rufowler

Wow, so many choice. Thanks again for all the comments & suggestion. Unfortunately my brain is hurtng a little bit, but in a good way. Yes, I'm definitely getting that sense! No flaps! Woah. =o Is that typical of aerobatic planes? Total 100% newbie in that department. So with all the praise about the Scout, I just checked out the site and it appears to be under $15!!! That's some serious value for what seems to be a very well-loved option here. I might even justify getting a second aircraft. If I do, I gotta say, the An-2 by SibWings is lookin' pretty nice. Hmmm....

Wow, it seems like the Scout really wins your votes here. I was thinking about the Scout a little while ago -- especially since it comes with the Citabria and the Decathlon as well. Looks like it's a (relatively) old one from RealAir, waaay back in 2007. Assuming most of you Scout owners have their suite of planes, do you like the Scout the best of the three? Cool. Yes, the C185 would def be on my list. Somehow I have never heard of the company Flight Replicas. Looks intriguing. Would def consider a classic Super Cub! Yeah, it's gotten a couple of good reviews too. Don't love the glass cockpit though. Kinda ruins it for me. Could be me but the Aerosoft Beaver looked a but dated from the screenshots and the youtube videos I've seen. Maybe I'm wrong though. I do love the plane itself though. You feel like holds up for being 6-7 years old? The Bush Hawk, however, does look pretty sweet!

Oh jeez, somehow I missed the C185 in Carenado's catalog. That does look promising, and pretty much fits small-ish plane preference I seem to have. I've never heard of SibWings; it seems that they don't sell their planes on the usual online sim stores. How is the An-2 on your frames? The graphics looks really nice, but I have a less-than-optimal system so always have to be careful about that sorta thing. The Cub might be a little more old / low-fi than I was thinking, but A2A is indeed a great company. And I'll check out the RealAir plane too. Thanks for the input!

Does anyone have a recommendation for a good bush plane for FSX -- preferably a agile little STOL single engine prop? I do a lot of my flying in Orbx regions in North America (which is pretty darn ideal for bush flying!), I primarily fly VFR in small GA aircraft, and I don't have all that many payware planes. But I'd like to put another one in my hangar. I did some poking around and was a little surprised not to see some of the "classics" like the DHC Beaver, the Maule M7, and the Piper Super Cub out there ... or at least not versions that had been done in recent years or by the bigger, reputable companies whose other planes I really like (Carenado, Aerosoft, Alabeo, A2A). And I just can't stand the default FSX versions of the Maule or Beaver. Perhaps I'm missing some though. Any suggestions? Thanks.

Well after spending the weekend fiddling around with SDK and trying to learn the coding, I figured out what needed to be tweaked & added to the original Carenado Piper PA28 I was installing a heading bug to. For anyone interested, here's the XML file with my additions. I had to create the actual (translucent) heading bug file called "Directional_Gyro_Bug.bmp", but that was easy enough to create. Anyhow I now have a nice looking and functional heading bug that integrates with the autopilot too. Cheers. <Gauge Name="Heading Indicator" Version="1.0"> <Image Name="Directional_Gyro_Background.bmp"/> <Element> <Position X="153" Y="153"/> <Image Name="Directional_Gyro_Card.bmp"> <Axis X="153" Y="153"/> </Image> <Rotate> <Value>(A:Plane heading degrees gyro,radians) /-/</Value> <Failures> <SYSTEM_ELECTRICAL_PANELS Action="Freeze"/> <GAUGE_GYRO_HEADING Action="Freeze"/> </Failures> </Rotate> </Element> <Element> <Position X="153" Y="153"/> <Image Name="Directional_Gyro_Bug.bmp"> <Axis X="153" Y="153"/> </Image> <Rotate> <Value>(A:Autopilot heading lock dir,radians) (A:Plane heading degrees gyro,radians) -</Value> </Rotate> </Element> <Element> <Position X="153" Y="153"/> <Image Name="Directional_Gyro_Mask.bmp"> <Axis X="153" Y="153"/> </Image> </Element> <Mouse> <Area Left="0" Top="0" Width="310" Height="310"> <Tooltip ID="TOOLTIPTEXT_HEADING_INDICATOR_HEADING"/> <Help ID="HELPID_GAUGE_HEADING_INDICATOR"/> <Cursor Type="Hand"/> <Click>785 (> K:PANEL_ID_TOGGLE)</Click> <Area Left="0" Top="250" Width="155" Height="60"> <Area Left="0" Top="0" Width="50" Height="60"> <Cursor Type="DownArrow"/> <Click Event="GYRO_DRIFT_DEC" Repeat="Yes"/> </Area> <Area Left="50" Top="0" Width="50" Height="60"> <Cursor Type="UpArrow"/> <Click Event="GYRO_DRIFT_INC" Repeat="Yes"/> </Area> </Area> <Area Left="155" Top="250" Width="155" Height="60"> <Tooltip ID="TOOLTIPTEXT_AUTOPILOT_HEADING_INDICATOR"/> <Area Left="50" Top="0" Width="50" Height="60"> <Cursor Type="DownArrow"/> <Click Event="HEADING_BUG_DEC" Repeat="Yes"/> </Area> <Area Left="100" Top="0" Width="50" Height="60"> <Cursor Type="UpArrow"/> <Click Event="HEADING_BUG_INC" Repeat="Yes"/> </Area> </Area> </Area> </Mouse> </Gauge>

Isn't it about time for a v1.3? Anyone know if the product is still being updated? It caused such a stir and it seemed like there were lot of folks buying it in July, but I was holding out a bit longer for some more kinks to get iron out. Might just go ahead and buy it anyway tho....

Thanks guys. Yes, I do have FSUIPC and am less worried about a totally realistic gauge with two separate knobs for calibrating and adjusting the bug. I mostly fly VFR in small aircraft and more than anything wanted to have something on the panel for me to see visually in my VC. I'm ok for the moment with foregoing a working visible/working second knob that operates the bug as long as I can assign a hotkey to it. This might be a little over my head, but I'll give it a go. Anyhow, I found a couple of heading indicator gauges with bug which would work fine, but their size is a bit off, and while they use CAB files like just as the one on my aircraft do, they seem to be "built" rather differently. Here's the XML file for the plane I'm working on now. <Gauge Name="Heading Indicator" Version="1.0"> <Image Name="Directional_Gyro_Background.bmp"/> <Element> <Position X="0" Y="0"/> <MaskImage Name="Directional_Gyro_Mask.bmp"> <Axis X="153" Y="153"/> </MaskImage> <Image Name="Directional_Gyro_Card.bmp"> <Axis X="153" Y="153"/> </Image> <Rotate> <Value>(A:Plane heading degrees gyro,radians) /-/</Value> <Failures> <SYSTEM_ELECTRICAL_PANELS Action="Freeze"/> <GAUGE_GYRO_HEADING Action="Freeze"/> </Failures> </Rotate> </Element> <Mouse> <Help ID="HELPID_GAUGE_HEADING_INDICATOR"/> <Tooltip ID="TOOLTIPTEXT_HEADING_INDICATOR_HEADING"/> <Area Left="0" Top="0" Width="375" Height="375"> <Cursor Type="Hand"/> <Click>785 (> K:PANEL_ID_TOGGLE)</Click> </Area> <Area Left="9" Top="244" Width="36" Height="65"> <Cursor Type="DownArrow"/> <Click Event="GYRO_DRIFT_DEC" Repeat="Yes"/> </Area> <Area Left="46" Top="244" Width="37" Height="65"> <Cursor Type="UpArrow"/> <Click Event="GYRO_DRIFT_INC" Repeat="Yes"/> </Area> </Mouse> </Gauge> Straightforward & simple enough. So from what I can tell, to get a working bug on there I would need to: 1) insert an image (which I actually already made from copying and changing the existing Directional_Gyro_Card.bmp file to just show a small bug icon) to the CAB file, 2) add code in the XML that would tell the gauge to overlay the new bmp "Element" and to rotate it when need be, 3) and add some lines in here that connect the gauge to the aircraft's autopilot system. Again, this is all very new to me so I'm not really sure how to code this. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Is it possible to add a heading bug to an aircraft if it doesn't already have one? Specifically, I'd like to add one to a few older model general aviation aircraft by Carenado and Alabeo in my hanger that didn't come with one. I just want one for a visual reference to overlay on top of my panel's heading indicator, and don't really care how/whether it works with the autopilot. If this is possible, can someone point me in the right direction? Thanks! (Sorry if this has been asked before, but I couldn't find anything about this.)

I just decided to upgrade one of my old, crappy monitors so that I would have two very similar displays, nearly the same in size & quality, and could a nice wide virtual cockpit in FSX. My primary monitor that I've had for about three years is a Hannspree 259H: 25" LCD, 16:9 widescreen, 1920 x 1080p @ 60 hz, 5000:1 contrast. (More specs here if you're interested.) Nothing incredible, but it's been a perfectly fine gaming display, and I've have no complaints whatsoever. The new second monitor I just got on sale is an Asus VN247H: 24" LCD w/ LED backlighting, 16:9 widescreen, 1920 x 1080p @ 60 hz, and 8mil:1 contrast. If anything is should be better than the first one. (More specs here.) Fyi, they both are connected to my ADM Radeon R7 card with an identical HDMI-to-DVI cable. I don't think there's anything technically "wrong" with the newer (and theoretically better) Asus. It looked fine in the store, and on top of my desk, if there was nothing else to compare it to, I'd say it was ok I guess. But there's something, I dunno, funny about it. :-/ Out of the box, it's definitely a lot cooler in tint with more blue overall than the Hanspree it was meant to compliment nicely. Despite playing with the settings on the monitor itself to warm it up, it has doesn't look as rich or as lush as the other one, and it's just a little harder on the eyes trying to read text. That being said, I honestly don't think it's defective; it can display saturated reds, yellows, greens, & blues, I've swapped the cables and the GPU ports it's plugged into, and I've done some other idiot checks. I guess what bothers me is that I can't seem to get the two displays looking similar enough when they are right sitting right next to each other. And now when running FSX trying to get one nice extended cockpit view, it's driving me absolute crazy! After fiddling around AMD's Catalyst Control Center for literally hours trying to get these two looking great (well, really trying to get the new Asus to look like the older Hannspree), I'm at my wit's end. :( Is there nothing I can do about this? Is it just impossible to get two different machines like these to look really similar? ... and I'm not talking super identical -- I just mean similar enough so that I don't notice. Help!

Thanks, DaviiB! That was the same reference document I was using too. Well it's good to know I'm not completely reading this wrong. I suppose it does kind of make sense, even though intuitively it seemed like such a small difference in speed ought not account for such a big difference in range. Cheers.

So is this one of the things going on in FA now, or are you saying this is something you guys are working on? Just curious.

Thanks so much for this explanation! I think I got it. I did know about the KTAS, though not quite sure how to convert it other than to apply the rule of thumb by adding 2% of the KIAS for every 1000 ft of altitude. Is that an ok way to figure it out? Also, just looking at the original POH for the PA28-181 and it seems that the difference bet economy and performance is really small -- as you predicted it's literally only 3 knots. The max range, however, jumps pretty dramatically from ~500 to ~600 nm at the same altitude, temp, etc. That somehow doesn't seem possible, but I suppose this correct, or at least feasible?

So it seems like if anything, the "power %" is more a function of propeller speed -- and how it is set in various altitudes and temperatures -- rather than of the % of throttle displayed in FSX, no? Basically that throttle % doesn't really factor into the actual "power %." Is that right? (If so, I guess there's a bit of calculation to do anytime I want to hit a certain power %.) Related to that (I think): Is "performance cruise" basically the quickest route to get to a destination while "economy cruise" allows for the least fuel consumption?

Two questions about these: Can you guys confirm that with FA v1.2 it is able to successfully puck your detail level back up once you leave a complex area and that blurries will go away once you don't need FA to do whatever bit of witchcraft it's doing? This was an issue in v1.1 and unfortunately I wasn't able to see this work in my 5 tries at the demo. Also.... Correct me if I'm wrong, but while this is possible to do manually, it is a serious pain in the butt to do while you're flying in & out of complex/sparse scenery, and it kills the immersion -- at least for me. If its is able to do what it advertises to do, then I think a lot of what you're paying for is the ability not more or less not have to think about switching your setting while you're flying. No?

[Warning: newbie question!] ;-) In the specs & reference materials that come with an aircraft (which I supposed is are light versions of the official pilot's operating handbooks), many of the V-speeds, range approximations, and fuel consumption info will often be listed in association with a "Power Percentage." i.e.: The design cruise speed for my Piper PA28 is 125 knots @ 75%, 116 @ 65%, and 102 @ 55%. Does that % correspond to the % of throttle in FSX? (If you hover the mouse over the throttle in the cockpit, it will display how high it is.) I assumed it was the same thing, but then I noticed that most of my aircraft perform a lot slower when the throttle is set to those #'s, even at just above sea level with a very light payload. Perhaps I'm just confused though.

The Beechcraft Bonanza is a pretty "classic" aircraft. Carenado makes three versions that are pretty nice in my opinion, though I only have one of them -- the F33A. Also, though it may not be that sexy, the Cessna 182RG & 177 Cardinal are both a very good & popular planes, and Alabeo makes versions that are affordable. (Don't have either though.)

Cfoley, is this definitely something related to FA 1.2 do you think? It sounded like initially 1.2 was going great. You probably wouldn't post that unless you thought there definitely was a connection. Just double checking. Yikes. I keep going back and forth about whether to buy FA, but post like this make me really nervous. I could deal with maybe throwing away a few bucks on an addon that didn't really work and just shelving it, but if it does something to kinda "break" FSX and cause even a seasoned user (like yourself) to feel like your installation became plagued as a result, I'm really hesitant. Let us know if you figured out a way get things back to normal.

I honestly can't tell the difference. I do get a few more frames, but in the last thread (for v1.1) the developers were losing their minds trying to explain that it's more than just a frame booster, and that we need to look at the overall performance -- smoothness, lack of jitters or tearing, etc. I suppose on the few times I could accurately get a pure comparison, it was ok, but I'm not certain. (I kinda wasted a couple of demo tries figuring out how it works. Whoops!) Just curious what people are thinking/saying with the big enhancements that apparently went into v 1.2.

I hear people talking about "VSYNC" in a bunch of different posts, but I still can't seem to get my head around it. I have an ok/not great system that struggles with performance, and I've always locked the frames within FS to 30 -- which is also half the rate of my monitors. Is VSYNC a better way to go than limiting internally? Confused. (Sorry, I realize this wasn't exactly about FA & the poll above, but I figured I'd ask.)

So after the INSANE flurry of posts in the previous thread about v1.0 & 1.1, it's basically just the sound of crickets in this new thread. Where did everyone go? :-/ I'm 80% sure I'm gonna purchase FA 1.2, but wanted to hear about how the update is working. (Yes, I know I can down load the demo. I already have. But nothing beats some honest reviews from people who are using it.)

Pssst! The new Fiber Accelerator 1.2 thread is over here: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/446505-fsx-fiber-accelerator-v12

Nice work! I had a veeerrry similar issue with my 1.16 version EZdok. I completely uninstalled, reinstalled, upgraded to 1.17 (which I was hesitant to as it seemed like a beta version), and my problems went away. Although honestly, it could be that I randomly happened to alter the setting in the way you described above the second time around and thus it may not have been due to the version upgrade. Knock on wood it holds up for me. Cheers.

Cool. Thanks, Stofvel. I'm glad you got it fixed! ... I sure would have felt bad since I was the one who basically talked you into getting it! Looking at your other post now. Cheers.

Well after spending way too many hours trying to figure this out, and after resisting the urge to get 1.17 because of the many issues people seem to have running it with Win 8 / 64-bit, I went ahead an installed the newest (beat?) version. Happily, it cleared this issue up right away. Unfortunately, I'm having problems with zooming and with using the mouselook feature, but that's a problem for another post.

Wish I could help. This is actually exactly what I'm trying to do now too. Any ideas, anyone?