Sabretooth78

Members
  • Content count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Sabretooth78

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork

Recent Profile Visitors

283 profile views
  1. I'm taking a similar approach. Holding off for a bit because I've spent enough money on FSX lately anyway, and taking a wait-and-see approach to V4. I will be switching eventually, probably before the year is out, but it'll depend on my most "critical" add-ons being available and waiting for the inevitable bugs and teething process to settle down. I've done enough with tuning and just want to fly, so I don't see the point in investing in the new platform now but being frustrated for not being able to dive in head-first and use it to its "full" potential. I suspect that while I'll probably do a full Windows reinstall at the time just for the sake of starting clean, FSX will probably get reinstalled as well for limited use with some particular aircraft I currently enjoy with Virtual Airline use *cough* E-Jets *cough* but don't foresee becoming compatible with V4, at least any time soon. I'm running a flight right now with one and I have in excess of 2 GB VAS free with a reasonable load - if it works, why throw it away? From what I understand, among others, developers such as Aerosoft, ORBX, FSDT and Hi-Fi (Active Sky) will be free upgrades, so that's about 75% of my wish list right there.
  2. And just when I thought I had gotten FSX running quite nicely, along comes 64-bit to upset the apple cart... I'm definitely anxious to try it and intend to move to V4, but like many of the others here I'm going to wait for things to settle down a little and let the add-on market catch up a bit. Too many things that would be missing right now for my "productivity" flying that would hamper my enjoyment of it, because that's just the way I am. In the meantime, I'm tracking the update status of all my add-ons in a spreadsheet and have a well-oiled boxed FSX setup. It runs solid and typically stays above 1 GB of free VAS (I've had 1 OOM ever), so we'll let the old girl run out her twilight months, and who knows due to some older aircraft I will refuse to part with probably not seeing upgrades, it'll probably always hang around in a limited capacity.
  3. They'll make what they want, and more than likely we'll buy it! Up until now I'd never even considered the possibility that it could be an E-jet, and I tend to doubt it myself just on account of it being on equal merit with how many other possibilities there are (and the "it would be too good to be true" factor). That said, the more modern Airbuses would seem to be out of the question and the Boeings seem to be too well covered with "state-of-the-sim" offerings by others to make any kind of market penetration make sense, so it would seem to have better than even odds assuming it is in fact a tubeliner. I'm not going to hold my breath, but I will say that even as a future day one (or as soon as practicable thereafter) buyer of the A330, my old E190 will continue to be my runaway no. 2.
  4. So - nobody has exclusivity - see the A320 for instance. I for one (and I'm apparently not alone) would love to see a rebooted E190, and if there were to be one, AS would be the developer I would be most excited to see it come from. As it is, it's the clear #2 in my hangar, after the AS A320 of course. Having a common AS "type-rating" between the two would be perfect! The current offering is definitely quite good, but it's also getting a little long in the tooth at what, 8 years old now? It's a solid model but its age definitely shows once you get into it. If Company X isn't going to bring it up to current standards (or even if they were to), I don't see why Company Y shouldn't as well if they wanted providing they don't mind starting from scratch. Free market.
  5. No change in handling other than what you might expect from having slightly more weight. I've found you sometimes maybe have to pay a little more attention on climb out if flying manually, especially around the acceleration altitude after a steep climb, as it can be a little sluggish picking up airspeed if you're not careful. Or maybe that's just because I'm accustomed to flying the lighter A320 much more often, or I may have messed something else up... Not sure about the ACJ as I don't have it, but my guess would likely be in the aircraft.cfg under the [Fuel] header as well.
  6. You may find this helpful: I've applied this "fix" to my A321s as it reflects the additional optional fuel tank Airbus offers, which jetBlue (which I fly virtually) uses on their aircraft. Long story short, in bold are the lines I've edited (I think I caught them all!) - make sure you save a copy of the originals in case you mess something up! The following updates the physical capacity available in the fuel dialog: The following edit updates the capacity in the MCDU for "automatic" fuel loading: The following edit updates the capacity in the fuel planner: Hope that helps!
  7. You may need to take a look in aircraft.cfg and make sure everything is consistent. Also FYI, there is a good collection of jetBlue A320s and A321s in the avsim library. Counting the variations available in the library here, I have 55 A320s and 10 A321s - nearly half of their actual fleet of 'buses. Serves my Virtual Blue needs quite well. Now if only somebody would crank out a few updated E190s for the Wilco/feelthere model.
  8. It never overshoots the selected FL, at least not for me. It just spikes at the initiation of the ALT* mode and then quickly decays back to something more reasonable and then level flight. There is also no engine spool-up. Just a little hiccup in pitch barely enough to affect airspeed, really (like a bump of turbulence). The tricky thing is it doesn't always happen, so my guess is it's caused by just the right balance of variables - perhaps FL selection, relative winds, cost index, CLB vs. OPEN CLB, or maybe something else? I'll see if I can gather any shots of it happening. It's one of those things that bothers me more just to know what's causing it than any affect it has on usability. For what it's worth, FPS isn't an issue. I'm typically getting a smooth 40-50 FPS once I escape any cloud cover. I bottom out at between 20-30 FPS with minor occasional stutter on the ground or low altitude near FSDT KJFK and Orbx SoCal KLAX. Those are by a long shot the most FPS/VAS unfriendly add-ons I use.
  9. I've experienced this on the IAE versions as well. Doesn't always seem to happen, so I haven't quite figured out how (if possible) to prevent it myself other than that It seems to happen at the initiation of the ALT* vertical mode.
  10. Seems there are scenarios where there can be a variance to either side of ambient - it might make the most sense to just split the difference and use that. However...thinking out loud here as I'm not a programmer so I haven't a clue as to the level of effort that would be required... Perhaps for the "power users", a set of options could be added to the Configurator or Load Manager (assuming you'll be sticking to the current A32x format) allowing the user to select a few variables such as those which have been mentioned already. You could "hide" it in a fly-out similar to the current simple vs. advanced modes in the Load Manager. If loaded before the sim, a base value could be estimated from the departure ICAO and the date (user-selectable but default to system date). Depending on the options selected (say underground vs. aboveground/truck; morning vs. afternoon, etc.), a deviation from the base can be calculated. This would be an estimated or expected fuel temperature for rough planning purposes, and could also be constrained to min/max acceptable values. Once the sim is loaded, it takes the actual ambient temperature and applies the calculated deviation to get the actual temperature (within acceptable range). If it's done in a similar format to the load manager, the user could also override with their own value, which would be directly used in the sim without regard to actual conditions, i.e. "hard-coded". And just what is it that makes -40 degrees Fahrenheit incorrect?
  11. I've run a few more flights in the meantime and the pattern of "corrupted" estimated arrival times certainly seems to fit the pattern of only occurring during flights spanning UTC 00:00. Here's my latest, showing a flight within the same UTC day: jetBlue 1412 TNCA-KFLL; TOVOL UA315 JOSES A315 ZBV WAVUN2 I guess the only thing left to test now is to see if a flight originally within the same UTC day "corrupts" if the ETA drifts past 00:00 (for example due to wind)?
  12. Played around with it a little more and found that it does indeed scroll - except when I have just selected the "Select a flight plan" dropdown, after which the scroll wheel "gets stuck" on cycling that menu. Not really a big problem!
  13. Just a little bug I've noticed - I wouldn't even call it a nuisance, but an observation. The ECAM display pushbutton "ALL" sometimes requires more than one press to advance to the next page. I haven't been able to find any patterns regarding which status screen is displayed initially, etc. And sometimes, it seems to work perfectly fine.
  14. If I hover the cursor in the main field of the frame (Main Settings tab of the Flight Control Center/opening window) and roll the mouse wheel, nothing happens - unless I have just selected a dropdown menu (such as "Select a flight plan") in which case rolling the wheel will cycle through those available options. To get to the bottom of the window I have to manually drag the scroll bar. There may be others but I think this is the only page on which I've noticed this behavior so far.
  15. Hi, Just wanted to bring to your attention that there are some configuration options which appear to be missing from the Active Sky Configuration Manager in SimStarter NG. There probably isn't much merit to being able to change them all on the fly in SimStarter (for instance, the audio settings and such which would likely remain constant across all profiles), but there are a few which it might be useful to add. Wind Options (and effects) "Random light chop turbulence percentage" Visual Fix Options "Cloud pop fix" "Repeating overcast texture fix" Also, is there a possibility that the ability to scroll with a scroll wheel might be added to the "Main Settings" window in a future update? Thanks for a great program! -Chris