lzamm

Don't get me wrong (I've got the premium version) but if the files aren't encrypted - and in fact distributed in mods - what's stopping this?

Does this mean that owners of the standard version will be able to use the premium edition aircraft (modded or not)?

Some unarchivers have problems with the latest rar compression algorithms (though they should give an error), try again using winrar? Also check that you have the layout and manifest files in the package folder, msfs will not recognise the package without them even if the simobjects folder exists.

Don't know about this particular model, but IRL the AT was supposed to be engaged in MAX CRUISE. While this mode is primarily speed-on-elevator for cruise climb as you described, external temperature changes could cause rapid changes to the mach number that would require a large pitch change so as not to exceed maximum mach. So in this mode Concorde's autopilot, uniquely to this day as far as I know, could also command the AT to reduce thrust when required. Have a look at this post in a totally fascinating thread on pprune some years ago: https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question-5.html#post5889619

Do you have any weather-related mods in the community folder?

If you're only using the stick for the Airbus it may be your trying to fly it like a 737, rather than any particular ham-handedness, that is causing your problems. As opposed to a yoke, you generally need only small movements followed by a return to the neutral position (even in pitch). Also not wanting to start a war but there are plenty of instances where the PNF did nothing despite having the yoke in his or her stomach 🙂 737 max does not have FBW - for most of the time, at least.

That's a pretty good description of just about everything in MSFS, not being a VR user myself I don't see why it should get priority.... 😊

I don't like watching videos so here's the original press release from the University of Arkansas: https://news.uark.edu/articles/54830/physicists-build-circuit-that-generates-clean-limitless-power-from-graphene Dated October 2020 - and I don't think we've heard any more about it since until this you-tuber picked it up again. Technically it's an interesting feat - harvesting useful energy over a short period of time that could power intermittently-operating micropower sensors. There's nothing really new about this except that using graphene with its large mechanical fluctuations, the quantity extracted may actually be useful. It's definitely a transient phenomenon, however - it certainly isn't a "limitless power source", in fact they don't make that claim themselves (though the you-tubers do). As stated in the abstract to their own paper, "Numerical simulations show that the system reaches thermal equilibrium and the average rates of heat and work provided by stochastic thermodynamics tend quickly to zero. " That's if they've actually done it, of course. Other warning bells are sounded by a couple of other statements in the press release, including "People may think that current flowing in a resistor causes it to heat up, but the Brownian current does not." and The team’s next objective is to determine if the DC current can be stored in a capacitor for later use. I mean, seriously, they say they have DC and they don't know if they can store it in a capacitor? If they haven't performed any time-averaging, even on the shortest practically useful scale, then it really isn't going anywhere. Still, it's cool (pun intended) and may end up being useful. My bets are with Brillouin and Feynman, however. "

Some readers, including myself, would have missed this info had it not been (apparently) re-posted. So I appreciate it. Good news on the technical front, although having to sift through the capitals to get it is a bit off-putting 😜

That generates the layout.json file required to make the package work. Not needed in the actual package, but since the devs need to run it every time they make a change in a file before distribution, they left a copy there. Just ignore it unless you're making changes yourself.

This old thread on tripadvisor seems to imply that they do land from the seawards side when the wind is right. Or perhaps you were asking why flight simmers always approach from the hill side? 🙂

Yeah, thought of that and fixed it 🙂

May be worth having a look at UserCfg.opt (mine is in Appdata/Local/Packages/Microsoft.FlightSimulator_(whatever)/LocalCache, store version). At the top mine says: {Video Adapter "NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER" Monitor 0 Windowed 1 FullscreenBorderless 0 Resolution 1920 1080 FullScreenResolution 1920 1080 PrimaryScaling 1.000000 SecondaryScaling 1.000000 PrimaryScalingVR 0.800000 SecondaryScalingVR 1.000000 VSync 1 HDR10 0 Raytracing 0 PreferD3D12 0 PosX 0 PosY 0 } which is presumably what MSFS thinks the graphics card is. It may still be hung up on your old one and getting upset when it doesn't find it. I believe MSFS rebuilds this file if it doesn't find it so if it has the wrong info simply deleting it may solve the problem - but make a backup first!

Try Scenery Configuration Editor FS2004/FSX SceneryConfigEditot - (sourceforge.net)

It's very usable with aUSB3 drive and matching port on the PC. A bit slow loading, but no performance hit in-game (sorry, in-engineering-tool). May be different with photoscenery, I don't use it. However if you're on windows I would recommend putting X-plane itself on the external drive and the scenery directly in the custom scenery folder. While links do work (and may even be simple WIndows shortcuts), Windows may assign a different drive letter to your drive if you plug it in a different port, which will make the links stop working.

Sabine's right of course but the focus on Qplasma is more justified than she makes out. Focusing on Qtotal now is like asking the Wright brothers to build a 747. For developmental purposes, getting Qplasma to 1 is the first and essential step, even if it is in just as useless a practical machine as the Flyer 1 was.

Nuclear fusion is only ten years away ... and always will be. This is actually how a leading personality from ITER started his presentation at some conference or other. He meant it as a joke, but since it was more than 10 years ago the joke's on him. This isn't to belittle this and other efforts in the field, but to highlight the massive problems involved. The "smaller private entities" have been reporting "breakthroughs" for just as long, so I'm not too sanguine about their chances, unless one of them's run by Elon Musk!

Actually, fields are just a bit of mathematical mumbo-jumbo to replace Newton's just-as-magical "action at a distance". It is an indisputable fact that distant objects do affect each other, either through what we call gravitation or what we call electromagnetism (or the two other nuclear forces), and the concept that these objects create a field extending throughout space and the field then affects the other objects allows a relatively easy calculation of these effects. In particular it includes the possibility that the action takes time to be felt, as the propagation is in terms of waves that travel at a certain speed. However the paradigm in physics today is that the fields are more "real" than the objects themselves, in fact in theoretical physics particles are described as quantum-mechanical fields which means that fields are all that there is. But the difference between an effective description and reality, or even if reality itself exists, is best left to philosophers. It's far easier to just shut up and calculate! And yes, all moving charges including those in atoms, create magnetic fields at all times. In particular electrons have spin, which is more effective at creating magnetic fields than their orbital motion (which in turn is nothing like a the common picture everyone has of electrons orbiting a nucleus like a planet orbiting a sun 🙂). However in most cases these fields cancel each other out. For instance, two electrons are involved in a chemical bond and in the preferred lowest-energy state they will have opposite spins, with zero net magnetism. So most materials are non-magnetic, or to be more accurate very weakly magnetic. However in some materials there is another (quantum-mechanical) interaction that prefers spins to be aligned with one another - these are the ferromagnets, or permanent magnets, which have very tangible magnetic fields.

It's very difficult to receive a shock from the electric field in free space because it is an insulator, and once the charges move they rapidly build up an opposing field which cancels the effect. That's why to get any effects you need conductors (wires, or an ionised channel such as an arc or lightning bolt) to supply large quantities of charges without cancelling the field - remember the electric field in an ideal conductor is zero. As boys we would go down to a nearby AM transmitter (Voice of America I think it was, transmitting propaganda - sorry, the sound of liberty - to the Balkans and East Germany) at night and hold up a neon tube, which would glow eerily. So several hundred volts must have been present across its metre or so of length, but there was not enough current to actually light it up. Certainly we felt nothing, though the story could have been different if we went inside the fence.

It'll be rather sad when these UFO's are all finally identified, be they little green men, weather balloons or whatever. We won't be able to call them UFO's any more.

Actually, he doesn't have it right. Ignoring resistance, there's no electric field within the wire - that's the definition of a conductor (and if you want to be pedantic, then the inward flow he describes just offsets the energy lost in the resistance of the wire). So if we have the battery at the bottom, bulb at the top and wires to the left and right, then one wire is +ve and the other -ve so the electric field is from right to left or vice-versa - perpendicular to the wires. The magnetic field forms circles round the wires, so the Poynting vector is actually in the same direction as the wire. The magnetic field is maximum at the surface of a current-carrying cylinder, and falls off linearly inside and as 1/r outside, so the while the energy really does travel through space in the fields, most of it does so very close to the wire - we might as well say it's carried by the wire!

Perhaps I believe the advice is unfounded? Certainly no regrets so far.

Just to add another data point I bought the store version in the sale last month (yes I know the steam version was on sale as well). I too had read all the sob stories about the store version but thought I'd go for it to see what all the fuss was about. Unfortunately, it installed with no issues and I've just completed the goty update without problems. From what I've read, yes, just like the store version. The only difference seems to be that it's a standard executable not a Win10 app, which means that the .exe is accessible and unprotected - may be useful for things like reshade, but there's probably a reason why MS is pushing its app format. All you get from steam is the executable and supporting files, about 8Gb in all. All the content - the 170Gb or so - is identical, and downloaded from the MS servers, so you gain absolutely nothing by having steam there.

Sigh. Perhaps I should have put a </scarcasm > at the end of that post. 😉

And it says on the linked page, "Conversion to MSFS2020 from FSX default Douglas DC3" Of course, it may still be Manfred Jahn's model behind all that smokescreen, that really sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.