Flying Penguin

Agree with Pete, it's most likely a config issue with the two cards. You've got a very similar machine to mine (the GT70 2PC), and I get way more than that. I can't push top settings, but 2-8 on the ground suggests you are either running the NGX/ASN/ORBX with sliders all the way to the right, or there is a more fundamental config error.

Sold. The treatment of rain columns in shots 6 and 7 solves my biggest weather gripe with existing weather depictions...

Well that would explain why the FE wasn't able to complete the After Landing flow for me last night, it stopped at gust lock and just waited, it didn't seem to be playing with the trim. As a thought, it might be worth adding a "waiting for neutral trim" status? At least then you'd know what it was waiting for.

Thanks all :smile: Seriously, it's not that hard, if you use the engineer function it's pretty much stick and rudder flying plus a bit of VOR management if you don't use the GPS navigation, you don't even have control of the throttle for much of the flight. Hardest single bit (that you can't automate) is the autopilot which is.... "full of character". But once you've figured the quirks, it's fine.

I'm torn, the HiFi loyalist in me says "I like my ASN weather radar in the NGX et al", but the REX video does contain some things I didn't see in the ASCA video (like rain shafts) I'd quite frankly give my my left nut for.... If REX can sort their WX radar integration and tie it to a weather engine, I'm sold.

Thanks :smile: To be fair, she was wonderfully polite and professional, but you could clearly hear the surprise in her voice each time my inability to keep up with her plans required a new one!

Just a few shots between KLAS and KSAN, flown on PilotEdge. Bit of an eye opener trying to fly this bird fully /A and it really didn't want to slow down so I ended up vectored all over San Diego to get low enough for the Loc 27 approach, much to the controller's annoyance I think I might be in love.... (with the DC-6, not the controller! :blink: )

Where Arma and other "game" engines (e.g. the GTA V engine) fall down is when you ask them to deal with distances and altitudes that are required for normal flight as they normally achieve their convincingness at ground level by simply shoving everything close together (e.g. "cities" of just a mile or so across and straight up into extremely high mountains) or by implementing a thick haze that doesn't matter too much at ground level or when flying nap of the earth (as in Devon's video) but becomes an issue if you climb to what would be a relatively normal GA cruise altitude (say, highest terrain + a few thousand), resulting in a "pea soup" flying experience and generally at reduced scale speeds. For example, look about 5 minutes in to the below: For comparison purposes, similar sort of flight done in DCS, look at 40 seconds to about 2 minutes in and observe the difference in handling of distance and scale. It's not necessarily that the engine *couldn't* do it, properly configured, but that there is nothing to explicitly show that those limitations could be overcome, even if content generation over the coverage area wasn't a factor. If you're talking blue sky engine selection, Outerra is probably the most promising as it has proven ability to deal with the scale involved.

Press the LSK corresponding to the first line of the new STAR, then press the LSK corresponding to the first line of the old STAR, that should replace everything that was there from the old one. e.g. if the transition was DAG, I'd find the second DAG and move it up to the first one.

Well you can blame that on a steady diet of annual and progressively more obscure throwaway simulators (mostly of German or eastern European origin). After Road Works Simulator, Tow Truck Simulator or Underground Mining Simulator and the like it was only a short hop, skip and a jump to Tea Party Simulator 2015 and Christmas Shopping Simulator 2: Black Friday Edition http://store.steampowered.com/search/?developer=United%20Independent%20Entertainment%20GmbH https://www.youtube.com/user/OfficialNerdCubed/search?query=simulator As for Goat Simulator... Ahh good times :wub: The Goat MMO Simulator expansion being the most fun I suppose we'll soon find out what the total delta-v available to a fully loaded goat is?

I want to know what the bacon of deliverance is and why I'd throw it at independent water..... :blink:

737 - You can do flights long enough to bore you to tears whilst still being able to access airports that the 777 can't possibly consider. Also, much as I love playing with the 777's extensive automation, it all feels a bit too much like a video game within a video game, and whilst you *can* hand fly it, you know that it's just begging for you to put it back on Autopilot and it will do so much better a job than you will, whereas the 737 are much less sophisticated and (particularly the smaller variants) keep you much closer to the operation and are great fun to haul around by hand. For the same reason, I'd take the Q400 over either of them if it was a three way choice.

Which airports are you trying to land at? As you've noticed, ILS isn't universal, reasons for this include: Surrounding terrain doesn't allow it (e.g. KPSP, surrounded by mountains, KSAN 27 surrounded by rising terrain) Noise abatement procedures require short/non standard approaches (e.g. KLGA 13) It's not always worth the investment, particularly if the weather is generally good or the airport is low traffic (generally small regional airports) ILS is great, but it's expensive, requires specific terrain/approach factors and isn't always worth the money to move away from older LOC/VOR/NDB approaches. Anyway, non precision approaches are more fun

Fresh from the horses mouth http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/104114-stay-with-fs9-or-upgrade-to-fsx/&do=findComment&comment=736125

They exist together. If you click the button labeled 'voice' on the FS2Crew main panel (accessible from the instrument panel menu for the Q400) it toggles between the two modes.

It's not released yet, have patience, not long to go :wink: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1070857349633003&id=453589798026431

Pretty damn good, old-school avioinics but quality wise it's on par with most of the other top-flight airliners in XP. As supplied, it's only really accurate for early models (i.e. no INS, no FMC), but it's a remarkably fun aircraft if you can deal with VOR-VOR navigation. You *can* buy an add-on INS, but as there's no VC representation I've not bothered.

As I said, I would love realistic damage for realistic scenarios that have teaching value, but that doesn't necessarily include getting the correct effect if you decide on taking a 737 between the wires on the Golden Gate Bridge :wink:

To be fair, RoF does it ok, however DCS most certainly does not (at least in the minor damage arena). DTG's budget is limited (in the sense that it is not infinite, not that it is small), therefore it becomes a question of priorities. Where do you draw the line? Realistic, reasonable every day events? Barnstorming accidents? Full on Twin Towers simulation? The mere existance of a line creates a situation of "my way or the high way", at least from the perspective of those that would move it closer to the "perfect" end of the scale. I would love "a range of light damage that helps me fly better". I feel that much more than that would be development effort that could be better spent elsewhere. That's not (to Devon's point) because I object to people exploring the extreme end of the collision damage scale for philosophical reasons.

It may be an old argument, but it's as valid today as it ever was. Ask any project manager of any discipline, technical or not. I don't give a flying monkey's about some kids (big or small) wanting to see their favorite aircraft explode spectacularly against a local landmark, and would welcome good crash physics, however good crash physics are hard. Very hard. I'm not talking about GTA V style "clip a tree and BOOM", I mean the sort of nuanced physics that show everything from bending a wingtip because you lost it and ground looped, to losing a wing because you taxied into a terminal at speed. Meaningful feedback for real-life screw-ups, not silly gamey physics. But no flight simulator has done it well yet (not even DCS or BOS), as for it to be meaningful in a civilian context (where touching a wing or bursting a tyre on a hard landing is more likely than having a wing shot off) it needs to be subtle and flexible, not simply damage boxes, a handful of removable parts and fire effects.

Then why draw the line at aircraft damage? See what the impact of the plane on the world would be. Kind of BeamNG with wings. It's as much a question of prioritisation of development budget and processing power. If you spend either on detailed crash physics and graphics, what is less/not developed to allow for this?

I read that more as "we aren't testing for it or constraining the design by the need to maintain it" rather than "we know for a fact that it won't work".

Wake me up in a few years when (or if) there is a good body of serious high quality content for this (i.e. anything not made by DTG, based on their Train Sim content). Even if it does come out on time, and even if it does support third party addons, it's going to be a number of years before there's enough content to consider it a worthy successor to either FSX/P3D or XP. We need new blood in this hobby, but the rumours of any simulator's demise are very premature at this stage.

Well it's marginally less suicidal than his previous Skreemr concept that relied on a rail gun to get it to Mach 10, a bit of back of envelope calculation (on the assumption of constant acceleration a mile long rail gun) puts the acceleration at above 350G laterally, which would be enough to kill everyone on board instantly....

Your codes should work just fine with the DL version and the UKEP should work as well.