Jump to content

mrueedi

Members
  • Content Count

    195
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

253 Excellent

About mrueedi

  • Rank
    Member

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I feel, perception plays an important part in that. Because other folks are saying the opposite. This is what I just saw on Twitter: IMHO when I look at the development roadmap, I can not see either XBOX or PC being priorized over the other one. Both seem to get the about same attention.
  2. You could record both flights with FlightRecorder from fligthsim.to, provide the recorded files to other users who replay the files with a "neutral" 3rd aircraft type (preferably a similar one).
  3. Agreed, VS is the most basic, always working fallback. But there is also FLCH, which I also works long before VNAV works and which I think is very convenient. Dial in a new target altitude, press FLCH and lean back...!
  4. With TrackIR you are still looking at something but you are not inside something. Turning the head say 90° obviously does not recreate the view when you turn the head 90° sitting in an aircraft. Human mind is able to grasp where the objects in 3D are located by considering unconsciously the angle I am looking at. That part is not there in TrackIR. In VR seeing the runway threshold when looking 90° to the side means, that my airplane is exactly located abeam the threshold. You get that information in 0.1 seconds.
  5. Yet 95% of the features that you describe in your opening posts are offered by most GA default aircraft exactly the same way...
  6. For me the main advantage with VR is the superior orientation flying visual patterns. Also, to be honest, I not once succeded to fly a pattern in a satisfying way in pre-VR times. Looking around was too cumbersome and unatural. In VR, in downwind and base you move your head for a split second to check where the runway is. Getting the moments right, when you need to start turning is so easy and realistic in VR. Its a pure joy. E.g. in this video I recorded a nasty circle to land approach in military style between high mountains in a narrow valley. The video is recorded in VR so you see exactly where I looked at any time. Quality in parts is reduced due to VR recording troubles. Still, I think it gives an impression and I can personally admit, that I would fail every single time trying that approach in 2D. While in VR, I succeed nicely every single time: You could also say, that flying 2D is so boring that you need Netflix 😄 You can have Netflix in VR too though:
  7. For that you don't need the Kodiak though. Almost every second default aircraft, like the C172, the Caravan, the Turbo Porter, the Baron, the Bonanza or the SR22 have the NXI. I wonder what part of the Kodiak is not more or less covered by either the Caravan or the PC-6. At least NXI-wise, there should be no difference...
  8. It works better than in 2D imho, because by leaning a bit over to the FMS or the autopilot you can focus on the controls very naturally. Very rarely I have to lean so strongly (say 40cm or so), to see something detail very clear and detailed. But what I want to say, is that I can fill my field of view entirely with the object I want to control. In 2D, the presentation usually tries to pack a wide field of view on the screen, so details are lost. In VR, focus is easily moved by turning the head. This allows to to position the eyepoint pretty close to the panel. You can also place the mouse over a rotary knob, e.g. for the autopilot heading, start turning the mouse wheel and then already move the view away from the control while dialing in the new course. In 2D, by turning a rotary knob with the mouse wheel, I nearly always fall into the zoom mode when the mouse loses the focus.
  9. ^ This. I like to compare VR vs 2D simming like the difference between "looking around at a place in Google Street View" vs "truly being there". Or "visiting a place" by looking at images in a travel brochure vs "truly being there". My first VR flight in a C-152 I remember to this day as good as any of my real flights (as a pilot or passenger). Scenes got engraved into my memory that I will never forget. Agreed also about the emotional part. Never before the output of a PC carried me away in aweness so much. And by a long shot. Fly a small plane from Sittersdorf to Wildberg via St Gallen on 19. December 2021 at 16:30 CET with 1/8 clouds and you know what I mean. Or over Victoria Bay in Hong Kong just after the sun went down. I can not imagine any, more breath taking experience triggered by a PC. About controls: VR is the poor man's home cockpit. Sure, a little bit limited vs. real hardware but coming close and also having undeniable advantages: You get the home cockpit not just for one plane but for all 20 or 30 or how many you have.
  10. Yes, you can fix your installation without downloading all again. Make the InstalledPackagesPath-variable pointing again to your community folder. As described here: All versions - Can I choose or change the installation path? (Install on the D: drive instead of the C: drive for instance) – Microsoft Flight Simulator Support (zendesk.com)
  11. These guys used MSFS to brief real pilots about the approach and departure to Saanen airport and called it "flight simulator" (see remark "disregard flight instrument, for flight simulator use only"!)...
  12. My gut feeling is that Lodrino never saw jet operations. Likewise Locarno. But Ambri did for sure. Imho flying the visual approach pattern of Ambri, as published here, is one of the most impressive experience a pilot can have. Where else in VFR operations is the downwind altitude nearly 2000ft higher than the runway? There is a route overflying nearly all of these airports, which I personally flew many times and from which I uploaded two videos to YouTube. It starts in Emmen and ends in Ambri. The first video was with a F/A 18 in Aerofly FS almost three years ago. The flight took just 12 minutes, overflying 17 alpine airports(!). Makes on average far more than 1 airport every minute: And the second was early pre-SU6 MSFS in a self ported FSX Mustang:
×
×
  • Create New...