Jump to content

Glenn Fitzpatrick

Members
  • Content Count

    3,541
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Glenn Fitzpatrick

  1. yep it is sort of handy as you can make minor pitch adjustments without messing about with trim.
  2. Cockpit photo below. Very FSX . Flies quire well. Very timely for me as I am about to start a pre-1960 Neofly Career using stuff like the c140, c170, Widgeon, Stearman, Kinner Sportswing, Ju52, Grumman Goose and eventually DC6.
  3. Well with Pamela Booker involved in the flight modelling it is guaranteed to be really good. Definite download for me.
  4. From my workplace point of view where we buy 50 to 100 new PCs and laptops a year, AMD GPUs over the past 10 or so years have consistently about two or three times the driver issues and weird problems as Intel GPUs. They are all solvable but in the workplace where tech time is money and if a server is down for a few hours potentially big money, we have a distinct tendency to preference Nvidia . AMD have a real issue getting enterprise to be satisfied they are now stable in the workplace as claims that AMD are now stable have been wrong before. HOWEVER - for home/gaming use is that a big issue if the equivalent AMD GPU is cheaper and more available ? Probably not, as if you are unfortunate enough to get a driver issue its just a matter of sitting down over the weekend doing a bit of google research and getting it sorted out.
  5. General consensus seems to be: Best airliners: Aerosoft CRJ PMDG DC6 Best GA: Just Flight Arrows Just Flight Warrior II freeware Grumman Goose Other well received addons: Corsair P149 Jabiru (especially if you are Australian) Tomcat Stearman Grumman Widgeon Carenado Seneca My personal other aircraft recommendations: Fiat G91 Aeroplane Heaven Cessna c140 Aeroplane Heaven Mk1a Spitfire Other useful mods: littleNavMap addon linker the PM50 gtn750 and 530/430 Neofly career addon
  6. Working Title did not use the base built in MSFS flight plan system for the NXi they designed a custom one. .. just saying ...
  7. With regard to the premium deluxe versions, it depends on what you are intending to do with this sim. They are basically similar quality to the other default aircraft. If your interest is basically airliners and working though flows and procedures it is a waste of money as you will only get the 787 which is at best a bit lacklustre. If you want to just expand your GA choices and will actually fly what is on offer, then it works out at just small change per aircraft/airport, and is a bargain. My Personal assessment: Deluxe: I fly the Beechcraft Baron G58 (not study level but flies OK) and the very very good Steam Gauge Cessna 172 Skyhawk a lot. The G58 is particularly useful in a Neofly career. The Steam 172 is a gem and alone is worth the cost of the whole Deluxe package. Premium: The Cessna Citation Longitude with the freeware improvement mod gets plenty of use by me. I prefer it for quick flights to the modded Citation CJ4 which has fantastic detail but I find fiddly. I also occasionally fly the Cirrus SR22 which is a good all rounder. The Pipistrel Virus SW121 is a bit of an unsung hero and hidden gem, great cockpit views, good performance, with the speed brake can land on surprisingly short strips and is also surprisingly easy to fly. All up, Premium for me was worth the money. All of the above is “worth it for me” . Clearly if you fly all 10 planes regularly the Premium/Deluxe package is a bargain as just one payware plane (albeit hopefully way more detailed) can cost more by itself then all ten, however if instead you never or very rarely will fly any of them, it could be a total waste of money. Depends on the user.
  8. Basically there seem to be two approaches for companies with current SU5 issues: some companies have spent a lot of time doing temporary workarounds that will keep customers happy, that will need to be reversed or redone when the core issue is eventually fixed by Asobo. Larger companies with a big customer base and unworkable products post SU5 are going this way, though they still get hammered for slow responses even though the problem was actually caused by Asobo (example Carenado) if the problems are just cosmetic or minor and not game killers, some smaller companies cannot justify stopping other development to make temporary workarounds that are hopefully only needed just for a month or two. This approach makes business sense, but can create a furore on the entitled main forums so public relations is an issue here. In particular, explaining the true situation- that it is actually an Asobo problem which Asobo are working on - will create a back lash as a lot of main forum users are a bit like Covid deniers with regard to any facts about Asobo SDK flaws. DD seem to have taken the second approach. I would note that "do not waste resources fixing minor bugs in a product that is about to get a significant upgrade rendering all that work redundant" is definitely the approach taken by the company I work for, though you cannot necessarily tell your users that in those precise words. It goes without saying that if you take that approach you better make sure the "significant upgrade" ships in a timely manner.
  9. This is my observations so far: For me the Spit responds to toe brakes, historically incorrect but functional - HOWEVER pressing left toe brake causes left pressure needle to rise as expected but the aircraft pulls the wrong way to the right - and visa versa. On the other hand assigning an axis to brake pressure and moving the pedals produces to emulate historically correct brakes produces even odder results. If I apply left rudder and apply brake pressure the left needle moves first but then the right needle ramps up just after. Alternatively if I apply right rudder and apply brake pressure the right needle moves first but then the left needle ramps up just after. In either case both brakes are applied and the aircraft simply stops and lifts it tail. This is not working as expected. TLDR - the historically correct technique does not work at all, at least as far as assigning brake pressure to an axis. If you wish to use asymmetric toe brakes it will work but you need to reverse which pedals are mapped where when in the Spitfire.
  10. The food on MSFS flight is vastly better, I even get steak sometimes.
  11. 500 MB update that installed in game in 30 to 40 seconds without going to the store - or are we talking two different updates here ?
  12. There is a massive thread about it .. TLDR -> not returning to marketplace - licensing issues - blah blah - lots of ranting and conspiracy theories by various idiots - XBox users feel they are being discriminated against etc etc https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/a32nx-will-not-be-returning-to-the-marketplace/454303
  13. Not at all. Even a fairly generic Force Feedback is vastly better than none at all. The fact that you can customise the feedback to exactly match your actual real life plane is a bonus not a downside. If your insisting that all flight controls are pointless unless they are a precise match to every plane you should throw your Yoke and pedals in the bin and go back to flying with a keyboard 😄
  14. To be clear, ray tracing is good for things like global lighting, shadows and reflections in a cabin or cockpit, we do not have it yet. Raymarching on the other hand works better for hard to define intersections like with clouds or smoke. We clearly do have raymarching.
  15. It is personal choice. My experience is where engine damage is modelled you very quickly learn to avoid it (unless it is stupidly overdone) so it only matters for the first few weeks and then is irrelevant - so in a sense for me engine modelling is a gimmick like opening cargo doors that long term is not something I need. It is not as if real world Spitfire pilots were regularly blowing up engines and doing forced landings. But yes if it is something you personally think is important as far as I know AH have no intention of modelling engine damage so give it a miss. By all accounts, they are moving on to the DC3.
  16. Good link: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I.html
  17. Some degree of engine management but no it does not overheat and blow up like the Corsair. No prop strikes, no neg G flooding. It is not arcade, quite sophisticated in some areas - but it is not study level either.
  18. By co-incidence there is a Corsair faffing about at altitude near the end of this video ....
  19. Neg G fuel flooding - hence the black smoke. The early Spitfire Merlin carbs had a FLOAT BOWL which merrily filled with fuel under neg G which then poured into the engine causing a cloud of black smoke and engine stutters and power loss. Worst case scenario the engine may even stop completely and be impossible to restart. This is why the famous "Shilling Orifice" worked. Beatrice Shilling's brilliant idea was to insert a restrictor in the fuel line that limited fuel flow to no more than needed for maximum boost. Of course this aircraft seems to have the Shilling device as it flies fine under negative G - no stutter and no black smoke. Our MK1A is an interesting hybrid actually with fabric control surfaces (replaced by metal from late 1940 onwards) but the Shilling restrictor that was rolled out from March 1941 and a manual pitch prop that apparently is a substitute for the early 1940 2 speed affair that the game does not allow.
  20. I have had the odd electrical issue as well. Still not sure if it is a bug or me messing up the alternator etc. The voltmeter seems to usually read 6 volts which is correct for the electricals in a MK1A . Regardless ... it is great fun to just jump in and toss around ...
  21. Not all 😄 Came across this. http://ww2talk.com/index.php?threads/mk1a-spitfire-r6915-last-in-original-paintwork.18521/
  22. Well this one does not. It is variable pitch. Not a two speed. Not a CSU. Manual variable pitch. You need to pull it back when you dive and push it forward again as you climb. Whether Spitfires ever had a manual variable pitch prop is another question altogether,
  23. My thoughts are Summer 1940 BoB veteran Mk1a that had the Shilling Orifice retrofitted in March/April 1941.
  24. It is probably a bit of a fruitless exercise trying to precisely date a MSFS addon as if it was a real warbird. But if it is any help, this MK1a in game, does NOT flood under neg G, then stutter and emit clouds of black smoke like one would have in the summer of 1940. It clearly has the "Shilling orifice" which was rolled out to squadrons from March '41 onwards. Which makes it an early to mid 1941 variant.
  25. I have my suspicions that oddball key combo needed is related to using legacy keyboard settings but I have not tested that out,
×
×
  • Create New...