Jump to content

Wolf0

Members
  • Content Count

    76
  • Donations

    $15.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

26 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

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

Recent Profile Visitors

1,284 profile views
  1. Tuning an atis is not convenient... It's how it's don irl but it only works if you know the correct nearby frequencies. Plus it adds workload. Looking at the grass where there isn't any atis nearby isn't a solution either, nor a windsock where there is none. Those are real-world alternatives. The red text bar allowed cross-check with the instruments, flying with the radio off and debugging new software for parameters as altitude and meteo readings. It was a nice thing to have and should have been present in MSFS. If the user wanted he could have the information displayed, otherwise it could be left off for the purists... It was convinient and we need tools since we're in a simulated environment!
  2. That's as real as it gets. It just sucks if you are aiming for a dirt strip hidden from infrastructure. And we can explore those now. Preferably without 10+ kts tailwind on final.
  3. I'm more of a round dials guy... Or a full FBW guy, but the FSLabs crew is holding their cards close to their chests, so for the foreseeable future no digital wind representation available without the little Shift+Z combo...
  4. Yes, more interested on the wind reading just for seeing the behavior of the weather model. Plus it's nice to have a general idea of the wind conditions when landing on unprepared fields...
  5. Quick question: Has anyone figured out how to display something similar to the old SHIFT+Z text on MSFS?
  6. Anyone has any information regarding São Paulo? We're missing a similar package with an up-to-date Congonhas (SBSP). Is Paulo re developing São Paulo like he just did Rio de Janeiro?
  7. Hello. I suffer from the same condition. Always depart from the same airport where I ended the previous flight. This tool has a neat function that allows the user to define a "tour". It works by pre-defining a number of airports that you are interested in flying to (for instance, your payware collection) and it then generates a random tour between them all. It also keeps track of your flights and landing data. Have fun!
  8. Thank you so much for the new package. I've said this before but it's never too much to repeat that this work is one of the best freeware additions for our community ever. Thank you!
  9. They are just ok. A step above freeware, a leap bellow flightbeam... If you are interested on a particular airport go for it. It will be well represented. I bought my packages over a sale and that helped. The price was closer to the quality.
  10. Hello. I wouldn't recommend this merge if the results were anything like that. Here's how my scenery looks like: I don't have the time to see what files I've disabled where, but I'll try to do it later today and will share the results. I think this looks rather convincing for the Faroe islands scenery and I hadn't disabled any autogen vegetation.
  11. There is the Azurafiles version which works on P3Dv4. But the MK Studios is substantially better. The best results however are obtained mixing the MK Studios with the Faroe Islands 5 available at the library: https://library.avsim.net/search.php?SearchTerm=faroeislands5.zip&CatID=root&Go=Search This is an original idea of the Azurafiles team (to mix their scenery with the Faroe Islands freeware), but it works perfectly with the MK Studios. And you end up having the best of both worlds: a beautiful terminal and airport from MK Studios and correct villages and scenery for the islands (and around the airport) by the freeware Faroe scenery. This avoids all landclass issues and terrain mismatches.
  12. Thank you. Europe next? Best regards.
  13. Projectfly has a major drawback: it's online. If the owners decide to shutdown you can end up loosing all your data...
  14. Or you can consider the option to add fuel as a way to replicate in-flight refuel. B737 has that ability (the navy variant called Poseidon) and A330s can do it too (the tanker version). No harm in enlarging the scope of the simulation. As others have said it's all about the user freedom. Use it or leave it. But even if an option seems unrealistic today (10 years ago no 737 or A330 could refuel in-flight) it doesn't mean that we have to forbid the user to do it. Sometimes reality catches up!
  15. I've installed PFPX v2 and I've had a very nice experience since installing it. I haven't experienced any errors or bugs. Performance is indeed better and there are plenty of new exciting features to explore. Even if there are bugs what's the big deal? The developers provided this version for FREE! And an hotfix has already been released which means that development is continuing and bugs are being smashed. Every software has bugs. It's the development that matters. And to me it's a really nice thing to have PFPX updated after ~2 years without major changes. I don't get all this rant from the OP. If you don't like the software don't use it. But starting a rumor from day 1 after release is just poor judgement and really unfair to the work of the developers.
×
×
  • Create New...