racklefratz

Thanks, I hadn't thought of that. Now that I've gone from 3 monitors back to one (3440 X 1440 native/curved screen), that might be workable. Have to dig around and see where I put that stuff.

Interesting development. Where did you find the part about a new build? I didn't see anything there about that - did you email them? They already have my money, but now I'm wondering about my decision to spend it. Their marketing strategy begs some questions.

I just installed this thing yesterday, so haven't had time to go completely through it. But I own a Saitek switch panel, multi-function panel, and TPM panel, and I can confirm that at least the flap and gear switches and throttle do work in the Pilatus - not sure about the rest yet. I'm pretty sure IRIS just put that disclaimer in there to avoid 3rd party software issues - people complaining that "it won't work with my Brand-X controllers", which is pretty common. The most pressing problem I have is seeing enough of the cockpit, in enough resolution, to be useful. If I move the view back far enough to see more stuff, things are unreadable, therefore, unusable. To fly any airplane, the pilot must be able to keep the primary flight display in sight, just to keep the airplane right side up, and still see other places on the panel to manipulate knobs, switches, whatever. I don't know how to do that with this airplane. I used to always favor sim 2d panels for that reason - I can see enough to monitor the critical information and get to the controls I need, quickly, and even if I have external hardware switches and knobs, I can see cockpit indicators that verify I've changed something. This thing doesn't HAVE a 2d panel that I could find, although it includes views of every (empty) seat in the cabin.... But relying on keyboard shortcuts to see critical panel areas, and still keep the airplane flyiing, is awkward at best - it's too slow to be useful, and it detracts from realism . Any words of wisdom from the sim pros who live and die by VC panels?

I saw that too. When I grew up, most people learned at home that lying was something decent people just didn't do. Seems less the case today, especially when dealing with "rich, evil corporations". And bragging about it's OK, too.

Things might get a little more complicated than what's been posted in this discussion thus far. Industry insiders on the web are speculating about the direction Microsoft will go with the Windows OS. This speculation is based mostly on the FACT that Microsoft IS going to a subscription-based OS this fall for Enterprise customers. This is a done deal, not speculation. The speculation has to do with whether MS will eventually do the same for consumers. Adobe has already switched to subscription-based service for their premium products - Photoshop, etc. At present, Microsoft insists that they have no plans to move to a subscription-based business model for private users of the Windows OS. However, they can always change that policy at their discretion, and subscription service would be very beneficial financially . One possibility being advanced is that "Windows 10" will be the last version of the OS we'll ever see. Microsoft could just change the name of the product to "Windows", and keep the OS continually updated for those who choose to subscribe, same as Adobe subscribers are doing now. One thing's certain: MS has never before offered a major version upgrade to their existing customers at no cost; Windows 10 represents a substantial investment for the company, and doing business that way isn't profitable. MS isn't a charity organization, and it's possible that "free" Windows 10 upgrades are the first phase of a major shift in their business model. Presently, we don't know what's next, but time will tell.

Depends on what you mean - the comment was about smoking. Clearly, most of us were born in the 20th century. But that misses the point. Some are mired in 20th century societal and cultural attitudes, and don't embrace the technology we now enjoy. Some of us are not. YMMV.

Oh, I'm relieved. :wink: As it happens, I'm not a smoker, but that's good advice for those who still do. It's really such a 20th-century thing.

Yeah, I see that now. Missed that this is a product-specific section. Disregard. Aside from leaning indications on cockpit instruments, in real recip airplanes, pilots often just pull the mixture control back till rpms start dropping, then enrich till the engine smooths out, then a little more to be safely below peak egt. Doing it by egt gauges is much more precise, however, if the aircraft is so-equipped - not all are. 50-75 degrees below peak egt is the rule of thumb, set on the leanest cylinder - they won't all be equally lean, which is unavoidable. Another technique which has become popular for some engines is leaning on the lean side of peak egt, a separate subject for discussion.

I'm sorry to be OT, but this bothers me every time I see your avatar. Is your finger in your nose?

Thankyou. I'm one of them. Yep. Remember when we always had to manually assign IRQs for our sound cards and other things? Those were the days.

You're just a bad, bad boy. Life goes on, though. You'll see. :Shame On You:

In which aircraft?

I agree. Without experience in a real aircraft cockpit, peoples' "opinions" about what works best are just that - opinions. I always chuckle at the "opinions" that assert that sim virtual cockpits are preferable. None of them I've ever encountered come anywhere close to looking like the panel in the real airplanes I've owned. So much for "opinions". :Shame On You: But bezels in cockpits are non-players. Real airplanes have physical structures around all the windows. Bezels don't matter, if realism is the objective.

A few answers already, but nothing definitive. I'm out of real aviation now, but have a couple thousand logged PIC hours in single-engine prop airplanes, so I have a frame of reference. In simming, realism is my first priority - it's where the enjoyment comes from. I used only a single monitor in simming for many years, and being limited to just one view at a time detracted from the realism in a big way for me. Real airplanes have windows. You look out the side windows to see to your left or right, and you look out the windscreen to see what's ahead. Using 3 monitors approximates that; whether in a real cockpit or a simulated one, your peripheral vision allows seeing more than just one of those windows at a time. I own TrackIR and never use it because with it, you're only seeing one direction at a time. It's a cute trick, moving the view around to match your head movements, but it's unlike being in a real cockpit, where your peripheral vision allows you to see in several directions at once. I use three monitors, because it's the closest thing to being in a real cockpit I can find. With only one monitor, I'm limited to one view. With 3, I have all three views at once, as with a real cockpit. Seeing the world moving past in the 2 side monitors as well as the middle monitor is about as much realism as I know how to reproduce on my sim, given the constraints of the software. It's true that you need some processing power to run three monitors in windowed mode, especially large ones with lots of pixels. I have plenty of RAM, a liquid-cooled i7-4930 CPU, and a Nvidia 980ti, and my frame rate gets pretty slow in areas with heavy scenery, but it's mostly flyable. My 3 monitors are Acer XB280HK, advertised as "4K" monitors, with a native resolution of 3840X2160. P3D won't run acceptably at that resolution with just one video card; I run them at 2560X1440..

Nor is a reply needed. That's the beauty of uncontrolled airport communications. Required information is available to all - everyone has the information they need, and frequencies aren't all congested with unnecessary read-backs and confirmations. And best of all, pilots can make operational decisions without the need to call a controller for permission to execute, which may well be denied. ATC is, IMO, a necessary evil, and I'm a licensed pilot. Controllers are like anyone else - they can have bad days, and when they do, they can be a royal PITA. High density airports can't do without them, but low density fields, where the majority of "real" flying takes place, do just fine without ATC. The proof is in the statistics. Note that nothing I've said is intended to bash anyone with ATC software for sale. These are just my personal opinions, after 20+ years of real flying, much of it in my own airplanes.