Jump to content

bennyboy75

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    265

  • Donations

    $0.00 

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by bennyboy75

  1. Posted

    Does anyone know a quick way to prevent GSX give me Easyjet's logos on the ground vehicles when I'm in a Flybe plane, or BA when I'm in a Ryanair plane?

    I'd rather have no airline colours and just have the colours of handling agents to be honest like Servisair, Menzies etc! 

     

    I know it's down to the airline codes in the BGL file in the airport scenery. Is there a fast (and non-scary) way to edit these?

  3. Posted

    Very nice. Couple of requests from me:

     

    Would be nice to be able to edit dispatcher name and address. My flight from Belfast to London Gatwick probably wouldn't be dispatched by someone in America....

    The flight levels are a bit screwy and sometimes the wrong level for the direction of flight. Even if I put in my own flight level it seems to pick its own - can you override it?

    Block fuel for the Q400 is a bit on the high side but I'm still testing that.

     

    Otherwise - great to have this thanks! 

  5. Posted

    As a real world pilot, I use Radar Contact 4 and have had absolutely 0 issues with it. I see it in a different perspective for things that could be improved, as I see the way things work in the real world, but for those people that aren't real pilots than ignorance is bliss and I don't think they'd have any issues.

     

    Of the videos I have seen of ProATC, the voices sound absolutely awful and are chopped and cut to be used by the ATC voice. Perhaps it was an old version (I would hope). There are add-on voice packs for RC4 (available for free on Avsim) that speed up voice transmissions, etc. that are very nice.

    Radar Contact does the job but it's very clunky and a bit predictable (head down now, I need you level in 30 miles etc) which gets dull after many flights. What we need is a dynamic ATC program that works more like everyday ATC. Rarely (in Europe anyway, can't speak for the US) do you complete a SID and a STAR. You generally start one off and get radar headings in both cases or a direct to. You'll be asked to be level at certain points in the plan. You might get your planned flight level, you might not. I would pay for a proper high quality ATC add on that did it like real life.

  6. Posted

    I have just taken the PATC plunge and right now I rather regret it. It's an awful lot of money for what is so clearly work in progress software. Why do I never find posts like this until just after I've parted with my hard earned cash?

     

    I had been reading other threads that suggested it was very much improved, but the horror stories here make me wonder if it's worth possibly ruining otherwise well executed NGX flights. My first flight last night did nothing for my confidence. It soon descended into farce when PATC wouldn't go beyond the pushback instruction at ENBR. Maybe rookie error, of course, but I'm still puzzling over where I went wrong.

     

    What does occur to me is how much overlap there now is with FS2 Crew, GSX, FsBuild, Aivlasoft EFB and any ATC program you care to mention. What would be awesome would be if all these developers could combine to create a streamlined, all-encompassing tubeliner support software that does it all. There's enough memory consuming soup without all these add-ons that boast constantly repeating features. How many flight planners do we need? Maybe more focused feature sets would lead to less required updates and better products out of the starting gate?

     

    I'll be trying to refine the PATC experience this weekend. I sure hope I don't have to mothball it until the devs smooth out the contours. Yet again I seem to be paying to participate in a beta.

    I totally agree with you on this. I'm currently working on some video tutorial flights with a real Dash 8 Q400 pilot and he was astonished at just how bloody difficult it is trying to get everything to play nicely together. Most of the stress from flying in fsx is when the ATC program has a brain fart, then GSX decides to park you against a brick wall (actually GSX is one of the more reliable programs out there!) fs2crew mishears you and put the flaps down instead of changing the baro pressure and then active sky decides to reload the weather after you've planned your flight with completely different winds to the ones you've planned.

     

    Pro ATC X actually has a lot of this stuff on board. It has crew voices, can manage basic automation tasks, cabin announcements and the like and a built in planner. If the ATC side could be perfected then the other elements to the program could be brought up to the standards of EFB, GSX and FS2Crew and you could pretty much run with just one program. With the 777 out soon and supporting time compression we will soon literally have the world as our oyster. Heathrow to LA? Will take as long as Heathrow to Dublin does now in real time. It's such a shame that the one element that would put the icing on the FSX cake - a properly realistic ATC is the only real missing link now. Pro ATC X has so much promise but at the moment it's not there.

  7. Posted

    Just to add to this, I have a reliable 'source' of real world fuel plans for the Q400 and we spent a bit of time comparing the Vroute fuel numbers with the real thing. If you set captain's discretionary fuel to zero then you're not far off. Each flight we looked at was a couple of hundred kilos over the real plog.

    The excel sheet that is on here is sadly miles off the real numbers, I'm sorry to say.

  9. Posted

    I'm having a big problem (mostly in the Q400 but also in the NGX) in that the glideslope isn't matching the PAPI at many UK2000 airports but also at Earth Simulation's beta Isle of Man scenery. The GS seems to leave me VERY low on the PAPI and if stick with the PAPI I get a lot of 'glide slope' warnings. Is it just me?

  10. Posted

    Yep. To be honest flying a 727 single pilot with nothing but a couple of VOR and NDB receivers is about as tricky as it gets. The workload is ridiculously high as you're doing the work of 3 people! Remember in real life someone else would be twiddling all those buttons for you. I find it much easier with an LNAV button :)

  11. Posted

    ProATCX could be great. It's a doddle to setup and the user interface is well designed and easy to use. Once in the sim you use the menu screens to do everything so there's no need to remember which button does what like you do with PFE's 'hot key' system. But beyond that it falls down a bit. Compared to PFE's dozens of accents from all over the world, PATCX gives you literally a handful, of variable quality. The big let down is the actual instructions you get in flight. I guess it must use intersections and airways to work out where you are but these are verbalised in the sim. You get cleared to airways and intersections that aren't in your flight plan, or even available in the FMC. On approach things get even weirder as I was instructed to go direct to the Luton NDB as I was landing at Stansted?!? The instructions from ATC bear no relation to anything posted on approach charts or in the flightplan which for me spelled the end until it got fixed. Save your money for now.

     

    PFE is great when it works but setting up SIDS and STARS is a chore and it suffers from the most enormous brain farts at times.

  13. Posted

    Think I'll update my view on this question;

     

    I own the MilViz 732 and it's a lovely old motor, but not quite making this list, for me;-

     

    1). MJC Dash 8-Q400

    2). Airbus X Extended

    3). Aerosoft Twin Otter Extended

    4). NGX

     

     

    ....once again, this is only measuring VC quality though, not overall enjoyment or quality. :smile:

    I'd agree. The Milviz isn't quite there. The main panel is very nice bit the overhead is a bit ratty in places and the green paint thing is a bit over the top. But it's a great effort, no doubt.

     

    I'd put the NGX at the top for texturing, followed by the Q400 and the Airbus X. The latter has a lot of lovely texturing but the lack of reflection in the displays and mucky fingerprints that the first two serve up just mean they pip it to the post.

  15. Posted

    Got it.

     

    Only took it for a quick spin from East Midlands up to Edinburgh. No problems with start up now that I know that the isolation valve is coded the wrong way round and everything else went like clockwork. The APU thing doesn't bother me, really. It would be nice if it took a *bit* longer as like the Aerosoft A320's APU this one leaps into life in a few seconds - perhaps making us wait a little longer (but not 6 minutes please) would satisfy the hardcorers a bit more.

     

    The sound is excellent. Exterior modelling is good and stuff like the animated air stairs is a joy to behold. Be great to have the doors coded into a menu in the FMC if possible to save all this Shift plus E plus 2 nonsense.

     

    VC I have to admit I find a little cartoony compared to the reflections and fingerprints of the NGX and I think they've gone a little overboard on green primer wear. Just my 2p, don't shoot me. Don't get me wrong, it's a faithful representation of a 737-200 and it's done well but I think a little bit too much artistic license has gone on with the green primer and the 'well used' thing.

     

    Otherwise the VC is nicely done, proportions are good and the instruments are beautifully backlit by the fantastic night lighting. I think even the NGX is beaten by this thing at night. It's lovely.

    The overhead though I found a little disappointing in terms of textures. The NGX (which essentially shares many of its components) does a more convincing job with the knobs and switches, especially around the lights and starter panel. Again, just my initial thoughts.

     

    Ground friction seems a little high but once you're on the move it's nice to taxi. I had no idea what to set on the MCP for departure so I just set the throttles to a sensible setting, gave it flap 5 and launched. I had big problems setting up the SID though as the course bugs are linked on both sides as are the nav radios. I needed a VOR on one side to give me an outbound radial to make the turn and then another VOR with a different course to intercept the inbound radial to the final fix on the SID. I found no way to do this. I could get the DME of each respective radio but couldn't for the life of me figure out how to get two VORs to show. The autopilot didn't do what I expected. I don't understand the difference between LNAV, FMC and GPS, and at times VOR LOC annunciated too. So my departure was a bit of a dog's dinner and I couldn't seem to get the FMC to slave to the autopilot. I tried a few times to get the aircraft to follow the FMC but in the end flew the rest of the flight in HDG select mode following the headings from EFB. Descent was uneventful, although I was unable to tune the ILS manually. The only way to do it was via the tune appr mode of the FMC. The aircraft tracked the ILS perfectly. I landed a bit deep but everyone walked away. Frame rates are excellent and apart from the few system oddities as mentioned there are no other bugs and certainly no show stoppers.

     

    So in summary - a fine first effort in the Boeing world. As we are so used to a benchmark 737 it's so easy to make comparisons that aren't necessarily valid but it's impossible not to do so when so much of the 200 can still be seen in the NG. There are plenty of systems that need some further explanation/refinement - the autopilot being one with a mix of modes that don't seem to make a lot of sense at first glance. Some solid tutorials on how the FMC interacts with the AP and the steam driven nav radios, along with some guidance on how to set the EPR panel and all that other stuff that has since been junked when the NG came along would be very useful to us glass cockpit drivers too. But that said it's worth the money and a worthy addition to your hangar.

  17. Posted

    Why do developers add weird sounds (if that's what it is) to sceneries? At Gibraltar in the VC with the engines running and the windows closed all you can hear are bloody seagulls. And in the not yet released ES Isle of Man you taxi the holding point and all you can hear is the crashing of waves. In a Q400 with engines running? Er. It's a nice touch but it's totally unrealistic. Stop it, developers.

  18. Posted

    It's nice to see the features but these videos are all pretty nasty. Odd aspect ratios, jittery frames, spelling mistakes.... It makes the 777 look like something from FS9! Let's hope someone with a bit of a flair for video puts something out with the superb quality of nick's NGX overview a couple of years back.

  22. Posted

    Didn't someone already do a real nice 747?

    Not really. The last decent one was the Ready For Pushback 747 but that was released over 10 years ago. PMDG did the 747-400 of course but that's a different kettle of fish altogether. Did CLS do one? I don't think anyone even noticed, or cared.

     

    A 747-200 done to this standard would fly out the door. Do it Milviz :)

  23. Posted

    Actually while we're on a French airports thread now that FTX global is here I'm also ready to branch a bit further afield than the UK. Anyone recommend any more solid French airports? I have aerosoft CDG but it's tough on frames and I get bored taxying halfway to the moon when I land there. I'm more a regional airport man myself.

  24. Posted

    Need to get this. Milviz please do us a nice 747-200.

     

    There must be a market for folk who have learnt the systems of the newer jets and are happy to go back a bit to the slightly higher workload and more 'hands on' approach of the older models of the 73 and 74. The fact that they have stuff like an FMC, LNAV, LVL CHG and autothrotte etc makes them much easier to fly and navigate than say a pure steam powered 707 where not only do you really need en route charts for all the fixes etc but the really basic autopilot adds workload in itself. The 732 and say 742 are modern enough to do some of the work themselves which makes the 'one pilot doing the job of three' thing we have to live with in FSX that much easier.

×
×
  • Create New...