Jump to content

medx421

Members
  • Content Count

    146
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Neutral

About medx421

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

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

Recent Profile Visitors

922 profile views
  1. Lose the sensitivity. I'm not on your back. I'm also not keen on seeing someone suggest a harmful workaround without providing all the ramifications of it to someone looking for help. That's my contribution. Having someone not lose 90 of their airports because of a careless recommendation made by someone who chooses not to fly with default airports.
  2. If you consider that a work around, that is on you. While, it's benign and easily reversible, users should be aware of the overall large impact instead of just thinking it will fix their issue with one problematic airport.
  3. When you disable these files, you lose anywhere from 50-90 airports. This is not a good technique for trying to overcome default objects from poking through add-on scenery. For the OP question, it is highly unlikely that this field will be updated. It wasn't even updated for v4. While Aerosoft wrapped the product, it was a group called I.D.S. that created it. They have, up to this point, gone vaporware or have had no interest in updating the product.
  4. You'd have to turn the ATC sound back on. You can set your default AI to zero, and ATC wouldn't have anyone to talk to, so having it on isn't going to cause any conflict. As far as Vatsim goes, the only conflict you're going to have is when you tune an ATIS that a controller is also broadcasting. In that case you'll hear that one and the default ATIS at the same time. I just deal with it as the Vatsim ATIS comes in louder, and I want the ability to tune the ATIS/AWOS of whatever field I may be going from/to.
  5. I have no idea, but is there anything to stop a developer like REX or similar from utilizing the Waveworks technology in a 3rd party add on for 4.5? The site says it's DX11 compatible.
  6. Does the FLL scenery have custom buildings all the way out to the coastline? Also does it tie in with Miami, or are there gaps? I am one of those weird people that buys scenery like this, not so much for the larger airport, but for the GA eye candy it offers around the area. FlyTampa does a nice job with this.
  7. The GTN utilizes real world Garmin data. It does not, as you have discovered, read the P3D data. If the Garmin data does not include those strips (and I don't believe it does), you won't have it with the GTN. What you may be able to do is create a custom saved waypoint, but I haven't tinkered with doing that.
  8. I'm so sorry. I had notifications off for this post. Here is what I chose. https://www.rdpresets.com/rd-pta-preset.html#/
  9. No doubt the pro version has more features, but you can always start with the free version to get an idea.
  10. Give this a go. Makes a huge improvement in AI lights. https://www.fsreborn.com/ai-lights-reborn-free-edition
  11. Keep in mind that if you are manually entering in your route to the flight planner, that many waypoints particularly on the newer RNAV SID/STAR's will not be found unless you have uodated the navdata in the sim itself. Software that generates a .pln file I believe overcomes this by utilizing the geocoordinates.
  12. You can to an extent, but you have to have those waypoints entered into the P3D flight planner as well. It will get to a point where it will try and vector you off the path however as that is the logic it uses to set you up for the approach.
  13. I don't use the default ATC, so I could be wrong. Going back to previous FS versions, you had to have the flight plan also entered into the simulator flight planner as well. In essence, just because you have it all plugged in the FMC, the simulator itself has no idea you are flying an IFR flight plan unless you tell it you are. You'd have to manually enter it in prior to loading your flight or have a planning software that could generate a .pln file for you to open.
  14. Actually Orbx has really disappointed me personally over the last year or so. I say personally, because their current direction has made many people happy and I would like to think they are making empirical based business decisions. That said, I have numerous personal issues with their direction. I am quite pot committed with them, but I am definitely at a point where not purchasing more and contrasting their current direction against MSFS's possibilities isn't a tough pill to swallow by any means.
  15. It's probably been said by others, but I don't feel like combing through 8 pages of replies. In all honestly, what I see being advertised with MSFS, has definitely slowed my personal purchases for P3D. Like the OP, I have a great deal invested in P3D, and am quite happy with it. I can't however, ignore what MSFS potentially brings to the table. As an example, up until the MSFS announcement and follow up postings, I was strongly looking forward to Orbx TE USA products being ported over to P3D (which still hasn't happened). Now, I'm not so anxious, and actually find myself doubting that I will purchase those products on release. Just some thoughts from the other side.
×
×
  • Create New...