We like to know how you feel about the forums and the way we handle them, so if you a few seconds please answer the four questions posted here: 
https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/147548-how-are-we-doing-with-support-on-the-forum-do-read-the-text-below-the-poll/. But please, please, read the text below the poll. If you think we do bad we want to know why.


Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Alan_A last won the day on February 16

Alan_A had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

90 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. 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!
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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...
  5. 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!
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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...
  10. Am coming late to this thread, and I'm also just getting back to the Twin Otter the way I usually do after a bout of too much complexity. I'd love to see an update and I'd be glad to pay for it. Third-party GPS integration (Flight1 GTN series in particular) is my number-one request. Anything else would be gravy. Looking forward to hearing where Aerosoft comes out on this project.
  11. Understand completely about the complexity of the Katana and the difficulty of porting it over to X-Plane. But unless the Katana and some of the other complex aircraft (like A2A's) move over, I won't be abandoning FSX anytime soon. Happy to look at X-Plane, and in fact I've been exploring X-Plane 9 to get the feel for it, but right now I'd expect to use it in addition to, not instead of, FSX.
  12. Apologies - my post wasn't nearly as clear as it should have been. I wasn't reacting to the OP at all - more to Mathijs' post. Though in fairness, now that I read what he wrote more carefully, I don't think he was drawing as sharp a contrast as I thought. And he did say it was his personal opinion, which is of course fine. All I really meant to say is that it's great to simulate things that customers could actually do... but there's also a place for simulating things that they could never do... and simulating them to a very high standard. That's the NGX, for me at least. I'll say this - the NGX and the Katana, between them, have ruined most other simulated aircraft for me. I'll still turn to them from time to time - there are moments when I just want to get into the air quickly to test scenery or some other in-sim setting, and then I might load up Ant's Tecnam Sierra, which I still enjoy - there's something indefinable about it that just makes it feel like a very light airplane. But most of my others have been hangared. The A2A Accusim aircraft still measure up, especially the B-17, though personally I'm not a big user of the more game-like features like Heidi or the new 377 career model and usually turn them off (others swear by them, of course). But the NGX and the Katana are a whole new world. I'm guessing we can all agree on that.
  13. Speaking as someone who's flown a lot of FS GA... loves the Katana... is also a longtime airline buff and is currently learning airliner simming via the PMDG 737... I have to ask, why set up a conflict between the two of them? The choice between them isn't an either/or. Why not learn (slowly) to fly the NGX like a professional... and enjoy the Katana as though you own one and fly it on days when you're not flying the line? You could even branch out and spend some time in a restored warbird or propliner thanks to A2A, or borrow their Cub as though they were a friend of yours that had one to lend? It's possible to enjoy FSX in a whole variety of ways with just a few ultra-realistic aircraft. If you like a particular style of flying, great... but there's no reason not to explore a couple of them.
  14. Or was I just oblivious before? I could swear I heard some new creaks when closing the canopy. And the wind sound through the vents seemed more distinctive, too. I think the sound might have been enhanced. Though if all the sounds were there and I just hadn't noticed... well, that could happen, too... I'd be interested in hearing others' takes on this.
  15. Also, if you have any repaints, you'll need to re-enter them in the new aircraft.cfg. The textures aren't affected - the folders remain where they were - so all you need to do is copy the entries back to the cfg and you're good to go.
  • Create New...