• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines
  1. The list of missing or poorly implemented features is massive for X-Plane? Then why has it gained so much popularity in recent years? It has become a very complete sim and in my mind costs a lot less to provide a top notch experience than P3D does. Weather=There is a free NOAA plug-in to improve the weather depiction in X-Plane, but there is also the Xenviro addon you can purchase which is very good. Activesky also said they are developing for the platform. ATC=Both P3D and X-Plane have awful ATC out of the box. But with VATSIM and PilotEdge out there for both platforms, folks have plenty of options to choose from for dynamic atc. AI=Have you tried World Traffic V3? There are both freeware and payware options available for Xplane. It personally does not bother me that much when I fly with online ATC. Only a handful of great aircraft addons=There are a ton of excellent aircraft add-ons in X-Plane. Not sure what your criteria is for a great aircraft addon, but Xplane has a plethora of them to choose from. I still enjoy P3D for airline simming because I have invested a lot in that department. The NGX, GSX, the ORBX sceneries, the numerous payware airport addons, activesky, etc. But for GA simming, X-Plane just feels much more immersive and is so much cheaper to get to a level of immersion that requires purchase of many expensive addons for P3D to get to that level. For X-Plane, I have two payware aircraft add-ons, but everything else is freeware. I can fly with free HD mesh and ortho and can take advantage of the scenery gateway which gives me access to thousands of freeware developed airports that give a solid depiction of the airfield that is much more realistic than the vanilla P3D GA airfields.
  2. CB183183183

    PFPX worth it?

    It seems like PFPX would be a useful tool for longhaul pilots, but that Simbrief can probably do the job for most flights.
  3. CB183183183

    Your P3D/FSX Aircraft You Would Own in Real Life?

    I would be happy with: 1. Pilatus PC-12-Can get in and out of most fields and carry a ton of cargo. 2. TBM 850-Can't quite carry as much stuff, but much faster cruise speed than the PC-12 so you get there faster. 3. Lancair Legacy-Such a remarkable plane. A 240 knot cruiser that can fly for 5-6 hours on a full tank, can do aerobatics, and has speedbrakes in case you mess up your descent planning.
  4. CB183183183

    DTG Flight School: certainly NOT not for us simmers

    For those of us who are real world pilots, we know that general aviation is dying a slow death due to it's high costs and the fact that kids these days have way more entertainment options that require less cash and commitment than learning to fly an airplane. Flight sims and the communities that get built around them are a great way to get young people excited about flying and while DTG has some work to do to convince me they have a polished product that can adapt to the needs of people with real world flying experience, I applaud them for making efforts to bring in new people into our community. FS2000 was my first sim platform and it was far from realistic out of the box. Rod's lessons were optional, but in hindsight I wish some of them were required before you could be let loose. DTG at least is trying to provide new people with a structured way to get immersed in our hobby instead of aimlessly flying around and getting bored/frustrated after a few flights like many newbies do.
  5. Like any advanced aircraft, the Dash 8 can fly coupled approaches all the way down to decision height so use the autopilot if you need it. There is no autothrottle on this bird so you need to be precise and delicate with the throttle. Don't make large power changes and don't reduce the throttle to idle when flaring as this plane drops like a rock. I can't say enough about the Airline2Sim videos for the Q400. It really shows you how to fly this bird well and the planning that needs to go into executing a successful flight. I also use FS2Crew as well which helps keep my workload down on approach. This is one of the best payware add-on aircraft ever made for FSX/P3D but it takes many hours to master it.
  6. CB183183183

    A quick P3D V3 video

    I can understand some of the other posters points who are not overly impressed by the video posted. Because honestly it looks like just earlier renditions of P3D as someone who has been a user of the platform dating back to v2.2. The avatar feature is cool, but it doesn't blow my socks off. That being said, I can also appreciate the changes that LM are addressing to really cleanup the performance of the sim. I think we have a very capable sim platform for the future that can meet the needs of many of us in the community who use the sim for short or longhaul flying and want an immersive experience with our ORBX, Aerosoft, and FSDreamTeam add-ons enabled. It's exciting that our hobby is spreading it's wings in so many directions and that we have options to choose from.
  7. The last Carenado plane I bought was the Cessna 182T and their G1000 simulation was awful on FPS and a total train wreck. To this day, one of my favorite GA planes was their Cessna 210 for FS9. I flew the pants off that thing and loved everything about it. Carenado has now ventured into complex aircraft, but they have programmers who don't have the coding skills to accurately model complex aircraft systems. It blows my mind that they can't hire a good one with all the money they rake in from their sales. I look at a company like Flysimware that doesn't have the best looking aircraft, but they make the effort to really program the systems in complex aircraft the way they should be. There are two things that really set back Carenado: 1. Poor understanding of systems simulations of complex aircraft 2. Poor customer service support These are areas that the best developers out there really have down well. It's obvious from looking at Carenado's upcoming projects that they are more concerned about quantity over quality. Folks know that to really put out a top notch FS aircraft requires hundreds of hours of coding and lots of beta testing to get it right. That's why I never complain about companies like Aerosoft, A2A, Majestic, PMDG, and Real Air taking a while to release a product. Because I know when it does come out, it's going to be a high quality simulation that works well out of the box with few major bugs to overcome.
  8. CB183183183

    PMDG should stop making airplanes

    It takes PMDG 2-3 years just to develop one of their airplanes. I couldn't imagine the wait time on their own sim!
  9. CB183183183

    Ibiza turn Around

    I flew into Ibiza on Vueling from Barcelona a few years ago. It's a beautiful island. I would add that the Aerosoft scenery for Ibiza is dated since they have now built jet bridges at the airport.
  10. CB183183183

    How often do charter flights fly into major airports?

    It's rare for smaller aircraft like Cessnas and Pipers to fly into large Class B airports in the US, but many of these airports will be accommodating to smaller aircraft if arrangements are made with the ATC facility beforehand so they can slot you in. There was a youtube video not too recently I saw of a 172 flying into O'Hare. The pilot was on his game and did a great job keeping up with ATC. Biz jets and multi-engine turboprops fly into large airports every day in the US. Many try and use nearby reliever fields if the client has no pressing need to use the larger field to cut costs. Another common reason biz jets fly into large airports is for repositioning purposes to pick up or drop off a client using the airlines. Try doing a repositioning flight between KOAK-KSFO or KVNY-KLAX. You will not have a moment to breathe, I can promise you that!
  11. A DC-10 would be really cool. As a kid, I was so marveled by seeing those majestic three-holers at major hub airports.
  12. I agree with cmpbellsjc that when flying the tubeliners, it really is fantastic to have a good airport scenery that gives you the sense of immersion that you are operating in an airline environment. I tend to only buy payware airports I know I will be using as hubs for my operations. For example, paying 30 dollars for an FSDT Hawaii airport seems a bit silly when I am only flying there once or twice a year. For those of you who use the ORBX regions and have FTX Global, I'd encourage you to look at checking the "hybrid" box as this uses a nice balance between showing eyecandy of the regions, but also removing some details to improve FPS. That being said, my system still struggles flying into KSEA with the Pac NW Orbx region enabled and being that KSEA nearly is always cloudy or rainy has a huge impact on my FPS. Having detailed regional sceneries like the ORBX regions become more important to me when flying low and slow GA. I don't need a detailed 40 dollar airport, but I need good scenery to enjoy while enroute.
  13. CB183183183

    FSX: SE. A Dead End?

    I'm very happy to see FSX:SE get people excited about the hobby and stir some buzz. There are a wide variety of simmers and I think it's good that we now have 3 good platforms to choose from. As someone who has a pilot's license and wants to fly high fidelity aircraft with realistic system programming and practice real world procedures, P3D more than fits the bill. But I also understand there are folks out there who are more casual and just want to fire up a bird, get flying, and enjoy the eye candy. I see Dovetail taking FSX:SE into more of a casual simmer platform and there should be numerous add-ons that will be released over the years that will grow the hobby. It's not a bad thing and I think it will attract a larger audience. Lockheed-Martin will stick to the training market because that's what they do best. They don't need to cater to every simmer's taste because they are a large and very diversified company with a number of revenue generating sources other than P3D. X-Plane seems to be taking the reins as a fantastic developer's playground and I have seen a dramatic increase in the number of freeware sceneries and aircraft released for the sim.
  14. I tell people that when you are first starting with vatsim, use something simple like a 172. When you see a center controller in the US, it generally means that center controller is controlling a large region of airspace and so you can pick two small airports within that region and get full atc coverage. In the mean time, spend some more time offline flying the Ifly 737 and watching youtube videos about how to operate it. The two most important things you need to have a good handle on when flying an airliner in the sim are use of the autopilot and using the FMC. When you feel comfortable in those areas, only then would I recommend flying the 737 on vatsim. VATSIM has a lot of resources to help get you started if you visit their main website.
  15. I really like the Milviz 310. It was my first payware add-on aircraft for P3D and for less than 30 bucks, it was a steal. The sounds are great and I think what really impresses me is how Milviz took time to put the code in to realistically simulate engine-out procedures on a light twin, something that the default FSX Baron and other payware releases have failed at miserably. They don't have the size and scope of a PMDG, but my vote goes for the Majestic Q400. They're a small developer that put out an aircraft that has an incredible amount of details and system complexity on par with the PMDG. Rather than accepting the mediocre physics that FSX uses to simulate turboprop operations, Majestic decided to just engineer their own physics and systems characteristics from scratch and model them outside the framework of the sim which leads to an incredible airplane that is easy on frames and really makes you gain an appreciation for the difficulty involved in piloting a multi-engine turboprop.