AirtankOmega

Ik ben zelf nederlands en moet wel lachen om dat laatste :LMAO: Maar bijna plat is niet helemaal plat huhuh :Liar: OT: So it's not possible to mix autogen and NL2000 together? A procedure during the NL2000 installation involved removing autogen. So it should also be able to get back if you got the brains and tools for it. Im not sure if it will look nice, but its either no NL2000. Or NL 2000 including autogen. I was hoping it could be fixed by changing a few lines on a .cfg file here and there. Hopefully it is all this simple.

I got NL2000 installed. This is photorealistic ground scenery for the netherlands (in case you didnt knew) But, this is at the loss of one and more things. Somehow building and tree textures (autogen) is lost. Other ground scenery addons such as rex are lost to. Here I made some pictures to show you how. Here Im in a car on a REX road at the dutch/german border facing the north westfalen region of germany. Nice road huh. Uploaded with ImageShack.us Now lets turn the car 360 at exactly the same spot facing the road the other way towards "gelderland" Uploaded with ImageShack.us Hmm, no road? Yes this is NL2000 overriding REX roads. Or REX didnt override NL2000. One way or another there are no rex roads. 90% of all autogen (trees mostly) you saw on the (ugly) previous picture are gone on the NL2000 landscape. Lets take an aerial pic. Uploaded with ImageShack.us Ok, this one is tricky and Its either one thing or another. On the road issue im very clear. Rex roads should override the NL2000 imagery. No doubt. So if possible I would likely to have it explained. From above the NL 2000 tree imagery looks fine. But there's totally no autogen trees on the NL2000 imagery. The photo trees on the NL2000 landscapes are red marked. And the autogen trees on the general FSX landscape are also marked. As seen on picture 1 there is plenty of autogen textures. NL2000 is said to look harshly bad when you get to lower altitudes as the missing autogen generates a horizon totally free of anything. I find this so bad I would almost consider removing nl2000 and update everything else with better autogen. From higher altitudes it looks real life realistic. But once I land on schiphol airport theres not a single tree or building towering above the horizon. Amsterdam from the air looks amazing. Below 10000feet it becomes ever more clear that it are just flat pictures without any single texture apart from some very important buildings leaving the impression of a unfinished city. The NL2000 photoscenery impresses me with real looking trees. A few thousand feet or lower leaves me with a workbench pasted with photorealistic photos on a flat flat earth. And I feel Im playing FS2000 with a google earth addon. In fact I would get all autogen back And mostly buildings trees and roads. Everything in between can be NL2000 imagery. But I want textures rather then pasted google earth photos. I get 20fps without stutters even in manhattan with all sliders maxed out on my 4ghz core I7 with tweaked CFG file. So my computer can very well take it. THe only question ISSS that available what im looking for? I hope its possible you guys can explain how to get what I wanna see. Some install procedure of nl2000 removed 95% of all textures in the netherlands so it can also be undone I thank all for your precious time.

Euhm where did I say I used the PMDG? I havent said that. I said I've read about them just as seen in your quote of mine. Like READING just like I read the positive commentary of this aircraft from you guys. I mentioned Ifly myself. I think if im gonna buy a good aircraft it's going to be PMDG anyway. And it's clear to me that stall behaviour in this sim is just out of the very few ordinary things. I'll just follow the aircraft manuals and FAA rules and maybe on one hypothetical day i'll find it out in a level d simulator or in real life.

Thanks for the program, but I get stuck at using it. Uploaded with ImageShack.us It doesn't find any airfiles in the directory. Checked it myself and ofcourse there is a Air file. It just isn't recognized by AAM @FScamp Thanks, Ill bookmarked the "majestic software" homepage and check regularly for their new Q400.

Every aircraft, default or downloadable freeware behaves similary bad. So it's easy to suspect the engine if you have no clue untill now. Im a newb at flight simulator. Not that it indicates or guarantees as much but look at my post count. I didn't know whether the offscale aerodynamics related to FSX itself or the plane model that im using. According to your replies it's related mostly by plane model, and I suspected either the game engine or the plane mode. You guys got this one answered. I did ask for a optional payware fix that by downloading a more realistic boeing model. I have already read about PMDG, and/or Ifly, captainsim and such other realistic models. Ill do more then just look into it (meaning to purchase) when my european toilet placards come in plenty. Now is not the time. But its definetely something for my future wishes. Ill go look for it and see If I can manually edit it. Ill get back if I fail along the process. I guess I got AOA explained a long time already. Wingle angle in relation to airflow along the whole body, not just the wings. YES? I thought Picture 6 from the OP was a great example of this to show. Thanks for all replies. No I dont suspect A level D simulator to behave like the real thing, let alone 100dollar sim. But Imho it might simulastor somewhere closer to actual stall speeds rather then a factor off 1.3. I just assumed that a flight simulator being on the market for that many years would also have its rightfull realism fixes other then terabyte's of scenery addons. But guess this programming is just extraordinary different. Sorry if my expectations are high met, have no clue on the difficulty of getting something programmed right. Just find a scale of 1.3 away from realism a very easy to modify calculation. But my ignorance could mean its not.

FSX simulates aerodynamica and stalls very badly IMHO. To show you how/why I assembled a slideshow you guys might look at closely. I hope these aren't to many pictures to look at but I want it explained in detail. The test plane Involves a Project opensky Boeing 777-300C with KLM colors Picture 1 (The following pictures involve the mentioned boeing af Max takeoff weight) Uploaded with ImageShack.us Picture 2 Uploaded with ImageShack.us Picture 3 (and this picture is the result of my recovery from the stall of the previous picture, FOrgot to throttle back lol) Uploaded with ImageShack.us Uploaded with ImageShack.us Now the same Plane also at MTOW but with full flapp settings Picture 4 Uploaded with ImageShack.us Picture 5 Uploaded with ImageShack.us And in reaction to the previous picture we got >> Picture 6 Uploaded with ImageShack.us NOTE (LITTLE ERROR ON PICTURE 6 ) In the text on the picture it says it stalled at 140 knots but that should be 116 knots as seen on picture 5. Edited it wrongly. Picture 7 (W00000t) Uploaded with ImageShack.us Picture 8 Uploaded with ImageShack.us Again a few pictures but now with emptied weight With full flaps!! Picture 9 Uploaded with ImageShack.us Picture 10 Uploaded with ImageShack.us And the last picture Picture 11 Uploaded with ImageShack.us And that was it!!! AND I FIND IT JUST SAID I noticed these things the first time I ever played FSX. Only found it worth my time sharing the details with many other people up till now. I have always searched if these impurities could be fixed by addons and/or file editing. But cant get the aerodynamical on the internet. So are their ways to make this part of flying more realistic, even if it costed me money. X-plane simulates aerodynamics better. But I find X-plane in many other ways a much worse simulator then FSX. I welcome everybodys input on the subject.

Thanks. But it was probably a bug in the first place. I restarted FSX and then the problem was solved. Under FSX configuration the frames per second is set to "unlimited" setting it to 30fps doesnt change the fps limiter. I changed some configuration file of fsx overriding the regular frame rate setting. I would still like to remember which file it was that i've changed. I found the procedure on the internet and i'll keep looking where i've initially founded the method to change it back. If anybody else can remind me in the meantime i'd really appreciate it. Still thanks for your effort to help me. Nice FSX machine btw :Hypnotized:

First of all im new on this forum. And got lost in all the subsections and just hope I put this question in the right subsection. I used a FPS limiter for FSX. But not the famous convential FPS limiter 02. I dont use a program. I once found a setting around the internet to limit my frames per second by editing some lines on a fsx file. A CFG file I guess. But I dont know what file it was and the name of the setting and theirfore cant change it from my earlier setting. Somehow by installing addons the setting got overwritten. And now its set at 10frames per second all the time. This is bad and very unplayable. It was originally setted at 30 frames per second. I really hope one or more users on this site know what setting im reffering to so they can tell me so i can change it back to 30frames. Thanks for your precious time.