't need. I don't like moving maps because it feels like cheating, haha, and I don't like fake charts, but that doesn't mean I do everything as real as it gets.

 

As I said, it depends on what you want and need. The OP has to decide himself if the program is worth the money.

What do you use for charts then Jeroen? Sounds like I am similar to you - have PFPX for flight planning and it is simple and quick to do one, and I like the fact that it does the SIDs and STARs for me (I'm not that anal or do long enough flights to worry about figuring out the STAR en-route). The missing link for me is the VIAs when entering the STAR - as far as I can work out, PFPX doesn't do VIAs so I would need charts to work out which one to use. At the moment I just guess which isn't ideal.

Really he could have easily crashed the aircraft even if the other pilot had never left the cockpit. A sudden nose down input on approach / after takeoff, perhaps combined with engine shutdown, would have brought the aircraft down just as surely. 

That, my friends, is the crux of the matter. Air Marshal or no Air Marshal.

Well said, I could not have said it better myself..

Seconded.

I wonder if a Glock 9mm could have damaged the door lock, enough to gain entry for the Captain to intervene.  I wonder how armored the cockpit door is...post 9/11, but certainly, a crow-bar is ineffective...as was demonstrated by the Captain in the last moments.

Remember I said that an armed Air Marshal was the worst idea ever? Well hold that thought...

Now we want a sub machine gun on board? And a special one at that that can disable the door but not harm anyone else or anything else on board?  :blink:

An armed "Air Marshal" on every flight, is possibly the worst idea, ever.

Those clouds are stunning. As is the rest of it really!

Well if the latest posts on pprune are to be believed (one that I read has already gone missing!) it seems that personal circumstances are what caused him to do what he did - his pregnant partner broke off their relationship the day before.

Will be giving this a go this evening, thanks!

Well yes, perhaps you or I would, but we're looking at it from an unclouded perspective. For someone at the end of their tether it might be a contributing factor.

You'd be surprised, I think there are very few (perhaps even none) of the European carriers that will fully fund (and I mean fully) a training programme these days. BA? Think again - I looked into their Future Pilot Programme a few years back and though it wasn't as blatant as other low cost carrier training self funding, it was still a case of you either needing to fund the training yourself (the £80k+) or take a loan with a guarantor and an agreement to pay it back via salary over the first X number of years of employment. That said, Lufthansa is the more likely of the airlines to be funding their trainees.

The financial costs wasted to train up a new hire and then fire him is argument enough to be very careful in who you hire.

Is the pay-for-your-own-training/rating culture as prevalent over in the US? I understand that you have professional cover, which presumably we have in Europe as well but I'm wondering how much of your training debt that would cover if you were declared medically unfit in those first years of flying when you still had the debt to pay back?