mtrainer

It would seem to me that a photo-real texture is only going to look best at the same distance used by the camera that took the picture. If you zoom in within the simulator, I don't see how Lockheed could ever somehow "fill-in" the missing data (detail) that the camera resolution didn't capture, and similarly when zooming way out, you're not going to have the detail the original camera captured, it's going to blur just like any picture that gets stretched to far out. Thus, I don't know if LM will ever completely resolve this issue...unless the camera used actually shot the PR scenery at multiple distances. Mark

And if all else fails, simply remove the over-clock on your CPU and just see how things go. It's an easy thing to try. Mark

Lots of varying opinions of ORBX's Vector here. When I re-installed all my ORBX products early this year, Vector is the only one I left out due to the fact it is the single biggest performance hit of any of the add-ons I own. Also not missing it really...with the tube liners once you get over 15,000 ft. you're not really noticing the shoreline details and river details so much, and with modern tubeliners you're at 15K in just a couple of minutes. When I build a new rig though I do plan on adding it back. I've had some of the elevation issues in the past but all were resolved by a visit to the manufacture's forums or a quick visit to Dr. Google. Mark

It would certainly seem to be the new standard by which all others who follow will be judged. It's going to take me a while to learn all the ins and outs of this new beast, and I was just getting good at the 737. BTW there is a certain something I like about the "busier" looking 737 cockpit though, more knobs and gauges! That -8, at a glance, is one clean and clutter free looking cockpit. I'll have more time to spend exploring its systems this weekend and the weekend can't get here soon enough. Mark Trainer

I once went through simconnect HE-double toothpics. Oddly, what worked for me was installing all of them provided by Prepar3D. It seems it's pretty good at figuring out which version to actually use on its own. Not saying my issue translates to yours, or will even work, but it sure did present an odd-ball set of issues for me until it got sorted out. Mark Trainer Good Luck!

Own the movie. Amazing how many things in that movie still apply perfectly well today to the IT industry, i.e. some of the pure idiocy of it all.. Mark Trainer Peter Gibbons: Eight, Bob. So that means that when I make a mistake, I have eight different people coming by to tell me about it. That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled, that and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired.

Bummer - aside from confirming it loaded up properly I haven't had time to take it for a flight. Maybe tomorrow! I won't know what I'm doing though - guess I'll start with the tutorial. Mark Trainer (General "Buck" Turgidson: Sir, you can't let him in here. He'll see everything. He'll see the big board!)

Amazing you and your crew are still up after what has to have already been a long day (not to mention the entire week). I don't think you'd take any heat for just turning in at this point. Mark Trainer

Sounds like something between Amazon and you is throttling your connection after a certain point. Try again when your whole neighborhood isn't watching Netflix. I've seen this as an issue personally. Mark Trainer

Still Saturday here in Chicago...for another 7+ hours, and I have the -8 up and running. Mark

The download link comes to your registered email address. The number of hoops to navigate to this downloading plane is unreal - including first updating the original 747 - every step of the process confounded me. I survived it. It's installed and looks good. Mark Trainer

Tired as all get-out, but am going to watch that video! Thanks for all you provide to the FS community. Mark Trainer

Actually, you make an excellent point as I wasn't thinking of the J41 specifically as an old aircraft update that would take away resources even though it came out that way in my post (now that I re-read it) I was actually thinking of the more of the modern updates that the -8 is getting being applied to the 777 (which I don't have, so you see the bias) - you see I *am* actually hoping they come out with a new version of the PMDG J41 airplane for 2 entirely selfish reasons - 1) I didn't get in on buying the original J41 and would love to have it in Prepar3D, and 2) yes, something from PMDG that can land at smaller airports would be a blessing because I'm jonesing to buy some of the slightly smaller beautiful ORBX airports. Wasn't considering the J41 a revisit in my post but more as a new plane for Prepar3D, which is my bad for not making that clear. I strive for clarity in my posts but failed on that one. But, it's been a rough day today (long story) and I need to just give up and pack it in for the evening. Mark Trainer

I too will fly the heavy iron anywhere where the runway is reasonable and there is some sort of facility there that can accommodate it. If you're doing freighter versions, you can make up any one of a number of reasons why some special haul might be required. Not a big deal really. After all a certain amount of "pretending" is necessary in the first place since we're not flying actual flying machines but a PC... Mark Trainer

There was a post earlier this year that the J41 project was under review as it appeared it was going to require more time and resources than originally thought to make it 64-bit compatible. Reading through these threads today it seems some folks want the existing stuff updated to the new standards, and at the same time the other group want their favorite planes added to the existing PMDG fleet. Some folks seem to want both. But in reality resources are finite and a balance between the two has to be achieved. Being a business in business to be profitable, there is only so much time that can be spent constantly upgrading the older stuff without charging for it. I'm of the mindset that I'd rather see new planes get developed with the new technology and pushing the boundaries rather than patching up the old stuff....which doing so would take away their time from moving on to the next big project. I mostly feel this way because the old stuff still beats anything else out there, and not having raindrops on windshields and smoother animations are not going to kill the actual flight experience by much. Mark Trainer

So many youube videos, so little time. Also noticed the PMDG site is down when I got home. I take this to be a very good sign. Looking forward to flying the -8! Mark Trainer

You're flying over Whidbey Island, Washington State. Mark Trainer

Yeah if you own payware airports I'd take the -8 between them. If you're all stock airports, you could do my area, which is a bit flat, but easy, is from KORD (Chicago O'Hare) over to KMDW (Chicago Midway). Although getting stopped in time at Midway, while I believe *should* be possible, will really test your pilot skills and I'd suggest doing it light on fuel, passengers, and cargo. Just be sure to take advantage of some of the tasty food that was being loaded on board by PMDG by taking the long way there. Mark Trainer

Not a real pilot, so selected no. But, I have flown a Cessna 172 a few times, and have spent time (two different occasions) at Barksdale AFB in a Singer Link full motion KC-10 simulator in the pilot seat flying, which was wicked awesome. Mark

Yeah, that video...nice how clean they kept the cockpit, it looked awesome! What a great aircraft. I've seen a few SR-71s at museums but they all had their engines removed, I presume the Air Force is hanging on to those somewhere special since there has been little in the "raw brute thrust" engine department lately. Park those engines so they're ready to go should the need emerge. It would be a FS purchase I'd definitely consider, as stated in a previous post it's a classic and nothing in the civilian market has beat it in nearly 60 years. Today, in such an economy driven market folks rather travel at Mach 8.1 and put up with a longer flight instead of paying the premium for Mach 2.0. I get it, but you'd think with all the Wall Street folks making bank that there might be a renewed interest in something like this. In the Concorde videos I've seen on YouTube, it wasn't just about speed, but also about luxury, service, champagne, and good food. Mark Trainer (Wishes he was Stinking Rich in the late 60s and 70s)

Ahhh…I see, yes I die at airports over 7,000 ft. high more than anywhere else and I'm a pretty conservative dude. As far as I know all you can do at high altitude airports is add a bit more flaps and increase your landing speed so you don't stall out. And go around if it all doesn't look perfect. Mark Trainer

There is a logarithmic function correlating the number of 3rd party add-ons and the time spent researching and "fiddling" with the simulator. In 2017 I vowed to keep the 2018 sim down to bare basics, PDMG, ORBX, REX, and Active Sky. And since then the fiddling, oddities, and Internet research and heartache have gone way down and the number of hours actually flying with acceptable framerates has gone up. Mark

No, it will always have a market - there still isn't anything like the Concorde. Amazing how many 60s/70s planes still blow the doors off our modern fleet (Concorde / SR-71). Nearly 50 years later... we're flying around at Mach .82 at best commercially. Mark

ouch

What is meant by a hot and high variant? Every product they offer on their website can surpass 10,000 ft. without breaking a sweat. Can you offer a more detailed explanation, perhaps with an example of a real plane to get an idea of what you're talking about? Confused, Mark Trainer