Recently we have seen a lot of codes used to unlock our products being offered for discounted prices. Almost all of them are bought using stolen credit cards. These codes will all be blocked by our systems and you will have to try to get your money back from the seller, we are unable to assist in these matters. Do be very careful when you see a deal that is almost too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.

Jump to content

BudSpencer

members
  • Content Count

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

99 Excellent

About BudSpencer

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Solo

Recent Profile Visitors

2186 profile views
  1. Is that the reason why you can steer them so badly in the sim? I don't know a single airplane in the sim that could even nearly be steered to a pier without smashing into it. Float planes simply don't want to turn under a certain speed (which seems too high) in the sim, not even twins like the current Twin Otter. It always feels like you're stuck in the mud, your rudder has separated from the plane and it suddenly jumps ahead a few meters. Accu feel didn't seem to help that either..
  2. I wouldn't see the difference between later added PBR or "native" PBR at an aircraft model. But this looks really awsome!!! If now the main gear animations can be done in the way they work and look in the real thing when touching down, I have no doubt this will be a top notch product, visually and functionally!
  3. Exactly my three points!!! Very nice to hear about the chance of redoing the Twin Otter!! The Twin Otter is fun to fly and still looks and sounds good to me. But on the ground it's awful, not just because of the P3D ground friction issue. To me, it would be most important to have a properly simulated beta range. I've already heard this would be very difficult to do because P3D (still??) doesn't know that feature in turbo props at all (??). All turbo props I've ever flown in the sim have used some kind of a compromise to be able to taxi. But in all of them you had to raise the torque (which takes time) to wait again for the prop gov to react and make the aircraft roll by raising up rpm, and that takes so much time that the taxi speed is very difficult to control. Furthermore it sounds unrealistic (despite a good sound!) because rpm raises up a lot, while in reality only the the "sound" of the props changes while accelerating and decelerating the plane, but not the frequency of the rpm tone neither the rpm itself. The only exeption here is the Majestic's Dash 8-Q400. That really got the engine steering right. I know they modeled the flight dynamics completely externally. I don't know what is possible here, but in any case I would pay the full price again for a good engine ground behaviour and Flight1 GTN support. I think hiding the yoke isn't too hard to do in comparison to the other things Apart from that the Aerosoft Twin Otter is still a plane without a real competitor in its range. And no, I won't count in Carenado planes for that.^^ Cheers, Dominik
  4. No idea what that is. So I guess no. The only "global" addons I use are ORBX FTX Global, Vector, OpenLC Europe (in this case), Active Sky 2016, EnvTex + EnvShade and EditVoicePack. Plus in this case the described regional addon of LJLJ. I will report when I see any connection between this and other events..
  5. OK, but what else could I try? I've got no idea what direction I should search. Graphic settings maybe? However after the latest similar CTDs all I could do was wait for the next update - which evenetually helped in most cases.
  6. No, I only updated the Navdata for particular aircraft via Navigraph FMS data manager. I didn't do so since the end of 2018 because their charts always seem to be older than their Nav data and I wanted to "align" them a bit more. OK, I'm gonna try that and report back.
  7. Same here, unfortunately. P3D v4.4, almost fresh Win 10 install After the latest update to v1.2.3.0, I can at least enter or load the flightplan, but as soon as I change the range of the ND - CTD. I'm using Navigraph data cycle 1813. Still couldn't manage to at least take off without a CTD before. Happened in Ljubljana on the ground in the -700 after all the other flight preperations have been done (scenery by RFSceneryBuilding, for the case that it matters).
  8. I never had a problem with updating to a newer v4.x version of P3D. But does this actually mean that it might only be compatible with a possible P3D v5, if this is already out at the A330 release date?? Or is there at least any kind of "guarantee" that it will be at least compatible with the newest P3D v4 version?
  9. BTW, for similar reasons the G1000 is so hard to handle in the sim while it is obviously so popular and beloved in RW.
  10. Surely I wouldn't demand a product, even if a good Singapore scenery is really missing in the FS world. But with all respect to Aerosoft for their effort for transparency and communication, wouldn't it be better sometimes not to announce anything until you really know the project will materialize? I mean, isn't there a lot of unagreable justification talks for Mathijs or other Aerosoft members for projects like Johannesburg, to some extend Brussels and perhaps the PC-6 and now this one, as we fear? ...be it an external developer or some in-house developer - I don't think such early announcements are a real benefit or a good advertisement for Aerosoft, whatever the reason for a very long development time or even a cancellation might be... I'll be happy if it really should come out some day and I would certainly be a customer then. But I'm sorry that I've lost some trust that it's really going to happen because of the past experiences at some projects.
  11. Oh, that's indeed good news! I hope for some more African airports in the sim in future. Africa is also the next continent to be covered by ORBX' OpenLC. So, there would still be some nice approach views then.
  12. Now that a lot of the wishes from 2016 or so has been made by someone, here a few further suggestions by be: - Marrakesh (GMMX): ...could be something for FSDG?? - Addis Ababa (HAAB) => FSDG Lite a là Dakar? - Colombo (VCBI) => FSDG Lite a là Bangalore? - Bogota (SKBO) - Panama (MPTO) I would also appreciate a P3D v4 version of the existing Dublin Intl a lot!! I think it's not useful to suggest any more South African scenery after we saw why Johannesburg couldn't be made… which is sad because I would love to see something from there in the sim.
  13. Yes, that's also how I understood all the other factors that went wrong. But does anyone have a clue what that "landing mode" does or did at a 1988 Airbus A320?
  14. Hi! I have a few detailed questions about the A320 that maybe some of you experts could answer here: By coincidence I just watched a "Mayday" episode about the A320 crash at Habsheim airshow in 1988, one of the few I hadn't seen before. Therein the investigators were first unsure if the "landing mode was automatically activated" because the airplane was so close to the ground and thus "preventing the pilots to give effective climb inputs". Later they discovered that only the Alpha floor activated which led the elevators to pitch down despite pulling at the sidestick - which makes sense at the low airspeed according to the logic of the Alpha Floor. But: Concerning this "landing mode"?? I think I roughly understood how FBW/Alpha floor is working: The aircraft corrects inputs from pilots that would lead to a stall, an overshoot of the bank limits,... by adjusting pitch, roll and thrust so that the aircraft stays within its structural and aerodynamic limits in critical moments, right? ...which was also nicely modeled in the Aerosoft bus and even partly long years ago in the Wilco buses. However, several investigation episodes about newer airbuses led to the impression (at least for me) that the airbus flies and lands itself without any more control of a pilot if it feels to do so. (It even feels a bit frightening when you hear that) What's behind this magic "landing mode" or several other automatition modes in the airbus? Another example is the investigation of the Air Inter Crash at Strassbourg, where the aircraft obviously "automatically corrected some upwinds by pitching the aircraft steeply down". Is it an automatition that is just too complicated and/or that makes too little sense to simulate so that no one ever mentioned it here? Or is it just a (partly) failed try to simplify "Airbus-specific" systems for the average TV watcher? Several other episodes that involved other aircraft types always made sense to me in every aspect from what I know about aviation from my hobby simmer's viewpoint. Thanks in advance!! Cheers, Dominik Edit: BTW, just one more question on that: The pilot claimed they couldn't hear the altitude callouts because of the headphones and because of the aircraft noise? Don't pilots ALWAYS have their headphones on while landing?? And doesn't the aircraft make the same "noise" at every landing?^^
  15. That's fine. I don't care too much about small bugs that require manual flying in some situations. But the worst thing are CTDs or errors that lead to a crash of the sim. That is what's really annoying. Unfortunately from the last 5 flights there wasn't a single one without a crash. Good to hear it is still worked on with high intention. Meanwhile I took a break on the CRJ and I'm flying other aircraft again until the next update(s) come out. Good luck with it.
×
×
  • Create New...