Jump to content

Cargostorm

Members
  • Content Count

    855
  • Donations

    $5.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

124 Excellent

About Cargostorm

  • Rank
    LHC MD-11

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

2,331 profile views
  1. When 4.5 came out, some people found that performance (fps) was worse than 4.4. I believe Rob did some tests and comparisons at that time. Is lower fps as compared to 4.4 in 4.5 HF2 still an issue?
  2. Sounds like bad marketing, but here are some screenshots: https://www.thresholdx.net/news/gloear Orbx plans something similar to FTX Global in P3D. I will wait patiently.
  3. I use TrackIR in P3D and Xplane using the same profile both for GA and airliners. I adds so much to the immersion when flying because usually all your hands are at the controls and when flying a roll you need to turn the head. I could not live without it. The next step would be VR, but the resolution / performance is just not there yet for XP or P3D (it is in Aerofly). The only downside is that TrackIR requires > 30 FPS to be smooth. That said, it can become jerky when the frames drop below 30 fps (this is with G-SYNC).
  4. Are you sure of that? I thought EZCA V2 is discontinued and V3 is current. It appears that P3D v4.5 compatibility is only with V3: https://www.simforums.com/forums/ezca-for-p3d-4-5-here_topic61448.html
  5. More importantly: will it work with the improved textures of the new ZIBO version 3.34?
  6. 11.32RC2 is very stable and smooth in my setup. I wouldn't say there is a fps improvement over 11.26 though. But it feels smooth and also the fps fluctuations down to 20 fps occur much less in similar situations. I kept the 11.26 installation as a backup, but I doubt that I will ever need to downgrade as the current 11.32 has great shaders and all my plugins work (X-Camera, Greater Pushback, XPRealistic, Multi-Crew Exerience, ASXP, VMI-Twick).
  7. Nick, another question: is it possible to have EZDOK V2 installed for P3DV3 and EZDOK V3 for P3DV4 on the same PC so that they do not interfer with each other?
  8. It could be that in P3DV5 ORBX TE (or other photo scenery) will work better. For me, I have decided to buy ORBX TE for Xplane because the performance per visual in XP at moderate settings is currently better for THIS particular scenery than in P3D.
  9. Great! Thank you! This will save many hours...
  10. Can all the aircraft cameras be imported from V2 to V3? Does the EZDOK V2 database for all the specific aircrafts / liveries work with V3?
  11. This is the logical conclusion if you compare the different sims. I agree.
  12. I use LRM in Xplane and "Lord of the Landing" in P3D. Personally, I find "Lord of the Landing" by far superior because it provides additional landing parameters such as flare distance, centerline deviation, bank angle, heading (sidelip angle) and max v/s during approach. All these parameter are important to evaluate a "good landing". For those who are interested, it can be downloaded in the library: https://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fsxutil&DLID=182928
  13. Sorry, Dave. But I have to disagree: apart from the look, the SkySimulations MD-11 has nothing of the real aircraft. Sounds are just terrible, FMC is not there at all, and systems are not correctly simulated (if at all). I tried the addon, was disappointed and deinstalled it. It is no serious simulation of the MD-11. I doubt that they will update it to a level that it would be bearable. For me it was indeed a bad start on the project. PMDG created a milestone with their MD-11 and it was one of the aircrafts that was extremely close to the real one when it comes to the systems, sounds and feel. It is a shame that they are not adapting the 32bit DLLs for V4. The lack of a proper study-level MD-11 in P3Dv4 is the reason why I will jump on Xplane. Rotate develops a proper MD-11 at the moment which hopefully will fit everybody needs. Cheers, Chris
  14. The ToLiss A319 is at least on par with the FFA320 (and FsLabs in P3D) when it comes to system simulation. The German FS Magazin has reviewed the three buses available in XP (JarDesign A320 being the third) in their hardpaper journal. For sure the ToLiss is one of the few serious airliners in XP that are available for this platform and on the same level as Flightfactor or FSLabs. I will post as advised in the forum to see whether the ToLiss users have interest in having this aircraft interfaced, although I thought that the MCE forum would be the right place. I appreciate the amount of work that goes into the development of an MCE interface.
  15. Not sure I understand... Why should I post in the Toliss forum? It is more a matter whether ToLiss will cooperate with you guys (providing SDK etc) to make MCE workable with that specific aircraft.
×
×
  • Create New...