BeechPapa

So which developer is gonna do KBFI now? Even with a broken back, the camel can probably crawl a little more. No sense holding back on the straw.

Move the computer or move the Wi-Fi antenna out of the computer. There's external Wi-Fi dongles that can be connected to usb extension and then placed high up. I do that with my Logitech receiver. Could also place the computer at a distance, then get a powered usb hub on an extension for peripherals.

Well, there has to be a reference of some kind, whether visual or instrument. The essence of IFR is that there’s a "screen" of some kind telling you where you are every second. I don't see an enormous difference between typing in an approach on FMS and watching distance/course/glideslope deviation on LCD or tuning radios and watching needles deviate and DMEs counting down. I also think the differences between VOR/DME or ILS approaches and LNAV or LPV approaches are often over-exaggerated. Sure, it's fun to tune radios, align course needles, and maybe even listen out for morse codes. But with RNAV approaches you still have to account for distance, course deviation, glideslope (if available), DAs, IAFs and MAPs. Still have to read charts closely and scan instruments. It's just a matter of form factor. That said, I agree strongly about hand flying approaches. Once you feed all the data into the instruments, whether traditional radio or FMS, the act of hand flying the plane as you refer to instruments and charts can help a lot to understand the nuances of every approach, and coordination of inputs. It's very rewarding for me (though rare) when I do a perfectly executed standard rate turn in the soup.

Ok, just downloaded the complete source code and found the .exe. in the /bin/release folder you specified. Will give it a try on my next flight. Thanks for the help! Wouldn't have ever found it otherwise.

No problem. I always found the FMS to be a fascinating subject.

I haven't used this yet because the download links are not working. Maybe someone here knows another place to download it. But it looks like a pretty decent flight data recorder, and it's free... http://www.software.burlingames.com/recorder.php There's also a flight data recorder on the Aerosoft Twin Otter. It's been handy for me after crashing at Lukla a couple times. Always interesting when you get to simulate being the dispatcher, captain, and NTSB investigator all in the same flight session!

It’s not so much what the autopilot controls but what controls the autopilot. The flight director (the bars or crosshairs on the primary flight display indicating the intended path) is either driven by basic commands like HDG SEL, VOR LOC, V/S, ALT or by higher level commands of an FMS. The autopilot, in turn, follows the commands of the flight director much the same way the pilot would if he were flying under manual control. The benefit of having an FMS drive the flight director is that it can take more factors into consideration and adjust multiple flight parameters continuously throughout the flight. Without the FMS, crews would need to set the proper thrust amount at takeoff, vertical speed/airspeed during climb, multiple heading changes over the length of the flight, tuning multiple VORs, and then adjust vertical speed/airspeed again during descent… the FMS can direct all these parameters using the info provided about the flight plan, plane configuration, and environmental conditions and achieve the most efficient flight path or thrust level at any given moment, from takeoff to landing. By tying together all these functions into one automated computer system, the workload on crews is greatly decreased. Whether or not that work load reduction leads to a safer flight can be (and is often) debated, but workload reduction was the primary goal of instituting computerized flight management systems.

Thanks Ryan! It's amazing how the graphs match general consensus on the forums and personal experience. The ones known for having more stutters show themselves pretty clearly, as do the memory hogs. I'm starting to think that the frame rate variance is even more important than frame rate itself. Nothing ruins an immersive cockpit experience or smooth approach more than stutters.

Thanks, Ryan. This is the most objective and insightful benchmark of aircraft addons I've seen. And the results seem to coincide very closely with general consensus of addon performance you see on the forums.

Well, the fact that it stalls like a feather floating to the ground limits the fun for me personally. I'm not a huge fan of blurry gauges either, but the default FDEs are particularly disappointing. It severely limits the challenging aspect of STOL when there are no repercussions for making bad decisions or inputs. Not to mention what a more realistic side slip model can do for short fields.

The default Maule got me into bush flying, and holds a special place in my memory. It's really not too bad of a plane for being default. Nobody's done a payware Maule unfortunately, but the Real Air Scout serves a similar niche of STOL bush flying with instrumented panel, and became my go-to option for that category of flight. Still, it ain't a Maule... and it'd be nice to see one developed to a high standard of quality with realistic dynamics.

Much ado

Ahh, okay. Perfect parking is not the usual for me. Thanks for clarifying.

Anybody notice that if you take too much time to cut the engines, the GSX marshaller does the macarena dance while the macarena tune plays in the background? I'm thinking it's an easter egg by FSDT or else I'm having hallucinatory flashbacks to the 90's.

Well, there's a plastic part that comes with Saitek throttles that locks 4 throttles together for quad engines. You could cut that down to fit 2 throttles, but since you said N1 is off even when perfectly aligned, that really wouldn't fix the problem. It appears to be a calibration issue. The sensors in those throttles can vary in their linearity. They're the same a 0% or 100%, but the point where 50% or 75% is can be down to slight variations in the sensors. If you lock the throttles together in software (I don't know if that's even possible - perhaps it is with FSUIPC) then there would have to be a master throttle lever that dictates the other's position. But that would pretty much defeat the purpose of having two independent throttles levers. If the variation annoys you too much, it might be a better idea to just have 1 throttle lever mapped to both engines.

I haven't experienced a 747 yet. The PMDG version 1 looked old to me, so I never bought it and the alternatives didn't look detailed enough to be a true study sim for the 747. So the first time I take to the skies in a 747 will be in the PMDG v2, probably 5 years from now as someone joked previously. To me, it's worth the wait.

If you think of the rudder as a sail - a giant, flat, wind-catching surface capable of exerting tons of force, enough force to alter the yaw of a 70 ton airliner, then it's pretty easy to imagine how even a 10 knot wind could exert enough pressure on the rudder to alter the path of the plane. That definitely includes ground handling. Keeping the plane on the runway center line on takeoff or landing is part of the challenge - as long as the plane is moving, you need to fly it. Sometimes it requires a lot of rudder input to counter the crosswind, even on the ground. Heck, sometimes I find myself struggling to just taxi around if the winds are bad enough. Having said all that, the degree of accuracy in the default airliners and default weather is kind of low. If you find yourself getting interested in this airliner and weather stuff (and it looks to me like the bug has caught you already) I highly recommend getting an aircaft addon like the PMDG NGX and a weather addon like Active Sky Next. Not trying to sling shot you down a more complicated and costly road, but the questions you are asking indicate you would really enjoy the added realism and challenge of a realistic airliner and weather engine.

When you see the same star with a 1c, 1d designation that is usually to differentiate what runway the star arrives at. What flight aware does not tell you is the arrival runway. You shouldn't rely on that though, since the weather and wind conditions you fly in might be different than the conditions the original flight flew. Some flexibility is required. That means predicting wind at the arrival airport and what runway will likely be active for landing, and then coordinating your STAR with the direction you arrive from and the available options for your particular runway. A decent weather add-on should be able to give you an arrival forecast. There are also some flight planning utilities that can graphically depict (and narrow down) the different STAR/runway combinations so you can see very clearly which arrival suites your route the best. Looking at the charts is also vital.

This is my biggest pet peeve about FSX ATC. If there was a way to force it to give the next altitude clearance 1000ft before instead of 200ft before a level off I'd be happy. So tired of having to catch up to VNAV path because ATC gets me off of it. Especially in descent.

I've been watching this thread in paranoia, avoiding the sp2, and hoping to see an update addressing these issues. HiFi stepped up to the plate and delivered one. I installed SP2b (an update that addresses problems with 3rd party addons) and everything seems to be going smoothly... no change to my cfg file and all addons working correctly. Thanks to all users for reporting issues and HiFi for working quickly to resolve them.

Dang, I was hoping to avoid more updating. Thanks for the clarification though. Downloading the 5.00.1 Garmin trainer right now.

Should we also update the Garmin GTN Trainer? When I installed 1.08 it took me to the Garmin page to download, but I ignored that because I already have it on my system. Now I'm worried I should have reinstalled the Garmin software too. Everything seems to be working right in FSX though.

Very sad news. I will always be grateful for Tom’s contribution to the hobby, and bringing all us flight simmers together. Rest in peace.

Thanks for the thorough response, I appreciate the input. That seems to coincide with opinions I've heard before about the default capability vs. exploited capability of both sims. I am also a really big fan of Real Air products, and always thought they felt very realistic, fluid, and linear in response. That's exactly what I meant by comparing the best of X-Plane to the best of FSX. X-Plane does indeed seem more lively, but as you mention it is a constant, whereas a Real Air plane will get lively only when there are appropriate weather conditions or the plane gets out of its flight envelope. And even then the Real Air "liveliness" is a predictable response in yaw, aoa, or pitch/bank angles, so you can tell why the plane is acting the way it is and how to react. In X-plane there is a general instability to everything, but it's hard to pinpoint the causing factor or how to react to it.

Too true, in too many different ways, unfortunately.