LawnDartLeo

Parallel installs... Switching from FSX to FSX-SE... not a problem. Switching from FSX-SE to FSX... not working. It's like one you go over to the other side with VOX ATC you are stuck. Only way to go back is to reinstall VOX ATC. Anyone know a solution?

Ah... thought it was a specific thread about the Duke. I am guessing that there will be config tool issues.

Where is said thread?

Well PFP... I guess you and I are the only ones using VOX, still. I have not had any success finding an answer elsewhere and the editing method you describe does not work for me at all . VOX works fine for default FSX-SE aircraft but not at all for DLC even when lines are edited in. I get an error for an unknown aircraft type. if you have found any other files that need editing, please post that information here. Thanks!

Click Just click. Click, click, click. Not a fan of finger origami. I prefer a reasonably sized hot-spot to just click as necessary.

Yes... I have fond memories of playing any number of combat simulators as well as Microsoft Flight Simulator through the 90's. Flight Simulator 2004 was far and away my favorite of the MSFS series. Since then it has faded. Nobody I simmed with back in the day continues to participate (3 out of 4 of us have a PPL). It's not that we lost interest, it just that FS stopped getting increasingly better. To be fair, if I were to install and play any of the old simulators, I'd probably scratch my head and ask myself what I was thinking. By current standards of a fully upgraded FSX, they are all antiquated... but they were fun. I miss the fun. I guess the closer we get to reality (and there is still a long way to go), the less impressed I am with marginal improvements. The "wow" is gone.

He's getting completely jobbed by a broken system and the organization I believe that could crush this troll to bits isn't stepping up (that would be Google).

Tower, I'm not sure why you got a bunch of down votes for your thought but I'll give you an up vote. I remember when this used to be fun, it's just not, any more. I'm not sure if its because we have been doing this for so long or if there was something really superior in game design back then, but I do miss the flight sim heyday of the 90's.

Name one aircraft that MUST have an FMS to get from A to B...... I doubt it can be done. Don't confuse basic autopilot fuction with FMC. As stated in the video, consider there to be 3 levels. Hands on controls, hands on dials and switches (heading/alt/speed hold) and fully automated. The second level is really nothing more than using standard AP features. If your going to fly funky departures, routes and arrivals... you'll be busier. My instrument CFI would say to me as I got ground down by the load, "Are you a pilot or are you a passenger?". Fly the plane first. Don't feel bad about it. In fact, embrace it. Lack of knowledge and experience are simply an opportunity to learn and do more.

Quite possibly the finest piece of training video I have ever seen in any professional aspect of my life.

Why must one learn to use an FMC? Many crashes in recent history boil down to one common set of factors... Over reliance on technology and a lack of good old stick and rudder skills. We don't go on YouTube to watch Trip7 captains do auto lands. We got there to watch them crab a jumbo in at a 45 and stick it on centerline like a boss with one ferocious kick of the rudder.

Is it a hammer or a screw driver? I'll wager you that at some point most have applied it as a hammer but in the end, it's still a screw driver. You can't change that fact.

There is nothing "shocking" about your initial statement, Ken. Climbing can kill airspeed. In GA aircraft you can build airspeed with enough power in a shallow climb or you can kill it just as well with too steep a climb or not enough power. As stated above, you also have altitude effects coming into play. The higher you are, the less power you will generate with a normally aspirated engine unless you are leaning the mixture appropriately and even then you will reach an altitude at which you can't lean it any more, the service ceiling. All that as well as the effects higher altitudes will have on your indicated air speed. I forget what altitude my instructor and I climbed up to on a nice clear day just for some sightseeing in a 152. We were well below the service ceiling of 14,700 ASL, probably not even that close to 10,000 ASL (i'm thinking it was around 7,000 ASL) and it was a dog slow climb. .... and then he pulled the throttle, told me I was on fire and I had to rapid decend to 50 AGL. Fun days those were.

I am told that some industrious developers have animated raindrops. Cant give any specifics but it is "possible" by other means of jiggery-pokery than the FSX SDK which INEXPLICABLY left out a key animation feature. It may simply be that the addons that do have raindrops in the VC have been compiled with the FS9 SDK.

I believe that the data set is skewed by "passion" on the subject and of FSX in general. My sense of the community is that there is a silent majority who quietly come and go. They grab a few new items from the library, maybe read a article of interest but are otherwise not engaged in discussion. Then there is the vocal minority who take the time to participate in discussions and polls such as this. If the goal is to survey those who really care about the subject, then this is a valid poll. As far as the entire community (population) goes, I think a lot of data is lost due to indifference. Then again, indifference has never driven progress in anything.

A better poll title would have been "Passionate FSX flyer: DX10 poll".... Of the 4 people, including myself, that I am familiar with that play FSX. 2 have no desire to use anything but freeware and no inclination to dig into the subtleties of FSX configuration and tuning and the other two of us who are all about payware and optimization are split on DX9 and DX10. if truly meaningful data is wanted, is there any way to have an opening page to Avsim that you have to answer the question prior to proceeding with results tracked by IP so that duplicate voting is minimized. Something that says, "Before proceeding, please take a moment to answer this one simple question."

There is the general insistence on the part of content providers to wield absolute control over us after the purchase. While there is an up and coming generation of sheeple that are quite content with this model because it is all they have ever known, for those of us that remember what it used to be like, it is an incredibly bitter pill to swallow. I understand why companies are doing this. The old model provided a huge infusion of cash at product release but then nothing for years. The new model is to leech money off of us a nickle at a time. Some of us have done the math in our heads and realize we are getting less for more in the end, even if the upfront cost is less. I hate the model and can see it driving me away from PC entertainment all together.

Kind of an apples and oranges comparison. Chances are that you will find yourself flying in and out of smaller uncontrolled airports, as well, simply because you can with the Lanc. That in itself lessens the load on and already exceptionally wel performing addon.

Crummy addon... But too many people take this game far to seriously.

I remember looking at a trip7 while boarding from a jetway at Ohare. It looked big thru the glass of the terminal. I remember walking off that same plane at Kona down the stairs, staring down the gullet of one of the P&W's and and it struck me this isn't a big plane, it's a huge plane.

If it's GA... Real Air Duke turbine. If it's commercial... well, nothing jumps out. This is a sadly neglected segment of the aviation spectrum with regard to "current offerings". I Suppose the PMDG J-41 but even that is like 3 years or more old, now.

Shade, for my tastes. ENB, Sweet, FXAA and such have some features about them that I really like but in terms of just plain simple... Shade is my preference. Not to mention that the others seem to have some issue with systems running dual monitors, as I do. I don't run dual in FSX but if I do not disable the 2nd monitor, none of the others work in full screen. Additionally, none of those seem to play well with ECZA as every time I change cameras, the shaders reload causing a flash. Shade just works.

About the only downside to VoxATC is that additional voices are cost prohibitive. I am quite grateful to them for providing the VOXPOP voices. They may not be restaurant quality like all the paid options out there but then I never found ATC to be anything more than unintelligible in my David Clark's while flying around in a noisy rattling C150. They suit me just fine. Would certainly like more but am thankful none the less. As for the voices you pointed out, never any luck here.

OPUS makes IFR flying much more enjoyable. Less of the "that's not right" kind of stuff. Perfect, no, but it really made a difference for me. I had no desire to spend more $$$ on a back end addon but it really turned out to be quite a nice addition. I do not use it's camera capabilities because I am quite happy with EZDOCK in that regard, but if you need one more excuse to get it, well, that's it.

I am Batman. The internet is truly nameless and faceless. Your internet identity is a chunk of clay to be formed into whatever you want it to be. That is the primary reason I prefer not to use my name or post much information about myself if at all possible. I'd rather maintain my anonymity. Anyone who HAS to know who I am can figure it out on their own, and that, too is kind of creepy. No criticism of your actions Tom, you did what you had to in order to protect the reputation of your site.