pegger74

A little late to the party, but what the heck... Go look at www.fsxbeyondgamespy.com You will find many of the servers you may have been accustomed to flying with before gamespy got turned off. And maybe many more. They all list their basic focus, and provide the direct connect link, along with a website if they have one. There is everything from hardcore VA groups, to pro ATC servers, to casual fun fly groups. Like another posted said above, don't jump on the first server that shamelessly plugs itself here. Try some out, and find one or more you like, then get in there and have some fun. There is something for everyone out there.

Exactly, and I know I am guilty of this. I have boarded planes many times and forgotten to turn off my cell phone. So it sat in my pocket the whole flight turned on. And I am willing to bet that more than 50% of the cell phones onboard were not off either. Either way, this age we are in (the age of entitlement) means that more and more people feel it is their "right" to do as they please when they please, and to heck with what someone else's rules say. The FAA, or the FCC, or Southwest Airlines, or Air Canada, or who ever, can make all the rules they want about cell phones or whatever, but the fact remains that there will still be the "entitled" folks who get their noses out of joint and will do whatever they want, and continue to whine and moan about how the restrictions are "not fair". And that goes on to the fact that even if the FAA allows the use of cell phones in flight, the airline themselves are still able to make rules of their own to the contrary. For example, the Canadian Air Regulations forbids smoking in an aircraft during takeoff or landing, in a lavatory, or when directed by the PIC. So that's not to say you can't smoke on an airplane, but we all know we can't because the PIC has been told to not let people smoke by the airline management (and for workplace health and safety reasons as well)and thus we see "no smoking" signs all around the aircraft. Same would go for cell phones. The FAA would probably come up with something like "mobile communication devices may be used at any time on an aircraft, except when directed by the PIC to not use them". The rules we follow on aircraft are a combination of those made because the law dictates it, and those made by the airline for the comfort and convenience of the crew and their customers. And I have actually been in the right seat in a private charter, and the pilot used his cell phone to call ahead for something at the airport...

Could be the texture set for each surface. I don't know how they apply their textures, but FSX by default will show very abrupt lines where texture types change (eg, asphalt to concrete). I've done a few modifications on my own with ADEx and this is quite common where the taxiways intersect aprons and runways, and often they take on weird geometries to fill them selves in with no regard to what I hoped it would look like. Maybe ask the maker of the addon if it is supposed to look like that. Any chance you could put up a screen shot to show what you mean?

There's a whole lot of forum postings on this issue...paying a developer for something that is not complete. Although I agree with you that there are sim users who would probably quite gladly throw funds towards something like this. But can you imagine what would happen if the final product was not "good" (and I quantify good, since it has different meanings to different users)? Or worse yet, the money is raised and nothing ever happens? Or the new status quo becomes fsx users starting trust funds to demand production of a certain plane...and ending up in the exact same position of wanting but not getting, because of too many other things going on for the developers? The users are obviously making suggestions for preferred future aircraft, and A2A was kind enough to justify the reason they choose to not embark on it. As noted by another post above, the developers must consider their prime markets and revenue generation. It was mentioned previously, and I could not possibly agree more with the statement, sim users now are becoming VERY discriminating with the quality offerings coming from the top developers. So maybe the good DC3's out there are not good enough for the new age sim user, who now demands the highest fidelity graphics, performance, and systems simulations from every addon. "Good enough" seems to be a thing of the past with many FSX users. Unfortunately FSX will never be more than good enough itself, but that's a different topic on it's own. I would suggest that if there really was a market for a top notch bells and wistles DC3, then there would probably be one in development or already in existence for FSX. Problem of course is the proposed users are demanding the quality that perhaps makes it less feasible to initiate such a development. Maybe the demand is there, but maybe it's not quite enough demand. I would like to have one, but can accept that it might not happen, and the DC3 that I use that is good enough, remains forever "good enough" for me to use.

Probably never? But I think the MAAM DC-3 was made to generate revenue for a non-profit museum organization, so maybe that is what caused the hesitation? But that's old news, and I think the sim market is ripe for this kind of development now.

Well it is impossible for anyone here to know exactly what was the cause of the situation. But at the risk of adding further speculation to the topic, I thought there were visual devices that got placed on engine cowls and other similar parts when opened for maintenance, that stayed on until the object was closed and locked? And would the checking of items that open and close on the aircraft not be inspected in a walk around by the crew?

Sounds like it does something that is easily accomplished by a simple cfg tweak...a rather vague answer from a developer might be interpreted as "it doesn't do anything special that you couldn't do yourself". Unless it comes with a new set of textures for the autogen, I can't see it being worth paying for.

A portable garmin is quite a common tool in pilot handbags. Throw it up on the glare shield and it's there if you need it. Nothing wrong with using it at all. Using all of your available tools and skills is part of staying safe in the air. There is no harm in using your VOR or ADF instruments as well if equipped, to help you navigate VFR. Makes it easier to know where you are in case something goes wrong.

Well to avoid the flame wars of who's is bigger, I would suggest that 5x% has posted computer specs that are not bad, so maybe we can redirect this question? I would also like to know why the thought of denser tree coverage is a bad thing? Accounts from actual users is the original posters request I would think, so maybe we can get some feed back to that regard, and/or 5x5 can expand on his/her comment for the sake of discussion? The only negative I can perhaps foresee is the possibility that FSX will struggle a little more to draw those vast forests at distances, making the pop in/fill in tree effect more pronounced, which would look even more goofy than it already does. And there is this good point too. It would be kind of silly to pay for something that you can easily modify in notepad...

That's quite the ambitious, and highly unlikely, scheme you have come up with. However if you think it is a good idea, perhaps you take the reigns, and spearhead the development of such a website and FSX server to facilitate this type of training? I wouldn't hold your breath for someone else to do it for you. My suggestion, is to find a server to fly in with others using the planes you like and get to know some of the other users who might have more proficiency in the plane you need help with. Or start a thread in the appropriate support forum and try to hook up with someone that way. Good luck.

So we've all seen countless pictures from various enthusiasts with their sim pit setups, everything from the most basic of setups to full on integration of real aircraft nose sections taking up entire garages. They always fascinate me and I think that with the exception of have a real aircraft to use, it would be the most immersive way to enjoy the simulation hobby. But my question is this... Has anyone ever done a homebuilt control tower sim pit? I envision wrap around screens looking out the windows, and large radar scopes. Maybe a pair of VR goggles to simulate binoculars. I know there are a large number of sim ATC enthusiasts out there, but not sure I've ever heard of anyone trying to immerse themselves with a sim control tower.

Never tried it, but for what it's worth, every other sim-pilot I fly with online who had it quickly grew tired of it and stopped using it.

<p>Meh...was gonna get into it but why bother.</p> <p> </p> <p>To the OP..Hope the link above helps you out</p>

Well thanks for your help on this one... :unsure: . You might want to look that up for future reference. Yep. and a localizer is just like a VOR..you are flying a radial into the localizer. And VOR radials are magnetic. so are the localizer courses as published.

Change of magnetic variation over time? That would be my guess. FSX is several years old now, so if you are running the course illustrated on the latest charts, you could be a degree or two off from the 6 year old FSX alignments. Try flying the approach using the default runway data in FSX. and see if it makes a difference.

When it comes to passion, I don't think you will ever find a more passionate group than flight sim enthusiasts, and their opinions on their preferred platforms and aircraft. And I think the passion of simmers is the fuel for the passion of the developers. It is our constant arguments around what is the defacto high standard of simming that drives the top notch developers to make something that is even better. Being a devout member of the FSX camp, I also watch with interest the development of new and existing simulators, because like it or not, I will have to choose a new one some day. Here's to continued success for ALL simulator developers! :drinks:

Well I thought it was worth a shot. If you change your mind and wish to expand the virtues of bread crumbs, just email her at alwayschewing@yourbackside.nag And as much I like sandwiches, your version of breadcrumbs is pretty slick. nice addition.

Seeing interesting things out the window is a definite benefit to being under VFR flight, but I could just as easily fly IFR in the clear sky and still see the interesting objects. The point I was going after is not why pilots choose the flight rules they fly under...it was to highlight that all the fancy high-def scenery is not always a benefit to the simulator experience. Sure it looks good, but sometimes eye candy is just fluff, that does not add to the immersion factor that I lean more towards, and that is the practice of pilotage, and not the practice of sight seeing. It's an alternative view intended to open avenues for discussion, perhaps to weigh the pros and cons of constantly seeking new eye candy for the simulator.

I constantly get heck for leaving bread crumbs on the kitchen counter. Perhaps you can explain to my significant other that I am simply making it easier to find my way back to the loaf of bread for another sandwich later on?

Yes...the ground references you look for while navigating, the traffic you are scanning the horizon for, and the instruments you are scanning to monitor your aircraft performance....and then the stuff you catch a glimpse of from the corner of your eye, that you quickly dismiss as unworthy of your attention. I think we understand each other well enough, but for all intensive purposes, the only reason I see to have super high def "everything-around-you" addons would probably be just so you could fly around by yourself and say "wow look what my computer can do! I should post a pic!" It's not like your passengers are actually looking at any of it.

Snow blowing across the ground, grass and trees leaning in the wind, waves moving and amplified to match wind, water on windscreens, visible ice...these are all worthy immersion details to have. Ask any pilot if the density of cars or how their headlights shone upon the ground have ever been used as reference from the air for any purpose of the flight. I'm willing to bet most pilots on the other hand have had to estimate wind from observing trees and wave action on water! Some things that receive so much effort in flight sim development kind of leave me scratching my head at times. Improved ground lighting, improved runway textures, super high detailed airport terminals with people inside the terminal...really? I guess Tusser had it right long before flight simming was popular.

Hi Aharon. You would be surprised as to how easily this is accomplished. In fact you could do it yourself with a couple quick downloads of free developers software. Now of course I say easy, and easy to me might not be easy to you or someone else, but it really is pretty straight forward, and there are plenty of forums for the software I am about to suggest to work thru making a simple airport reconfiguration. First, you need to have the FSX SDK installed. The SDK came with certain versions of FSX (GOLD and DELUX I believe). If you do not have the SDK< then you are back at square 1 looking for someone to build it for you. If you do have SDK, the download a copy of ADE from here: http://www.scruffyduckscenery.co.uk/ There is lots of information about the program here: http://www.airportdesigneditor.co.uk/ Now go ahead and modify your airport. Don't be afraid to try. It is only mouse clicks and button pushes so there's nothing to be afraid of! And it's kind of fun once you get into it! You really don't need to be a programmer. Scruffyduck (the developer of ADE) has already done all the hard programming work to make it easier for all of us! Once again, I am sorry if you don't have the SDK for FSX installed, as it will be required for the included bglcomp routine. Best of luck with your project.

Sorry...what the heck are you all arguing about? If rules don't permit you to be there, then you won't be. If the captain has the option to say yes, and he does end up saying yes, well then it's your lucky day isn't it? I think we are all fascinated by the cockpit of any aircraft, so the desire to see one is not abnormal by any stretch of the imagination. We are after all aviation enthusiasts to one degree or another. So ask away. The worst thing you can get is a "no". I am friends with flight attendants, and they work for a very reputable airline. They openly admit to laughing and joking about "certain" passengers on the aircraft, for any number of reasons. It's part of any sane persons mental coping strategy to laugh about certain things. Heck, they recycle these stories at social gatherings all the time, much to the delight of everyone listening in. It's a far cry better that they are laughing about it, instead of just smacking you upside the head. And you can take comfort knowing that you made someone laugh that day, and many days afterwards! Heck, I get off the phone and laugh about certain customers requests in my daily job too. I'd go insane if I had to restrain myself from having such thoughts about some of the stupid things I hear people ask my opinion about. So argue away about who thinks they are more right than the other about the state of society, the inherent danger of every passenger aboard an airplane, or the mental stability of Virtual Airline CEOs. I am laughing, and I thank you for it! Now, let's all keep trying to have a peek at those fancy buttons and levers in the front of the plane! Who's with me!

Seems your hovercraft passengers are not dressed suitably for the journey! Very interesting shots.

I'm in the same boat. I have read a lot about some of these shortcomings for XPlane, and it is probably what keeps me from taking the plunge. Small fixes in V10 are not going to convince me just yet. Looking forward to seeing them prosper and move on to V11.