tjstreak

Members
  • Content count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Neutral

About tjstreak

  • Rank
    Member

Flight Sim Profile

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

195 profile views
  1. GTN 750 Carenado SR22

    I would not give up on the Carenado G1000 all that fast. It really is quite nice, especially with synthetic vision. (I have not checked whether the SR22 has the latest incarnation of the Carenado G1000). IMHO, it compares favourably with the F1 G1000. I have used this G1000, literally, to fly around the world. My eyesight is getting real bad, so I just use the 2d popout and expand it to fill most of the screen. That solves most of the visibility problems. While the knob twiddling can be frustrating, it is more manageable when using and enlarged 2d popout. Of course, it would be nice to have a hardware G1000 frame which would make the knob twiddling much easier. I believe they are available, but still quite pricey.
  2. As surprising as this may sound to some, the Carenado aircraft I have used the most are the C172 and the C182, both with the G1000. In fact, sat fall I used these aircraft for Aerosoft's latest around the world flight. I used the 172 for the legs from London to Yokohama, and the 182 for the rest of the legs back to London. This ordinarily would not have been my choice for this type of trip, but I was trying to use this in conjunction with Air Hauler 2, which only allowed me a default 172. I cheated and swapped the Carenado 172 with the G1000 and synthetic vision. After abandoning the Air Hauler aspect (which was a lousy program for this type of trip), I switched to the 182 because there were several legs from Yokohama to San Francisco which simply were outside of the range of the 172. For all the grumbling, I actually found Carenado's current G1000 to be competitive with some of the other G1000s out there, including Flight 1's G1000, especially since Flight 1 has not updated its 182 to the latest versions of Prepar3d. While the Carenado G1000 does not have all the functions of the real world G1000, none of the other G1000s do, either. The game changer for these aircraft is the synthetic vision. Many may not see the value of synthetic vision, but it is a Godsend. If you are trying to fly into a low visibility airstrip (like a dirt strip in the Arabian desert), the G1000 coupled with synthetic vision makes locating and landing at these strips a breeze. My main beef is that many of these remote airstrips do not appear in the Carenado database (or at least they go under different names). This combination is also useful for night landings and bad weather landings. In some parts of the world, airstrips are few and far between and weather can really sneak up on you. One of the more interesting segments of the trip was flying the "Hump" in a C172 from Assam to China. Another surreal challenge was flying from Yokohama to San Francisco, via the Kamchatka peninsula and the Aleutian chain. Anyone who has not tried flights like these in a small GA aircraft is missing out on a fascinating experience.
  3. Is P3D V4 lacking a regional jet

    A dearth of honest reviews is a problem which has been plaguing our hobby for a long time. In particular, I am thinking of one website where the prior owner always told his readers to buy the products he reviewed. Of course, he only reviewed products that were advertised on his website. Occasionally, he would make negative comments about products which were not advertised on his website, or worse yet, was competing with one of his advertisers' products. At some point, you just don't believe anything he says or writes. How many times does someone lie to you before you stop believing them about anything? FSElite recently had an article on reviews which underlines the problem. If someone gives a negative review to that product, the developer will respond by not providing review copies in the future. This problem is being compounded by developers releasing unfinished products and making the purchasers beta testers. One developer was selling Airbuses (the A320, and A330) and promised a version 1.0 within the year. That was years ago, and we still have not seen a version 1.0. I think the problem is that some developers bite off more than they can chew. They underestimate the difficulties of the project and simply lack the skills to bring it to fruition. For example, years ago a developer was selling a Fokker, promising a VC at some point in the future. Needless to say, that promise was not kept. It should not be surprising that the same developer had problems with the CRJ. At some point the urge just to shove it out the door becomes overwhelming.
  4. I don't see why we can't have two conventions, particularly if they are in different parts of the country. Why not an east coast convention? And a west coast convention? There are plenty of locations along the east coast, like Lancaster PA or Baltimore MD. In fact, an ideal eastern location might be at or near the Air and Space Museum at Dulles International Airport. Or the U.S. Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio. Similarly, there are many good locations in the West. Each of these is likely to attract different groups of simmers. Instead of scheduling them apart, it would be better to schedule them a week apart. That way exhibitors pack up their stuff and head across the country. This would be particularly nice for exhibitors from outside the U.S.
  5. Searching For A380! That's Not Rubbish.

    A couple of years ago, I engaged in the elusive search for an a380 that was not total rubbish. The one that came closest was the Overland (Simmers Sky) a380. This is part of their Fly Into the Sky - Airbus edition. On the downside, this is an old model (circa 2006) and looks like it. It comes with a limited number of liveries. There is no CDU; it uses the default Garmin GPS. The number of liveries is quite limited, though I think I found a few additional liveries. On the upside, it is not expensive. The Overland package also comes with A300, a319, a320, a321, a330 and a340 models -- all for 19.95 Euros. So, if you hate it, you are not out all that much. As for the Wilco -- it's Wilco. Nuff said. Project Airbus has a nice freeware model. Problem is, its VC is for FS9 -- unless it has been updated since I last looked. However several industrious simmers have kit-bashed a340 cockpits into it, usually the ones from Thomas Ruth or Wilco. And there is a freeware FMS which can be used for it. In fact, I found one of those kit bashed versions which had a lot of liveries; but I forget where. I probably have it buried on my hard drive somewhere. I will qualify everything by pointing out it has been a long time since I looked. Truth of the matter is, my hanger is overflowing, and I have nicer models to fly than an old lumberjet. Given the choice of a PMDG 777, PMDG 747, Qualitywings 787 or an old A380 for a long haul flight, the A380 is going to be at the bottom of that list. Edit: I just ran across another model. It had a Quantas livery and was by Robert Versluys. It is freeware, and can be found at https://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/files/1785/fsx-qantas-airbus-a380-800/ A big downside is, it has no virtual cockpit. So you will be forced to kit bash something else in or just use a 2d panel. I don't know if other liveries are available. How do you feel about Sydney?
  6. Any Simbrief experts out there?

    I have always operated on the assumption that Simbrief maintains a database of routes that have been entered by other users. That is, when a user enters a route, the program saves that route, and displays it as an option for other users. If a user wants to make a different route, links are provided to other sites where a route can be created. Likewise, a user is free to manually enter his own route. I think the Simbrief allows users to select a route that was entered by other users. If those users had SIDS and STARS, they will show on that route.
  7. Would Air Hauler 2 suit me?

    I think you totally missed the point of my post. The original poster was asking about nomad mode. I responded to that question and limited my discussion to nomad mode. If anyone is interested in my comments on the base game, I have spent many many hours playing that as well. I felt qualified to post about nomad mode because I had spent over 88 hours of butt time flying in nomad mode. I believe this is a fair trial and puts me in a position to comment about it. Reluctantly, I had to give up on Air Hauler. There are a lot of people posting who will write about a product, when it is fairly clear they have not actually used it and don't know what they are talking about. Along those lines, how many hours have you spent using nomad mode? Do you know what you are writing about? One of the questions is why someone would even want to use nomad mode in the first place. If you like going to grass or dirt fields, the base game gives you plenty of opportunities to do that. If you like flying to bare naked airstrips with no buildings taxiways, there are plenty of those in the base game. I was using nomad mode in conjunction with an around the world flight. I was not interested in something boring and difficult. I just wanted to act as a rogue trader working my way across the world. This strikes me as the most useful use for nomad mode. I would also note that an around the world trip with the default C172 is well nigh impossible. The problem is crossing the Pacific, particularly between Japan and Russia. The distance between RJCN and UHPP is over 800 miles, while the default C172 has a range of around 500 miles. Yes, there are airports and abandoned airstrips on the Kuril Islands which do not appear in the game, and yes, it is possible to cheat. That the game sticks you with an aircraft which cannot do the job is just a major designe defect. I think part of your problem is that you are confusing difficult with boring. Nomad mode forces the player to use the default C172 for 200+ hours before one even has a shot to fly a nicer plane. I don't know about you, but the thought of being stuck with the default 172 for that period of time is ghastly. I have spent a lot of money developing a nice hanger, and to have a game developer tell me I can't use those aircraft is just plain wrong. Plus it is more boring than watching paint dry. I think the problem is the game developer claims he developed the game for himself, and he expects everyone else to want to play the game the way he thinks it should be played. He is not open to different modes of play, and actively punishes gamers who don't want to play the game exactly the way he plays it. But if you like boring games, go for it.
  8. Would Air Hauler 2 suit me?

    My opinion of nomad mode in AH2 is it basically sucks. The Developer obviously does not like it and does not want players to use it, so he has made it so miserable to use that it is of little value. First of all, it is the most difficult level of play. In career mode, which is the most difficult level of regular play, you get an A36 Bonanza, $250,000 and 20 reputation. In Nomad mode, you get $1,000, an A36 Bonanza and 20 reputation. This is an absolutely crippling level of play. Second, let's talk about that $1,000 in starting funds. After your check ride (you have to pass a check ride to be able to use any aircraft in the game), landing fees, and fuel, you will have almost no cash left. Heaven forbid that you fail that first check ride, because you might as well dump the game and start over again. Likewise, your first mission has to be a success, or you are going to be done before you even get started. Third, let's talk about the plane. When I used nomad mode, I had the choice of one plane, the default C172. This is the plane you have to fly for the first 300 to 400 missions. You do have the option at the beginning of the game to sell the 172. And with that money, maybe you can purchase a hang glider. But the 172 is probably the least expensive functional plane in the game. To purchase anything else, you have to sell your plane and have cash. However, that initial $1000 will not get you very far; if you spend it on another aircraft (as if another $1000 will make the least bit of difference), you won't have any money for fuel, landing fees or you check ride -- game over. So forget your nice A2A aircraft, which you have spent a lot of money to purchase! Fourth, with the initial $1,000, you cannot afford insurance for your aircraft. This is significant because even a hard landing will cost more than $1000. Insurance can help pick up the cost of repairs - especially those coming from a random breakdown. Moreover, a lot of destinations will be dirt or grass strips with no lights, no ILS and no navaids -- i.e. where there is a higher probability of a crack up. If the game decides your plane was damaged on landing, and you don't have insurance, it is game over. Fifth, the 20 reputation is also crippling. You need to have 40 reputation to really do much of anything. You need 40 reputation to get loans, or even to lease an aircraft. So not only do you start the game with almost no cash, you really have no way to get any more. Sixth, you have to start the game in nomad mode. While you can leave nomad mode and back to regular play, there is no going back to nomad mode. So for example, you could not start the game at an easier level with a better aircraft and more cash, then switch over to nomad mode. Seventh, gaining reputation is mind numbingly slow. I tried using nomad mode for an around the world trip. I found that it took about ten missions to gain one point of reputation. Getting that 20 additional reputation points will mean flying about 200 missions. At this point, you can borrow money for maybe something better than the default 172. Or you can sell your 172 (at half price) and lease a nicer aircraft. Eighth, maybe I was just unlucky, but the missions never took me in the direction I wanted to go. As I said, I was using nomad mode as part of an around the world tour. At least half of my flights were deadhead flights because there were no missions heading in the direction I was travelling. If I needed to go southeast, all of the missions were to the northwest. I would fly from airport to airport, and all of the missions were going the wrong way. Most airports generate about two missions when you land, meaning your choices are limited. Thus, you can count on having to fly, not 200, but between 300 and 400 missions before you can escape the crappy C172 for something nicer. Ninth, for a smaller plane (like the default C172 you are forced to start with), most of your missions will be to bare naked grass or dirt airstrips. We all know FSX and Prepar3d have a lot of airstrips which are a simple airstrip, with no buildings, taxiways or parking places. In Air Hauler, you will see many of these. Tenth, if FSX or Prepar3d crashes on you, you have to start the mission all over again. I think we have all experienced FSX or Prepar3d crashing while we are on short final following a five hour flight. With AH2, you have to start that five hour flight all over again. So, no, I would not recommend AH2. A game is supposed to be fun and not an exercise in misery.
  9. Looking for some decent scenery of Japan

    I think you are mission a few of the commercial sceneries. For example, Wing Creation also has SHIZUOKA RJNS, NIIGATA RJSN, NAGASAKI RJFU, and SENDAI RJSS. Also, Overland has nine packs of Japanese airports for FS2004. Each pack has five airports, for a total of 45 airports. I just travelled the long way across Japan, south to north. I used a couple of these Overland airports in FSX and P3d v.3, including Supporo, and Haneda. I did not have any problems (except the numbers on some of the runways were rather flaky) Of course, using FS2004 scenery in FSX or P3d is always a risky matter, but at four euros per airport, it is not a huge risk. Below is a picture of the Overland Haneda in FSX.
  10. Carenado c172 G1000

    BTW, I don't want anyone to get me wrong: I really like this model. In fact, it has become my favorite Carenado aircraft (and I have most of them). If I want a light GA aircraft, this may be my go to model. That does not mean it is without flaws, or that it cannot be improved (custom waypoints in the G-1000 and the ability to save plans would be a great improvement. I believe one can save flightplans in the X-Plane version) I would really like to see this G-1000 included in Carenado's other G-1000 aircraft.
  11. The case for FSX...

    FSX enjoys a number of advantages over P3d. First is price. A non academic version of P3d costs hundreds of dollars. A copy of FSX, Steam Edition, can often be had for under $20. This leads to the second advantage: a large use base. If you compare the number of people still using FSX, they greatly outnumber those using P3d and X-Plane. This means developers should want to develop for this userbase, just because there is more money out there. The third major advantage is because FSX has been around so long, there is a huge backcatalog of both freeware and payware. The third advantage is what keeps me coming back to FSX. (I have both FSX and P3d installed.) I have found that P3d can misbehave just as much as FSX. It always takes time to install and setup a new program. Of course, the best answer may be: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  12. Carenado c172 G1000

    Thank you. I did some more experimentation with this aircraft. I added a co-pilot, but no other passengers or cargo. I applied no extra trim and one notch of flaps. I took off at full throttle. I barely touched the yoke. The plane initially jumped to a climb of 1500 fpm, but eventually settled down to a speed of 70 knots and a climb of 400 to 600 fpm. The FLC switch does not work quite as you state. In its default state, it will climb at a rate of 70 knots. However, in reading the Garmin G1000 pilot's guide ( http://static.garmincdn.com/pumac/190-00498-07_0A_Web.pdf ), apparently, the speed of the climb should be set at the speed the plane was going when FLC was activated. This is a minor knitpick. More importantly, it is possible to change the speed the FLC climbs at. The nose down button sets the speed higher and the nose up sets the speed lower. There is a speed bug indicator on the top of the speed tape, which advises the speed the FLC is set at. The Garmin manual also states that by depressing the CWS button (Control Wheel Steering), one can fly the plane manually to the speed one wants to climb at, and upon releasing this button, the FLC will be set at the speed one was flying manually. The FLC button in the model can be seen on the top of the yoke, and if appears to be non functional. I have yet to find a binding in FSUIPC so I can assign it to a button on my yoke. Without much documentation, a lot simply has to be learned by trial and error.
  13. Carenado c172 G1000

    Since my last post on October 4, I have spent over 88 hours in 71 flights with this bird as part of Aerosoft's current round the world adventure. While I have learned a lot more about this aircraft, I still have not mastered it. But I have learned a few of its tricks though trial and error (it's not like there is any useful documentation!) With respect to my prior comments, I was wrong in several respects. First, it is possible to enter airways, but the Carenado has a funny way of doing it. Assume I have a flight plan like: LIPN OSTEG L614 KOPER L12 LUMAV M726 GAVRA Z806 OKBIS Y510 GITOD GITO1G LIRA . The new G1000 does not group each leg under a different airway, that is, you don't have a section of airway M726, followed by airway Z806, followed by airway Y510. Instead the Carenado version groups them all under one big airway. It creates a new airway where it just adds the waypoints of each airway as you add it. This make it impossible to add a waypoint which is not part of an airway between the airways. Now there may be a trick to doing this, but I just have not figured it out. Also, entering airways is not exactly intuitive. In the absence of any meaning ful documentation, it is largely a matter of trial and error. Also, the Carenado G1000 will not include certain waypoints or airports in a flight plan. It recognizes them. They will show up on the PFD with the synthetic vision, and even the MFD. But when you try to load them into a flight plan, they simply will not load. This means that it may not be possible to enter a destination airport into the flight plan. I have been able to finesse this by using a navaid near the airport. Where there is no nearby navaid, I have had to use a bearing and distance from a VOR, and go from GPS mode to Nav1 to reach my final destination. Also, the Carenado G1000 does not show the departure airport on the flight plan. Again, if I can start with a nearby navaid and use that, it is a minor problem -- especially if that navaid is part of an airway. But sometimes it may be a fairly significant distance from an airport to the nearest navaid. I realize the Carenado G1000 is definitely a work in progress and that prior versions did not even allow for the manual entry of flight plans; they only used the FSX flightplan. So, the current version is an improvement, and a significant one. But they certainly are taking their sweet time in delivering a functional G1000. On a positive note, I love the synthetic vision. I especially love it when coming into a dark dirt or grass unlighted airstrip after sunset. (Yes, I know no sane pilot would ever do this, but I am not usually credited with being sane!) Synthetic vision gives you a daylight view of the strip in the PFD as you approach and land. I have always found dirt and grass strips difficult to see and located in FSX, but the PFD and MFD make it a breeze. When the MFD is zoomed in, it is possible to line the plane up directly with the airstrip, while only making minor corrections. The PFD has a nice flag to confirm what you can see in the MFD is correct. As you land, the appearance of the strip in the PFD lets you know if you are on the center line (which of course would never appear ion most dirt strips, and gives a pretty close indication of altitude (along with the callouts). It would be nice if it were possible to use the Mindstar G1000 since that appears to do a better job with G1000 functionality. But alas, the Mindstar G1000 does not work with Carenado aircraft. Of course I would be quite happy with a Mindstar G1000 popup. (But, I don't know if I would trade that for the synthetic vision, which is super cool.) One downside of this model is that it seems to require a lot of negative trim, even when I am not flying a loaded flight. I typically start with pitch trim set a -5 for an unloaded flight and -13 for a loaded one. I have seen instances where I set the vertical climb speed (on a fully loaded flight) of 200 fpm, and the auto-pilot has the downward trim set at -26. The plane has a nasty tendency to shoot up and go ballistic, as if it were rocket. The problem is, when it tries to climb at 2000 feet a minute, it inevitably stalls. When trying to correct it, it starts porpoising, making manual correction difficult, and deadly at lower altitudes. I have not had this problem with other aircraft, so I am assuming it is a bug with this one. I have also found that this aircraft has a nasty tendency to unbind the bindings in FSUIPC. It is particularly frustrating when taking off or landing only to find that you have no elevator control. I often have to pause the flight and reset the FSUIPC bindings. Again, this is not a problem I have experienced before. And yes, it is really disconcerting when your c172 thinks it is an F16 and goes ballistic, climbing at 2000 fmp, and you have not elevator control! The speed hold (FLC) seems to be worthless, and even dangerous, to use. Instead of holding speed and climbing from there, the FLC holds the speed to just a hair above the stall speed as it tries to shoot up at 2000 fpm. Of course, the plane stalls because C172s cannot climb at 2000 fpm, at least, not for long. If you try to use the FLC, don't be surprised when your plane stalls. I have not played with the VNAV switch. I would note that the default altitude for all waypoints in the flight plan is 40,000 feet. I don't know about you, but I don't think it is possible to fly a 172 at 40.000 feet. short of going to the map and setting the altitude at 40,000 feet. However, it does seem possible to edit this in the flight plan. On the other hand, it would seem to make more sense to set the altitude for these waypoints at the cruise altitude, rather than at 40,000 feet. There seems to be no effort to calculate climbing and descending altitudes, so the pilot would need to do this manually (or use a program like simbrief or Active Sky to calculate these for you. Also, the VNAV will not provide TOC or TOD points. Not that this matters, because I have yet to find a way of entering custom waypoints. Of course, there may be a way of enterering custom waypoints, but the documentation is silent on this (snark! snark!) I still have not figured out how to save a flight plan. Given that FSX like to crash every six flights or so, sometimes in mid flight, sometimes at takeoff, sometimes at landing, it would be nice to be able to restore a flight plan. Since there is no remote for the G1000, as in other planes, it can take a while (like 10 to 15 minutes) to input a flight plan by fiddling with knobs that don't want to fiddle. Oh, yes, and it is possible to set a course. You just have to find the right click spot at the very bottom of the CRS/BARO knob. Most of this knob changes you baro setting. But there is a teeney weeney itsy bitsy click spot at the bottom of the knob. Also, you have to be in the right mode. That is if you want to change course for NAV1 mode (like for your ILS), you need to be in NAV1 mode in the PFD. You cannot change a NAV1 course from GPS mode. Generally, I will put the plane in heading mode before I start fiddling with the course for an ILS landing. Fortunately, the default ATC gives you your runway assignment a long time (like an hour) before you have to land -- so you have plenty of time for knob fiddling. Of course, it is possible to go into the airport information page and scroll down to the frequency for you ILS, and hit enter. Knowing which knobs to turn, which buttons to press is something of a matter of trial and error because of the lack of documentation. In fact, this process is much more time consuming than simply looking up the ILS frequency and entering it manually.
  14. Carenado c172 G1000

    I have been playing with this plane a lot over the past several days. I have not even begun to mess with the Synthetic Vision Thing. That being said, I have had a number of frustrations with the basic G1000. Forget about SVT, I would just like the damn thing to work right. Several problems I have encountered: 1. I cannot save a flight plan. 2. I cannot enter airways. 3. There seems to be no way to edit VNAV settings. 4. I have yet to capture an ILS signal 5. The course tuning knob does not work. Maybe I am doing something wrong, but since Carenado does not provide documentation, that is their fault. I have found other materials on the G1000, and the Carenado version does not follow what appears to be the standard way of doing things. Carenado seems to do an adequate job with steam gauges, but their glass cockpit stuff leaves a lot to be desired. I am thinking I might be better off using the default C170 with the Mindstar G1000. I think I will try that again next. While the default models aren't as pretty, they at least are functional. Carenado aircraft are sort ol like dealing with a dumb blonde -- nice to look at, but no substance.
  15. Actually, I find the comments here to be quite disturbing. A simmer says he is having problems with an addon and not getting any support. The immediate response is to accuse him of being a liar. (And guys, that is exactly what you are doing.) Actually the response of technical support, in effect accusing him of being a liar, just bolsters his claim that he not receiving technical support to help with the problem. I have purchased many addons which do not work properly on my computer. Maybe they work just fine with someone else's system, but they don't work with mine. Over the years, it has probably happened more than a couple dozen times; but then again, I buy a lot of addons, so it is not surprising that a percentage of them do not work properly on my setup. Also, many developers seem to have a habit of overpromising and under-delivering. As consumers, we pretty much have to take them at their word, since we do not know whether a particular addon will work with our setups until we give them our money and install it on our computers. These are simple transactions. A consumer gives the developer money, and the developer is supposed to deliver a functioning product. Period. If the product does not work, there is a breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. That is, the developer has breached the contract. The consumer has no obligation to seek technical support or try to work with the developer. The standard for goods is perfect tender, not substantial performance. And it certainly is not "kinda, sorta" performance. If the product is not working, and the developer does not want to fix it, the correct response is to return the consumer's money. A lot of stores, like Just Flight, offer a money back guarantee. Other developers offer a free trial period. It would seem that if the product does not work, for whatever reason, the developer should return the consumer's money. If they don't, that developer should not be surprised if they have an irate consumer on their hands. Part of customer service is dealing with these complaints. I am reminded of the old saying that a happy customer tells one person, but an unhappy customer tells twenty. In the days of the internet, that twenty has become thousands. It does take some guts for a consumer to come forward and say he has been cheated, precisely because he will be met with accusations he is a liar, as happened here. As another consumer, I have an interest in knowing whether a product will work, and whether I will receive support if it does not. I appreciate getting a heads up that a merchant is not on the up and up. Someone who warns other people should not be accused of being a liar, until there is some proof to back up that accusation. I have not purchased any of these products, and given this particular consumer's complaint and the response he has received, I am not inclined to deal with this developer.