hmsdreadnought

Ground textures don't affect FPS at all. The default textures are the same size as the ORBX and GEX ground textures.

 

Complex weather shouldn't make much difference either provided you're using DXT format cloud textures in either 512 or 1024 sizes and you don't have excessive drawn distances being used (over 120 miles) and more that 3 or 4 layers of clouds being rendered.

I was imprecise in my language.  Complex and numerous physical 3d models like add on airports will bring a system to its knees.  Clouds tend to be OK with a robust graphics card.  

Probably already stated here - but I'm OCing my rig to just around 5 and I'm still getting low frames at complex airports with a realistic plane like the PMDG 737.   Complex weather and  ground textures will bring even the most powerful rigs to their knees...

The Navy Outlying Field on Whidbey Island has one of these - I'm thinking they may have moved it to whatever end of the runway was being used for carrier landing practice...

Perhaps the 717 - they've got all that coding from the MD11...

Colin Ware

Seattle

If you don't want to drive the CS birds - then the coolsky/mcphat DC9 classic is an excellent add on.  Can't recommend it enough.  Lot's to do with the old school VOR to VOR navigation. 

I would urge you to start with the 737.  It is a great plane for flight simming because it is used for short hops in the real world. It flies very well, has a truly awesome heads up display (worth the price of admission just for that!) and will prepare you for any other modern Boeing down the road.  I also am still not sold on the 777's fly by wire handling.  It is still difficult to manage pitch and trim on the climb out - much more so than the 777 simulator I flew at the United Training Center in Denver about 10 years ago.  The 737 however handles very nicely - though I find it harder to land well on a consistent basis when I'm not using the heads up display.  With the heads up display, landing is just plane fun!

And you should be overclocking your CPU....

So that would be my recommendation. 

Colin 

Seattle

I actually think the 707 cockpit is better - but I've been having a lot of fun with the recently updated three holer...the flight director finally works!

I think your thread was deleted because it was turning into a discussion about the rules and whether or not they are justified.

 

I wouldn't bet on PMDG making the 717. She wasn't a popular airplane and the majority of PMDG's customers may not buy it. Ask yourself, would you put money and effort into making a product that would never sell?.

Neither was the MD11 popular with airlines...Delta just invested heavily in Critter's 717s...

I fully agree with the sentiment. The only real difference between flying the 777 and the 737 is the quirky fly-by-wire performance in FSX.  Very similar systems, flows and procedures.  These planes are all designed to be flown 95% on AP - so what is there for us to do?  Go watch TV...

Glad the DC6 is coming along.  That you will have to fly and navigate - and that challenge will be fun.  The same fun I have flying the coolsky dc9.

Colin Ware

Seattle

DC6 doesn't have much in the way of avionics, and will be a 'light' product, like the B1900 was, so that the 3d modelers, texture guys, and flight dynamics guys have something to do while the FMC Avionics guys make the 777-300ER, and 747v2 do the things those are meant to do with all the Navigation avionics and so on. I'm sure it's the complicated systems that take the longest to complete, and it's those same systems that don't exist in the DC6.

 

J4100 came at a time when there were no other turboprops for FSX, and so it was that or some default kingair *cringe*. If the JS41 was released today I reckon it wouldn't do half as well, as it has some stiff competition in the Q400 over at MJC, and the Dash-8 is far more common an aircraft to see in the real world. (I myself use the JS41 as a pretend Metro Merlin and/or Saab 340 sometimes)

 

I'm not sure how a jet would go, but the 727 work for 'easy uncomplicated avionics', and give the 3d modelers a bit of something to do, while the VOR/DME ADF and heading hold/altitude hold/CWS do their thing.

I'm pretty sure the engine modelling is pretty complex for those powerful rotaries...

Concur

Much more excited for the DC-6.  How different is flying this plane really than the T7?  Flows are similar.  Procedures are similar.  Displays are similar.  Would be much more into this if the plane was a -200 or -300 version...

Colin Ware

Seattle

Per Rob Randazzo in an interview in the Jul-Aug issue of pc pilot! I can imagine smuggling coconuts out of Panama flying my goonie bird 200' AGL under the radar!

Very happy about this.  My favorite radial bird

I'm not sure if you meant American Airlines (the company) or American airlines (any airline based in the US) but if it's the latter, there plenty of Dash8 flights run by companies in the US. Horizon, owned by Alaskan Airlines, runs lots of interesting flights out of Alaska, and all along the west coast. I can also attest to the fact that the Majestic version is an incredible add-on.

Horizon is about 90% Q400s on their routes throughout the Pacific Northwest....planes are now all in Alaska colors plus their state university birds...

The Coolsky MD80 and the Leonardo both have good and bad points.  The Coolsky looks better, but is an older product with flat VC panels - no 3d gauges.  The Leonardo has better systems fidelity, but the VC is terrible.   If you are going to fly multi monitor, with a 2d panel on the lower, outside on the upper, I'd go with the Leonardo...otherwise, I can't recommend either. 

The Coolsky DC9 Classic is awesome...

Just spend the money on the Coolsky. You will get hours of enjoyment learning how to fly and navigate it properly.  It is one of my absolute favorite add on aircraft. 

Colin 

Hi all, I am still an avid Q400 flier - I cannot get enough of this little aircraft. So I was wondering if anyone heard any news about upcoming projects from this wonderful developer. I do not have facebook so perhaps I missed something.

I'm hoping the version with the heads up display so I can fly inot PNW airports with little to no visibility in my Horizon/Alaska livery...

which 767 is better than Level-D if I may ask?

None.  So I don't fly the plane any more.  I have two terrific long haul jets in the 777 and MD11 from PMDG (actually like the MD11 better - the fly by wire and trim action in the triple 7 still feel awkward to me) that have better systems and visuals.   

Would have loved to have seen a 757 from Daryl and co...there is not a good one of those either. 

What I am curious about is, how do RW pilots actually fly these days? Do they maintain proficiency by doing a lot of manual flying, or are they rather afraid of making mistakes, which then can be tracked back via flight data recordings, noise measurement devices and the like?

Simulators.  Especially international long haul pilots don't get enough take offs and landings to maintain good proficiency.  United almost learned the hard way about 12 - 15 years ago when a 744 had an engine flame out right after takeoff from SFO.  Pilot tried to correct with roll, not rudders, and since the plane uses spoilers a lot at low speeds to facilitate turns, the plane nearly stalled and was in real danger of flying into San Bruno mountain, the hill just north of the field.   This story was shared by the chief check pilot for the 777 in the United Fleet when I got to fly the 777 simulator at the Denver Avsim conference.  United then realized it needed to bring these long haul pilots back in for more repetitions of take off and landing - and failures in these most dangerous phases of flight. 

The Flight 1 Cessna Mustang light jet is excellent, and a very easy jet for one person to fly.  It is single pilot rated in the real world.  

Will it cure the pop-up problem?

Saw a group on for a 40" Samsung 4k tv capable of 3840 x 2160 resolution.  Anyone using one of these beasts for their primary monitor for FSX pr P3D?

colin 

The coolsky dc9 is terrific.  The VC in the mad dog is terriible - an afterthought really. 

Yes it is, but only apparently in Windowed mode. No such issue in Prepar3d!

Interesting.  When the PMDG and Real Air birds are fully P3D compliant, I may make the switch.  Thanks!

I have not found a definitive answer to this.  

Thanks!

Colin 

In the last Facebook news here: https://www.facebook.com/fsxinsider/posts/1546163298969253:0

 

Dovetail talk over your team only can convert FSX to give the multi-player compatibility with Steam, but the problem coming by that paragraph:

 

With ACES Studios and MS Flight Simulation team dissolved and closed. How can dovetail fixed stability problems or crash bugs if they can´t make changes into the core simulator files? Has FSX: SE only a placebo to a dead end franchise or MS has "rebuild" some type of team to help dovetail to counter the FSX problems? what happens if some fsx addons will be no compatible this FSX: SE meanwhile no core changes has maked?

Keep reading - they discuss an entire new simulator further down...

Curious to hear about the upgraded Lockheed three-holer from anyone who has purchased one.  I am very cautious about Just Flight as some of their early developments, the Vickers and the Comet were terrible in design and function.  

This looks much better and I believe the team behind the Canberra which is a Froogle favorite had a shot at the tristar. 

Thanks!

Colin