Oracle427

FYI A2A does not offer support via email. It is necessary to post on their forums for support. I do see that they list an "info" email address at the bottom of that product page and well let them know. It looks like a very old product page of theirs. I also could not find separate product documentation linked on this product page as is usually the case for their other products. The corrupted text technique is very commonly used on many websites as part of the user registration process to verify that a human, and not a computer program, is attempting to register. You can usually request another image if the one you received is not clear. There is typically an option to have an audio playback of the text to type in of reading it proves too difficult.

I'm running an AMD machine with a 970GTX that is over 6 years old. I upgraded the video card a coupe of years ago. I use FSX Acceleration for a very similar purpose and have absolutely no scenery add-ons. I have Active Sky Next, 2 A2A aircraft and that's it. Perfect to practice my real world procedures and the stock simulator does the job perfectly. I have never ever had a VAS error despite leaving the sim on for 4 hours at a time with the AP on when flying from city to city just as an experiment. The stock scenery just doesn't push the engine that hard. The only thing that will always cause an FSX crash for me is of I keep resetting the session or loading aircraft. It is best to fully exit the sim and relaunch rather than load a new situation. There is some sort of known memory leak there. If you ever do decide to get scenery add-ons then I guess you will eventually run into issues, but it appears you have the same profile as I do! I would be surprised if you couldn't fit your needs within that budget. Good luck!

Take it easy out there. We didn't get it so bad in terms of snow down here in Bergen county. Only 4 inches I'd day, but the winds are blowing fierce and I'm forced to go slow with the blower lest it all blows right back where it came from. Scott, can't believe you had to commute in, with this system!

I learned something new today. The travel isn't as much as I thought. Measurement from vertical face of the panel to the backside of the vertical face of yoke where it attaches to the shaft. 182T 5" to 12" = 7" travel 172S 5.5" to 12" = 6.5" travel If I applied some extra pressure forward or back I could get another .5" of travel, but I felt it would be most accurate to measure the actual travel stop to stop without accounting for the tension of control cables. The data you already had was apparently very accurate!

I usually snap hard into 90 degree banks and back to level to correct for deviations off the localizer while on final approach? Seriously showing, on final, just use whatever is required to stay on the localizer. It should be rather small unless you wait too long to correct. A few degrees here and there and level off.and monitor for drift.

Their website says they are building a 1/3 scale prototype. Sounds theoretical.

If you have used a wave tank in physics class to study the interactions with waves you will understand how the amplitude of waves increases or decreases to varying degrees. This all depends on the point where the crests and troughs of the waves meet. All these designs seek to reduce the interactions between the waves at various points to reduce the amplitude when it reaches the surface. There will be a boom, but it will be far weaker. The engineers seek to alter the points and angles where the waves will form in order to produce the desired result. I would imagine that there are plenty of means by which they can all but eliminate the powerful boom, but most are likely impracticable to build, operate our not suitable for the purpose.

I have flown aircraft from about 82 years old to 9 years old. I agree that the older ones have a bit more play in their system, but I trust that they're all safe given that they must pass the same inspections. I also used to fly a 172 that had serious damage the tail with part of the horizontal stabilizer and elevator torn off in an incident. It it one of the better flying older 172s I've had the chance to fly. :) I find the nosewheel steering or near lack thereof on the older airplanes to be the hardest part to get used to.

I am certain that it is greater than 190mm on any Cessna or Piper aircraft I have flown. 12-14 inches of travel from forward stop to rear stop is much closer to reality. I will be able to measure a 172S and 182T later in the week. Also agree with Chock that 180 degrees of rotation from left to right stop or 90 degrees either way from center is normal. There is a tiny bit of bonus travel on older airframes. :)

Exactly, you can decide how much to correct by how much you drift. It is an essential skill to develop and you need to get an eye for it. For planning purposes you obtain winds aloft data and then you measure your actual performance by timing how long it takes to get from point to point against your plan. Ground reference is not about using winds aloft data as much. You know where the prevailing winds will be from, but you'll be fairly low and the winds aloft data is not available near the surface. You must learn to maneuver with "reference" to points on the ground. You do what is required to correct your course. It sounds difficult at first, but with practice it isn't so bad. With fancier equipment you can get derived wind vector data, but I ignore it when flying in VFR conditions. I can see and estimate speed and direction fairly well at 1000 feet and down. Above 1000 feet it is more difficult to measure drift over the ground and you can calculate it using an E6B or equivalent.

This is a great question as the aircraft can clearly stall, as any aircraft will do when the critical AoA is exceeded. It must be something about the controllability of the aircraft while in a stalled state. For example, the ailerons on a 172 should remain neutral during a stall add any deflection can result in an incipient spin entry. In the Icon, I understand that the aircraft will respond normally to aileron inputs and not enter an incipient spin. Perhaps this is the part commonly referred to as "departure from controlled flight?" Personally, I have my doubts about a stall of any sort being part of this accident sequence. I wonder if they will be able to determine this from the available recorded data. Regardless of what happened in the final moments, I am glad that the NTSB has shared the evidence of reckless behavior in this preliminary report. It can be a while before the final report is produced. This should serve as a warning to those who wish to test the odds. I wonder if the very ones at risk will avail themselves of this information.

NTSB Issues Preliminary Report on Halliday Crash https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NTSB-Issues-Preliminary-Report-on-Halliday-Crash-229948-1.html

You are responding to a topic that is nearly three years old. Thus the information is very out of date. FSrealWx was free at the time, and yes the new version is no longer free. Welcome to Avsim!

Please don't quote an entire post. I agree it offers great information, but quoting it wastes space on the forum.

Repeating what was said earlier. 32 bit apps can't page the full 4GB of address space. You'll get 3GB at best. Secondly, the memory can't be partially allocated. If the application is currentry using 2GB and issues a request for another 500MB, it will be issued. If the application were to requesr for 1.1GB, it will fail right then and there without going above 2GB usage. Your log is showing history not trends nor requested load. Clearly an oversimplified example, but it's another way of saying that you can only sspeculate the limited information you have. This is much wisdom here in checking the guide and reducing detail sliders. This is the limitation of the platform that so many have learned to cope with over the years. I don't know if the FSX application provides logging that includes memory allocation. I've never had a reason to look at that, but it is something that I have dealt with at work. However with my systems I know exactly how memory is used our at least how it is designed to be used. FSX is a black box. Even if you found a log that told you by how much the memory limits were exceeded, the above advice remains exactly the same. Also see definition of insanity. :)

How so Chock? They do have some or conditions in the questions. The logic is sound, though the question might suggest choosing more than one answer for every possibility. The process of elimination of the possible answers leaves no doubt. I liked the wording because it made you think just a little bit more than the usual flashcard type quiz. Must be the programmer in me. :)

Do not discount the fact that one can not judge height when flying over a featureless body of water or a field covered in snow with no trees or man made objects in the field of view. I believe it is very reasonable to assume that the aircraft was flown under control right into the water. No stall, no bank, no wheels down, no spin. It wouldn't the first time and sadly it won't be the last. I have done landings on snow covered fields and believe me it can sometimes be very difficult to tell how high you are off the ground. I was advised while receiving this training that landing on water is much the same. The technique is to fly tail low and carefully regulate power in the descent until you contact the ground because it is risky to try and descend in a nose down attitude and flare at the correct height. You might just become a lawn dart if you do that. Doing maneuvers at low altitude is very risky, doing it over featureless terrain increases the risk significantly. There are many NTSB reports where very lucky pilots of sea planes explained how they flew the aircraft right into a lake or river never realizing how low they were. Catching a wingtip or flying right into the water seem the most likely scenarios. If power has been lost, a safe landing was all but assured given the aircraft is amphibious. I can see the writing in the wall for Icon. They are going to get sued big-time for their marketing that promotes flying at low altitude. Not saying it is right, but it is going to happen and they are going to pay. It angers and frustrates me because what I saw goes against what we are taught to do as pilots. If we want to fly that way that was filmed and described we are supposed to seek out training from professionals. Perhaps he did receive such training, but even then pilots competing in aerobatics aren't even authorized to fly very low for good reason.

If this spurs a real interest in aviation I would check into local EAA Young Eagles programs. They offer all sorts of opportunities to learn from pilots and flight instructors. There are also opportunities to get some free stick time from time to time. I started with a VIC20 and then over to a C64 with FS2 at about the same age. I'm sure a 6 year old can manage the likes of FSX. The sim planted the seed for me to become a pilot.

Many new aircraft with glass panels include a flight data logging system. They record a good number of parameters about the flight every second. I believe that the A5 includes such a system. If it is anything like the G1000, it records data every second including GPS position, airspeed, altitude, attitude, fuel and engine indications and some avionics settings. It is unlikely to include control positions as those are not digitally managed. I doubt it would include flap or landing gear positions.

A video has recently been released. There are multiple witnesses and a video clearly showing very low level flying taking place. The witness states that the flying was aggressive all week. That video doesn't look good. He was flying right on the surface. :(

I understand that this is the case for any P3D version, and this is the reason why they are working on updates for the Accusim FSX aircraft that do not yet have P3D support.

FYI, it's been noted on the A2A forums that there are differences in flight behavior and ground handing. It is also not possible to use the float version as it will not be able to liftoff.

On some particularly short fields the aimpoint may need to be prior the the beginning of the runway. It all depends on the situation and, as COBS said, there isn't a need for a painted mark or a PAPI for the most basic aircraft and fields. With practice, choosing a point, any point, on the ground and flying toward it is a skill that every aspiring pilot must develop. In fact, this skill is called into play every time an instructor pulls out the power and says the words, "Your engine has failed..." In light single engine aircraft you are taught to fflymonitoring points along ttheground. You never know if you'll need to glide ro that last point you saw in an emergency. I thought I would have to call upon this for real on a flight I did just a couple of months ago. My engine hesitated for a few seconds and I knew within a few seconds that I could turn left and land in that empty football field off to my left. Keep practicing! Don't overthink it.

If the above makes sense, then I would suggest that the next step is practice. Practice makes perfect! :) Also make corrections early and often. Lots of small corrections made as soon as any drift is noticed is much better than large late corrections.

If the aim point being used is not easily distinguished, then that may be part of the problem. Look for a distinctive mark on the runway to aim for such as the end of a stripe, the closest edge of a taxiway, a light or any other point that is clearly marked on the surface. Then it is important to choose a good reference point within the cockpit to measure change in the distance between the two references. For example, the distance between the top of the glareshield and the beginning of the first stripe on the runway should remain constant.