!! Windows 7 no longer supported !!

As Microsoft will stop supporting Windows 7 on Jan 20th we will be unable to test any of our
products on that platform. It may work, or it may not, but no guarantees from our side. 

Jump to content

Alan_A

members
  • Content Count

    109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Alan_A last won the day on February 16 2019

Alan_A had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

97 Excellent

About Alan_A

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Solo

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Interesting goal, but the execution would have to be way, way, way better than any cockpit figures we've seen to date in other products. The usual result is somewhere between Otto and a refugee from the uncanny valley. Re: what other posters have said, I have to say I'm not a big fan of seeing the pilot's arms and legs in the VC, either. I mean, I've got arms and legs, and I know where they are - so what's with those extra ones up there on the screen? Cf. "uncanny valley," above. If you can come up with pilot figures that are a quantum leap better - which I'm sure is what you're aiming for - then I'd be happy to think about it.
  2. None has been announced. But - speaking as longtime user (and not, repeat not an official Aerosoft representative), I trust Aerosoft more than I trust most other developers to give us a fair deal when MFS 2020 comes along. Their upgrade/transition pricing has always been fair, and their stated policy that "you only pay for new code" (am quoting Mathijs here, so that *is* official) is something that I wish other developers would get behind. My bottom line: Aerosoft is about the only developer I can think of where I'd buy a P3D product right now *without* an official MFS pricing policy. I'm in on the A330, for whatever that's worth.
  3. Well, I work from home, so I've gotten a head start. Happy to do my part to repopulate the forum...
  4. No problem - I'm having that kind of day myself. I'm sure this forum will get more current as posts about the Pro version pile up - at minimum it might make sense to relocate some of the stickies, though - some of them are a couple of years old.
  5. Speaking of which... @DaveCT2003, your reply to this user links back to the forum he already posted in - which is this one. If there is already a separate forum for the CRJ Pro, can you let us know where it is?
  6. Wondering if at some point, the CRJ Pro could get its own forum, similar to the Airbus Pro series. Have been trying to gather information about the new version and it's a little challenging to navigate through discussions of the earlier CRJ. This isn't essential and I'm sure you guys are busy with other launch-day stuff, but it'd be nice if you could consider such a move in future. Thanks! The Pro looks great, BTW - eager to learn more about it.
  7. I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum - I was counting on a few more days for the bundle so I'm not set up for it (doing some hardware adjustments, got a new joystick on the way, was committed to beta testing a freeware project, had work deadlines to meet). So it's going to take me a little time to catch up with you guys. Am enjoying the anticipation at the moment and am happily reading all your posts. Keep 'em coming!
  8. Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas in 1996, so all the Douglas documentation now lives at Boeing. This also explains how the MD-95 turned into the Boeing 717. EDIT: Though this is a 1989 document that refers readers to McDonnell Douglas for more information. So that really is odd. I wonder what the background was.
  9. Thankfully I don't have much by way of tweaks in the cfg - not any, that I'm aware of - but at minimum, on the upgrade to 4.3, I'll rebuild the cfg as required and then maybe leave it close to default settings for a while and see what happened. Hoping to find that in the matter of performance adjustments, less is more.
  10. See, that's where I'm coming out. I've been at this for more than 30 years, and in the context of this discussion, I've gotten pretty adept at writing batch files, but I don't want to be writing batch files - as the bumper sticker might say, I'd rather be flying. I'm thinking seriously that when P3D 4.3 comes out, I'll do a clean install and try to strip the sim down as much as possible - maybe some (low-ish resolution) textures, ORBX Global and landclass (but maybe not Vector), a few add-on aircraft and airports. And that might be it. A small part of me wants to get hyperthreading right, but the bigger part wants to stop thinking about it at all. So... simplify, simplify, as the man once said...
  11. Thanks for the responses, guys... figured it might be a system-specific thing, but thought it was worth asking. I'll keep experimenting. I understand the value when you're running multiple add-ons... but that's something I'm trying to cut back on a bit. Would like to simplify things to the extent possible. I'll see if hyperthreading helps with that. So far, differences have been subtle. With hyperthreading off, the only add-on that's sometimes a challenge is the A2A Constellation - which I think might be related to the amount of sound processing involved. At some point I'll try a third-party sound card as another variable. Will post here again if I turn up anything worth reporting. Thanks again!
  12. I did some forum searches and couldn't come up with a clear answer to this (apologies in advance if I missed something obvious)... am wondering if there's consensus on this forum on whether or not to turn hyperthreading on for P3D v4. Very interested in your opinions since I've come to regard the Aerosoft forums as an oasis of sanity in a sea of tweaking madness. I know there are strong advocates for hyperthreading at Avsim and elsewhere. I've tried it - and at times I've felt that I've gained smoothness. At other times I've felt like that's a placebo effect. Whatever gains I've had, have been pretty subtle. True, small gains might be worthwhile. But on the other hand, use of hyperthreading also requires turning down the CPU clock, and working with batch files for other add-ons in order to keep Core 0 clear for P3D. In other words, there's a lot of futzing (technical term) involved. And I'm at a point in life where I'd like to avoid futzing to the extent possible. One more observation - my system has seemed marginally less stable with hyperthreading on - not fatally so, but I've had a greater number of crashes and balked starts. Haven't had enough trouble to make it a clear dealbreaker - this is just an additional piece of evidence. Relevant specs: I'm using a homebuilt system with an i7 7700k from Silcon Lottery, rated at 5.1GHz. I typically run it at 5.0 without hyperthreading, or lower the clock to 4.8 with hyperthreading on (maybe I ought to think about going lower). Thanks in advance for weighing in.
  13. That's interesting - if I recall correctly, FSX (and probably P3D as well) interprets idle mixture as a fuel cutoff. The Lotussim L-39 documentation flagged this specifically and required full rich mixture for startup. I thought I'd deleted the mixture axis in the DC-6 but there might be a stray one. I'll check - and I'll run these tests in the DC-8 once I'm set up.
  14. For what it's worth (and I hope it's worth something in terms of troubleshooting), I have one other payware aircraft that exhibits similar behavior - the PMDG DC-6 in P3D v4. My default flight is cold and dark (I keep it that way because I fly a number of GA aircraft that don't have an easily selectable cold-and-dark state). The only way I can get a good engine start on the DC-6 is to do what TheFinn suggested - I load my default (the Bonanza in my case), start it with CNTL+E, then load the DC-6, then select cold and dark. Following those steps, engine start is 100 percent reliable. None of my other payware add-on aircraft (from A2A, PMDG and Aerosoft among others) or freeware (the Manfred Jahn C-47) displays similar behavior. Based on my DC-6 experience, I'm wondering if the issue might not be the battery state but rather the way the fuel system (or some other engine-specific parameter) is initializing. I haven't put this to the test (I really should submit a ticket to PMDG but haven't so far), so it's just a working hypothesis at this point. I've bought the DC-8 but haven't installed it yet (trying to finish a deadline project) so haven't yet tested things out with your aircraft, but I will as soon as I can. Happy to try patches or alternative suggestions. Again, hope this helps.
  15. That's really good news - had held off because of the sound, but now I'll be happy to jump in. As I posted yesterday on another forum - in the sim, the most authentic sound sometimes isn't the best sound, because we have to count on the sound to provide sensations that the sim can't otherwise deliver, like vibration and harshness. In the A2A GA aircraft, where they give you the option of using headphones, I often go without them. In the real aircraft, of course I'd use them to protect my hearing. But in the sim, I need the louder sound to give me the sense that I'm in a small, roaring, unstable contraption. Another example - the excellent PMDG DC-6 has a completely authentic touchdown sound, which means it's barely audible, because in the real aircraft, you can't hear the wheel strike over the sound of the engines. The problem is, though, that in the sim there's no physical vibration, which means you can't quite tell when you're on the ground. So an inaccurate, slightly louder sound would be helpful. For all those reasons... looking forward to an updated An-2 that rattles more of my teeth...
×
×
  • Create New...