221 topics in this forum

    • 1 reply
    • 488 views
  1. A320

    • 5 replies
    • 502 views
    • 4 replies
    • 637 views
    • 2 replies
    • 664 views
    • 29 replies
    • 2034 views
    • 4 replies
    • 537 views
    • 5 replies
    • 750 views
    • 0 replies
    • 654 views
    • 6 replies
    • 789 views
    • 9 replies
    • 1205 views
    • 7 replies
    • 918 views
    • 2 replies
    • 696 views
    • 6 replies
    • 698 views
    • 3 replies
    • 764 views
    • 6 replies
    • 991 views
    • 3 replies
    • 739 views
    • 2 replies
    • 1193 views
  2. crj aerosoft en descarga

    • 2 replies
    • 602 views
    • 1 reply
    • 602 views
    • 6 replies
    • 1392 views
    • 5 replies
    • 869 views
  3. antonov225

    • 0 replies
    • 662 views
    • 3 replies
    • 691 views
    • 1 reply
    • 649 views
    • 4 replies
    • 665 views
  • Posts

    • Maybe I should give the new version a try. I actually ended up downgrading to 5c and the performance and smoothness difference is simply stunning compared to 1.0.1 on my system. I don't necessarily monitor FPS, but rather the variation value (or fluctuation, I forget what the official term is). The difference between the two versions  - with 1.0.1 variation is spiking and eventually settles in around 15-17%; with 5c it's only 2-3% (which is pretty much the value I get will all other study sim add-ons).   I'm hoping this will not be a problem anymore once I get my new system at the end of this year, if I get final approval of the CFO (wife)......   Cheers, Peter
    •   Well that certainly seems to be the case. At least here as well.   There are those on here defending it, and giving advice on how to "improve" it with settings, but the truth here is that it performs much worse than all other high end aircraft models I have.   It's not unflyable by any means, it just doesn't perform as well as the others I have. Hope they are able to improve it, as well as solve the NAV problems soon.  
    •    This video is a FSX flight of a simulated Airbus A320 IAE aircraft using PRO-ATC/X.  The flight  departs from Fiumicino Italy (LIRF- Aeroporto Internazionale Leonardo da Vinc) and arrives in Paris France-(LFPG- Aéroport de Paris-Charles-de-Gaulle).  The original flight video has been broken down into various flight stages. They are sub-entitled: 1.“Startup to Takeoff”. 2”Takeoff to Cruise”. 3.“Cruise to Descent”. 4.“Decent to Landing”.   These staged FSX Flight and Pro-Atc/x videos are especially useful for viewers who may be interested in just certain parts of a flight.  My own concerns were met by reducing the time it takes to download a long flight video.   I am retired and a hobby flight simulator enthusiast user name Polymerman.   I would be pleased for viewers to subscribe to my OVER YOUR HEAD PRODUCTIONS channel for new releases at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu_zeEUvH6_33EI0tuBTfRw.   This is a non-commercial  hobby youtube channel.  This channel enables me to have a year round fun hobby and share it with others of similar interests.   Music use license consent granted by Wayne Gratz  (http://www.waynegratz.com/)  The following credits are from my elder memory so please forgive me if I leave some out. Please post a comment and I’ll try and update this area if possible:   Microsoft FSX Steam, Dovetail, Aerosoft, Orbx, Pointsoft PRO-ATC/X, DX10 Scenery Fixer, Active Sky 2016, EZDOK EZCA V2   A special thank you goes to: 1.    Marcel Verheydt for the Pro-Atc/X voicesets (http://www.mavecreations.weebly.com).  I used voice “US Richard” as the copilot or PNF.  2.    Rolf Fritze (a moderator of Aerosoft forum) for his work on my voiceset for use as the PNF (pilot not flying) in the Airbus series.  
    • Gentlemen, at the moment, I am using FSbuild for my flight planning needs.  FSBuild is not the most modern program and doesn't export to AS Airbus.  The user Interface is pretty basic and can be a little tough to get around.  I have been looking at Aerosoft's store website and caught my eye on FlightSim Commander 9.x and PFPX.  I played around with the demo version of FSC from Volker's website and was impressed.  I haven't seen the same for PFPX, thus I have a few questions.     1)Essentially, what is the difference between Aerosoft's version of FSC and that available on FSCommader.com?     2)As for capabilities, what advantages does PFPX give the user over FSC?     3)Finally, FSC seems to give many helpful items like moving map which can double as an EFB as well as live weather/Metar Data from NOAA.  Can PFPX provide those capabilities?