him225

26 minutes ago, Cactus521 said:

It is a good question, a good broader question is why some cockpits have the instruments take up so much of the viewing space.  In my car I have a great view of the road ahead, but I found while I was taking Light Sport Lessons the view forward was more restricted than I expected, and my CFI Jason Bullard kept imploring me to look out and not at the panel (he knew I was a sim pilot and told me as he was before me, it was a habit he had to break out of).  I think I took up Trike flying as a revolt against the claustrophobic confines of a cockpit, went from one extreme to way another, with nada to look at other than the ground below you and air all around you, except for the wing above you.

And I have to imagine how hard it was for the Concorde pilots to fly with their long extended nose, it must have been quite a challenge.

John

ok so it is actually about the displays size, I thought plane makers might have it standard for the content they display to keep the text size to a same for good readability.

It is indeed more fun/at ease to fly the airbus even in the sim, with its large looking area than the b.

Anyone else feel airbus cockpits have much more outside looking area than the boeing ones?

On the downside the displays seem more difficult to read on the airbus, perhaps due to the use of green fonts.

Do note that using some old airports that use pre fsx technique for rendering ground details can cause the autogen fail to load depending on the direction of arrival. Changing to destination tower view for a short time when descended below FL100 is sometimes able to trigger the autogen loading.

LM just need to fix some incorrect priorities for ai parking. For eg parking airline code has the highest priority over parking type or size which messes up airport occupancy big time. You get to see all types of mismatched parking assignments like freighters going to passenger area and vice versa, small aircraft occupying a large spot, etc to satisfy the airline code assignment before anything else.

I have a 60hz monitor and get 40-45 fps in a scenario but with micro stutters. If I lock the internal fps limiter to 30 I get a very smooth sim. So I decided to only enable vsync which should lock the frame rate to 60, 30 or 20 as performance allows, but it didn't happen so and fps still linger in the 40s. The fps usually locks to the multiples in games when used without enabling triple buffering, so why it is not in p3d?

would also like to hear about simulators other than flight simulators, are there any that offer similar in their area or exceed what we are used to in FS?

ok correct basically I had FSX in mind since it is based on that, lets say something that is available to end users for personal learning practicing etc. For consumer level, is there any other that comes close to FSX?

Would it be the most in terms of offering fidelity, expansiveness and content for any kind of consumer level simulator in general or are there others that have the same extent of completeness and depth/coverage to what they simulate?

On 2/25/2018 at 4:39 AM, DaveCT2003 said:

Pull up the AFCAD and compare to real world charts.

Check the ILS data and glideslopes.

 

Do the same, haven't had the pleasure yet to come across an addon that did not require moving the loc/gp signal positions to their correct object locations. Some even have loc/gp objects forgotten, t2g seem to be in the habit of it.

It seems many scenery developers dont take good afcad development seriously and pass it on with the problems of dupicate parkings, overlapping wingspans, localizer centering and so on left to the user to do properly.

Complete a circuit back to base before picking another aircraft/livery/circuit.

Differences in thrust did come to mind. But since it uses fadec rather than direct control can they not be tuned to give near about similar thrust targets at same thrust lever positions or such?

can an a320 have/serve with one engine of iae and other of cfm or neo? wondering if say availability, maintenance or an upgrade program calls for it.

3 hours ago, Zimmerbz said:

I still don't understand when people say the VC graphics are so bad.  Can you elaborate out of curiosity?  I you running the high resolution VC or did you install the lower ones?  I personally think they are great compared to anything else I have seen out there.

 

For one the panel texts are dated looking that they don't feel part of the VC with their illumination effect not as blended in, reminds of the pmdg md-11 times. They improved the ugly window sides in v4 but I think that's that. Even though there is lot of geometry detail, the vc looks flat and dry in general due to perhaps average texture work that does not compliment it well. I had a chance to get in an a320 flight deck couple of times and the shapes and sizes of objects are much more felt in the real thing. The pmdg 747 v3 and tfdi 717 or even the AS a320 for that matter do well in that.

What instances are there of airports in same country having different ICAO first letter?

For one Alaska and Hawaii come to mind where code starts with P than K. Any particular reason for this, were they afraid of running out of codes?

14 hours ago, scianoir said:

Although it must rank as one of the ugliest looking airliners out there today, I love the A380 and love the technology that it represents. I really was hoping against hope at one stage that we might eventually see the proposed stretched version (A380-900) materialise which at least might have looked somewhat better proportioned even with the same awful nose! Sadly the relative inefficiency of 4 engines combined with its relatively low hold cargo capacity compared to that the large wide body twins makes the A380 an unattractive proposition for many airlines. I completely agree though, it would be a shame to see this great aircraft fade away. 

Bill

Yeah its like the a318 of the A320 family.

I thought the autogen category in the addon xml method dealt with the issue, does it not work by merging autogen definitions?

FIMP is another good one, from there you can make a 2nd destination to HTKJ

This recent discovery and possible reduction in performance from a patch had me searching. So it is basically about protecting certain things in memory from malicious running codes. Filtering past all the grave concern and fear inducing articles on what viruses can do and what things to do to protect, explored the possible ways how a harmful code can enter a system to do anything. It seems through all various pathways ultimately an executable file has to be downloaded and executed for anything harmful to happen, for this either the environment has to be set to auto download and run received exe programs or proceeded by user. So we simmers are going get potentially 30% reduction in performance because most PC users leave their OSs to auto execute downloaded programs or are not aware enough to reliably determine which apps are harmful, or am I missing something regarding malwares and viruses? Is all this hype about vulnerability around that?

7 hours ago, DEHowie said:

Having spent 7500 hours flying A320’s i cant see a single reason to change away from the default FS Labs IAE sounds.

However i have never been outside my aeroplane at FL350 to compare so maybe you guys know something i dont..lol.

The IAE flightdeck sounds are simply spot on.

From what the CFM drivers have said the Fslabs are outstanding as well.

I own BSS for my xplane setup when i used to use Jar(pre P3D) and they where nice and loud outside but not quite the flightdeck environment.

Enjoy your BSS sounds but just posting this as right now the best ie realistic soundset for the IAE flightdeck is the Fslabs default sounds from the 4.1 update.

Enjoy.

 

Could you comment on if the loud vibrating sound during decent is not overdone, what could be the cause of this sound from the turbofan in the real aircraft since it is not audible in any other phase of flight as far as the sim goes?

3 hours ago, AnkH said:

Maybe now someone can finally answer the question I asked several times also in the UT forums: what does UTLive offer that UT2 not already offered? Is it only the traffic over water and the traffic reset when accessing the menue? I still do not see a single reason to switch, as my UT2 is updated with tons of models, repaints and schedules. And: is UTLive again using only a single engine variant on most models?

I think new to the version it allows for updated navigation database with on the go flight route generation between airports or even your custom one, which will give for more realistic enroute traffic than UT2 that you will encounter during cruise. Yeah re updating the traffic back from stock state would be a pain, perhaps wait for power pack to come up in case it allows for migrating UT2 updated schedules.

18 hours ago, Nemo said:

Which entry should this be? I cannot find any.

MAX_POINT_LIGHTS=
MAX_SPOT_LIGHTS=

16 hours ago, gboz said:

I don't know if my experience with DL and A2A planes proves or disproves that. :)
If I turn on A2A landing lights in mid-air (SSAA and completely clear weather at night) frame rates get cut in half, like 60 goes to 30. I guess there is a lot of air up there but is it really complex?

gb.

It could you are comparing performance drop in air to when on ground which could be different since cpu bottleneck is likely to already limit fps on ground shadowing much of the drop from DLs.

10 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

As you can see, DL "as is" is already a hot performance topic that is very frequently brought up ... adding shadow processing for each and every DL light source (cap is 512 DL lights per scene) would be an impractical feature even for future hardware ... rendering would be in seconds per frame and not frames per second on the best of the best GPUs.

Cheers, Rob.

Yes it would, but a separate cap could be added for shadows as well and set at 5-10 or such.

Performance drop with DL depends on the quantity and complexity of the illuminated objects, but it is kind of odd for most to presume that they are poorly optimized. It is probably running optimally for what it costs but don't get why LM decided to hold back shadows for them. They could tank most systems yes but that's what the options are for - to disable it if a scenario/system cant take the load like is done for other settings. Another way to optimize a scene would be to limit the number of active or detail of the dynamic lights based on a settable number or frame rate starting by culling those farthest from the viewpoint. There is an entry in p3d cfg to limit max number of DLs but not sure if it works by distance to preserve visual fidelity around the view position.

Though I think it is p3d bandwidth allocation problem for increased autogen than a slow hardware, reducing autogen radius to high lets it keep up with the scenery on my setup.

I get the desirable smooth micro stutter free sim only when the system is able to consistently produce 60+ fps at a location on my 60hz display. In high detail places mostly goes low 15-20 fps, going by that will have to wait for a cpu at least 3-4 times caliber than current 4790 no oc unless something substantially changes about p3d multi coring. 30 fps doesn't do it with its movie like motion fluidity, and the p3d micro stuttering doesn't seem to go away until high fps regardless of reducing the various settings.

Do you have parking codes specified for these AIs and parkings? The problem inherited from fsx is that for AI it gives parking codes priority over rest. So airlines which use same code for cargo and passenger traffic there will be instances where cargo planes park on passenger terminals and vice versa.

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/wiki/index.php?title=Parking_assignment 

There appears to be problem with user plane as well where a cargo plane based on weight will be send to gate type despite having cargo type specified if the gate type stand has parking name to it. For instance can see this with a 747 while 777 works fine. Something to do with scoring system and incorrect priorities.