Jump to content

Bigbluss

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    257

  • Donations

    $0.00 

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bigbluss

  4. Posted

    24 minutes ago, Marc Collins said:

    I suspect the bhp display in the 310R is actually showing percent power. The numbers are way too small to be showing raw horsepower.

    I looked at the carenado aircraft and they show the same numbers. I wonder if it's maybe some default copy/paste thing maybe. Definitely impacts my view of the addon though. If the engine isn't simulated correctly that's quite a big deal.

  5. Posted

    Hi all, wondering if I'm potentially misunderstanding something here. I've been using the Black Square Bonanza a lot and I really love it. I just tried out the Milviz 310R and I can immediatrly see the EDM-700 is a very shallow simulation vs the black square, but what about the output HP? At 1000ft AGL with the mixture producing peak RPM, both engines show 60bhp. Surely this isn't correct? Am I getting something wrong, or is this just a meaningless graphical gloss?

     

    If so, it probably means the 310R is a no go for me. I've got too used to Black Squares deep engine simulation!

  6. Posted

    10 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

    I would personally have fun coding an ATC library for Asobo or MS (with help of course), but don't think they'd hire me for that role. I'd really push to invite a group of about 50 testers to help though, people like Ryanbatc and other knowledgeable folks. For the ATC, they are definitely going about it wrong or they have the wrong coders involved. I mean I'm not the greatest coder in the world or anything (very experienced though), but I am sure I could fix it, it's really not THAT hard. I struggled trying to code AI recognition of buildings and autogen to get a good result when I tried, but that is a LOT harder. Image recognition is a general PITA, so is automated color correction to try to get rid of side effects at the end (the post-post remastering I guess you could call it).

     

     

     

    I think it probably is relatively tough. Lots of variables with many subvariables changing in realtime. Certainly not a trivial problem.

  7. Posted

    Hi everyone,

     

    I'm looking for something bigger than the 310R but smaller than an actual airliner. The two that look interesting to me are the BN2 Islander and the Cessna 414, with an edge towards the Islander because it just looks very unique.

     

    That said, I'll generally always go with the superior simulation. Is one far ahead of the other? Most of the reviews of the Islander are positive but it looks like it received a significant 2.0 update that changed a huge amount.

     

    What are people's thoughts on it? Does it include things like wear and tear and the potential for failure like the 310R or Black box simulations?

     

    Thanks :)

  9. Posted

    44 minutes ago, Souris Lemur635 said:

    The first video is at KLAX, the second is at KSEA. Both big PG cities, but if you check the first YT video, that person is getting a smooth panning with a CPU that in theory should be slower than mine, with max settings. He's not the only one too, that seems to be the norm with high end CPUs.

    You're right. I can take off from Newark and fly over NYC in heavy weather in the 737-700 and get 80fps with zero stutter. I believe that's probably the most dense area in the sim. Stutters definitely mean you've got something up.

  10. Posted

    I have a 5800x3d and a 7900xtx running ultra everything (except object and terrain lod) 1440p at 100-165fps. My PC is a little worse than yours and I get zero stutters unless I turn object and terrain lod up too high. I also have 64GB 3200mhz ram and it's running off a dedicated NVME.

    First off check the object and terrain LOD. Drop them to 150 and see if it fixes it. Make sure your traffic isn't maxed out too. Also not sure how new you are to pc building but incase you're very new, make sure to turn on XMP.

     

    Ignore the people talking about process lasso. It's not 2009 and we're not running FSX anymore. Your machine is an absolute beast and you don't need that nonsense.

    Like I said, my PC is a little worse than yours and my performance is absolutely flawless at heavy payware airports in the PMDG 737 and Fenix.

     

    So yeah, check the traffic and drop it. Then drop object and terrain LOD. Bet you'll be running great at little to no visual difference.

     

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1

  11. Posted · Edited by Bigbluss

    I've got 1000 hours on MSFS and I spent £80 on it. If that's not a bargain I don't know what it is. Will happily buy an upgraded version if it's still a simulator.

     

    Can't actually believe people are angry about releasing a new version four years on. And the same people complain about a potential subscription. Someone get these people to an economics 101 class.

    • Like 7
    • Upvote 2

  13. Posted · Edited by Bigbluss

    The amount of work that goes into MSFS is fairly staggering. Say what you want about bugs, very few non subscription based software products get anywhere near this level of support.

    I believe there's far more to the Microsoft Flight Simulator engine than we think. Microsoft are all in on AI, building a 1/1 representation of the Earth and having simmers constantly checking every corner of it for accuracy feels like it has a huge potential across a significant number of industries, both military and civilian. I would be very surprised if the long term goal of MSFS wasn't to build a 1/1 Earth simulator down to the smallest level, catering to every type of meteorology.

     

    When I read what I typed, it feels a bit conspiracy theory-ish. It isn't meant to be. I simply believe there's much more to the engine than they talk about in public.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1

  15. Posted

    Hey all,

    I'm flying  lot of this aircraft at the moment and I'm wondering if I'm doing something wrong. I've read the manual and know the engine limitations, so perhaps this is normal.

    The engine has a health metric which is a simplified percentage. I presume this is an aggregated average of various engine components (unlike the 310C readout which is more useful imo).

    For every flight I make of around 40 minutes, the engine health drops by a percentage. So after one hundred flights I presume the engine would be utterly ruined. I'm guessing this isn't normal? Yesterday I did an IFR circuit with full approach so maybe 15 minutes in the air, and the engine dropped from 100 percent to 97 percent.

     

    The things I'm doing are:

     

    Starting the engine, leaning it to avoid fouling (as much as possible before it loses rpm).

    Allowing the engine time to warm up before I fly or perform runup.

    Keep the aircraft at maximum RPM for minimal time (up til around 500ft or so) before bringing it back to max manifold / 2500 (as per the POH).

    Open and close the cowl flaps as per POH (full open for takeoff, full closed in cruise, on approach I leave them around half way). One thing I would say is I'm perhaps a little undisciplined with this than the other things.

    On another note, the fact I have what feels like a real engine is so great to me. I love this stuff, and understanding how I'm damaging the engine is very interesting. On this note, aside from the Black Square aircraft, do any other aircraft come close to the same level of engine modelling? GA or Airliner. I've been looking at the BN2 Islander and saw it had a significant update at the end of last year. Is it anything like the Black Square models in depth?

     

    Thanks all!

  16. Posted

    17 minutes ago, Dillon said:

    Let's put our money where our mouths are.  First are you a pilot?  Second next time your in the central Florida area hit me up in a private chat so we can go flying.  I'm not going to produce documents/my FAA license on an open platform like this to satisfy you.  I will say this, it would be cool for Avsim to require some form of documents then modify our account status to reflect who we are (much like Donor status or Commercial Member) so we can put legitimacy questions like this to rest. I've seen this kind of gas lighting before and I for one am not going to fall for it.😏..

     

     

    I'm jealous of the experience you've had - your son flying you for fathers day sounds awesome. I just finished reading Fate is the Hunter and feel like I was born at just the wrong time in just the wrong place haha. Out of interest, do you still enjoy the simulators despite the fact you're able to fly pretty easily in real life? And do you use DCS too?

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    I tried fshud and it was okay but like most of the ATC offerings it's fairly gimmicky/arcady in my opinion. No offense at all to those that enjoy them, I totally understand why people use them, but they're also so far from reality that it's just far better to jump on Pilotedge (if you're happy to pay) or Vatsim (if you're not) for me. There's so many things that can happen with dynamic interactions with real humans that people miss out on with this deterministic ATC Software.

     

    Really interestingly (to me at least), Falcon BMS has the best implementation of ATC I've seen. It's really fluid, natural and behaves realistically. 

  19. Posted

    Hey all,

    These are in the Black Square Bonanza: https://imgur.com/a/VBw1rJE At the top left of the dash. It looks as though the left button is the same as the CDI button on the GPS - so presume its a remnant from before a more advanced GPS with built in CDI button existed? Is this wrong?

     

    How about the GPS/APR button on the right with 'ATM' and ACTV'? This doesn't seem coupled to the autopilot, but I could be wrong.

     

    I've skimmed the manual for the aircraft and could find a reference to almost everything except these!

  21. Posted · Edited by Bigbluss

    41 minutes ago, G-YMML1 said:

    Don't care much about voices. Realism and complexity of ATC instructions are my priorities. 

    It doesn't work for everyone as it's relatively expensive and requires a fair bit of focus, but if realism and complexity are your priorities you won't get any more real and complex than Pilotedge. You can trial it for five hours. It's such a game changer that despite MSFS having the entire world, I only fly Western USA. Without real ATC I just can't get immersed.

  23. Posted

    7 hours ago, FBW737 said:

    32gb of Ram was a scam and so was 24gb of Ram on the Video card. A good rule of thumb for if you are being scammed is that it is azoy monumentally likely.

    How's it a scam? DCS World will use well over 32gb of ram online, and VRAM requirements are going up every year to the extent 11gb on a 2080ti is not enough for some games now. Especially when you consider more and more 8k textures are available.

    Buying something you don't need due to lack of proper research, and being scammed or tricked, are not the same thing.

    • Like 1

  24. Posted

    1 hour ago, Tim-HH said:

    Yes, I fully agree! When you own an expensive aircraft, you take good care of it.

    My car which is a fairly bog standard Ford gets a shine and polish most weeks and I apologise to 'her' if I let her get too dirty. Same as my old motorcycle. If I owned an aircraft I'd be at the hanger on a daily basis dusting it off.

    Some call it OCD, my girlfriend calls it weird...I call it love 😂

    • Upvote 1

  25. Posted · Edited by Bigbluss

    35 minutes ago, Marc Collins said:

    I'm really tempted to get this. I love the systems depth on the Blackbird 310R, and this seems like a similar experience (more detailed in some ways). For those of you who have the Black Square Bonanza, how is the flight model? Has anyone tried using Robert Young's flight model (from his Turbo Bonanza) with this addon? Or is the existing flight model similarly good? 

    This review from FlyFromHome (a flight instructor) suggests the flight model, especially in slow flight and stalls, is questionable: 

    I also watched 737NG Driver's review, and the turbo variant seemed to have really surprising climb performance. I find the stock G36 Bonanza and the G36 Improvement Mod to have really "easy" flight models that feel almost toy-like compared to higher-fidelity planes in the sim (310R, 414AW, Just Flight Warrior and Arrow, etc). Having never flown a Bonanza, I don't know about its accuracy. I read a written flight review of a Bonanza once that said it lands like a C172, so maybe it really is as easy as it feels in the stock plane. 

    Any comments on the flight model?

     

    I was on the Bonanza owners forum earlier, and a fair few mentioned how they actually found landing the Bonanza even easier than a 172 due to the increased weight and similar stability, but I'm no expert! One interestingly point many mentioned is that although its a very forgiving aircraft, if you end up in IMC without training and stop paying attention, it can end up in a stall quickly. Can't imagine much more frightening than being in spin in clouds with no idea how to fly IMC.

    I know the flight model has had some tweaks, and a few Bonanza pilots on the MSFS seems happy enough - but I think it's a modification of stock as opposed to completely accurate.

    My impression is that its a survey level flight model against the backdrop of study level systems. The manual would corroborate this too I think as there's not a lot on the FM (other than that they've tweaked it), but around 85 pages on systems.

    Happy to be corrected on this - its just the impressions I've picked up!

×
×
  • Create New...