BufordTX

Little navmap can draw a VFR pattern at any runway. Follow that until you get the visual feel for where it is. it’s also much easier in VR.

Klipsch Promedia. I have an older 4.1 and it’s 20+ years old. Plenty of power and a great subwoofer.

Video has no comments nor place to buy? Kinda fail as advertising. Link above goes straight to a page asking for my PayPal password…um, no thank you.

I was wondering this also.

Are we now looking forward to internet posts from Mathijs Kok? Cats and dogs living together now too?

That’s an odd fuel loading.

Starting with the program launch in Oct 1990 to first flight, it took Boeing less then 4 years to design and build the actual plane. Maybe PMDG can beat that record with the video game version.

This. Maybe I’m paranoid, but I’ve come to believe that the game does cache downloaded data even if you set it to not use a rolling cache. They keep it quiet but they do it to reduce data loads on their servers. Delete rolling cache at every game launch.

Yeah, sorry, they didn't update anything. Disregard my posts about the new update exe.

I'm on 1.33.8.0. Non beta. In any case, enjoying it.

I think they did change this in today's update. I had modded the old exe dated 6/22/23. Worked fine like it did in the video. Today's update brought a new exe dated 9/22/23. The hex editor didn't find the old valves in this new one. So, I tried doing a replace of the new values with the same new values (figured it couldn't hurt), and it did find all 3 of those.

It's easy to get caught up in all the fun math regarding pixels, and degrees, etc. With digital cameras it's called megapixel madness. People think 30 MP will always be better than 20, until they see a 20MP image from through a good (Canon/Nikon) lens. Same with VR. The G2 may have more pixels, but the lenses are word not allowed, and about 2/3 of the image area is blurry. Some say it just has a small sweet spot, which is a nice way of saying most of the image is our of focus and there's nothing you can do about it. I won't even get into the cable fiasco. So, I'll say it....good lenses are more important than PPD. Marketing guys hate this statement, because $ spent on pixels are much easier to market/hype than $ spent on lenses. I learned this when I went to FSExpo and tried a Varjo Aero. Then did some research and shelved my G2 for a Quest Pro...with fewer pixels.

How to use the RNAV in the analog overhaul planes.

https://www.boe.com/en/Enterprise/VR_AR Look at the table there, the second column. That's what is in the Q Pro.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. The G2 was ok for 3 years ago, but I didn't know better. The HP G2 has a design defect. Some say it has a small sweet spot in the center... smaller than others. This is being very poilite. To be more blunt, the part of the image (a small part) in the very center is in focus, and the 2160x2160 panel resolution shows brilliantly. The rest of the view (the other 75%) is out of focus. Just plain ol out of focus. Might as well have 640x480 pixels out past the center because they're all blurry anyway. Why they left this, I'll never know. Fresnel lenses can have any refraction profile you want. You can also layer two of them very cheaply if you have to. They're just the wrong profile and no adjustments help...kinda like the original Hubble telescope. So you need a 2160x2160-per-eye image for the panels. But to get this you need a 3124 x 3056 image from the game so the vr software can distort it properly after it's rendered. And for some reason it's better if you oversample past that. So to make it work properly, you need about 4060x3970 per eye, or 8120x3970 for the full render....all for about 500x500 pixels in the center that you can actually see. The Quest Pro has a more manageable resolution, and regular lenses in a stack that do focus the image properly so you can see em all. The effect is a way better image for a given level of hardware.