Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

574 Excellent

About Doug47

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/20/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Wine, women and song

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

1,465 profile views
  1. Sorry everyone, I was confusing myself with using STAR arrivals which it doesn’t understand. I was basing my experience on using STARS but manually putting in the waypoints (on shorter flights where the landing runway is usually unchanged from departure). But you won’t get any vectors which these arrivals procedures. Forgive my mistake.
  2. I’ve never seen it offer any headings at all inside 40nm. Ever. I just fly my own approach without hassle. Whether I select nothing, or request ILS, VOR or Rnav for instance makes no difference. And if it does (never seen it), nothing else is realistic. The ground atc is poor. There’s no departure headings. It will give clearance to higher altitudes but it does that regardless. No restrictions. That’s it. It feels no different to any default atc I’ve used. Perhaps it has less features. I’m only reporting what I’ve seen when using it.
  3. I no longer use it as I found it didn’t do anything like that very well. It feels like a it’s just a ‘climb and descend’ program. Climb to xxxx. Descend when ready. No headings. No vectors. Barely better then default. I stopped using it.
  4. You must be seeing something different. Looking at vids it looks average at best. I’ve had multiple people tell me to avoid it.
  5. Does it have a 2D cockpit? Or VC only?
  6. If you’re flying IFR, you SHOULD be staring at instrument needles & pins. And once you add in some global textures, sky and clouds, and so on, it’s really not that different. And some airline simulators look like FS98 at best.
  7. It’s designed around using add-ons according to the users needs. Like ORBX,etc. And when installed make it look as good as any sim out there. But it’s primarily designed to be a flight simulator and not an arcade game.
  8. Which is really what you’re doing. P3D is considered a simulator by a pretty large company that makes some pretty serious hardware and flying objects. MSFS isn’t. And that’s why many still use it.
  9. I also can and did - even on older hardware - get/got a smooth experience with FSX. A tweak here. A tweak there. Some sliders here. Some sliders there. it wasn’t too difficult.
  10. In gaming yes. Flight simulation…no.
  11. If it wasn’t intended to be such, they sure fooled everyone by allowing every developer in the mass-market entertainment business access to provide add-ons for it. Who all advertised it through every means to every mass-market entertainment forum possible. For years it WAS significantly better than every other platform. When it comes to pure flight simulation, perhaps it still is?
  12. ok, they send a few little rockets that go up, then back down? And big rockets that go up then explode? Am I getting closer? 🙂 I know I know. You like Elon Musk. 😛
  13. I think the rockets they have launched put an old car or something to orbit? That’s it? When they orbit the moon and take astronauts back to the moon, then we can talk. Until then, space-ex are a novelty act.
  • Create New...