medx421

Thank you both for your time and responses.

Recently, I was looking at potentially moving from the GTN suite to the UNS-1.  One of the appeals to this was the enroute VNAV.  This would obviously make RNAV Departure and Arrival procedures a lot easier with less math and head guessing (TLAR).  As I'm fortunate to have a rather up to date GTN, and the fact that the GTN does the approach guidance and VNAV makes it appealing to keep the GTN.  My question is, is there a way to couple the enroute VNAV with the F1 GTN?  I know I can enable VNAV and have it display the vertical track, but is there a way to actually get the autopilot to follow it with little input?  Thank you.

12 hours ago, williebarry1 said:

fixed it

Glad you got it.  Did you do it yourself with ADE?  Because it's a new airport, the original author may not have thought to build an exclusion thinking that there wasn't anything that needed to be supressed.

Its either going to be a scenery layering issue (make sure the scenery is higher than other area products), or you may need to add an exclusion using ADE.  It's not hard to do, but you may want to just email the author and see if they can add one.

No stories this time.  Just visuals 🙂

Nick

Burbank down to San Diego to pick up two couples for a weekend in wine country.

First time posting shots in this forum

Thanks for viewing

Does anyone else who has this scenery and Orbx NCA with Oakland objects enabled get double stadiums?

16 minutes ago, ywg256 said:

Get off my back. I was giving the guy an option and never said it was perfect as i said in my first post. It works for me because i only use payware addons. Instead of trying to pick a fight with me for no reason why dont you spend some energy to offer help/suggestions instead. ADE/exclusion poly is one as mace pointed out. 

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 minutes ago, ywg256 said:

I use this method as i do not use default stuff ever and was merely offering this work around as an option, not as gospel.

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.

On 5/22/2020 at 6:43 AM, ywg256 said:

I have it working perfectly - I guess I shouldn't say that because I did have to turn one of the BGL to .off which is OBX15180 in scenery/102/scenery.  Once I did that the default scenery disappeared. My order in P3dv5 for the actual product itself.

Sacramento Airport

SMF_LC

SMF_LIBS

 

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.

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.

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.

24 minutes ago, cmpbellsjc said:

I have both KFLL (FSDT version) and KMIA and use both of them equally.

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.

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.

On 1/25/2020 at 12:27 PM, pgde said:

Which one did you end up using?

I'm so sorry.  I had notifications off for this post.  Here is what I chose.  https://www.rdpresets.com/rd-pta-preset.html#/

No doubt the pro version has more features, but you can always start with the free version to get an idea.

Give this a go.  Makes a huge improvement in AI lights.  https://www.fsreborn.com/ai-lights-reborn-free-edition

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.

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.

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.

8 hours ago, RALF9636 said:

I have exactly the same feelings about Orbx TE USA. I was really looking forward to the PNW as TE and I am quite disappointed that they apparently chose to release ever more regions for XP than to port them over to P3D.

It makes me think that they try to make the most money as possible as fast as possible before MSFS turns the TE-series obsolete. I'm not sure if we will ever see more TE products for P3D.

On the other hand if we continue speculating it's as well possible that they know something about P3D V5 that gives them a reason not to develop TE for P3D V4 right now but to wait for V5 instead.

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.

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.

I ended up finding another preset that I am pleased with and doesn't contain this issue.

I'm utilizing a preset that I'm otherwise quite happy with, however, the autogen (buildings, trees, ships, etc) are much too dark or contrasted.  What setting would I evaluate to tweak this?  Thank you.