Bill Maher

Just checking back in to report that everything is working perfectly in a stand-alone SE installation, including all config panel settings (as reported earlier...thank you!). Combining this plane with the GTN is an almost perfect experience.

Thank you! Now I just have to debate purchasing the SE version now or waiting for the P3D version. Or both. Plus which GTN 750 to buy...or both. My bank account hurts.

Since it was never made clear (in this thread...it may be somewhere in the other 5000 page thread!), will the config app work correctly if Steam is the ONLY version of FSX installed? I have P3D and FSX-SE and I'm debating on which version to purchase (eventually), but I'd like to know if the SE version is 100% (unofficially) working right now, including the config app, for a solo SE installation.

Yep, those are good videos and they explain how to determine a realistic zoom setting. For the cliffs notes version, assuming you have WideViewAspect set to True, the formula to calculate your "ideal" zoom setting is: Z = 34 _______ 2 atan(h/2d) where h is your screen height and d is your viewing distance from your eyes to your monitor. Just use the same units (inches, mm, etc) for both and Z will be your realistic zoom setting. You'll need a scientific calculator with an arctan button too. Or, just create an excel document and use the following formula to get zoom: =34/(2*DEGREES(ATAN(B3/(2*B4)))) where B3 is the screen height cell and B4 is the viewing distance cell. You'll likely find yourself zoomed in way farther than you were previously if you use the suggested setting, but this is actually the view that is most realistic for the scenery. You will not be able to see much of the VC, though, so this is the trade-off to avoid the fishbowl. For me, this means the use of pop-up 2d panels a lot since I don't have TrackIR.

You are probably zoomed out too far, as indicated above. For my setup, for example, a "realistic" calculated world view is actually in the 1.5-1.6 zoom range. If you don't like how that looks, then you'll have to put up with the fish bowl.

Confirmed....Citation Mustang a no-go even with legacy simconnect and a stand-alone installation.

Any luck Riccardo? My plans to try got derailed, but I might give it a go on my next day off of work (Wednesday) since the family is out of town and I'm playing bachelor for a week. Unless, of course, you found out that the effort was in vain and we must wait for the official update. I haven't tried installing the legacy Simconnect versions yet either, but I'm curious if that would work along with a solo install.

I'll be very interested to hear what you find out. I was planning on trying the same eventually by installing FSX-SE on my P3D-only machine. Gotta take my family to the real-world airport and run some other errands first, though.

Per their forum, the Flight1 Citation Mustang does not work. Apparently a fix is in the works.

I agree that there's nothing wrong with saying what we'd like to see someday. I have plenty that I'd like to see someday, too. As a meteorologist by education (undergrad, anyway), I'd like to see fantastic and realistic detailed weather effects. By no means should anyone be prevented from expressing their wishes, especially in an unofficial forum such as this. But I also see no harm in pointing out to someone that what they would like to see is not likely to happen any time soon for technical (or other) reasons. Perhaps I do not understand why universal updateable navdata isn't something that can be incorporated into 2.X within the current structure of the sim (I do, but let's say I don't). I appreciate it when someone knoweldgeable comes along and explains how something like that works in the current sim framework and why it's not a quick fix. As far as the OP's original point about LM's feature request forum, I also see no harm in pointing out what type of features LM will likely realistically consider now (as much as we can read their mind). But by all means, let's continue to dream! My nerdy side likes the technical limitations discussion too, though.

Ideas are great. But "absurd" ideas must be tempered with realistic expectations about what can be incorporated into a point release of an already-developed software product. Perhaps we should distinguish between what would be great to see in P3D 3.0 and beyond sometime in the more distant future vs. what we would like to see more immediately in 2.x.

I usually remain a silent lurker, but I gotta agree with Ed's point here. I don't think anyone is opposed to options, but I would rather have LM focus on features and improvements that we can enjoy now rather than dynamic tornado generation (or whatever) that we might be able to enjoy in 10 years. Truthfully, there's probably nothing left in the 2.x run that will be earth-shattering and I'm okay with that. SLI/Crossfire optimization, performance improvements, minor feature additions, and more 3rd party development would be great for me.

Thanks...I know that there is a Citation Mustang model built into the Mindstar product, which is obviously not the same thing but at least in the same neighborhood. I don't know how well it would work in this case, though.

I will preface this by saying that I have never used Mindstar's G1000 in any aircraft before. I am hoping to get some feedback or thoughts from those more knowledgeable than myself about the feasibility of using this product with the Phenom. There are limitations to this that I understand. Namely, I understand that it could be used via 2D popup panels only. This is fine for me, given my multi-monitor setup. Secondly, I understand that there is no Phenom-specific G1000 currently implemented in the Mindstar product so it would be more "generic". When I turn off the Phenom PFDs/MFD, I actually get acceptable frame rates. My hope is that the Mindstar product would not have as big of a performance impact. As a bonus, the Mindstar product is able to be updated with current AIRAC data. My question is primarily what do you guys think about this possibility? Secondly, I understand that the Mindstar product comes with its own autopilot. Is this able to be used in aircraft like the Phenom as a substitution for the default autopilot, thereby potentially also providing a true FLC feature? Anything else that I am missing? This might not be feasible, but I'd rather know that ahead of time before spending the money. Thanks!

Good to know. I have never really played with GPU-Z since setting up Crossfire, so I wasn't sure how it reported.

Well, I managed to push things to about 3.7 GB with ORBX at sunset. Something strange, though, is that GPU-Z is not reporting that my second card is doing anything despite showing that Crossfire is enabled. Now I'm wondering if it's a GPU-Z issue, a P3D issue, or something I'm missing...

Just as an update, 4.931 was released. It fixes issues that some were having apparently related to the latest P3D hotfix.

The provided manuals are in the EMB500 folder, which is in the Carenado folder inside your main sim folder. For example, on my machine, the path is: C:\Program Files (x86)\Lockheed Martin\Prepar3D v2\Carenado\EMB500 They provide (in separate PDF files) a Prodigy G1000 manual, emergency procedures, normal procedures, performance specs, and recommended settings (for FSX only).

I won't have time for a real flight for a while, but a quick bit of fooling around in the default aircraft and scenario with heavy thunderstorms got me up to about 3.2 GB. That's default scenery and moderate to high display settings.

Honestly, not really. I've never been much for monitoring anything (FPS, etc.). I just know that pushing that many pixels requires a beefy GPU and that Crossfire/SLI optimization is a priority for P3D. Plus, my previous rig was also a triple-monitor 6970 setup so I am familiar with Eyefinity. So, I went for it. For the sake of science, though, I'll fire up GPU-Z next time I fly and let you know.

I'm using 2 R9-290x cards (Sapphire non-reference model) in Crossfire and I am quite pleased. I run triple monitors, though, so the more power I can get the better.

The performance difference is night and day. Heck, with all 3 turned off I was getting 40-60 fps across 3 23" monitors and high graphics settings. Unfortunately, while turning off the co-pilot PFD is no problem, I don't want to be forced to turn off either my PFD, MFD, or both while flying just to get acceptable performance. Clearly a G1000 representation can be better optimized (I never had these issues in the Mustang). If Carenado can fix these performance issues with the panels, I would overlook most of the other shortcomings of this plane and gladly fly it.

The OEM version is technically meant for system builders. Essentially, Microsoft provides no direct support for these versions, requiring that all support go through the builder. To quote Microsoft, "if you are building a PC for your personal use or installing an additional operating system in a virtual machine, you must purchase a full packaged retail product, not OEM system builder software." You can google "Microsoft OEM Windows licensing" and the first few links should have more details on that for your reading pleasure. Do people who build PCs for themselves (or, in your case, upgrade) order OEM copies of Windows? Absolutely. Is this legit? Not as far as I can tell, but I'll leave that for you to decide.

A few years back I used Ironside Computers to build a PC for me when I did not have time to do it myself. I was impressed and happy with their service and you can fully customize it on their web site (they will also include non-listed components if you wish). They can also do overclocking, custom water cooling, and any other whiz-bang thing you want. I have no other recent experience with any other custom gaming PC builders since I prefer to build myself, but I echo what others have said about staying away from Dell and the like simply from a cost standpoint.

That is a poorly worded description. The 3.9 refers to the "Turbo" speed of the processor. Out of the box it will ramp up to 3.9 when under load, but yes....you can OC it further (with upgraded cooling). How far will depend on the luck of the draw, but any of the "K" chips can be overclocked.