Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines
  1. After reading all the thread, learning the different tutorials, venturing into XP forum related posts and testing the program I've come to the conclusion that at its current state it is not a useful tool for P3D VFR scenery. It is a wonderful adaptation by the author and such that should make him proud. It also has a lot of potential. But, the following issues are in its way: 1. Tile size in volume is far too big to be used in large areas in P3D when compared to XP generated tiles. ZL16 is kind of acceptable at apt_smoothing_pix 8 but...when you go for ZL 17/18 each tile weighs above 10 GB. Add a few and it's way too heavy/ slow for P3D...or to generate them. 2. Custom ZL - adding higher resolution ZL to lower one around airports and such doesn't work (planned to be WIP by OP). 3. Missing information within tiles. After a couple of hours you find out that some data is missing and it's being replaced by white color. It is unclear as to the cause and it also renders the tile as damaged. 4. Software doesn't fix data of one source with another (BI clouds with GO2 or better resolution etc...). Bottom line: while the conversion can make tiles it lacks the adaptations that it has in XP and which makes it so valuable there. I do think the autogen feature is nice but not the main issue of this software and maybe one should look for solutions outside of this scope or with other tools. I'm happy to see the OP is still planning to further develop this tool and I would sure be happy to use it...when and if it shall be able to make proper usable VFR P3D tiles. One thing is for sure..if and when this tool shall be complete I do not see any reason to pay these large sums of money for ORBX. The delta in what you get shall not justify its cost. But...if and when...
  2. http://www.avsim.com/topic/417842-topcat-pfpx-737ngx-weights-how-to/
  3. I read this thread carefully and every word. Sadly my conclusions are: 1. There is an inherent problem with AA in P3D V2 and above. Fixing the problem with lesser graphical settings and/ or a monster computer with a monster GPU is not a real solution to the ordinary person with current software's optimizations. 2. P3D is not meant to have the amount of real weather ASN is capable of injecting into it.
  4. Curves have been a long debate as to how best to simulate stick control and airframe response. It can go from the extreme F-16 fly by wire unmovable push sensor stick to the other side of WWII planes at high speed whose rudders and ailerons could barely move. Add to that the phisical issue of real sticks with long shafts and game joysticks without any and thus the problem of controlling the plane. And...there are times that we want the controls to be as steady as possible for instances like close formation or aerial refuelling in which case the bigger the curve the easier it gets. Now there is the difference between airplanes and helicopters and special cases like the Mig-21 which responds differently in the pitch and in the roll axis. In short... It all depends on: the airframe, the equipment, personal taste as for realistic vs comfortable, personal capabilities, experience, flight profile, simulator. There are those who even slope a throttle (which is a big no no) for ease of aerial refueling. As a Warthog user I solved it, partially, with a 10cm extension and pedals that come with a physical profile. More than that...if a certain plane has very special characteristics I shall adapt my settings as needed (eg P-51, Mig 21, C172, B200 or an airliner). And, if I happen to go on a two hour formation flying i shall not fear to slope my stick till it cries for help. In my opinion the FSUIPC slope capabilities is a huge blessing and one of the major reasons for why should have it.
  • Create New...