adler58

The autopilot supplied with this extraordinarily beautiful Comanche is an old model not very comfortable to use and limited in functionality, especially for IFR flight purposes. Moreover, this AP does not work correctly with my Saitek AP panel, based on standard MSFS autopilot inputs I believe that at least as an option the A2As could have put a more modern autopilot, since they have put the Garmin 750, Probably, as in other cases, improving mods will come out. Meanwhile, let's enjoy flying this wonderful airplane by hand in VFR ;)

Thanks Dominique! So the turbulence level setting in Fs20 does influence the Comanche's handling even if she is based on an external FD engine. My present Fs20 turb setting is the minimum: I will try to increase to medium or realistic for this airplane. In conclusion, the air physics are governed by Fs20 even for the A2A Comanche, while the airplane flight dynamics are governed by the A2A external FD engine: is this assumption correct?

Here are my first flight impression with the A2A Piper Comanche I bought yesterday (with a big discount -more than 25 dollars- thanks to my old FSX purchases). Very good first sensations: stable (perhaps too much), it trims very well, overall very pleasant to fly. Over time I will try the various options and systems, but the model seems very well done, welcome back A2A! Anyway, flying and flying a few thoughts come to my mind: The "external driven" dynamics of the Comanche A2A are notably different from those of Fs2020, and are the subject of discussion in international forums, where they are generally appreciated but their diversity is recognized to the point that someone claims that "it is a new simulator" I have always given great importance to dynamics and I am feeling this difference: the Comanche A2A is VERY stable, once trimmed she can be flown hands off, but sometimes she seems to go on a track... I left the turbulence in the aircraft tablet on medium, the default setting. I really like piloting this wonderful Comanche, only this great ease of handling leaves me a little perplexed and a small worm says to me "isn't it that the A2As have restored the dynamics of FSX or P3D?" Please don't accuse me of blasphemy: I have a lot of faith in A2A since their old good times and I hope I'm wrong. Here we need a real pilot...

Thank you all, I'm glad to know some subtle changes and adjustments are currently made by LM. Anyway, the good fluidity obtained in P3Dv3 (no stuttering if the graphic settings are adequate to the hardware) helps to improve the realism of the simulated flight, obtaining a faster response from the sim to the controller inputs.

Most of us know and understand how many important graphic and programming improvements have been introduced from FSX to P3Dv1, v2, v3... producing what now is a very stable and fluid simulator which I like and appreciate very much. But I would ask a question to simmers more expert than me: what if any evolution in the flight dynamics compartment has been made from FSX to the present version 3 of P3D? Flying in P3Dv3 an old but very good aircraft like the SF.260 by RealAir, born for FSX and never updated since 2007, I can barely see any difference... Perhaps there are some subtle changes one can notice on more complex aircraft like supersonic military jets or big liners... but on most GA planes I fly, I am not able to see differences... Am I wrong?

Thank you friends, surfing the web I found a very good solution to my question in another forum: http://forums.bostonvirtualatc.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5098 Connecting the PC to the smartphone via bluetooth did the job: this solution is perfect for me, it works exactly like I desired

Premise: When I am flying on X-Plane, I use a nice Android app (name: X-Plane to GPS) which gets my aircraft position from X-Plane running on my PC and visualizes it on my smartphone by means of any GPS Android app (e.g. Google Maps or GPS Essentials), like I was really flying over that location with my smartphone onboard. This thing requires the option "get fake GPS location from an app" to be set up on the Android device, among the Developer Options (which have to be activated). My question: I would like to do the same thing in FSX or P3Dv2. I think it should be possible, but don't know how ... I searched but did not manage to find an app which does the same simple thing X-Plane to GPS does. This way, I could navigate in FSX/P3D exactly the same way I navigate in X-Plane, and that would be nice Thanks in advance, greetings from Italy

Some addon scenery packages (e.g. UTX) improve coastline definition so it matches the photographic scenery better. Anyway, in my self-made photosceneries I always include a part of the sea/lake water from the photo, enough to cover the "surplus" of FSX default coast, with a smooth transition into the FSX water obtained by means of a gradual mask

I like to pan view with my hat switch, instead of jumping from one direction to another. I also like to alternate 3D cockpit and external view. So, this is how I fixed the view problem in XP10: I downloaded a free plugin called "X-Assign" and defined 2 sets of command for my hat switch, one for internal view, the other for external view. Then assigned a joystick button to switch from "global set 1" to "global set 2" and viceversa. It works: has been a bit annoying, still now it works: it's like I have two distinct hat switches on my joystick, one for panning view in 3D cockpit, the other for panning view in external (circle) view, ALMOST like in FSX ...

I hope the MS Flight Staff will recognize this "Zero-affair" like a "youth" error to be corrected in the future.The Flight software platform has got very good potentialities, please don't spoil it with such mediocre addons ... It' s a real pity, you can make much better things!It is better to have people waiting for weeks or months than release mediocre or incomplete addons, which inevitably will cause delusion in most customers, making them "fly away" from your product and ruining your brand's reputation ...No more planes with no cockpit for a PC game in 2012 ... please ... To release nothing until Alaska would have been a better choice!

The Zero is a nice historical aircraft, very maneuvrable and grateful to fly. It would have been a nice addon imho, but the absence of a virtual cockpit is really disappointing ...The Zero in Combat Flight Simulator 2 (year 2000, that is 12 years ago ...) was nice and had got an excellent (for that time) virtual cockpit:

Apparently the Flight staff followed my #2 suggestion, adding the Zero ... but the one supplied with the good old CFS2 had got an excellent virtual cockpit ... and it was 12 years ago ...

#1Some DLCs could be based on photoreal terrain instead of landclass, to see if some users like this type of scenery.I'm thinking to some touristically interesting areas with mountains and not many buldings and trees ... Death Valley, Grand Canyon, ..., or also marine areas (see attached pic)."Photoscapes" could be a nice name for such kind of addon sceneries, to release only for certain areas where good aerial/satellite images are available.The attached screenshot is the coast of Tuscany, Italy, in FSX. LOD14, bgl files have a reasonable size.#2Some warbirds maneuvrable and grateful to fly, like a Spitfire or Zero or Hellcat (the last two were fantastic in CFS2 ... nostalgic remark ...)

Liberty to choose is the key imho ... each one her/his own ...

The photoreal areas I've got on my PC (FSX and X-Plane) are so large I will probably never manage to fly over all of them ... even if I wish ...

I agree with N330DG, and fly ONLY over photoreal terrain since I discovered it some years ago. I never fly over zones not covered by photoreal Better 1 "real" world (summer-day) than 7 or more false onesI hope that the technology will soon offer a way to create 3D objects automatically, starting from cadastral shapefiles or extruding the roofs visible in the orthophotos. And size will not be a problem anymore, with great capacity storage disks and very fast connections.But I'seeing we are divided in two very distinct "parties", the "photophiles" and the "landclassophiles" ...The Flight team could try to make happy the ones and the others by releasing landclass and photographic sceneries alternatively, to choose from, to each one his own ...I agree with N330DG, and fly ONLY over photoreal terrain since I discovered it some years ago. I never fly over zones not covered by photoreal Better 1 "real" world (summer-day) than 7 or more false onesI hope that the technology will soon offer a way to create 3D objects automatically, starting from cadastral shapefiles or extruding the roofs visible in the orthophotos. And size will not be a problem anymore, with great capacity storage disks and very fast connections.But I'seeing we are divided in two very distinct "parties", the "photophiles" and the "landclassophiles" ...The Flight team could try to make happy the ones and the others by releasing landclass and photographic sceneries alternatively, to choose from, to each one his own ...

Photoreal scenery looks great in X-Plane too ... here some screenshots over Italy in X-Plane 9, 1 meter/pixel, freeware scenery (http://www.x-italy.it/) I think it would look even better in Flight ... some parts of the world (e.g. Italy, why not?) known for their nice landscape, could be added as DLC with photographic terrain only, without autogen or with autogen just around airports, for those (including me) who like flying at medium altitudes enjoying the real landscapeA simple way to realize addon areas, which could be sold at a reasonable price. "Italy Photo" or something similar could be the name ... it might be a good idea also on a commercial basis ...

3D Automation, a new technology for an automated autogen (forgive me please) has recently been developed by France VFR, the little but smart software house I mentioned some posts above ...Take a look to their forum (in french, but automatic translators get better and better ...):http://www.vfrnetwor...lution-autogen/No need for placing buildings by hand ... not anymore ... technology runs ..

Mine has also crashed the last two times I've tried to load a free flight ...I admit to be very tempted by this solution:UNINSTALL ... NEVER REINSTALL ... BACK TO FSXJust joking ... never say "never"! Let's wait some time, anyway ...

France VFR is a smart but small software house ... they can't compare with the production capacity of a software giant like Microsoft.Moreover, Microsoft could start with small areas (e.g. other Pacific islands) and see how they sell ...

I think that Microsoft has got all the instruments, crew and resources necessary to release well made photoreal sceneries, edited as for colors, vehicles on roads, water masks and so on, and with added autogen realistically made and correctly placed.Give a look at this state-of-the-art last generation scenery made by France VFR:http://www.francevfr...sp?Code=VFRHNOXPhotoreal base with added autogen (with a new automated technology). Scroll down for screenshots: I find the quality of those trees being astonishing!If that French software house can, why Microsoft crew couldn't?Of course, Microsoft could start with some areas and sell it through Windows Live, like any other piece of scenery.They have bought the right to show the photoreal images to the whole world through Bing maps, so don't think it would be so much expensive to extend part of the licences to a restricted number of Flight users, so few with respect to the all-world Bing users ...Believe me: flying over a "real" world is a fantastic experience, much better than flying over a fictional landclass-based one. One can recognize his own house, town and surrounding land, or rediscover locations explored during holidays ...What about Hawaii? Do you really like the way they appear on this initial version of Flight? I was never there, but have seen photos by friends, and the real landscape looks much better than the landclass rendition present in Flight ...Flying over such a "plastic" world sometimes looks me like a waste of time ...

I have a dream ...Just think what sort of improvement would be if Microsoft Flight could be connected to world photographic maps (and I think to remember that Bing maps are owned by Microsoft themselves)Photoreal scenery is the best, no match for any synthetic or landclass one ... it would be a major improvement, also easily achievable ... the photo maps could be connected online to the "game", or sold by zones ... 1 meter/pixel resolution is the standard for many countriesExample screen: Lake of Vico, central Italy, FSX on a 4-years old laptop with 256 Mb Vram video card, 2 meters/pixel photoreal scenery, no autogen