Doug47

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. 

On 9/16/2023 at 2:48 PM, Bob Scott said:

You must be using a different program than the one I have been using the last 20 years.

No headings or vectors?  Absolutely not true.  RC4 not only provides vectors, but it provides the most consistent vectors to final of all I've tried (no constant stream of small heading changes or goofy instructions like "fly heading 137") and it controls climbs and descents stepwise as IRL--it'll issue crossing restrictions if your descent profile is unacceptably shallow.  Sometimes it issues pilot discretion descents for portions of the enroute letdown...but I've seen that IRL many times as well.

It's not perfect (none of them are), but it does a pretty decent job of handling an IFR point-to-point flight.  Because it uses FSUIPC for an interface, it has served multiple generations of platforms, from FS2002 through P3Dv6 today.

And...it's been freely gifted to the community.

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. 

12 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

No it doesn’t and that was being worked on when JD just terminated any further development. Interesting you fail to mention all the things it does really well such as starting you down at the appropriate point and giving you correct vectors to a 30° intercept to the localiser.

It is specifically an IFR program. I guess we have different opinions on that. I never use it for VFR.

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. 
 

You must be seeing something different. Looking at vids it looks average at best. I’ve had multiple people tell me to avoid it. 

Does it have a 2D cockpit? Or VC only? 

3 minutes ago, turbomax said:

1) just because the Air Force is using old fashioned graphics means they set the standard for best trainers currently available? because scenery, mesh, GPS and graphics are ugly this is proof the flight model must be superior and professional grade?

2) I do care about AI squirrels, grass and building textures while I take off, taxi and land. most of my IFR flights start and end on the ground. I want to believe I am flying, not just staring at instrument needles & pins.

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. 
 

1 hour ago, turbomax said:

and I honestly ask myself how one can use a flight sim with historical graphics and ancient scenery.

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. 

13 minutes ago, turbomax said:

as long as users behave and reply without "mine is better than yours" attitude. try it, it's not that hard.

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. 

14 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Been simming for almost three decades. MSFS 2020 is the best I could have ever imagined. 

Even with its poor flight dynamics? 

5 minutes ago, Reader said:

My experience of FSX was that for whatever reason, it was way ahead of the capabilities of the average PC at the time.
Whether that is interpreted as it was badly written, or whether it is interpreted as being ahead of its time, once again, in my experience,
it became very much better overall once the hardware caught up with the software.

 

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. 

6 hours ago, btacon said:

Gonna have to disagree with you there friend.  As a former P3d user of versions 2-5.xx it was a great and spectacular run, but it has long been eclipsed by the pure juggernaut that MSFS 2020 has evolved to in less than three years. 
 

Just an opinion,

-B

In gaming yes. 
Flight simulation…no. 

12 minutes ago, G-YMML1 said:

Simple answer - lack of alternative viable sim platform. Now we have one.

X-plane 12?

3 hours ago, neilhewitt said:

Basically, the problem is this: P3D was never intended to be a mass-market entertainment product, and it never was.

Let's suppose LM does make P3D significantly better than any other platform out there.

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?

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Absolutely wrong. I welcome your contribution but you clearly aren't up to speed on anything that's happening in this field.

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. 😛

21 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

With all due respect, SpaceX are the experts these days. Their Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets are virtually flawless at the moment.

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. 

Did avsim sign some kind of deal to display them? It’s gone from zero to multi ads per page. 
 

NASA launched thirteen Saturn V’s without a single catastrophic failure.
 

Sorry Elon, leave it to the experts. 

4 hours ago, David Vega said:

My concern with LM attending the expo is how the anti-P3D crowd is going to react. Hope I'm all wrong. 

Unless they have something ground breaking, what would be the point in attending? 

16 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I've been a beta tester for various things over the last 20 years. I've always respected the wishes of the developer / company and not divulged anything I shouldn't. I can't speak for others but I magine if you did break it you'd not be invited to beta test again and your name would be mud.

What do people hope to gain by doing it? Five minutes of fame? Good grief! 😏

Yep, not much to gain. There’s always one though…

I just can’t see any major - MSFS style scenery - update coming any time soon WITHOUT some word getting out. 

3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

No one under an NDA can say anything.

Not getting into an argument, but you can say whatever you like whether you’re under a NDA or not.

You might lose your rights to have some free software to test, buy etc etc etc if you disclose information, but that’s up to the developer to figure out and deal with. 

So information probably has already been disclosed somewhere…even here…as there’s always someone who breaks it.

I'm a little confused here. 
 

So rumors abound of a v6. Lots of whispers, real/fake Facebook pages, assumptions, NDA reminders, more assumptions, and lots of wishful thinking due to the complete lack of evidence. 
 

Then suddenly, Majestic Software put out an update for their add-on, with installers that include…..v6. 
 

With nothing official from LM. 
 

I don’t know if I’ve blacked out in the past and I’ve missed some vital information, but if I have, we’ll, please, for gods sake, fill me in. 

2 hours ago, Juliet Alpha said:

 

Oh my gosh that was painful watching somebody fumble around like that. 
 

Lots of nice options by the looks. 

On 4/2/2015 at 4:03 PM, Bjoern said:

Followup: Just had the error myself (because for whatever reason the .dll vanished from my systems folder).

 

If you're on 64bit Windows, put the .dll into Windows\SysWOW64, then update DirectX. That should make the TinMouse/-fork work.

It has been a very long time to reply but the sound with the timmouse v1.30 onwards simply doesn’t work in FS9/FSX with Windows 10 regardless of those ‘tricks’ mentioned. 
I’ve been recently trying to reinstall many old retro - classic add-ons such as this one without success. 
 

Such a shame! 

Why don’t you keep it on for when you return to V6?

On 2/18/2022 at 1:34 AM, Nuno Pinto said:

I just want to know WHEN, it is an instant purchase.

I would’ve much preferred a DC-10.