jcomm

Donor
  • Content Count

    9,664
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,535 Excellent

1 Follower

About jcomm

  • Rank
    Member - 5,000+

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Portugal

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

About Me

  • About Me
    After years chasing the "Perfect" flightsim, I guess I found my place - War Thunder Simulator mode !!!
    No other got, ever, as close to the thrill of playing WT, with MS FLIGHT being certainly 2nd best, at least Hope-wise...

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Check the following ( don't recall exactly where in the interface … ) .) Pitch Radii of Gyration - is it using the default ( not showing ) or manually edited ? If it is edited, it's tricky to play with it, but you could try to lower it, say, 10% … .) Control Phase-Out: Under the controls section of wings ( if I'm not wrong ) there's a tab where you can define the fade-out of control authority with IAS. This is used by many authors to replicate ( in a wrong way but not Austin's fault... ) the stiffening of controls with dynamic pressure. Some authors make it reduce considerably bellow a given IAS. .) Artificial Stability, which kicks in even if you have your artificial stability sliders full left in X-Plane 11. Check the pitch channel in Art Stab in Plane Maker and see if something I programmed there to "tame" pitch bellow / up a given reference IAS.
  2. Well, Tony I though it worked :-/ Sorry for that, but I'll try to find where I saw that written. For me though, XP11 did run faster than XP10, although my settings are always conservative...
  3. Tony, your XP11 license will be good with XP10, if I correctly recall.
  4. Ya Da Man ! Thx!!!!!
  5. jcomm

    Active Sky for X-Plane

    Actually, METAR data, just as TAF, have about 8km worth radius, and depending on sector altitude, in the case of USA usually 18,000', and in Canada ( up to 25,000 feet there !!! ) even higher, but usually rather low in Europe, in the vertical, unless you're in mountainous areas. In the USA, for instance, cloud coverage up to that level can be reported, while in Europe your flight captain can report no clouds, and you land in Paris with an OVC @ FL100 🙂 But of course the best weather injectors go much further in getting their data to complement the limited area METAR / SPECI observations and TAF forecasts with some more ( aloft ) data. SIGMET can be used too ( GAMET would be a great addition... ), and AS has actually been using such data in their products, and can do even best if based on access to finer FIR characterization, and of course even fine tuning it ( talking here about the products for FSX / P3D, but one can assume the same will apply to XP... ) if we add a flightplan to it, so that the weather along the route can receive further detail... Up in the "aloft areas", other kind of data is used, resulting from Global Weather Models. A basic description of such models can be found --> here <---, and at many other sources. Good weather injectors, flight planners, do their best to also integrate all of this data. Actually XP already uses GRIB data to populate winds and temperatures aloft, but at a rather course level ( 3 levels only, if I'm not wrong... ). Good weather programs will make it a lot finer, and interpolate these aloft data with the observations, and forecasts at the aerodromes or other reporting stations. It's sometimes quite a complex task... Naturally, not being observed, but rather - FORECAST - data, they are subject to not being absolutely accurate, and vary in time, depending on how many runs a day a model receives. Where I work we use 3hr interval outputs. Also, a good weather injector should add a bias to the GRIB data before adding it to the sim, otherwise it's use will come out extremely unrealistic according to real world operations. The data an OFP offers the crew preparing their flight, and even the UPLINK wind & temp forecasts along the flight / route, will be based on FORECAST not ACTUAL data, so, if an injector injects exactly that, it is making the life to simple - I would call it arcade weather injection 🙂 Hardy Heinlin, the Genius behind that Mighty Boeing 747-400 PSX simulator decided to do it on he's own, less the METAR, and developed he's own Global Weather engine, based on the Jetstream constellations on our Planet, and varying along the year as theoretically happens, or even allowing for the manual editing of those jetstreams ! but since in a future update we will also be able to inject weather forecasts from OFPs, he's now finding the best way to merge that data with he's standalone Earth Weather System.
  6. Had a CTD on the first start, but then all was fine and didn't happen again. Tested with all add-ons. Looks smoother than b5.
  7. jcomm

    Active Sky for X-Plane

    I strongly believe everybody will be positively surprised by their wetaher injector, and debut in X-Plane's World ... But I'm biased of course 🙂 Been a long time satisfied user of all their products since fs9, and while I'd rather like to see it ported to DCS World, I'm sure it'll shine in X-Plane.
  8. jcomm

    Lady in "distress"...

    Couldn't resist posting here, after having got the link from another forum I also poll daily 🙂 This girl is an ATC-Master ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh9c1UyIrdg
  9. ( just saw Robin's post just above, with which I fully agree. ) Honestly, it's a mix... You get aspects better represented in FSX, other in XP. I'd say some types of turbulence are overall better represented in X-Plane, specially if tuned down from the default multipliers, while the wind shear effects are too abrupt, specially above the boundary layer. Proper fine tuning can get more acceptable outcomes from the winds / turbulence in X-Plane. In terms of ground physics, and considering taxiing, taking off and landing ( while in contact with the ground, and referring only to the effects of wind! ) I prefer FSX. Ground physics aren't still there, in X-Plane, but at least they're being updated, and Austin is actively working in various fronts. We can hope that it converges towards a better outcome already during the XP11 series. A good Weather Injector can also do good things for these effects!
  10. It's not that bad... and in some aspects IMO better done in FSX than in XP... Compare these to RW videos...
  11. Well, something's missing on both, for sure... because I ended up playing War Thunder 99% of the time and I can't look back.... I'd say, to really contribute something worth for your OP, that weather is turning the good way ! Then, even with all of it's quirks, and there are quite a few, the modelling of default features both flight dynamics and systems wise, available by simply using the native Plane-Maker application that comes with XP, is quite ahead of what FSX / P3D offer, and the outcome, at least in as far as rotary wing are concerned, is far superior.
  12. jcomm

    My Sims...and gotta love Steam

    From Steam only: - Euro Truck Simulator 2 - Ship Simulator Extremes - Then I buy every stuff for IL-2 Great Battles directly from the developers store. - Same with War Thunder. - Aerowinx PSX does not exist on Steam 🙂 But although I lost pretty much all interest / patience to play civil simming, I'm hoping for two upcoming tittles: Deadstick Flight Simulator ( Steam ) and the Aerosoft World of Aircraft - Gliders, I'll probably add the first to Steam too, because the Aerosoft simulator will most probably be standalone ( ? )
  13. Yes, that is a factor too... Thanksfuly the good weather injcetors get a lot more, add to it GCM and LAM outputs, as well as even SYNOP and METAR data ( where available ), TAF, SIGMET, **and** Satellite and even Radar data where available!
  14. No Bjoern, it does use grib data for upper level winds and temperatures. And yes, Active Sky for XP is coming :-)
  15. jcomm

    Anyone around playing War Thunder ?

    Yes Cactus, DCS is huge these days. The closest I can now find to WT is IL-2 Great Battles, but it's getting dusty in my SSD waiting for the mood to start it. It's a great simulator too, but honestly, I find the various aspects of WT, specially played in Sim mode, by far more enjoyable. And, just as you, shoot'em up sims were far from my list before 2012, when seriously heart by the failure of MS FLIGHT I started shooting in every direction :-) The approach, first to DCS, then to IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad, with some time also dedicated to Rise of Flight ( not much I must confess ) and IL-2 CloD, was motivated in the very first place by my disappointment with the flight dynamics and overall physics modelling in the civil flightsims. Truth is that I actually do not find the Flight Dynamics I WT ( in Sim mode ) arcadish - quite on the contrary. And there actually aspects I find better modelled in it than in either DCS or IL2. My biggest problem so far is the complex interface - I mean the strange concepts ( for me ) of lineups, tiers, having to deal with crews, and those many intricacies of scoring, golden eagles and silver lions and the like.. I am still a bit lost on that but heck, each mission I play is adding to the enthusiasm, and really rewarding.