JonP01

Members
  • Content Count

    169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About JonP01

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Australia
  • Interests
    Classical music, aviation, motorsport, chess, MMA, cycling

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    Other
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hi, it has been quite a few years since I have had to re-install FSX and I was sure I used to be able to press a single button on my controller or keyboard that changed my virtual cockpit view so that I was "virtually" keeping my eyes upon the runway that I had chosen to land on (I know I can do this via the menus but I just wanted to do it with a simple key press). I then also had another button from memory that restored my virtual cockpit view back to "eyes front" as per how my default flight begins. But I have been mucking with the various available key command options for a couple of days now without luck, so I am guessing I must have had to change some configuration files somewhere to be able to do what I did. But basically I want to be able to do the following (if it is actually possible). 1. Allocate either a single keyboard command or controller command such that my view from inside the cockpit changes to keep track of the threshold of the runway I have elected to land on. 2. Allocate either a single keyboard command or controller command such that my view reverts back from 1 above to my virtual cockpit view exactly how it is for the start of my default flight (which is basically eyes front in the position determined by my aircraft's cfg and panel files. Incidentally, my controller can incorporate macro commands so if it is absolutely necessary to have a combination of keys to do the above, I can possibly do that via a macro command for my controller but I am hoping there is a simpler answer to this. Thanks
  2. Thanks. I did not know about display port switches. That would be a good solution. Yes, I'm aware of the controller pitfalls so my plan would to make sure I have sufficient USB ports so they are all always connected. Thanks again for the great suggestion - I will look into it!
  3. Something that has occurred to me as I look into getting a high end yoke early next year...the better ones (like Yoko) have a more realistic physical range of elevator axis travel and thus you are going to have to sit significantly further away from the desk than if you were using a joystick for example. I'm now trying to visualise having sufficient room between myself and the yoke to allow full elevator axis control whilst also having my keyboard within easy reach. I guess one answer is to have the keyboard right along the edge of the desk just to the left or right of the yoke (and the mouse on the corresponding side). Another thing I thought of was investing in a basic instrument stack (such as the offerings from Logitech) to at least cover the most significant controls I would need to access during flight. Though that could get pretty expensive since there are a lot of controls that are "basic" ones. What are people doing though in terms of this potential "desktop flying" ergonomic pitfall? Most of the videos I watch concentrate just on the yoke and throttle quadrant actions and don't really take into consideration all the other inputs required.
  4. JonP01

    Passengers lying about weight

    More likely the exorbitant $20 train fare from my local railway station to Sydney airport "Domestic" station and the hour delay on the flight. btw, so far as car parking at YSSY is concerned, some people take it very seriously indeed:
  5. JonP01

    Passengers lying about weight

    Funny thing is my backpack was within the required carry-on dimensions and it subsequently easily passed the "cage" check. But I had to really force it into the overhead compartment in that SAAB. I mean really squash it in with considerable force. Next time I am going to take my other small overnight bag (which is like a miniature version of those tennis raquet bags) as I will probably be travelling on these SAABs relatively frequently in the future.
  6. JonP01

    Passengers lying about weight

    Not forgetting the explosive residue test (and yes, I had one of those last month).
  7. JonP01

    Passengers lying about weight

    How about they do what I see the airlines do here in Australia for carry on baggage? You stick the carry on baggage in a steel barred "template" (like a goal cell but the top is open). If it fits you are good to go. If it doesn't then you have to check it in. So same with people - we just crane them up and try to stuff them into a human cage "template". If you have to really squash them down like a wine cork t(or they won't squash in at all) hen they pay for two seats. I think this would be a great way to do it since if nothing else, it makes for great entertainment as you wait for that delayed-yet-again flight:)
  8. JonP01

    Passengers lying about weight

    Some airlines get around the issue by clearly specifying the seat widths. And if you cannot fit within that width, you either buy two tickets or you don't travel. I believe some use the diplomatic phrase "passengers of size". Actually the SAAB 340B I travelled in last month had heaps of seat width. The seats are wider than in many turbofan aircraft partly due to the 2 + 1 arrangement. I had heaps of room to spare on the trip - even my "Daniel Ricciardo hips" didn't even get close to the sides of the seats - very comfy!
  9. JonP01

    Passengers lying about weight

    Thanks Scott!
  10. I've been a bit obsessed with weight lately when I was reading up in relation to a recent (and very enjoyable) trip I took with REX airlines in a SAAB 340B. The airline (fantastic pilots and flight attendants btw) were very proud of their bespoke "flight bag" which amongst other things claims a fuel saving due to reduced weight. But the sort of weight saving we are talking about here wouldn't even register on the fuel gauge of my tiny Kia Picanto car, let alone a 12 tonne aircraft with 2,400 kw of turboprop power. Yes, I know planes and cars do not translate for very obvious reasons and that aircraft have great sensitivity where a car does not, but still - it amazes me as a non-pilot how critical weight really is (though in turn it makes me understand why accurate calculation is mandatory). But I chanced on a Youtube video today (an old one) where a GA aircraft barely got off the runway. It's performance was so compromised (high density altitude, short runway, obstructions, etc) that the stall horn was just beeping continually after rotation. Way beyond my comfort zone. But alot of the comments shocked me as pilots were weighing in (sorry about the pun) about passengers lying about their weight and thus compromising performance. These comments really surprised me because I then do some archive browsing here at Avsim and pilots here are appear to be very thorough aand precise about weights - to the point where they have properly weighed everything - including small dogs! So my question is: why would people be getting into any GA light aircraft without being properly weighed first? If even a battery has to be taken into account, why would you chance it with a human that might say they weigh 77 kg when they actually weigh 85 kg, for example? OK, if you are just carrying one or maybe even two passengers in a more powerful variant, you are probably safe if it is a short flight from a long runway close to sea level. But as a non-pilot and thus a layman, to me it just seems almost negligent to simply rely on a guesstimate (or a passenger "say so") as to what they actually weigh. I'd be putting them on scales myself regardless. Which is why maybe I misunderstood those comments. Perhaps they are really saying "well the passenger lied about their weight till I weighed them!!". So is there a specific / mandatory procedure for light GA flying in this regard?
  11. Hi, sorry - I wasn't sure which forum was best for this question. I'm looking to build an entirely new machine next year and also buy completely new controller hardware. However I would like to run a dedicated standard computer desk-based setup for my flight simming (including yoke, quadrant and rudder pedals) but also a dedicated physical race sim cockpit (such as the Trakracer RS😎. The race sim setup will have everything hard mounted - so even notwithstanding the fact that the race sim cockpit won't work with flight sim controllers anyway, it won't be practical in the first place to go converting the race sim setup to flight sim use or vice versa even if it did - I'd be bolting and unbolting stuff all the time and it would be get very old very quickly. But the only way I can see this working (unless I build two completely different PCs) is to have one PC driving two monitors where I can switch from one to the other (and the monitor not in use can effectively be completely disabled). The race sim monitor would be hard mounted to my racing sim rig cockpit and the flight simming monitor would be part of my flight simming setup on the ordinary computer desk. So I would need to be able to actually either boot to one monitor or the other depending on what I want to play or I would need to be able to change over from one monitor to the other whilst in Windows - and ensuring the un-used monitor is not using any graphics resources lest it reduce overall performance. Can I actually do this and if so if is difficult to setup? Any shortcomings I would need to be aware of? Thanks
  12. I would wager it is likely the fan. That card would have to have a fair number of hours on it now wouldn't it? Anyway, the way you can check if it is the fan itself is to unclip the power lead from the video card mainboard and then connect it directly to a "good" 12 volt power source (there may be a "safe" one on your mainboard somewhere other than the CPU, perhaps temporarily deployed for case fan duties etc). You may need to remove the existing cooling arrangement to gain access to the fan connectors but as I say, it is a good bet you are going to have to replace the fan anyway. Given that the OEM cooling solutions on GPUs these days is bespoke and there are not really the drop-in solutions like there are with CPUs, if it were me I'd be heading to a website such as the one below and sourcing a suitable fan only so that you can integrate it into the original OEM heatsink. You will need to remove all the existing thermal interfaces (Goo Gone followed by isopropyl alcohol usually works well) and use new heatsink compound, so make sure you obtain some of that along with the new fan. https://www.gpufanreplacement.com/collections/nvidia-graphics-card-gpu-fan-replacement
  13. HaHa. I love the flexibility of discussion here. Some places won't let you go one micron off topic even if it deals with the same basic subject matter. And that makes discussions shallow and very limited and thus less useful. Funny you guys mention hall sensors and VF. I was emailing them just last week about the TQ3 (and the Yoko) and wanting to know if I could get spare pots for them. They replied that everything of theirs is now hall sensor including even the TQ3 (they ought to update their website accordingly). The problem with pots is just exaggerated in flight simming for a few reasons. But the main one is that in civilian flying there is a lot of wear at relatively small, repetitive ranges of travel. For example, yokes / joysticks - we are rarely using anything like full deflections as a matter of course as that would normally cause an aerodynamic disaster. We should constantly be trimming out control forces which in turn means a lot of use but generally in a small range of travel in both main axes. Same with throttles. And rudders in particular as we know become frustratingly nasty - I remember with my old CH Pro pedals I used to pray for serious crosswinds because the more I had to physically deflect the rudder to crab on approach, the more accurate they were (and I did not like the hard detent in the centre either). But that was mainly because the large deflection needed in a crosswind landing represented the exception to normal use (normal use at worst being very light deflection for coordinated turns, etc). As I intimate though, I just wouldn't even think of buying anything these days that used pots. Or if it did, it would have to use high quality audio grade ones like ALPS. Which in turn would be pointless as the cost of those is far beyond the cost of just using hall sensors. And remember, the throttles in all of our modern cars have hall sensors - if they can be used in such an important application as that for years and even decades on end, they are good enough for my yoke, rudder pedals and quadrant!
  14. Well your earlier post about the pilot being interested and impressed really helped put these Thrustmaster pedals at the top of the shortlist for me. Especially when I know how high quality race simming gear is these days. For someone who is both a pro-pilot AND a "high end" race simmer, praising these Thrustmaster pedals is very high praise indeed. And as Ray pointed out earlier, hall sensors are the icing on the cake, though I have to say I have been quite surprised at the seemingly slow uptake of this technology in flight simming as compared to race simming. Hall sensors make all the difference. You get perfect precision over the long haul which of course is critical with rudder control. I upgraded my Logitech G25 race sim pedals (8 years old at the time) with a hall sensor kit and they felt better than brand new - even after thousands of hours logged on the mechanicals over the years.
  15. Well the "good" thing about flight simming is that if you are a Microsoft faithful then you no longer have to go endlessly chasing tails with new hardware upgrades. Well, certainly nothing like the extent if years gone by. I lost count of the number of hardware upgrades I made between around 1999 and 2009 - all in the name of getting the latest Flight Simulator version to run acceptably. If MS had continued to bring out newer versions I'm sure I'd just get left behind again just like I did over the last decade. So far as interest is concerned, it never went away (and if anything my interest in real life aviation has increased over the years). But it does remain a sore point for me personally that you pretty much have to make a "hard" choice these days as to whether you go flight simming or race simming in the event you are trying to do it "seriously". I know there are plenty that manage both but if you really want a higher end setup with all the good hardware bits it really is one or the other sadly - at least from my perspective. Long gone are the "simpler" days where you could just clamp a light weight Microsoft or Logitech wheel to a desk, plonk the pedals on the carpet and go racing, then one minute later re-configure to go flight simming and an hour later get your stimmies playing Quake III.