Good FSX Teachings?

[reignofdeath]

Okay so Ive gotten FSX all sorted out and running at around 60 fps on my laptop. Next up is, does anyone know where I could find a good place to get some in depth downloadable manuals on FSX operation (I mean using the flight planner and flying jets and all the instrument breakdowns and characteristics of each aircraft in the game?) This would be awesome if someone could either point me in the right direction or even one on one flight instruct me through the multiplayer. I want to get to where I can fly international flights between continents and such. Just no idea where to start :salute:

Regards,

Casey

[Herr-Berbunch]

Sorry, I only fly VFR, all done with the Mk.1 eyeball and a map. I know Sky flies IMC but he only uses (in case you didn't know) the PDMG 737.

There are lots of fora out there that may be able to help more than we can.

flightsim.com
flightsimworld.com
flyawaysimulation.com
sim-outhouse.com
visualflight.net
mutleyshanger.com

Hope it helps :salute:

[Skybird]

I would go with the FSX lessons. I did not use them, since I am with FS since the '98 version anbd have learned the stuff back then already and the principles of navigation remain the same. But I know these lessons are there still there in FSX.

Now, you sound as if you want to go serious into the depth of the matter.

Well, then remember that FSX by default is a toy. The flightmodels are not polished, nor are the cockpit functionalities. If you really have discovered your love for the matter, thenm do it substantially, and correct. And that em ans bypass the default airplanes.

1. pick one good addon for a good sporting plane or a small 6-8 seater, and learn to master the - hopefully indepth - cockpit, basic VFR flying and landing.

2. Learn the theroetic groundwork of modern IFR.

3. pick one good airliner addon.

Point 1, I do not claim to know all the small birds out there, there are so many, and some of them are more sophisticatedly modelled than others, I assume. The only experience I can list is either the realair SIAI Marchetti SF260, or the Digital Aviation Piper Cheyenne. The Cheyenne I do not know in its FSX incranation, but I know it from FS9 - and there it was in a class of its own, outside competition. Flying it is not easy at low speeds and in approach, landing. But the model is crystal sharp, the cockpit ios fully (!) functional, the realism is extremely high. Mastering it, is a chgallenge, yes, But it is so much more rewarding than doing an easy toy thing and being good with it after 20 minutes! I have nothing but praise for the Digital Aviation Piper Cheyenne, FS9. The FSX can still be had at aerosoft, and other shops. By its size, it also is a nice segment. The flightmodel is - well, you immediately feel the difference between the default "toys", and good addons. The difference feels tremendous at times. The Cheyenne is well-b ehaved at trip speeds, but during approach and landing speeds, she demands quite some concentration and foresight. Add to this a complete avionice environment, and superb textures.

Check Youtube.

BTW, I assume you fly from Virtual cockpit exclusively. It gives the best experience - but only when using TrackIR. This is a must-have that you should consider as an item to aim for if you do not have it. For me it changed flightsimming completely.


Next, IFR, instruments, navigation. Check what FSX has to offer there. Or look in a bookshop for a book on fightsimualtor programs, suually X-Plane or FS. It doe snot matter whether it is an old book for an old version - the explanation of VORs, NDBs, how to use which instrument to do what kind of navigation remains the same. An older book you may get for cheap price, maybe. You may want to couple your effort with the cheynenne or a compoaravbly complex aircraft with teaching yourself on the art of navigation and IFR. It sounds intimidating, but essentially it is not difficult at all once you understood the basic concepts. Some things however should be understood pefectly. Makes life that mjuch easier. For example to realise which compass directions corresponds to what degrees for a course. Much of that however is coming with routine.

Not before then you are ready for the real big birds, airliners. There are several good packages out there, of varying degrees of system-depth simulation, I reocmmend you go with a 737, for three reasons. First, the Boeings are better simulated and represenmted in the FSX world than Airbusses are. Second, for the 737 you have TWO very good packages avalable to chose from, and third, there is a nice book for the old FS9-version of POMDG737NG (no X) which weas for their FS9 model from several y<ars ago, a book that got translated form German to Egnlish and were a real 737 pilot talks you through all phases of preflight, flight and after flight on basis of refering to the 737 software, and chapter for chapter talks you through the tehcnical details of allmost everything in the cockpit. IO have the same book, bvrandnew, in German for the FSX version, which essentially is just an updated reprint. It'S probably the best book I ever owned on flight simming. But it demands already some understanding of the basic functionality of the ultra-complex PMDG737NGX (FSX). The German old book now is referred to the the "737 bible" in German-peaking community, and was so successful that they also had an English version. Possible that the new book also gets released in English sooner or later.

Tim Rommen: 737NG (737NGX) - You have control

Now. You can go with the PMDG737NGX, which is the ultimate journey you can choose. 3500 pages of manuals. Procedure lkists and quick access handbooks done after the xample of the original Boeiong manuals. And yes, all that stuff functions, painstakingly simulated down to even the smallest details and nuances. I foun d it easy to get into this monster, sionce I knew the 737 for years before. I assume for a new flyer, the challenge can be intimidating. But it is worth it. And not just functionally but also visually this thing is running beside all competions, in a league of its own.

Your second option is the 737 by Chinese (!) development team iFly, which I know from the FS9 version, buit also claims high credentials in its FSX incarnation. In FS), this was the best airliner package I ever tried, point. It even left the other PMDG programs in FS9 behind. It maybe is more for you, when you are totally new to all this stuff. It is complex, but not as lethally complex as the PMDG 737, it is visually extremely well done, though not as superior as the PMDG737. Taken for itself, this is premium content, too. One canot go wrong there. And the sytem depth is not as tremednous and the FMC not modelled that detailed as in the PMDG package. However, the HUD looks clearly inferior to that of the PMDG737.

Your other options are this: PMDG is a prime developer of aircraft packages, they also did the 747, which I also klnew from FS9. Taken for itself still very good, but living in the shadow of the mighty 737NGX now. But easier. And then there is the brandnew Aerosoft Airbus A320 Extended Version (an enhanced version of their package from 2010). Cannot comment on it, I do not know it, but said to be the best Airbus simulator out there, and already getting good customer feedback. It is not on the level of the 737NGX, but like the other planes I mentioned settles down at a lower level wehre there is a market-oriented balance between realism and accessability. I would check that one out, too.

I know all this costs money, and takes time to learn. But that is what gives you the best you can get from flight simming, the more it turns into a study sim, the more rewarding it all is. The feeling of accomplishment is more intense when you start to master a complex plane. Playing with the easy things and small planes, will start to bore you sooner or later.

Also consider that the textures of the virtual cockpits in FSX cannot compete with the photorealism the latest packages offer. The default ones were good at their time, though already then behind what addons offered, but today, they are hopelessly inferior.

Check Google for sites teaching the fundamentals of how navigation, flight planning and instruments function.

If you are seriously getting involved and wanmt to do international flights, you sooner or later will invest in a flight planning software, a replacement package for weather teaxtures, and a weather files downloader. I have REX and Active Sky on mind.

If you have two fapovurite airports oyu love to trip between, consider to invest in available airport addon packaghes for thse two. Having a superior model of the real facilities with ground traffic, all taxi signs, lighting, and photorealism, is so much more intense an experience during landing and take off and taxing, especially at night or in bad weather, fog etc. I have moved away from general world packages like Global or GEX, because at airliner's altitude all that means nothing to me but costs resources. But good airport representations I today rate as must-haves.

You ust not do and get all thjis in one rush. I assume money is a factor. Do it step by step. So did I. And I am with flightsimming since - well, since almost twenty years now, now counting the Amiga days. It's like with a model railroad - the project never ends, the working non it never ends, the tweaking never ends. Make it a hobby, therefore.

[Skybird]

Sorry, I only fly VFR, all done with the Mk.1 eyeball and a map. I know Sky flies IMC but he only uses (in case you didn't know) the PDMG 737.

Yes. :D But there was a life before the 737NGX landed. ;)

Forgot to say that, for General Aviation, some of the Carenado models are said to be good. But I do not know them. Casey, check the review section of www.avsim.com. It's a superb source for flightsim addon reviews, very much indepth articles.

[Skybird]

One thing, I wanted to add that earlier and then forgot it: you said you want to do continental flights and international flight. Well, reconsider that. Doing that in an airliner, already is boring. Doing that in a simulation is even more boring, because once you are on travel altitude of let's say FL410, you just watch out of the simulated window, gaze at the simulated always same sky, and the simulated blue down there that is the simulated sea. And that you do for hours and hours.

That is entertaining not!

Better plan short hops between airports, even with heavy iron. I flew - very unrealistically! :) - 747s from Hamburg to Cologne, or 767s from Innsbruck to Stuttgart. I plan trips between my addon airports exclusively, and in such a way that between reaching top of climb and beginning of descent there is, if possible, not more than 20 minutes time. That way I always have something to do, with no boring time . The moment I reached travel altitude, I almost start to think about the descent again. I try to fly SIDs and STARs according to my charts, and do a solid flight planning and fuel calculation. But I must not fly the distances specific models would be used for in reality, so why not using a 747 as a local commuter, instead of staring 8 hours at the Atlantic.

I do not know how it is with the default planes, but for complex addons there is a strong recommendation that the time acceleration should not be used - it can seriously mess up your flightplan routing and the FMC. I always run at 1x time, I never use acceleration. NEVER.

[CCIP]

That is entertaining not!


It really depends on what floats your boat though! I know a lot of people who do like that - although they typically spend that 8 cruising hours doing something else (doing work on another computer, watching a movie, cleaning their backyard, or even sleeping).

You can always join a virtual airline (as I did), which definitely gives a bit more context and purpose to even long flights.

That said, I prefer flying shorter regional flights myself. They are a lot more fun and have a much more intense workload, hour for hour. I do know quite a few people at my VA that practically live for those long-range flights though.

[Skybird]

It really depends on what floats your boat though! I know a lot of people who do like that - although they typically spend that 8 cruising hours doing something else (doing work on another computer, watching a movie, cleaning their backyard, or even sleeping).

Let them do that with activated chance for randomised system failure, even if set to only small chances. :sunny:

[CCIP]

Let them do that with activated chance for randomised system failure, even if set to only small chances. :sunny:

Haha, yeah. I do that with fspassengers actually, set to 1% failure chance per flight. It actually makes things a lot more interesting, but as in real life, something happening during cruise... miniscule chance. Most failures happen during departure or landing. The worst I've had out of the 500 or so hours of flying this year was a fuel leak, and it didn't even affect my flight plan since I had enough reserves.

Besides, the far bigger threat on long flights is your FS crashing to desktop :D

[Takeda Shingen]

You can always join a virtual airline (as I did), which definitely gives a bit more context and purpose to even long flights.

I was entertaining the notion of doing the same thing. What has your experience been? How often do you have to fly? What are the perameters? How is the community? (Obviously you like the community, as you are still a member, but you know what I mean)

[CCIP]

It's been really good! It varies from airline to airline obviously, and I've only been a member of one, but it's been a great experience all around. The only mandatory requirement is flying at least once per month, and the booking system for flights is very flexible (at least once you have enough of a rank to have access to all the equipment and routes). The community is good - I wish it were a little more active sometimes, but there's enough to keep me occupied. There's quite an age spread and even simming style spread between people, but there's always people who are similar enough in interests to interact with.

In my VA the main parameters are that you file your flights (with one of a couple of methods) to prove you followed realistic procedure, including routes and performance. All reports filed are reviewed by actual human staff and approved/rejected. There's some pretty clear-cut rules for rejections, but they're not too harsh. The main tracking method is the VA's own ACARS app, which is basically a chat + flight tracker. It actually gives some really nice feedback.

I know some VAs are more strict and demanding, but most are not. There's a lot of fairly casual flyers in mine, but all in all there's a really nice professional sort of atmosphere to it. There's also a lot of flexibility for difficulty - and even I sometimes fly really complex payware planes, and sometimes just slightly spruced-up freeware with basic systems. Some people only fly on VATSIM (and bug others to join them constantly), others don't even use the default FS ATC and just fly silent (I mostly fly offline with RadarContact). The only goal is that your final flight log proves that your flight went mostly like the real thing.

It's definitely done two things to my virtual flying - first it made me fly a lot more than I used to, and secondly it significantly improved a bunch of my flying skills and knowledge thanks to advice that I got there. It's not a good place to get basic tutorials on IFR flying by any means, but once you're at a certain level, I think being in a VA is probably the best way to improve your flying.

[reignofdeath]

Okay, I believe I really made that too broad of a question. What I meant for was the basics. Like using trim, flaps etc, communicating with ATC and GTC, proper procedure for flights, using the flight planner, and the use of the nav system in the glass cockpit and so on.

I want to learn the basics as indepth as I can for now, I will learn about the plane characteristics at a later date. For now, baby steps. I can do little puddle jumps, and Ive MADE a flight plan before, but I dont know how to use it (I was flying a Mooney Bravo of course)

But before all of that, any general tips are well appreciated :)

[Skybird]

Casey, you have all that stuff in the tutorials and lessons of the FSX "Ausbildungszentrum", don'T know how they call it in the English version. All the theory you ask for: all instruments explained. Flaps, Flight phases and how to run them and and what to do then. Navigation. GPS. IFR instruments, glass cockpits. I just have checked it, it is all there, with pictures and explanations.

That is much better than walls of text written by me and others, without graphics and pictures.

Check that "training centre", as it may be called in the english version. It's all there.

My point earlier was just this:; if you want to go indepth with a plane, don'T waste time with the FSX toys, their system depth is - almost non-existent. Pick one addon plane and then use that for a solid time to come, and get into it, in detail, that is more rewarding. Go with something of small or medium size first, and in half a year or so, when you got the experience, still have the interest and may have the money, get an airliner.

The Cheyenne can be ordered with 20% lower price currently. I have yesterday placed my order for the FSX version of it myself, I miss it from my FS9 times. Until 25th or 26th.

http://en.shop.aerosoft.com/eshop.php?action=article_list&shopfilter_category=Flight%20Simulation&s_design=DEFAULT

But see if Aeroshop runs an American shop as well, I think they do, at least did.

Really, if you want to dive into things with FSX, then do it right :) : get one first addon plane small to medium size and start with that. And much later, when it is opportune for you, get one heavy bird. There are good reasons why people are willing to pay money on such addons and ignore the default planes. ;) They just don't compare. When it comes to autopilots and airliner FMS (flight management systems) at the latest - there is where a wide, wide abyss opens between the default planes and a quality addon. You'd be surprised how far a quality addon can move beyond what you believed you knew after having done the default equivalent only.

Hope I do not sound too missionizing. I'd prefer the term "enthusiasm". :)

[reignofdeath]

Alright, I figured instead of adding another thread Id just post this here.

So, Skybird, Ive read and read and read then flown and crashed then read some more and did all of the tutorials and I have to say with confidence I got it. I am now able to pilot prop and or Jets with a slight ease. I finally figured out how to use the flight nav and GPS and have flown some small commercial flights from my home town to IND (20 mins away)

Questions arise now, first problem Ive had is that I was doing a flight from Cleveland to Chicago in a 737 and when I was almost to Chicago my game crashed saying not enough virtual memory? I have the same settings as you and even tested them in LAX to make sure they wouldnt slow me too much and nothing. And then when Im almost to Ohare Int'l (Litterally on my runway approach) it crashes. I shouldnt be having this problem with 16GB of ram should I?? :hmmm:

Next, when youre coming in for a landing and talking to ATC and they direct you to land on the Active Runway (Say runway 6R Right) how do you know which runway is the active one? Same thing when youre taxing to the runway, how do can you tell which runway to go to? (I want to try to not use progressive taxi to keep the imerssion factor there)

The other problem I have is my problem with overspeeds. Ive looked through the indexes and cant see a thing about what to do to correct it (I slow down and pull the nose up and extend flaps and sometimes it works) but for say Jetliners, what are some key things to keep in mind so Im not overspeeding??

Also where can I get some other skins so I can actually fly real airlines? (Southwest, American, Delta) annnnd does anyone play online want to fly sometime? :up:

Oh and last but not least, when doing an Insturment Landing in bad weather (Say heavy fog and bad visibility) is there a way to know the altitude the runway is at ? (You can see the feathers for the runway on the nav glass and the lights can be visible but I have not figured out how to know what altitude the runway is at so I dont slam into it... although this is all on the understanding that it actualyl IS possible to land in 0 visibility? But I assumed it is possible with the glass cockpit ILS.

Seriously though, thank you for all of your patience in answering my previous questions. I finally got time to sit down and just focus on it and am so happy I got to learn how to finally fly with Instrument navigation. I think sometime this weekend, Im going to try a flight from Chicago to LAX if I can :cool:

Oh and anyother tips would be awesome, I figured out Autopilot can bite me in the ass. I set it to ascend to my cruise altitude and it stalled me in a 747 with such a spin that I slammed into the ground before I could correct it -_-

Cheers,

Casey:rock:

[Skybird]

OOM - out of memory: should happen NOT on an x64 operation system and the FS config tailored via venetubo website, where the according entry to allow more than just short of 4 GB RAM is added into the config file (oh - I hope I do npot mix it up with an x32 issue here...) . Sure you did that procedure correctly? The config you get linked to by them needs to be moved to the appropriate location on your HD manually, it does not get put there by them. I further assume you do not use any addons, especially traffic addons (big resource hog). - I need to google this a bit, I have no answer on this right now. Edit: any excessive settings in your graphics driver, maybe? 64x super antialias or something like that? :D AA and AF should be set to be controlled by the software application. Switch off most of the other gimmicks. And in FSX, make sure you do not run the DX10 mode.

Edit: now that I think of it, I initially had comparable problems with this error, too, when migrating to FSX. I finally solved it "en passant", when doing a total system reinstall (for opther purpose than just FSX). The difference most prominent was that before I had a comprehensive ground texture replacement set in use, also an additional ground map addon, especially the latter being known to be able to cause massive fingerprints in the system'S use of resources. Also, back then I did not had the config correctly tweaked. So I urge you again to reassure yourself that you indeed have correctly handled the venetubo config replacement file, and that your system is correctly set up regarding memory assignment. - I have not had a single FSX crash since then, and I run it in a much more complex setup. Only during shutdown of FSX after having used the 737 on a mission, I occasionally have a shutdown error and FSX crashes - when I want to end anyway.

Active runway: if you have a flightplan filed, meaning you fly IFR, ATC will direct you around, telling you to descend and give you vectors, and also will tell you which runway to expect. If you fly VFR - no flightplan filed - you can switch to weather informations where they also mention active runways. You can also refuse the runway given to yoiu, and request another one. If you do, check wind direction before. You do not want to land with wind in your back, or crosswind. Hm. They really don't tell you when approaching via VFR what runway to expect? Ooops, was not aware of that. - Keep in mind, radio comms are terribly simlified and the procedures Control, demands oyu to fly are often a bit messy, not to mention that descend paths often are difficult to meet (spilers needed anyway). - On FS9 I used a traffic addon and had plenty of traffic indeed, a crowded place the airports were. With FSX I have to keep an eye on my ressources when using hte 737NGX, so no traffic addonb. I also ignore radio comms most of the time, and follow SIDs and STARs from the books instead, choosing runways according to weath reports and wind directions that I have examined via ASE before takeoff. - ASE: Active Sky, a weather online data collection tool, downloading METARs every couple of minutes and transforming them into mnore relasatic wetaher conditions than the default option in FSX. REX 2.0: replacement textures for sky, clouds, water surfaces, wave animations.

Immersion when taxiing: keep in mind that if you do not have airport charts, it is difficult to imagine in advance on which route to taxi the labyrinth of taxiways, so be a bit forgiving to yourself and use the inbuilt arrow-helpers. Keep in mind, in the real airliners, there are TWO pilots, one of which rolls the plane during taxiing, the other reassuring him or correcting him on choice of taxiways. The pilot not having controls (taxiing the planes) also would do all the comms with tower who assign the airplane the active taxiways. Reality probably is a bit easier than the simulation here! ;) - Quality airport sceneries help tremendously, due to their detailed and complete taxiways sign set. A tool like AES (Airport Enhancement Services) also helps, not only does it add fueling, moving taxiways, service vehicles and boarding procedures, but after landing it gives you the option of a follow-me car to final docking position plus parking position adviser, so you can follow the car over the whole airport, like in reality. A massive boost in immersion!

On the GPS system, there is a long chapter on that and how to handle it in the learning centre, under "Navigation" - that part holds many sub-chapters, one of which is exclusively on the GPS' operation. It is very extensive and complete, I would say.

Overspeeding jetliners, well, key is proper FMC programming. And here keep in mind that I do not use the default planes. You need a correct weight and fuel calculation and a wetaher report giving you proper wind direction, strength and outside temperature. Next you set a socalled cost index that is rergulated by both carrier policies for speedy or economic flights and wanted conditions for the scheduled single flight. The faster the more expensive , that is what the cost index is about. In the Boeing FMC this cost index ranges from I think 40 to 400, 40 being the slowest and most economic, 400 being the fastest and most fuel burning. The difference in end speed can be in the range of 20-40 knots. - Next, proper use of the autopilot modes and FMC modes, I assume the default 737 does not copy the complexity by which this is simulated in the PMDG. Certain autopilot modes for changing flight levels have different effects results on the flight speed, using V/S or LVL CHG for climbing or descending are two very different things. - Many airliners are surprisingly good soaring planes, meaning: they lose speed not easily, but easily accelerate rapidly when descending. Using the spoilers/speed brakes is pretty much the norm when descending. My 737's CDU also issues warnings on when to use them for sure, when targets could not be met without. The efficiency of speed brakes vary with different airliner models. - A well done FM module in an airliner should calculate all by itself climb and descend paths that keep the airplane well within limits in all phases of flight. Can't say if that is the case with FSX' default one, too. - Keep in mind that airliners, modern ones, are flown from gear-up to short before touch-down in full automatic modes, the pilots only handle flaps, gear and spoilers manually, else just push buttons and turn knobs to enter new frequencies and numbers. :)

Skins: I do not know the situation with skins for the default planes, I cannot imagine they get too much attention anymore, with so many addons being around. But for addon planes, skins are available in huge numbers, usually. Avsim download section is the place to starrt your search, else: Google.

Elevation of runway: you can go to the menu and open the map. There find your airport in question and click on it, a window should open giving you all frequencies, runways, length, elevations and ILS courses. Or you use terminal approach charts and Jeppesens (a company name) that come with an airport scenery. You could also try to find pdfs of your favourite airport via google: "Airport name, Jeppesen" or "Airport name, ICAO" would be good searches maybe add "pdf". I know that these are available, since I am using some of such printable original maps myself. Others I have, came with addons, in form of small booklets. I think there are complete sites who offer nothing else but such maps (for freed download). - Finally, you could get a flight planner software like Flight Sim Commander 9.2.

Flight Length: I recommend my method: I make sure that my flights are such that between reaching travel altitude and begin of descend there is not more than 10-25 minutes time. Because it is not interesting to sit in a simulated airplane and just staring out of your monitor. :) - A great immersion boost is weather. If you want to give it a tremendous raise, consider investing in ASE and a texture replacement, like for example REX. The clouds do not compare to the default MS stuff, they are photorealistic. There is nothing better than to land in bad weather or fog at an airport with night lights, and you run all by instruments and the weather in rags and layers fly by outside the window, and just a minute before touchdown you see the runway lights. Diving into and getting out of clouds at altitude also does magic.

The 747 crashing, I assume that you engaged the altitude mode and the thing tried to launch into orbit like a rocket from Nasa. Of course, climb speed must stay within limits so that the engines can provide enough forward speed to keep the air flowing over the wings and provide you with lifting force. The closer to the minimum speed because climb speed is too high, the more the nose raises and the angle of attack goes up. Finally, the airflow over the wings breaks off, and you have the classic stall. Remedy: not only define a target altitude, but also a climb speed. This could be in the range of 1800-2400 feet, for example. The heavier the plane, and the higher you already are, the slower you must adjust it, else: stall. At an altitude of for example 28000 plus, expect to be able to climb at speeds in the lower hundreds of feet only, not the thousands.

Be advised that if this is what your autopilot does, this has nothing, really nothing to do with how the autopilot in the real Boeings works and/or is operated. FSX is a terrible simplification this regard, in principle using a sports plane'S autopilot for commanding the flightplan of a Boeing airliner. That is absurd. - I recall that there was somewhere a good introduction into the basic design and features of a typical Honeywell FMC for Boeings, I try if I find it again so that you can get an impression of how big the differences are and what the thing is really about. If you think it just controls course, speed and altitude, than think again- these things can do so incredibly many things more that FSX by default doe snot even touch upon! - I am a button pusher simulationist. I love FMCs (or FMS - FCS? -, as Airbus calls them, I think). :D

[Skybird]

On the virtual memory error, first a note on that you are not alone: even the gods get struck by FSX sometimes. And then, for unknown reasons, it all is nice and fair again.

http://forum.mutleyshangar.com/index.php/topic/6170-fsx-out-of-memory-issues/

I have no own advise, I however ask this: is the OOM error coming only when approaching heavy airports that are very busy, or in places with complex scenery, or do you get it just anywhere? In general I would test and see whether a place where you had an OOM gives you still problems again when you have toned down the sliders in the menu. You have much hardware reserves, but maybe they are ill-configured in some way.

just found - for example - these:

http://kostasfsworld.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/oom-out-of-memory-helperfix/

Especially check your page file setting, set it to "system managed", and if that not helps, try a very large setting, and then a smaller one. My suspicion is that somehow your textures being moved between HD and RAM may cause your problem. Or there is a some bottleneck between HD and system.

And you are certain, really, that you are using a 64 Bit Windows, yes? 32 Bit cannot handle more than 3.7 GB in FS - and for even that the simulator must be given special tweaks.

I could also imagine that maybe your HD has gotten too full. Is it?

Now check this, from posting #10 on, the last one on the first page, and then the second:

http://www.fsx.co.za/showthread.php?t=4864

Then listen in here and try if something is valid for you:

http://www.simforums.com/forums/out-of-memory-error-even-on-win-7-64-bit_topic37104.html

------------------

Finally, charts. This site is giving the basics for flight simulator purposes, you enter the ICAO code (KLAX for example, and get a basic diagram, which is unrealistic and has nothing to do with the Jeppesens, but lists all the numbers you need).

http://www.fscharts.com/

There is plenty of stuff. Use Google with "Airport Chart" or "Airport Chart KLAX", and get overwhelmed.

Hope you get that OOM bugger fixed. Would be a shame when it stays that way. However, one thing you should not forget: the issue is extremely difficult to diagnose, but is absolutely available to solution. Many people like myself have had the issue, and have come beyond it, even if we never really knew what happened why. But possible that you need to dig deep for the solution. VISIT SOME DEDICATED FORUMS FOR FLIGHTSIMS AND SEARCH, AND ASK !


Good luck!

[Skybird]

Worth a shot: at least I have this in use myself and it has nuit hurt me, maybe solved my old problöem back then:

http://forums.flightsimlabs.com/index.php?/topic/3516-fsx-and-windows-7-in-64-bits-needs-uiautomationcoredll-to-stop-crashing/

Replace the UIAutomationcore.dll as described there and in other fora. Some say it even halps to just delete the default one.

However, make a backup of the default one.

As I vaguely recall, the dll replacing the W7 default one, is the version they used in Vista. I should have cured many people's OOMs.

[Skybird]

My probably last idea: make sure you have no essential driver running as a 32 Bit version if there is 64 Bit and your rig and OS is 64 Bit, too. FSX is a 32 Bit application, that'S why it is always limited to use not more than 4 GB, even if you have 16 GB RAM and x64. But additional RAM helps other applications in the background to move out of the way so that they do not conflict with the RAM needs of FSX. There is a faint chance that any essential driver not being up to date with the 64 Bit of your rig, may collide with FSX, like some dll's are reported to occasionally run into FSX, too.

Make sure your .NET is properly updated, too, it is reported to be an occasionally source of memory issues, too, if it isn't. The error you get must not indicate a problem with memory size, but memory adresses. I think one of the links I posted discusses that a bit.

Do not think your FSX will ever consume 14 of your 16 GB RAM. It never will, but will stop at a limit of 4 GB. When it gets pushed too much at that limit, the page file may help, and if that one fails too or is too slow - then you hit rock bottom.

So far even Prepar3D (Lockheeds further development on basis of FSX) also suffers from this basic limitation, as far as I understand it.

[reignofdeath]

Wow. Alot of information, well first off Im on another computer using internet (Im in Japan for a while on deployment)

What I can say is, yes for sure my windows is x64 bit with 100% certainty, next is Im not sure about if its the airport or not. One time it happened 5 minutes outside of cleveland, the next it happened when I was on my approach to Chicago. What was common was I was in virtual cockpit and looked around I believe pulled up my 2d GPS screen to look at my next waypoint. And when I looked back at the mycokpit, all of my glass screens and gauges were gone, completely. It was like there was a window right through them and I could see straight to the ground.

There was alot of information you just gave me so this may take some time to sort it out, but I really want too especially when I know that this shouldnt happen on my system at all. Im not even having any lag or anything before it happens just 'boop' CTD. REALLY made me mad when I was about to land at Chicago.

So first things first, you said to check to make sure I handled and installed Venetubos tweaks correctly? Am I right??

As for using REX, would using it tax my system alot more noticeabley??

Cheers,

Casey

[reignofdeath]

Oh and you mentioned FS9?? How is FS9 with Addons?? Can it look as good and perform as good as FSX?? Because if so I might try getting FS9 and playing with Traffic Addons and graphics addons if it can look almost as good but run better.

[Skybird]

First, the glass panels gone and turning into windows showing the world behind. Wowh. I am not knowing enough on that (or panels turning black) as if I could help you there. I know that some people have reported such issues, and reference then goes to bad video drivers, messed up Alpha-channels and stuff like that. It seems to be a very important symptom and I urge you to describe it in the forums of www.avsim.com.

I now recall that you use a notebook, it seems a gamer notebook with a solid gfx card, but how good that card really is I do not know. Has it it's own onboard RAM, or does it take its share from the general RAM? Is the driver version for that you use, stable, or dies it give you troubles in other games, too? - The latest driver must not be the best. I am using quite an old one,l for example, for all that have come after it, gave me minor problems here and there. On the other hand, an old driver could have its hand in messing up your panels. I cannot say - go to AVSIM.

You use FSC Acceleration or FSX + SP1 + SP2, yes?

Does the save flight feature work reliably for you? Saving flight siotuation and cockpit status reliably? It works reliable for me even in a high comp0lexity plane like the 737. It could easy - slightly - the pain when you cannot complete a flight when you have a save point to go back to. For example: save points after takeoff, reaching travel altitude, before descend, before final approach - something like that.

Yes, the Venetubo website. The information you filled in should be correct, of course. You can just delete (or move) the current config of FSX, so that FSX creates a new one at next launch, and with that one you can go to Bojote'S tweaking website again, starting new. The downloadable file you get in return must be manually moved to the correct location, the website service does not do that for you.

REX - yes, lovely it is, isn't it? :) See the screenshot thread, I just have placed many pics there. has no effect on my frames, at least not within the 30fps-limit that I have preset externally. But before thinking about addons, your installation must get fixed. So: the important stuff first. - REX just replaces textures and does not further effect the installed FSX. It allows very high degree of randomization. Helps to get rid of some of the too cartoonish-coloured FSX default sunsets.

FS9: well, I had it on my old rig, rock-solid, never failing me. IU was extrenmely heavy with addons: weather replacement, online weather downloads every ten minutes, the most complex airliners available, airport sceneries, global mesh replacement, global texture replacement, european and Northamerican replacement fortraffic grid, towns, terrain types and coastlines, and AI traffic, globally. Everything maxed out. And stable. - Did the same, exactly the same installation on my current rig - and ran into OOM errors. Lowered the slider settings, switched of traffic and so on: reduced the frequency of traffic, eased the grapohic settings and so on. But real reliability I did not regain. I then migrated to FSX becasue of the PMDG737, it is not available for FS9.

If you are really interested in civilian flight simming, FS9 could be an alternative, and a very good one. Yoiu can probbaly get many addons used, for very cheap prices (that's what I did when moving from FS8 to FS9, saved me 60% of the total costs). There are good sceneries, and many, as well as good weather tools, and good addon planes. Plus the iFly 737, PMDG 747, which both are second only to the PMDG737NGX for FSX. - But first try to get advise from the forums at Avsim, especially on the glasscockpit'S failure. It mujst be possible to get FSX running on your rig. I assume that something just gets overlooked so far.

You know that there is another simulator out, yes? X-Plane? They say it is good, in some parts superior in others inferior to FSX. And programmed in latest technology. But I do not know it, I cannot help you with that one. -> Youtube. -> flightsim websites.

Get the manuals I set up, please, if you are interested. I want to shut down those links.

[Skybird]

Oh and you mentioned FS9?? How is FS9 with Addons?? Can it look as good and perform as good as FSX?? Because if so I might try getting FS9 and playing with Traffic Addons and graphics addons if it can look almost as good but run better.

It can be made looking much better than default, and look almost as good as FSX, but not completely (of course). If a stable installation can be acchieved. On my old rig, it was. On my new one: it was not. If you want a traffic-heavy environment, it might be an alternative.

But on the other hand, FSX has traffic tools as well, and people can run them if they have the specs.

Let'S try to fix your rig first. Ask the guys at Avsim.

P.S. And give them your notebook'S specs and ask them what to expect from that hardware in FSX.

[Skybird]

Thinking on your glass panel issue, you could try in the gfx driver to switch all options to very conservative settings, or switching them off. You could reach that by right-click on the desktop, then -> nVidia System -> 3D settings -> Tab program setting -> FSX. Leave Antialias and Ansitropic Filter to - application controlled", but tone down the other options or leave the to "general". Make sure the nVidia power-setting for the gfx is for "maximum performance", its in the same menu, and switch off multiple monitors.

[reignofdeath]

Thinking on your glass panel issue, you could try in the gfx driver to switch all options to very conservative settings, or switching them off. You could reach that by right-click on the desktop, then -> nVidia System -> 3D settings -> Tab program setting -> FSX. Leave Antialias and Ansitropic Filter to - application controlled", but tone down the other options or leave the to "general". Make sure the nVidia power-setting for the gfx is for "maximum performance", its in the same menu, and switch off multiple monitors.


Well the thing is it has only happened once or twice. I have come to the conclusion today that the OOM errors do not occure at a specific time, or weather pattern as well. Yesterday I flew a 30 minute flight in a 737, and today I flew an hour and a half flight around Honolulu in a Cessna. Go ahead and take those links down, I cannot use them really from these computers as it is, once I get my personal internet set up in the next few weeks, if you could post them up again and I can thumb through them.

I think my case just seems to be like as you said, some times, FSX decides to play nice, and others, not so nice.

I wanted more traffic so I increased ground traffic to 10% and Airline traffic to 43% and landed in LAX without frame issues at all. Then I did that flight to Chicago, and OOM (With the glass panel issue) 10 mins after takeoff from Cleveland Intl and then on my approach the second time to Chicago. A third time I took off from Chi Ohare (the previous airport I tried to land at the last few times) and flew to KIND without a hitch using the same weather conditions. So for now I feel like it just likes to be finnicky.

My Graphics Card has its own onboard 2GB dedicated memory. Its an Nvidia 660m.

The only other game I have problems with is SH5 and the problem is that Sobers see through wake fix makes my wakes dark black at night which shouldnt happen, and I get banding in the sky at night. Some have mentioned a driver being responsible, and I have yet to switch to the newest Nvidia 660M driver that came out, I meant to but havent yet. I think I may try it out and then if nothing changes or it gets worse roll back.

I am also only runing FSX Im not sure which SP but I want to get Acceleration, is it worth it??

And about X plane, is its performance on computers more taxing, less, or comparable?
---------------------

Now an FSX question and story.

So on my long 1.5 hour flight today I got the chance to REALLY play around with the GPS and the systems of the Cessna (Small one) and gotta say I finally figured out the working of the GPS. I was able to find my airports, their elevations, and the runways and even set it to certain approach vectors.

Now my question is this, one runway in Honolulu is 4r and 4l and then at the other end its 22r and 22l. So if they direct me to come in on runway 22R does that mean they are having me land from THAT end of the runway? ( I was using VFR rules so I wasnt given a bearing to switch to) Next is what are the keys to see your FPS again? And the keys to do sim speed?

Skybird, I know this is alot but I thank you for all of your kindness and help, you are really helping me through this step by step which I appreciate. I have certainly learned alot about flying and am getting better and better every day (No overspeeds anymore :) And my landings are getting smoother) Thank you sincerely sir:salute:

[Herr-Berbunch]

Runway designation is always the direction of travel - 22 is 220 degrees (plus/minus 5) - whether landing or taking off. That is the direction you should be flying on approach.

Key for seeing info is Shft+Z, scrolls through two sets of info and on the third press displays both lines.

Edit - just re-read, by sim speed I'm now guessing you mean time compression?

[reignofdeath]

Runway designation is always the direction of travel - 22 is 220 degrees (plus/minus 5) - whether landing or taking off. That is the direction you should be flying on approach.

Key for seeing info is Shft+Z, scrolls through two sets of info and on the third press displays both lines.

Edit - just re-read, by sim speed I'm now guessing you mean time compression?

That would be correct.

Oh and by the way, I forgot to add a thanks to you as well:salute: You have been quite the help Herr!

[Lionclaw]

Runway designation is always the direction of travel - 22 is 220 degrees (plus/minus 5) - whether landing or taking off. That is the direction you should be flying on approach.

:oops:

Oh dear.

I've been playing flight simulators since Microsoft Flight Simulator 98, and I didn't know that runways are designated that way. :-?

Even when lining up on the runway and setting the heading to runway heading, I never figured it out. :oops:

Thanks H-B, I've learned something new today. :up:

[Skybird]

Well the thing is it has only happened once or twice. I have come to the conclusion today that the OOM errors do not occure at a specific time, or weather pattern as well. Yesterday I flew a 30 minute flight in a 737, and today I flew an hour and a half flight around Honolulu in a Cessna.

Well, that leads me to assuming - as a relative tech novice - that it is something with the memory allocation, in other words: something in the system. But it could also be that when some function or dll inside FSX gets called up, it breaks, when it is a bad dll, or gauge. HJowever, you have not installed any suspicious addon stuff, and I assume you have not changed Windows dll's for other purposes that FSX is using, too. - So - I am not really able to help there, you must find a tech guru and/or ask at a forum where more knowing guys can analyse it.

Go ahead and take those links down, I cannot use them really from these computers as it is, once I get my personal internet set up in the next few weeks, if you could post them up again and I can thumb through them.

Will do that. Just ask.


I think my case just seems to be like as you said, some times, FSX decides to play nice, and others, not so nice.
While FSX is not coded well, they say, it must be possible to get it into a stable condition nevertheless, considering that you use no addon stuff so far. Symptoms lie this do not show ob without being caused by something. There must be a cause, or several ones.

My Graphics Card has its own onboard 2GB dedicated memory. Its an Nvidia 660m.

That should keep you free from any Vid memory allocation problems. Sometimes OOM do not hint at short memory problems at all, but adress problems, that'S why I asked (in principle there still is enough meory space, but the heaps in which it is divided are all smaller than the blocks the software is writing, so while in total there is enough space, the applications runs out of sufficient slots in sufficient sizes to park its stuff in.


The only other game I have problems with is SH5 and the problem is that Sobers see through wake fix makes my wakes dark black at night which shouldnt happen, and I get banding in the sky at night. Some have mentioned a driver being responsible, and I have yet to switch to the newest Nvidia 660M driver that came out, I meant to but havent yet. I think I may try it out and then if nothing changes or it gets worse roll back.
Sounds like driver issue indeed. But try several drivers, if the first one does not work. In the past I have tried up to 4 versions when getting a new gfx board before I found a version that worked for all my installed stuff.


I am also only runing FSX Im not sure which SP but I want to get Acceleration, is it worth it??
What...??? No SP? Hell, then I do not wonder anymore. That is a no-go, and I see very good chances that your problems will go ionce oyu have installed SP1 and SP2, or get the Acceleration edition (FSX Gold). Those patches added many tehcnical bug fixings, and many if not all addons depend on them being installed.

So: first thing you do is get out there and bring your FSX to the Acceleration standard!

50% + chance that doing so will cure your issues.

And about X plane, is its performance on computers more taxing, less, or comparable?
I think it is or is planned to become soon multicore optimised, which FSX is not. That is all I can tell you about it, I do not have it.

I posted a video somewhere down in the forum, for "Polish flyers", so was the title I think. Find that thread and watch the video, it is heavily modded XPlane and some of the modded stuff was made for private use only - , but shows you what is possible with it. Great potential. And ongoing technical developement.



Now an FSX question and story.

So on my long 1.5 hour flight today I got the chance to REALLY play around with the GPS and the systems of the Cessna (Small one) and gotta say I finally figured out the working of the GPS. I was able to find my airports, their elevations, and the runways and even set it to certain approach vectors.

Now my question is this, one runway in Honolulu is 4r and 4l and then at the other end its 22r and 22l. So if they direct me to come in on runway 22R does that mean they are having me land from THAT end of the runway? ( I was using VFR rules so I wasnt given a bearing to switch to) Next is what are the keys to see your FPS again? And the keys to do sim speed?

Has been answered by others, I just add this: when you do a full ILS landing, which you probably are tempted to do, be aware that ILS on RW 22w for example does not necessarily mean landing course indeed 220°. It could be anything between 216 to 224. If you set your ILS course to 220, the plane could get steered seriously off the runway, starting with some suicidal last second steep banks to intercept the lost localiser again, and that is a recipe for disaster. The correct course you do not get via radio, but only via maps - printed ones, or the map function in the sim. Check that before you launch. Every flight - needs preparation and planning ahead. The paperwork, that is.

Using the time acceleration in FSX is not recommended. Especially with the more complicated planes (addons) can get seriously out of tact when using it. When you use a real FMC module like the default planes do not have it, most simmers consider time warps to be a big No-no.

If you still want to do it, use it only when on travel altitude and in totally stabilised flight attitude, and stop using it before T/D. There is a menu under "options", I think, for setting up steering and control, where there is a list with all keyboard commands in use. You can reassign them also. You may want to tone down your joystick sensitivity maybe, while you are there. Use a dead zone and a sensitivity of around one third, that should be working well in most situations. Note that the default planes, especially the small ones, are incredibly hysteric grasshoppers. They are not realistic at all. One would risk one's life if boarding a real airplane with flight dynamics like those. :)

Skybird, I know this is alot but I thank you for all of your kindness and help, you are really helping me through this step by step which I appreciate.
Thanks, but so far I am only showing good will, but no real help - I was unable to give you the advise that helps you to solve your issues. I hope that updating your FSX does the trick. Then we can talk addons. Better GPS modules, for example. :D The nice thing about FSX is that although it is a simplified toy, it is strictly modular in structure, and all and everything can be removed and replaced with something better, turning a toy into a sim. Some aircraft addons rip all the core out of it and place a completely new simulation into FSX superficial framework. And then it is when this title really starts to shine.


I have certainly learned alot about flying and am getting better and better every day (No overspeeds anymore :) And my landings are getting smoother) Thank you sincerely sir:salute:
Üben, üben, üben! :D I hope the FSX update solves your issues, then we can talk the real fun stuff.

:yeah:

P.S. I see that Amazon.com has the Acceleration pack for 21 dollars, and the FSX Gold inclduing all stuff and the defualt version for 27 dollars. Should be possible to get both for less. Acceleration includes Service Packs 1 and 2, and adds additional mission stuff and some planes, I think. Over here I have seen Acceleration pack for around 15 bucks at times.

Could be that you need to retweak the fsx.cfg once Acceleration or Service Packs 1+2 have been installed. I would even consider a complete new installation of FSX alltogether, just to be sure. Don't forget registry cleaning, defrag!

[Sledgehammer427]

then we can talk the real fun stuff.

Like landing Accusim Mustangs in IMC on a short field?

That puts hair on your chest. :up:

[Skybird]

I more thought about how to calculate the crosswind component for each flight section and what effect it has on your general fuel calculation. :smug:

[Skybird]

@Casey,

you see you're not alone, in case SP2 does not solve your problems:

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/396263-is-fsx-inherently-unstable/

Not really comforting, but still...

Two alternmatives. X-Plane I just mentioned, but be advised that there are some major differences between it and FSX.

The other option is to try the student'S licence of Lockheed's Prepar3D . They bought the rights for FSX and have started to push further developement on basis of the FSX core code, that's why it looks almost identical to FSX, it also is compatible with FSX addons, at leats most of them, and new FSX addons are made to be compatible for sure, since word has made the round that many people use Prepar3D as a replacement for FSX. I just have not been able to secure solid info on to what degree they indeed improved the code over the original FSX code. Lockheed does a very inferior job in that regard, but then, their market is a very different one, a bit like with Steel Beasts: private home users are not their main interest with Prepar3D.

I myself would be willing to give Pepar3D a chance if I would get solid confirmation that they have turned it into a truly multi-core-optimized platform. My beloved 737NGX also is compatible with it, like almost all addons for FSX.

The scope of Prepar3D goes beyond that of FSX and its flight simming aspect. Lockheed'S commercial video - but I cannot tell you whether the shown content is part of the package for the public, I do not know. : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYQ5dP0WOFA

Homepage
http://www.prepar3d.com/

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Prepar3D

Comparing videos for both:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSHrsHees8c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXQrC5kC1vc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpodDiAwFQ4

[Skybird]

One year old, but still:

http://www.flightsimworld.com/forums/topic/199572-prepar3d-academic-50/

There have been three or four release versions since then.

I like this comment by someone: "It'S smoother, it is FSX looks with FS9 performance".

If I ever run into FSX problems again and need to reinstall FSX, I might try this one instead.

[reignofdeath]

Wow I gotta say Prepar3d looks promising. But if I were to get it, Id be tempted to get proffesional for the more diverse aspect. Chances are if its being developed by LM that the birds should be realistic?? Hopefully they multi core support it so I can make use of all this POWAAA!!:haha:

[Herr-Berbunch]

I really think the Academic version makes more sense, even to someone like Sky who flies accurately (or does he?* :hmm2: ) with IMC shelling out four times as much seems a bit OTT for features that the casual sim pilot will never use.

And it's certainly not worth it to remove the small, unobtrusive watermark.

*I wholly understand that I have no room to take the piss here!

[Skybird]

I really think the Academic version makes more sense, even to someone like Sky
Öh - did I even mention the versions, not to say: objected to your hint? The full license costs 200, the academic license just 50 dollars. And 200 is a little hefty for just a small watermark being removed.

I had doubt about that a year ago or so, when I had not seen it on pics.

This is what it looks like, top right corner:

http://h13.abload.de/img/2012-4-14_21-11-47-61wheb0.png

No concern at all.

[Skybird]

Alles klar, Herr Berbunch, I did not realize that Casey has posted and that you were answering to him.

Addendum: I occasionally stumbled over rumours that they are working on a Prepar3D 2.0, which may have DirX11 support, and maybe even multicore support. If my FSX holds out that long, and if that new one promises to run my many addons, I probably will wait for that.

[Skybird]

Wow I gotta say Prepar3d looks promising. But if I were to get it, Id be tempted to get proffesional for the more diverse aspect. Chances are if its being developed by LM that the birds should be realistic?? Hopefully they multi core support it so I can make use of all this POWAAA!!:haha:

Keep in mind that this is in principle FSX with code optimizations. It is no new flight sim with all out new content. It looks and probably feels like FSX, but performs better on most systems. Addon planes made for FSX work with P3D, usually, this also idnicates that there is no all-out new flight model (more realsim") included. Although some new planes were added to it with various releases, on which I canot comment, I do not expect the FSX default birds to behave different.

Consider one or two really good plane addons for more realism. Say, one small-to medium and one medium to big sized aircraft, depending on your preferences. There is a reason why serious simmers avoid all FSX default planes completely. Save the 150 bucks for the pro P3D version and use that money on one or two planes, REX, ASE, and if you want: two or three sceneries of your most favourite destinations. Planes first, weather second, scenery and traffic third.

Buit first see if P3D works flawless on your system.

[Herr-Berbunch]

I use REX, do you know how Active Sky compares? :hmmm:

[reignofdeath]

Okay so I just had an awesome experience.


Decided I wanted to fly in crappy weather so I flew from KLAX to KNTD (I think, it is actually Point Mugu, California) in fogged in weather. Wow, quite a pea soup at ground level. Quite interesting to take off in and fly above. And then I got to Pt Mugu, they directed me inland and to descend. . . riiiiight into a mountain. :hmmm:

That was more my fault though, I had it on autopilot to descend and hold 2,400 and should have known better but started messing with my GPS.:oops:

But they talked about the localizers and holding onto them. I know what they are from a quick google search, but how do I really use them with the ILS? Better yet, can either of you give me a quick run down on using ILS to land?? Usually I just use my GPS and look at the instrument feathers for the runways and try to get as close as possible to center.

The way they made it sound though, it seems like you should be able to use it with something in the cockpit??:06:


And I looked in the FSX learning center and found nothing on the ILS and how to use it to land. :O:

[Skybird]

I use REX, do you know how Active Sky compares? :hmmm:
REX for the main replaces textures, AS translates downloaded METARs into a weather environment in FSX. It does so in a way that I like more than in REX 2.0, which has a more rudimentary function on this. I bought AS evolution since it was a cheaper offer, but I would buy AS again and together with the new REX version, even for normal price. Of REX, I only use the texture randomizer, I think most users do not use any of its other functions.

ASE gets started before you start FSX. It then runs unobstruzsive in the background. By habit I then switch on default option to download weather in FSX every 15 minutes, but that possibly would not be needed, with ASE overwriting it anyway.

ASE creates more complex weather scenarios and more weather layers than FSX. REX+ASE imo is a must have combo like TrackIR or a realistic airplane addon.

---

For Flightplanning, I use FlightSim Commander 9.2. It alows online flyers to have their tracks saved and threedimensionally displayed in Goodle Earth.

Interesting for Casey, maybe: global scenery in FSX is altered in three ways: manipuilating the mesh, the te3xtures or the ölandclass. Mesh is the wireframe of the Earth surface, textures repalces the patterns by which it's locations are "painted", landclass is the structure in which these texture tiles are arranged to meet the layout of towns, streets, rivers, coastlines, woods, etc. The mesh can be improved by decreasing the distance between the nodes. This makes the modelling of the 3D surface smoother and more detailed. The title to look out for would be "FS Global". A general texture replacement would be "Ground Environment", available per continent. A general improvement of continental landclass would be "Ultimate Terrain". Of all these three, "Ultimate Terrain" easily - depending on settings - becomes the most hurting to frames, and I use it no more (but did in FS9 on my old rig with no problem). Decent hardware probably has no big issue with the other two. Ultimate Terrain is said to have quite a problem-rising potential for quite some users. I would not use it or the other two until you have some really strong hardware. An d even then it can cause troubles. That'S why it never became as popular again for FSX as it has been with FS9, where it was considered to be a must have. When it works, and in combination with Ground Environment, it however looks spectacular, especially the night light effects.

For high altitude flying, none of these addons is of big interest, however. I save the frames, therefore. Weather improving addons and airports sceneries are of more noticable value for IFR flyers.

These addons are no local sceneries, but have global effects on the FSX default scenery.

[Skybird]

Okay so I just had an awesome experience.


Decided I wanted to fly in crappy weather so I flew from KLAX to KNTD (I think, it is actually Point Mugu, California) in fogged in weather. Wow, quite a pea soup at ground level. Quite interesting to take off in and fly above. And then I got to Pt Mugu, they directed me inland and to descend. . . riiiiight into a mountain. :hmmm:

That was more my fault though, I had it on autopilot to descend and hold 2,400 and should have known better but started messing with my GPS.:oops:

But they talked about the localizers and holding onto them. I know what they are from a quick google search, but how do I really use them with the ILS? Better yet, can either of you give me a quick run down on using ILS to land?? Usually I just use my GPS and look at the instrument feathers for the runways and try to get as close as possible to center.

The way they made it sound though, it seems like you should be able to use it with something in the cockpit??:06:


And I looked in the FSX learning center and found nothing on the ILS and how to use it to land. :O:

First: the radio and traffic control are really - messy in FSX. They can get you killed if you trust them blindly in a region with mountains. I fly a lot in the Alpes, so take my word for it. It's an AI - never forget that. However, when manually demanding a descend for lower flight level over mountains while dropping an IFR, they usually will reject any altitude you demand that puts you in reach of the mountain peaks. I do many approaches to Zurich, and often they call me for approaching from the SE to the NW. There are high mountain in the descent path.

The AP itself does not check for obstacles in your flightpath. If you tell it to descend and there is a mountain in the way, then the AP will get you diving right into it.

The only way is what the real guys do in real life, too: check a printed map before takeoff. Form a mental image of the destination's vicinity and what it looks like in elevations. Do not trust AP or TraCon blindly.

Some addon planes have a functional terrain radar. That'S nice. Others have a functional digital terrain map on their glass displays. You have the map option in the FSX menus. Adn then there are final approach charts, often by Jeppesen.

ILS approach: in brief. Tune in ILS frequency to NAV1 radio, and make it the active frequency. On your HSI tune in the precise (!) landing course of the runway. Then fly by the needles exclusively. If you want a full autoland, bring plane to intercept course for the landing course, and make sure it gets intercepted before you intercept the glideslope. Then hit the APR (Approach) button on the AP.

If it is an airliner, it might be different with the default ones, but I do not remember the default airliners, so keep that in mind. You usually have CMD-A activated, and do final approach via HDG mode. When ILS data has been entered, you set HDG course for loaliser intercept, hit the LOC button and LOC gets armed. The plane intercepts, and lines up with the runway, LOC message no longer armed but active. Once LOC has been intercepted you wait until you get signal for Glideslope being received (marker shows up), it should be ABOVE you (always intercept glideslope from below, never from above!), you are then ready to engage the APP mode and add the second autopilot for better redundancy (you cannot engage both autopilots outside the approach phase of the flight). Once the plane has intercepted the GS, it will start to sink to stay on the glideslope, and the APP mode changes from armed to active. You then only handle flaps and speed and gear yourself, also manually arm spoiler and chose an autobrake setting, the latter and flaps are choosen according to the tables (that you do not have :O: ) - landing the plane does all by itself. Normally, autopilots get disengaged however, somewhere after sinking below decision height and beginning of flare. Autobrakes will be engaged by themselves if you armed them, but I'm not sure right now about the reversers. Switch off reverser when having reached 70 knots or so.

Switch off autopilot, flight director and or autothrottle once you are on the ground. I do not remember which of these the default airliners have. You will have problems taxiing when you leave them on. :D

If you use the GPS, as I know it from my addons the AP must be told - via a switch - that it should use the GPS as signal source, not the radio. Don't know how that is with default airplanes. Look for a switch on the panel reading something like "NAV/GPS". In airliners in FSX that by default have no functional FMC I think , it might be different - check the learning centre, I know that ILS and GPS get explained in there.

Localiser refers to the lateral orientation of the plane. The vertical orientation is called the Glideslope. For security reasons it is standard procedure that the localiser must be intercepted BEFORE you intercept the glideslope. If you are on glideslope before properly aligned to the runway, you may go into a descend while still doing heavy manouverings, and slam into the ground beside the runway. So: localiser first, glideslope second.

A proper FMC will take care of that by itself usually.


FSX -> Learning Centre -> Flight Planner
FSX -> Learning Centre -> Navigation -> several of the according sub chapters
FSX -> Learning Centre -> Autopilot

[Skybird]

This is a comparison between the huge differences between the default 737 and the PMDG, the differences in autolanding the plane should be obvious and self-explanatory. Both also serve as nice tutorials.

This is the simplification used in FSX for the default 737.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUI7SJYdQrs
Now autoland by using the GPS of FSX.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM4QYwb8n6o

This is how it really is being done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_513650&feature=iv&src_vid=ZFHBD5zUS34&v=I_lxOSC3cws

[Skybird]

@Casey,

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/content.php?2091-How-ToFly-An-Airliner-Including-ILS-Approach

[reignofdeath]

Hmmm I just skimmed and Im kind of lost. Im going to re read in depth tonight and try to see if I can do your way of ILS landings. Wish me luck :woot:

[Skybird]

Hmmm I just skimmed and Im kind of lost. Im going to re read in depth tonight and try to see if I can do your way of ILS landings. Wish me luck :woot:
Use the vids in posting #41, and the article I linked to last.

A good pilot does not react to but he is ahead of the present events, with his mental focus I mean. Forsee. Prepare in advance. Know what you will need to do in a couple of seconds, minutes. Know what the needles will show soon, do not just sit and watch them moving and then reacting. Prepare the plane in advance for the coming actions that you anticipated. Imagine your descend path. Imagine how your plane'S nose is rotating inside the compass circle. Imagine where the VOR, the NDB, the airfield is. Imagine how the strip is lined up in relation to you. Always have a moving map inside your head.

There are even rules of thumb by which pilots calculate/estimate how much distance they need to achieve so and so much climb or sink, or to decelerate or accelerate. I most of the time call Control for manual descend ahead of the flightplan's beginning of descend (which Control bases on), in order to avoid to excessive conflicts between what the flightplkan says and the more precise calculation my FMC is giving me. Else it all too often ends up with the plane needing to dive excessively to make it for the gliodeslope in time, and overspeeding the final approach limits.

And make this a rule for a beginning: First decelerate, then sink and keep the speed constant, use spoilers when needed, that is normal. Below 10000, your speed is limited to 250 knots, where airliners use 250 in climbs and 240 in descends. So: first get slower, then go into the descend. Set flaps according to what the PFD (the left display in the Boeings) is indicating in the speed tab. Flaps 1 you can give quite early, this setting needs the most time of all flap settings anyway to be reached. Have the plane lined up with the runway at minimum 5 miles, better 10, or even more when approach allows. Lower gear only when being lined up witgh the runway and having intercepted glideslope - or being close to intercepting glideslope. Have the spoilers armed so that they engage automatically on touchdown. Have the wheel autobreak armed (RTO during taxiing, as a rule of thumb for your purpose: 1 for long runways and light planes, 2 for heavily loaded planes and shorter runways, add one notch for wet runways, use setting three in extreme conditions, weather very bad or runway extremely short. However, I am not certain that the default Boeings simulate these differences. Reverse thrust after touchdown is used until the plane slowed down to 60-70 knots, then switch reversers off and start manual whell braking.

Descend speeds of more than 3500 feet vertical can lead to you being assigned for some serious cabin cleaning duty. :D Try to fly civil, try to descend with 2200-2500 ft/min maximum. I prefer to stay in the one-thousands and hundreds. While the airframe can take much more, passengers will be thankful.

Stay with the preset limits of the autopilot - try to avoid manual turns with more than 30° bank angle. Again, passengers will appreciate that.

Be prepared to go around. - Happened just yesterday to me, at Bari, so - even when you have routine, you can get struck by fate. I touched with the wheels while already being in TOGA and accelerating again. While unintended, it still was a perfect touch-and-go indeed. :) I messed up the flare and was too fast, couldn't get the nose down while there still was runway enough. I declared go around while still being in th air of course, hit TO/GA, HDG and SPD, and off I went again. - Lesson of it: when being on final approach, set your speed window on the MCP to the ref speed and your heading window to the course of the runway, so that when you need to go around, you just need to hit the TOGA and HDG button and the plane stays on course but automatically accelerates and climbs. Be ahead of the present moment, be prepared! ;)

[Herr-Berbunch]

I'm going to have to stop flying VFR! :yep:

[reignofdeath]

Okay so I just saw what you wrote up about ILS again. So basically, I get my basic course.. input it into my HDI how?? And then once I get in range of the localizer (Apparently from what I gathered, it is the ILS feathers on GPS) I get the glideslope all set and good to go and then just land that sucker according to normal landing procedure?

EDIT: After a quick flight from KLAX to KNTD at Point Mugu again in a Beachcraft Baron using IFR rules I think I get it. So heres what I understand.

1) Once I get close enough, they turn me on a heading away from the airport (To start my turn to line up with the runway) and tell me to expect vector for ILS Runway 21
2) I go into my GPS and set up the vector landing for IL)S on Runway L21 so it shows on my GPS (Just as a secondary reference)
3) I then use the GPS to look up the ILS freq in this case it was 109.30 I believe.
4) I set NAV 1 to that freq, at this point I noticed my little heading thing with the yellow arrow (Theres soo many of them.. btw what does the one with the green arrow to) moved to the side
5) Realizing that was telling me I Was right of the Localizer I adjusted the heading of it (In enough time) and lined up perfectly.
6) Now this is what I didnt understand.. How do I tell when I hit my glideslope and where it is so I can intercept it from underneath??
.. at this point I pulled it off APP mode and just flew in manually but using the ILS. I had to correct a bit because my runway heading was a BIIIT off but it worked.

But basically that is it right?? Except it pays to be ready early ? lol

[Skybird]

You have an ILS approach, and you have four pieces of informations: elevation, heading of runway (three digit accuracy, not just two!!!), glid slope angle, and frequency.

The elevation just decides at what barometric altitude the radar altimeter will come to live. Radar altimeters usually spring to life 2500 ft above ground. When they do, you fly by them, not by barometric altimeter.

The info on glide slope is almost always -3.0°. That emans that at landing speed the plane wil descend at a rate of around 700-750 ft/min. Only rarely airports have published other glide slope angles due to geographical necessites, -2.5° for example. Mostly you can ignore this.

ILS-frequencies are indicated from other navigation frequencies by being set to frequencies from 109 to 111 MHz, often the number right of the decimal typically is .30 or .70. These signals have a short range only, so even when many airports use the same frequency for their ILS, usually thy do not interfere. ILS range in the sim is below 30 nm, whereas high altitude VORs can reach as far as in excess of 100 nm.

If not using an FMC (Flight Management Computer), the landing cours emust be made known to thre autopilot. That is being done by the CRS knob for the HSI for example. It could also be a m ore simple traditional VOR radio indicator.

Note: the HSI has to knobs. One moves a yellow needle, the other moves a single mark on the compass circle. The left button moves the single mark, it is for using the HDG mode of the autopilot. You set5 a course, and the plane then flies that course. Simple. For ILS and VOR approaches, you need the needle, and thus the right button. You tune the needle to the course of the runway, not the plane! The runway, meaning you tune the needle to the final heading the plane must have in order to be in line with the runway.

The HSI needs to know which VOR or ILS transmitter it should intercept. Thus you tune in the ILS frequenciy into your NAV radio, into the right "ready" window, then you hiot the switch button to switch it to the left "active" window. To be safe (some airliners need the frequency dialed in in both NAV radios), you do the same with the second Nav radio.

Now this is where the FSX Boeing are unrealistic, because they follow the procedures for smaller, sporting planes: You activate the AP. Then you use the left button on the HSI to dial in a heading that will lead you to intercept the localiser signal of the ILS, and best is to intercept it early, quite a distance away from the runway. Say 25 miles. IOnce you dialed in that course, you activate the HDG mode on the AP panel. When coming in reach of the ILS signal, usually below 30 miles, you activate NAV on the AP. The plane will continue to follow HDG, ntil it crosses the vector set by the HSI yellow needle - it then will switch from HDG to NAV mode and intercept. At this phase of flight you should be at a relatively low altitude already, say 3-5 thousand above ground when at a range to airport of around 20 miles or so. This is so that you approach the verztical glid slope from below. Never from above! That would mean that the plane has to dive to intercept the glideslope, gaining speed when doing so and pointing the nose to the ground. Risky! Always intercept from below, never from above!

I do not recall how exactly it works in default FSX, I think you can then activate the APP mode (approach), do it at the latest when the vertical markers on the HSI for the glideslope spring to life. The plane will fly at its current altitude (no matter whether manually flown or via HLD ALT) until it crosses the glideslope - then approach mode, armed until here, becomes active, the plane starts to descend , follows the glideslope, does a 3° descend at around 700 ft, and all you have to care for is speed, flaps, gear, spoilers.

For the GPS use, you have to fly a flightplan I think, and then make it known to Control by declaring it IFR. You then will not be rejected at airports even if they are closed for visual approaches due to low visibility. Instead of feeding the HSI with NAV radio signals, you instead tell it to use the GPS. There must be a switch on your panels somewhere, GPS/NAV or something like that.

Whether the GPS can be used to manually select any airport outside a flightplan, and then make it control the landing, I canot say for sure, since I do not use these things, but different and more sophisticated kits. But the learnign centre'S lesson on Navigation:GPS explains that you can indeed set direct courses to any Navigation point including airports, using the "-D->" button and then getting the ICAO code or name entered via the two knobs.

If you use the autopilot in FSX for autolanding, keep min mind that it is totally unrealistic and has othign to do with how these big planes like Boeings and Airbusses are handled in real life. The default autopilot even has false functions for sports planes already, I think. If you use this for airliners, you simply learn it the wrong way, or better: you learn the wrong stuff.

The three ILS videos should make that difference clear. Handling the real FMC in a Boeing (or Airbus) and the FSX autopilot have nothing, really nothing in common.

If you are serious about getting into airliner navigation, there is no way you can avoid investing into a separate module and leave the FSX planes behind. I have not flown them in many many years, not one of them. You will notice that the handling of even small addon planes, sport planes, is easier, since they are not equipped with such hysteric flight models as the ones you are nerved by in FSX.

Get your installation or rig fixed. And then get an addon. The 747 by PMDG is simplier than their 737NGX and also is more friendly for users not using TrackIR (judging by my experience with it in FS9). The iFly 737 also is simplier than the PMDG 737, but very well done nevertheless. For small planes, I like my recent buys, the Turbine Duke (twin engine), since you have to watch out for the engines, while having a solid flight characteristic. The Jetstream 41 by PMDG I would not recommend to a novice, it is quite difficult and comes with a third, completely different flight management computer design - I have not fully understood it until today. Also, TrackIR for it is imperative, else handling becomes extremely difficult. Of course, if you want a realistic study sim, there is no alternative to the 737NGX. It's the best there is.

Oh, and one thing is important. You need to know what the transition altitude is. That is the barometric altitude above which the altimeter is set to a standardised air pressure and altitudes are not given in ft, but in flight levels. When climbing above it, you need to switch your altimeter from barometric to standard. When descending below it, you need to switch from standard to barometric. If you forget that, you can end up wondering why Control asks you to speed up your climb or descend for altitude XYZ, while your altimeter shows you you are right on that altitude - for Control you may be several hundred feet above or below! Worse,l this then blocks any further messages by the AI, until you have met their altitude requirement. You also have to tune the barometric pressure frequently according to the weather around you when you are below transition altitude (only then!!!) - or hit the B button occaisonally. Before landing, you get the local QNH by Control or tower, or you can listen to the weather report via ATIS. - Different countries have different transition altitudes. In the US, it is 18 thousand. But in Germany it is much lower, 5 thousand. That makes it easier for Control to coordinate the altitudes of all flights around, and it eases the need for the pilots to constantly re-tune their altimeters during flight.

[Skybird]

And this: I do n ot know how FSX handles this in detail, but in reality, airliners mostly get lined up via autopilot with the runway, but the very last part of approach to touchdown is being flown by hand. That means, the autopilot gets disenagged - but the authothrottle stays active. Can'T tell you whether FSX default knows the distinction between the two.

As said, Wheel Brakes also need to be armed to engage automatically, and spoilers also need to be armed to deploy automatically after touch down.

[reignofdeath]

Okay so I did as you said (This time I flew from KLAX to KSAN (San Diego Intl))

Got my approach on runway 09 So I set my Course (Yellow arrow to 90) and followed the course changes they gave me. once they sent me on an intercept I turned on Nav Mode while HDG was engaged and it started its intercept. Only problem was, it kept overshooting the localizer... going too far left, then too far right. I had to go manual and drop from 2k ft to land.

What did I possibly do wrong?? Also it never intercepted a glideslope either as well as I noticed it was about the width of the runway left of the runway itself. Hmmm.

Also when the HSI springs to life and shows glideslope.. what doest that indicator look like? Both in the manual and glass cockpit planes?

And again when I went on a intercept (I activated approach vector in my GPS) my nav window (737) changed, I believe dashed purple was my heading set Purple solid was my waypoints and then a white line appeared which I think was my intercept to the LOC.

I know you are all for the PMDG which I plan on getting one day, but for now Im going to play around with the FSX aircraft until I can be confident and comfortable doing all operations with them and then move on up.

[Skybird]

From reading what you wrote, you forgot to activate APP mode (approach).

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/6581/hsipr.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/836/hsipr.jpg/)

The glideslope is indicated by one or two dots right and sometimes additionally left in your display with the HSI representation. If there is no point visible, you either have tuned in the wrong frequency , or you are still not in range.

On your GPS, as I know it from my stuff Boeing stuff, solid purple is the flightplan'S course with the waypoints. Dash purple indeed moves according to your turning of the HDG course knob - it marks the course the plane would go to and follow if now you would ac tvate HDG in AP. Use this according to an anticipated flight situastion ij the near future, or have it always lined up ith the current course you are flying (=in congruence with the flightplan's line). In an airliner, the non-flying pilot would constantly dial that instrument accordingly whenever a course change has occured after a waypoint. And the white line, if it gets projected by the airport'S location, then it is the extension of the runway - you may want to intercept this line some miles away from the airport - I personally plan for having a minimum distance to airport of 10 nm.

The odd flight behaviour you reported, the swinging left and right of the to-be-intercepted vector. Two liekly explanations. First, you intercepted the localiser at too steep an angle, maybe even rectangular: the vector says 130°, and you slam into into with a heading of 40° - not good. Try to ease that angle, try to hit the localiser'S vector with an own heading of for exmaple 90° or 150°. If your angle is too steep, you overshoot, the plane excessively reacts by sharp turning, overshooting again, returning, overtshooting again. Second explanation: you suffer from some nasty characteristics of the inferior flight dynamics of the default planes. They are bitches.

[reignofdeath]

From reading what you wrote, you forgot to activate APP mode (approach).

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/6581/hsipr.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/836/hsipr.jpg/)

The glideslope is indicated by one or two dots right and sometimes additionally left in your display with the HSI representation. If there is no point visible, you either have tuned in the wrong frequency , or you are still not in range.

On your GPS, as I know it from my stuff Boeing stuff, solid purple is the flightplan'S course with the waypoints. Dash purple indeed moves according to your turning of the HDG course knob - it marks the course the plane would go to and follow if now you would ac tvate HDG in AP. Use this according to an anticipated flight situastion ij the near future, or have it always lined up ith the current course you are flying (=in congruence with the flightplan's line). In an airliner, the non-flying pilot would constantly dial that instrument accordingly whenever a course change has occured after a waypoint. And the white line, if it gets projected by the airport'S location, then it is the extension of the runway - you may want to intercept this line some miles away from the airport - I personally plan for having a minimum distance to airport of 10 nm.

The odd flight behaviour you reported, the swinging left and right of the to-be-intercepted vector. Two liekly explanations. First, you intercepted the localiser at too steep an angle, maybe even rectangular: the vector says 130°, and you slam into into with a heading of 40° - not good. Try to ease that angle, try to hit the localiser'S vector with an own heading of for exmaple 90° or 150°. If your angle is too steep, you overshoot, the plane excessively reacts by sharp turning, overshooting again, returning, overtshooting again. Second explanation: you suffer from some nasty characteristics of the inferior flight dynamics of the default planes. They are bitches.


Okay but how should I change the heading I hit the localizer at when the ATC is giving me a heading to stay on that will slam me right into the localizer? Im going to chaulk this one up for now to the fact that I just am somehow doing something wrong and thats why I kept overshooting.

Another question, when I open up the GPS and select to choose my approach (In this case ILS on Runway 09) and I activate it. Do I have to enter where the white line/arrow shows and fly that pattern for a bit before I land? Or do I just go with what the ATC is telling me? which is to pretty much fly straight in and land?

Another thing I must ask is on the GPS the 'area' of the ILS feathers, is that where I should start seeing a glideslope show up??

This is a bunch to absorb and process at once :/\\!! But Ill get there:know:

[Skybird]

I don't win a graphics award for this, but okay:

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/2131/bild2du.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/26/bild2du.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

In black, there is the runway and localiser, and in black, dash the extension of the runway plus range marks at 10, 20 and 30 nm. In black dash at range 30, there is also a 30nm circle lineIn red spolid there is the flightpath of your plane, and red dashed line separate the whole into three sectors or phases, I, II, and III.

In phase I you have established con tact with tower, and probably still need to loose altitude. If you are an airliner, here you slow down from those 250 knots to 200-220 knots. Likely that you already get the localiser signal somehwere in this phase, but do not activate NAV too early, while still being too far away< from the runway'S extended centreline.

In phase two, you closed in to the centreline, you have reached an altitude of around 4000 or so, you are not moving too fast anymore, and yoiu have turned the HDG to some smooth angle intercepting the localiser. You activate NAV. The plane will automatically intercept it and enter into phase III when it has.

In III, you slow down more, and at 5 miles to the runway you should have achieved landing configuration: desired touch down speed, flaps, and now lowering gear also. You set the HDG marker on the HSI to the runway heading - but do not go back to HDG on the AP! - (in case of go around the plane then will accelerate at that direction without trying steep banks close to the ground). Somewhere during III, the GS should become active, and be above you. You then activate APP, and where necessary in an airliner, engage the second autopilot also. From then on, you only monitor the speed, which is Vref + 5 kn. With the default airplanes, you probably do not get an idea what your Vref is, which is depending on weight. Try something around 130-145 for an airliner, and
use the speedmter in the cockpits of small airplanes, there are coloured bands, with green indicating the safe speed range for flying operations, yellow maximum speed for calm air, and white safe speed rage for flaps operation. The end of that white speed range roughly gives an idea of what you minimum landing speed should be, it doies not hurt to stay away from that minimum by 5-10 knots.

Airliner: after touch down, switch of AP but leave autothrust active. Once you manually engage wheel brakes, disengage autothrust also.

Try to have your throttle setting in congruence with what the AP has set thrust to, so that when you switch off autothrust the speed does not drop or rocket upwards due to your throttle having a different setting. The past dozens of feet in altitude you do in idle, called FLARE! Usually, airliner switch off autopilot here at the latest, landing manually.

[Skybird]

Okay but how should I change the heading I hit the localizer at when the ATC is giving me a heading to stay on that will slam me right into the localizer? Im going to chaulk this one up for now to the fact that I just am somehow doing something wrong and thats why I kept overshooting.

The AI control will sometimes call you for vectors that indeed have you intercepting localisers and glideslope quite close to the runway. That is not a problem when you are fam iliar with handling your plane and can blindly use the cointrols and auto-featzures it offers, and when your speed and other factors already are set good. When you are close to the airport, and still are high and fast, go around.

For a beginning, I would recommend you just ignore the radio, choose one airport, find it in the map and klick it, then have the data there (runway heading and ILS freqeuncies and such) noted on a paper. Then take off, do a race track pattern, and position yourself at 10.000 feet and in 20-25 miles distance to the runway - and then do the approach without control just using the instruments and my recommendations, so that you get a feeling for how it all goes ideally, and that you get used to it. Do touch-and-goes, when the wheels hit the runway, launch again: throttle full forward, gear up, spoilers up, flaps up, in this order.


Another question, when I open up the GPS and select to choose my approach (In this case ILS on Runway 09) and I activate it. Do I have to enter where the white line/arrow shows and fly that pattern for a bit before I land? Or do I just go with what the ATC is telling me? which is to pretty much fly straight in and land?
It seems you make me needing to have a default flight before I get an idea of what you mean. I use Boeing FMCs and small planes always fly manually with AP only keeping altitude. Autolands via default GPS I never do. Must check first.

Or is this doing the trick for you?
http://easy-fsx.blogspot.de/2010/05/performing-ils-approach.html

In this glass cockpit display, the glideslope indicator is: on the right side of the screen,the dot on the vertical scale left of the altitude band


This is a bunch to absorb and process at once :/\\!! But Ill get there:know:
You surely will, with time and practice comes routine. Does the sim work stable now, or do you still get crashes?

[reignofdeath]

Actually that makes plenty of sense. So its okay for me to deviate from the course theyre giving me to make my intercept a bit smoother of an angle. What would you say is a good deviation from the Runway heading to be an intercept? +/- 15* to 30*??

[reignofdeath]

The AI control will sometimes call you for vectors that indeed have you intercepting localisers and glideslope quite close to the runway. That is not a problem when you are fam iliar with handling your plane and can blindly use the cointrols and auto-featzures it offers, and when your speed and other factors already are set good. When you are close to the airport, and still are high and fast, go around.

For a beginning, I would recommend you just ignore the radio, choose one airport, find it in the map and klick it, then have the data there (runway heading and ILS freqeuncies and such) noted on a paper. Then take off, do a race track pattern, and position yourself at 10.000 feet and in 20-25 miles distance to the runway - and then do the approach without control just using the instruments and my recommendations, so that you get a feeling for how it all goes ideally, and that you get used to it. Do touch-and-goes, when the wheels hit the runway, launch again: throttle full forward, gear up, spoilers up, flaps up, in this order.


It seems you make me needing to have a default flight before I get an idea of what you mean. I use Boeing FMCs and small planes always fly manually with AP only keeping altitude. Autolands via default GPS I never do. Must check first.

Or is this doing the trick for you?
http://easy-fsx.blogspot.de/2010/05/performing-ils-approach.html

In this glass cockpit display, the glideslope indicator is: on the right side of the screen,the dot on the vertical scale left of the altitude band


You surely will, with time and practice comes routine. Does the sim work stable now, or do you still get crashes?

Actually quite stable as of yet. Im quite happy about it :) Im sure it will crash sooner or later, but I need to save some money up for FSX Gold / Acceleration. Then some money for REX or maybe a good dual prop plane or Cessna. I think I want to try the PMDG 737 eventually.. But like I said. Im waiting until I get the basic routines down right, then its a matter of converting them from plane to plane, which now that I think about it, is kind of my hinderance so far. Im just not USED to how each cockpit displays the information to me in the way I need. So heres to more practice and more crashes :rock: Btw what weather settings do you use for a nice haze / fog down low so that its a challenging yet still fun landing?


PS: Your picture and the little picture tutorial you just gave me just helped make everything MUCH clearer.

Heres another question, whats up with ATC giving me different bearings during flight when I should be following my waypoints?? (Even when Im quite a distance away from the airport)

PSPS: I also think my problem seems to be that Im trying to do it with autopilot, I think for now, Im going to do all landings manually to get a feel for what I need to be doing / having done. Including ILS landings now that I know HOW they work.

[Skybird]

Actually that makes plenty of sense. So its okay for me to deviate from the course theyre giving me to make my intercept a bit smoother of an angle. What would you say is a good deviation from the Runway heading to be an intercept? +/- 15* to 30*??

Some airliners' inbuild AP systems have inbuild limits and MUST intercept at not more than 30 or 40° deviation. Carrier policies also play a role here. Others are not limited that way, so it depends. 30-60° should be okay in most cases, I think. But I see it from an addon's perspective: how the default planes react, I do not know. Maybe stay with 30-45°. Keep in mind that the smoother you chose the angle for LOC intercept, the closer to the runway you end up when finally intercepting it. That is a potential problem, if your AP runs by the necessity that LOC always must be captured BEFORE the GS. Because if you are too close to the runway, you may be too high for safe GS interception.

As my leaf of paper shows you, try to complete LOC interception not later than 12-15 nm. At least for now.

As I said above, ignore the tower for a while, fly without radio comms and just practice it until you feel you now have inhaled the basics. Control often gives you very stupid orders. I have been handed around between different control centres and told to change frequency up to 8 times in one minute.

Thjat is why many peoploe prefer online flying via VatSim where TraCon is handled by real people not demanding you to do such stupid stuff. - Don'T ask me about it, I don'T do online.

P.S. Sorry for my han dwriting, I know it looks like a terrible mess by an 8 year old. My handwriting always has been a mess. Typing exclusively now for the past 25 years or so has not helped to improve it.

[reignofdeath]

Some airliners' inbuild AP systems have inbuild limits and MUST intercept at not more than 30 or 40° deviation. Carrier policies also play a role here. Others are not limited that way, so it depends. 30-60° should be okay in most cases, I think. But I see it from an addon's perspective: how the default planes react, I do not know. Maybe stay with 30-45°. Keep in mind that the smoother you chose the angle for LOC intercept, the closer to the runway you end up when finally intercepting it. That is a potential problem, if your AP runs by the necessity that LOC always must be captured BEFORE the GS. Because if you are too close to the runway, you may be too high for safe GS interception.

As my leaf of paper shows you, try to complete LOC interception not later than 12-15 nm. At least for now.

As I said above, ignore the tower for a while, fly without radio comms and just practice it until you feel you now have inhaled the basics. Control often gives you very stupid orders. I have been handed around between different control centres and told to change frequency up to 8 times in one minute.

Thjat is why many peoploe prefer online flying via VatSim where TraCon is handled by real people not demanding you to do such stupid stuff. - Don'T ask me about it, I don'T do online.

P.S. Sorry for my han dwriting, I know it looks like a terrible mess by an 8 year old. My handwriting always has been a mess. Typing exclusively now for the past 25 years or so has not helped to improve it.

Maybe it would be worth it partnering up with someone online who will be ATC for one game session and one person or two people who fly for it and then switch off every once and a while. Could nice and interesting.

[reignofdeath]

PS: You mentioned multiplayer and I know in multi it is possible to have two people in a plane with 1 of them "In control" can the other person work the Comms and NAV and flaps and stuff or can they not do anything? It would be kinda cool if when I get PMDG 737 and learn it well maybe we could do a flight with it while some one does ATC. Have some real flight crew like interaction

[Skybird]

PS: Your picture and the little picture tutorial you just gave me just helped make everything MUCH clearer.
Good, then it served its intention.


Heres another question, whats up with ATC giving me different bearings during flight when I should be following my waypoints?? (Even when Im quite a distance away from the airport)

That happens either when you are at very high altitudes - then they start bto lead you down to lower flight levels so that you can complete your descent before reaching the airport, or when you are entering the control zone where control starts to sort the incomeing and outgoing planes. A flightplan usually does not include all the details like active runway direction, left or right runway, becasue this pretty much depends on cidntions that could change: wind direction, visibility, time of day (noise abatement active after a certain time on the watch). That's why you get the info on which runway to use for takeoff you onmly get very short before takeoff. Same for approaches in reality: your flioghtplan, if done correctly, only leads you to a handover point close to the airport. From there to the proper courses for intercepting the currently active runway extensions, you get lead by control. Ideally. Sometimes they just hammer you with somewhat random course changes only to make life difficult for you. :) At least the AI does. In reality, these links between runway apporoaches or takesoffs, and linkupo points to the waypoints of your flioghtplan, are standardises, any many airports have a whole catalogue of these, they are fiuctional resept routes that become actiovated according to situational factors. A fully functional Flight Management Computer has them all stored, and you can chose them by nutton clicking, or you just get lead by Control. These stzandardises linking routes are called STAR (Standardised Terminal Arrival) and SID (Standardized Instrument Departure). FSAX does not know these things for real, and Control does a - sometimes poor - job in trying to compensate for that.


PSPS: I also think my problem seems to be that Im trying to do it with autopilot, I think for now, Im going to do all landings manually to get a feel for what I need to be doing / having done. Including ILS landings now that I know HOW they work.
There must be a reason why they teach it in this order in reality as well. ;) A pilot should never be depending on that the autopilot lands the plane, but must be capable to land by himself, like inline skaters should not depend on a lightmast to embrace for braking, but should be able to brake all by themselves.

[Skybird]

PS: You mentioned multiplayer and I know in multi it is possible to have two people in a plane with 1 of them "In control" can the other person work the Comms and NAV and flaps and stuff or can they not do anything? It would be kinda cool if when I get PMDG 737 and learn it well maybe we could do a flight with it while some one does ATC. Have some real flight crew like interaction
I do not know if splitting the cockpit work and have each person assigned its proper share of the socalled "flows" via online connectvity is possible. What I do know is that via Vatsim you can go online, fly yourself in an environment shared with the global flyer comunity in real time, and all control done by real people who do not fly by enjoy controlling instead. There are also virtual airlines that assign to you virtual obligations to fulfill virtual flightplans at a minimum rate per month. I think they have a rankling system and a career system as well.

Be advised that when you consider a complex airliner addon, as you said, I tell you that that is a very wise choice - but I also tell you that then you need to relearn quite some things for sure, unlearning the stuff that in the default planers you have learned "wrong". the 737NGX is the most complex, difficult but also the most rewarding, no doubt. But it is a mission for you to learn it, it is a study sim - there is a reasons why all the manuals toegtzehr, lists and tutorials, have I think 3500 pages. I will never go back to any other airliner, but just to say that: the iFly 737 is very good, but less complex, so is the PMDG-747 or the new Airbus Extended by Aerosoft. For a smaller Turboprop, I either recommend the Beechcraft Turbine Duke I mentioned in a separate thread, or if you want a challenge, the commuter Jetstream 41 by PMDG, but that one is a challenge, too.

Fix your system/installation, be sure it is stable, and then we talk again. For IFR: Aircraft first, weather and airport enhancement second, scenery enhancement third. TrackIR is heavily recommended. In the default planes with their grease virtual cockpit textures, it means not that much, but in a solid addon plane, it makes a difference like between night and day.

[Skybird]

Maybe it would be worth it partnering up with someone online who will be ATC for one game session and one person or two people who fly for it and then switch off every once and a while. Could nice and interesting.
Master the plane and the basic functions first. If you do not know what to do when to achieve landing configuration and do a safe landing or a safe go around, no radio voice can help you.

Step by step!

P.S. And as said before: with your head be ahead of the present moment. Have a moving map inside your head, always.

[reignofdeath]

Master the plane and the basic functions first. If you do not know what to do when to achieve landing configuration and do a safe landing or a safe go around, no radio voice can help you.

Step by step!

P.S. And as said before: with your head be ahead of the present moment. Have a moving map inside your head, always.

Roger!! Sorry sometimes I get ahead of myself. These were Ideas for when I have mastered my flight routine :arrgh!:

Flying basics first, then accelration to upgrade to SP2 then planes and or REX :rock:

[Herr-Berbunch]

I can't read what's on the image, could you make it a little bigger, please?

:doh:

:O:

[Skybird]

Buy a bigger monitor. :O:

[Skybird]

Roger!! Sorry sometimes I get ahead of myself. These were Ideas for when I have mastered my flight routine :arrgh!:

Flying basics first, then accelration to upgrade to SP2 then planes and or REX :rock:

If you have SP2 and SP1, you do not need Acceleration for technical reasons, only for some additional content (two or three more polanes, some cities depoicted in more details, some missions added). If you have Acceleration, you do not need to worry for SP1 and SP2, since they are part of it. FSX Gold is FSX + Acceleration.

[reignofdeath]

If you have SP2 and SP1, you do not need Acceleration for technical reasons, only for some additional content (two or three more polanes, some cities depoicted in more details, some missions added). If you have Acceleration, you do not need to worry for SP1 and SP2, since they are part of it. FSX Gold is FSX + Acceleration.


Hmm well how big are SP1 and 2?? And what planes are added in acceleration. More planes and a hard copy with me (I left FSX back home when I deployed) would be wonderful.

[Skybird]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Flight_Simulator_X#Flight_Simulator_X:_A cceleration

It seems that originally there have been a standard and a deluxe version of FSX. I did not know that.

[reignofdeath]

Hmm so I had a bit of a little problem with ILS today. Flying a 737 from Chicago to Louisville, Kentucky. Pretty uneventful, climbed to 11,000, requested 15,000 as I like to fly above the clouds then all went well until I came in on my approach.

She picked up and intercepted the localizer just fine, and I set my altitude at around 1,300 feet and intercepted the glideslope from under. And the plane took a dive.

Just missed this poor Csesna, probably made him crap his pants we were that close. Anyways, good thing is I ripped it off auto pilot and brought it in for the landing on the icy runway. Is the problem that maybe I just intercepted the glideslope TOO low thereby making me intercept it too close to the runway and thats why it took that dive?

Either way, Im getting the hang of things. I know how to use my GPS/NAV modes and do my approaches and even intercept glideslopes and locs manually (albeit with some error).

[Skybird]

Difficult to say without knowing your flight profile and how your altitude matched distances to the airfield. 1300 for a GS is already quite low. Try to have your localiser intecept at around 15 miles out, and when intercepting, have your altitude above ground at somewhere 3500 +/-500.

Your problem could be speed-related as well. Whn you sink below 10000 feet, it is amkndatory in all parts of the world that you must have your speed reduced to at least 250 kn at 10000. In climbs, below 10000 they use 250, in decents below 1000 they use 240. When you are receiving the localiser signal and are still 20 miles out or more, reduce your speed even further to 200-220. Do not forget to follow with your flaps lowering, I do not know how many flaps settings the default 737 offers, but flaps 1, 2 and 5 can be used up until 250 kn maximum, flaps 10 at 210, and then the following settings follow until you have flaps 30 (40 is rarely used only) at around 160 or 170. If you have not owered your gear at a speed of around 170 or with flaps exceeding 15, you should get an alarm over landing configuration mismatch, but again, maybe the default 737 does not do that.

However, do localiser intercept at altiude 3500 15 miles out with 220 kn, when on localiser, add APP mode, when APP is active and GS intercepted, start to deccelerate to touch down speed. Idf there is no reason to raise the stakes, don't raise the stakes then - keep your time and distance to the airfield for lining up the plane - do not turn into your flare! O'Hare is not Kai Tak!

[Skybird]

BTW, a 737 is rarely, if ever, flown at those altitudes you mentioned - too low. Economy flight is possible only at very high 20 thousands and 30 thousands. Although here in Europe A320s and B737 sometimes, or often, get talked by control into using flight levels in the mid 20 thousands, due to traffic situations. But airlines don't like that, it costs them more fuel.

For your flight, it is around 250 miles, maybe 45 minutes. FL 260-300 probably would be adequate. I do flights of that length at those altitudes at least.

In your country, I think the altitude for Victor Airways (low altitude airways) is below and for Jet Airways (high altitude airways) is above 18000 feet. ;)

[Herr-Berbunch]

O'Hare is not Kai Tak!

Not even Kai Tak is Kai Tak anymore. :cry:

I think I was always successful there, don't think I ever crashed*. All VFR - I'd be straight into that hill if I relied on me using IMC. :o

*Unless doing something deliberate for fun!

[Skybird]

Aerosoft has a good representation of the old Kai Tak and the city, developed by FlyTampa which makes very good sceneries indeed, including the famous checkerboard approach. Whether they included the often strong crosswinds that blew planes way off the centerline, I do not know, I only saw the videos. When the module was released in its first incarnation (then still for the FS2004), the hardware at that time could hardly run it, due to the many buildings. A FSX version was released later. Unfortunately, with 30 Euros it is one of the more expensive sceneries around.

Older, from 2D cockpit of the PMDG 747, but shows the frontal view when approaching:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BnmEZAr2oA (move time slider to around 5:20)

And a better sight on the scenery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjnFV3yiwpk

[reignofdeath]

Hmm I dropped to 1300-1500 ft at about 10nm out that way I for sure intercepted the glideslope under it. And I was also at about 200kts Airspeed.

I have this question what is the difference between N1 and N2 in the big jets?

[Skybird]

N1 refers to the rotation speed of the low pressure spool, that is the huge fan whose blades you see when looking into the engine from front.

N2 refers to the rotation speed of the compressor and smaller fans in the deeper, more rear-ended parts of the engine, which are sometimes called the high pressure spool.

In the sim, you check the setting of thrust via N1, it is most directly related to your throttle. N2 reacts with a delay mostly, you check it to decide when to open the fuel cutoff levers on the pedestal, else it is of little interest in a simulation as long as you do not do failures and emergency trainings.

On your altitude, the normal descent path on GS for final approach is 3°, that means that at 15 miles distance to airport the GS is around 5000 ft, and at 10 miles still above 3000. On the other hand you fly at 1400 ft with 10 miles distance to the airport, that is less than 500m altitude! When you finally catch the glide slope, the plane will go into a more or less gentle dive, but in an addon doing this in a harsh, not gentle manner, the plane may overshoot and manouver more hard in the vertical to catch up the glideslope - and this time from ABOVE, because it has over shot. And this with that close vicinity to the ground! Not good. ;)

Final approach charts that have a map for every single possible approach an airport is offering, at the bottom have a profile for the vertical flightpath, the descent, where there are ranges and altitudes marked together with outer and middle markers (vertical NDB giving you a signal when you overfly them). Often there are even more altitude restrictions marked, due to noise abatement procedures or geographical terrain features and high-reaching landmarks. Also, if you use the radio, tower will give you an altitude at which to intercept the glidepath, usually it varies between 3000 and 4500 or so.

With your ten miles distance, you can safely fly and still intercept from below at altitudes of 3000! ;)

Do a Google Picture Search for "Approach Charts Chicago".

[reignofdeath]

So it was as I suspected. I captured the glideslope too close to the airport and too low and it took a nose dive to overcompensate.:hmmm: I figured it would turn into the glideslope just like it centers itself on the localizer. Truth be told I was probably only about 1nm from the edge of the runway when this happened too so yeah :arrgh!: LEarn a little bit more every day!

[Skybird]

Are you familiar with the meaniong of the red-white lights left of the beginning of the runway? They are rough altitude advisors.

There are four lights in a horizontal row, and ideally you want to see - no matter your distance from the airport! - two whites, then two reds. This means you are on a tolerable altitude considering your distance from the airport.

The meanings are:

W-W-W-W : way too high. If very close to airport: go around

W-W-W-R : a bit too high

W-W-R-R : good, on or very close to ideal glidepath

W-R-R-R : too low, correct

R-R-R-R : way too low, pull up. If very close to airport: go around.

It does not matter what your distance is from the airport, if you can see the PAPI lights, they indicate to you your altitude regarding a perfect 3° glideslope. WWRR you can only see constantly if not leaving the GS envelope. For that, your sink rate for the most will be around 700 ft when having established final approach speed.

[reignofdeath]

Are you familiar with the meaniong of the red-white lights left of the beginning of the runway? They are rough altitude advisors.

There are four lights in a horizontal row, and ideally you want to see - no matter your distance from the airport! - two whites, then two reds. This means you are on a tolerable altitude considering your distance from the airport.

The meanings are:

W-W-W-W : way too high. If very close to airport: go around

W-W-W-R : a bit too high

W-W-R-R : good, on or very close to ideal glidepath

W-R-R-R : too low, correct

R-R-R-R : way too low, pull up. If very close to airport: go around.

It does not matter what your distance is from the airport, if you can see the PAPI lights, they indicate to you your altitude regarding a perfect 3° glideslope. WWRR you can only see constantly if not leaving the GS envelope. For that, your sink rate for the most will be around 700 ft when having established final approach speed.

Uhm can you post a screenie?? I am not familiar with the lights.

[Herr-Berbunch]

I'll link it (can't be bothered to resize) - http://www.avsim.com/pages/0810/Aerosoft2/12.jpg

[reignofdeath]

Ahhh okay!
Thank you!

[Skybird]

Uhm can you post a screenie?? I am not familiar with the lights.

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/8334/9idw22.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/717/9idw22.jpg/)

[Skybird]

Oh, I was late. Maybe a good idea to read a thread to the end before posting replies. :D

[Herr-Berbunch]

Oh, I was late. Maybe a good idea to read a thread to the end before posting replies. :D

Doesn't matter, I think your pic is a better example - it shows both colours, it's smaller, and it means staying on the page.

You win this time. :D

[Oberon]

The meanings are:

W-W-W-W : way too high. If very close to airport: go around

W-W-W-R : a bit too high

W-W-R-R : good, on or very close to ideal glidepath

W-R-R-R : too low, correct

R-R-R-R : way too low, pull up. If very close to airport: go around.



You missed one:

G-G-G-G : Light filtering through the grass, way way way way too low.


See also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8VMjMQDCR8, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ri0uo12No4 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BpIThbOADg
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ri0uo12No4)

[Skybird]

You missed one:

G-G-G-G : Light filtering through the grass, way way way way too low.


See also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8VMjMQDCR8, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ri0uo12No4 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BpIThbOADg
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ri0uo12No4)
"Everybody was turning left at Dover, which is not really the best way to get to Spain."

:har:

:yeah: Good find!

P.S. -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jtf4Zma8kMU

[Herr-Berbunch]

Brilliant, may have to get the whole 50 minutes! :yeah:

[reignofdeath]

Skybird I have a question does the weather look much more realistic with REX? I mean does fog and and everything look better? Im tired of in stock FSX Ill be flying over a bunch of low overcast clouds or crappy visibillity below me and it will glitch and dissapear or clouds will show through other clouds sometimes.

On another note, I flew from Nagasaki to Fukuoka last night with the Bombadier CRJ71 and I actually did 2 manual approaches. The first time I had to go around because I turned off autopilot earlier but I thought doing so would disengage autothrottle, it didnt:nope:. So when I came in to land at 180kts I couldnt get the damn nose to drop :hmm2:.

Lucky enough, I realized what happened, preformed a super manual go around disengaged everything came in to land but flared a bit to much and when the back wheels touched I hit the break and klablam! slammed the nose into the ground :dead:

The good thing is, I did it completely by ILS because I think Visibillity was 1-3 miles at sea level. And I didnt cheat :)

[Herr-Berbunch]

Skybird I have a question does the weather look much more realistic with REX? I mean does fog and and everything look better?


Yes, yes, and thrice yes! It looks better, sky looks better, sun looks better, water looks better, clouds look better, dusk and dawn look amazing!

It's relatively expensive but looks fantastic, it can be a frame hitter though but I think you'll be ok now you've sorted that issue out. :yeah:

Oh, and it takes (me at least) a real long time to load, but it is worth the wait.

[Skybird]

Skybird I have a question does the weather look much more realistic with REX? I mean does fog and and everything look better? Im tired of in stock FSX Ill be flying over a bunch of low overcast clouds or crappy visibillity below me and it will glitch and dissapear or clouds will show through other clouds sometimes.
Hmm...

http://www.aerosoft.de/_php_projekte/_php_screenshots/screenshots.php?sp=fsx&p=rex

I have posted many screenshots recently in the screenshot thread, and in two or three separate threads on Airplanes. The weather in all these pics is a combination of REX2 and Active Sky Evolution.

Rex simply replaces the textures for clouds, water surfaces, cloud layers, sky, sun, plus some additional goodies like runways in wet and dry conditions, airport lights, and so on. AS translates the actual weather data you get via internet into the actual weather composition: different wind and cloud layers and the way how dense or broken they are painted, using the textures of REX. REX does this composition thing, to, but at least i n version 2 that I use it does not do that so good like AS. Current version for REX is called "REX Essentials+Overdrive". Try to find the version 2 as second hand item for lower price. With AS be careful, they check online your version and I think I had to register it during installation - buying this one second hand maybe sees you ending with a copy you cannot use.

Before you start into the addon frenzy, which quickly can become quite expensive, make sure you are satisfied with the stability of your FSX installation now. I personally - but that is a question of taste and intentions of course - would put a solid airplane addon before any other addon category to invest in.

Really, if you want to start speniong money in your new hobby, consider a solid airplane first, weather second, airport sceneries third. Traffic goes last because even your system resources are limited, and air traffic is a major hog on frames even if the code of an addon is more optimized than the Microsoft traffic routines. - Toy or simulation, what should it be? This probably decides weather you go with the weather or an airplane first. If gong with a more complex airplane you will note many differences, and many stunts you are doing now and take for granted, probably won't work anymore.


On another note, I flew from Nagasaki to Fukuoka last night with the Bombadier CRJ71 and I actually did 2 manual approaches. The first time I had to go around because I turned off autopilot earlier but I thought doing so would disengage autothrottle, it didnt:nope:. So when I came in to land at 180kts I couldnt get the damn nose to drop :hmm2:.

Lucky enough, I realized what happened, performed a super manual go around disengaged everything came in to land but flared a bit to much and when the back wheels touched I hit the break and klablam! slammed the nose into the ground :dead:
Probably would have made the passengers vomit and the front gear breaking, also, wheel brakes are used only from a certain ground speed on, before it is spoilers and reverses exclusively. Many autopilot system differ between the autothrottle, the flight director, and the actual mode selector. In airliners, some of the automatic functions they may feature depend on the according system being active. That is also true for the autobrakes, which you find on big airliners, autospoilers. However, manual intervention (brakes, reverses, spoilers) often immediately end the auto-modes as described.


The good thing is, I did it completely by ILS because I think Visibillity was 1-3 miles at sea level. And I didnt cheat :)
Practive leads to routine, routine leads to mastery. :up:

[Skybird]

Oh, and it takes (me at least) a real long time to load, but it is worth the wait.
When I replace the textures currently saved in FSX, that takes two mionutes or so, yes. But it should not effect the loading of a flight in FSX!?

I would not use REX to launch FSX, since I found no way back then to get FSX started via REX with an external frame limiter. I start FSX via that frame limiter.

The REX textures I replace every two flights or so, and ocean settings and coral reefs I exclude anyway, saving these every time indeeds adds another big heap of time to the process.

[reignofdeath]

Yes, yes, and thrice yes! It looks better, sky looks better, sun looks better, water looks better, clouds look better, dusk and dawn look amazing!

It's relatively expensive but looks fantastic, it can be a frame hitter though but I think you'll be ok now you've sorted that issue out. :yeah:

Oh, and it takes (me at least) a real long time to load, but it is worth the wait.

How bad of a frame hitter do you think?

And what kind of frames are you getting with what type of system?

Im definately thinking about buying it.

[Skybird]

How bad of a frame hitter do you think?

FSX depends more on a fast CPU than GPU. According to this list

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5+750+%40+2.67GHz

your i7 quad core 2.3 Ghz 3610QM scores 7533 points, while my i5 2500@3.3GHz scores 6418.

So, when I can run FSX with all these addons, the complex aircrafts I use, airport scenery and REX and Active Sky, then I think the outlook is good for ya. With the default planes you probably can run REX with frames at 30 (if you cap them externally as recommended). I would be very surprised if you get problems. - But i must make a disclaimer, of course: I cannot guarantee that you will be fine. Systems are specific, and what works for me maybe will not for you due to some minor specif difference that causes problems. But I think the chance is very small only.

BTW, what resolution do you run at? Just curious, some addons are optimised for certain higher resolutions that may be not present on notebook-size screens. REX not one of them, however.

One thing, however: FSX is not optimised for making use of multiple cores, it is programmed for using once CPU only. I see on my system that I have two cores maxed out, with the other two cores being ignored. The list I posted probably takes into account full quad-core usage. The two cores used on my system are probably one for FSX, and the other doing all the background tasks of Windows, online weather data exchange and such. If that is true, my system maybe runs FSX faster than yours, since my single core GHz is higher than yours and the performance of your in principle superior quad core does not fully weigh in, since only one core is used on the sim. - I do not seriously think this to be an issue, but I just wanted to mention it.

[Skybird]

http://www.realenvironmentxtreme.com/essential.html

There is a link to the downloadable manual.

[reignofdeath]

FSX depends more on a fast CPU than GPU. According to this list

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5+750+%40+2.67GHz

your i7 quad core 2.3 Ghz 3610QM scores 7533 points, while my i5 2500@3.3GHz scores 6418.

So, when I can run FSX with all these addons, the complex aircrafts I use, airport scenery and REX and Active Sky, then I think the outlook is good for ya. With the default planes you probably can run REX with frames at 30 (if you cap them externally as recommended). I would be very surprised if you get problems. - But i must make a disclaimer, of course: I cannot guarantee that you will be fine. Systems are specific, and what works for me maybe will not for you due to some minor specif difference that causes problems. But I think the chance is very small only.

BTW, what resolution do you run at? Just curious, some addons are optimised for certain higher resolutions that may be not present on notebook-size screens. REX not one of them, however.

One thing, however: FSX is not optimised for making use of multiple cores, it is programmed for using once CPU only. I see on my system that I have two cores maxed out, with the other two cores being ignored. The list I posted probably takes into account full quad-core usage. The two cores used on my system are probably one for FSX, and the other doing all the background tasks of Windows, online weather data exchange and such. If that is true, my system maybe runs FSX faster than yours, since my single core GHz is higher than yours and the performance of your in principle superior quad core does not fully weigh in, since only one core is used on the sim. - I do not seriously think this to be an issue, but I just wanted to mention it.

Hmm this is true. FSX doesn't have multithreading/multicore support yet does it? I really wish ALL games these days would come out with multithread/multi core functionality :down:

Either way, I am going to be waiting.. say 8 months until I am home again. Internet is horrible here in Japan. Until then, it is time to practiccceeee!

[Skybird]

Ask about your rig in the forums of Avsim. For FS9 and FSX, this forum here is pretty much a dead space. Me, I am just one possible view on things. Avsim is where the music plays, regarding FS9/FSX.

I still do not really expect troubles for you when using REX. In the past, after you hjad deactivated that energy-saving mode of your notebook, you reported too good about your frames as if REX could suddenly cripple them that dramatically, I think.

[reignofdeath]

Ask about your rig in the forums of Avsim. For FS9 and FSX, this forum here is pretty much a dead space. Me, I am just one possible view on things. Avsim is where the music plays, regarding FS9/FSX.

I still do not really expect troubles for you when using REX. In the past, after you hjad deactivated that energy-saving mode of your notebook, you reported too good about your frames as if REX could suddenly cripple them that dramatically, I think.

Okay. Thank you!

[Skybird]

:salute:

[reignofdeath]

Hmm this is true. FSX doesn't have multithreading/multicore support yet does it? I really wish ALL games these days would come out with multithread/multi core functionality :down:

Either way, I am going to be waiting.. say 8 months until I am home again. Internet is horrible here in Japan. Until then, it is time to practiccceeee!

OH and I run 1920x1080.

[Skybird]

That is green lights then. Some aircraft addons have their cockpits designed for recommended resolutions not smaller than 1650, that's why I asked (textures could become unreadable below that, and so on).

[reignofdeath]

That is green lights then. Some aircraft addons have their cockpits designed for recommended resolutions not smaller than 1650, that's why I asked (textures could become unreadable below that, and so on).


Ahh okay!! :arrgh!:

[reignofdeath]

Question, what is your most difficult landing.

[Skybird]

Innsbruck (LOWI) if flown by regular procedures. In reality pilots must hold a special license for Innsbruck in order to start and land there. Certain aircraft types also are banned from operating there. The localisers have an offset, due to mountain peaks being in the way of the glideslopes.

A tutorial flight Amsterdam-Innsbruck (EHAM-LOWI) with descriptions and charts at the end.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qxo5lryi8wmsfa2/PMDG-737NGX-Tutorial-2.pdf

More stuff especially for online sim-flyers:
http://wiki.vacc-austria.org/index.php?title=LOWI_for_pilots

When taking off there and needing to u-turn and doing it too early, terrain radar usually makes itself heard.

Default scenery in FSX depicts the mesh too forgivingly. I use a special scenery covering not only the airport, but the city and the whole valley as well in more precision and detail.

I think big airliners only come from and launch towards the East. However, if following regular charts and procedures, even an approach(from the West) in a small airplane like a Cheyenne or a local commuter like a Jetstream 4100 can be a challenge - if doing it like demanded.

[Skybird]

Another difficult - and indeed high-risk - landing, is Lukla, Nepal.

Samedan, Switzerland, also is not the easiest, if following the realistic approach procedures. I think they also demand special license there, but I am not certain.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, Kai Tak, Hong Kong, now dead however.

[Oberon]

Shame that Kai Tak shut but I dare say the residents underneath the landing path are not missing it. I remember the first time I saw pictures from Kai Tak I honestly thought they were fake until my Nan told me that you could look in peoples windows as you're landing, and how the pilot has to do a tight turn to starboard to come in to approach IIRC.
Kai Tak, one of the few places where you could look down on an aircraft coming in to land... :doh:

[Skybird]

The Kai Tak scenery is still available. Via the simulation you can revive the old days anytime you want, Oberon. ;) :woot:

[reignofdeath]

I mean I was talking descirbe the most dangerous landing youve had to make (Ie almost out of fuel, 0 visibillity etc.) lol

[Skybird]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=201396

Was that dangerous enough? :03:

It certainly was stupid enough by me. Three mistakes: fuel calculation wrong. Not landing at Linz when realising the possibility of trouble. Flying around Vienna instead of doing a direct emergency approach.

To my defence I must say that in reality I maybe still could miscalculate fuel, but I never would have decided against landing early at Linz, to be safe. After all this is just a simulation and intentionally doing crazy stuff is part of the fun value.

[Sailor Steve]

My dad was a pilot for United for 36 years. He once told me a real-life story that parallels your adventure. He was flying a Boeing 720 into Philadelphia Airport in a snowstorm. The IFR runway was only 6500 feet / 1981m. With full reverse thrust and full brakes they came to a stop less than 200 feet from the end of the runway. All was well, and they didn't think any more about it.

The next day, on the return trip in the same plane, they landed on the 13,000 foot / 3685m at Los Angeles on a bright sunny day. They applied full reverse thrust and the brakes...and the brakes failed! Plenty of room to stop at LAX, but at PHL in the snow?

[Skybird]

When fate wants to give you a heads-up, it really is going after you, isn't it?! :)

[reignofdeath]

I had a pretty hairy landing just now. I decided I was going to do a puddle jump (not really, just a short 30 min flight) in a CRJ70 (I believe is the name) from Nagasaki, Japan to Fukuoka, Japan.

Took off and it was light rain and broken skies at dusk. By the time I got to Fukuoka, visibility was practically Zero. I mean the runway was fogged in! I was lucky that I had some practice lately on ILS landings because I glided right in and saw the runway just seconds before I actually landed on it. Pretty tense when you cant see anything around you for visual reference!

[reignofdeath]

I had a pretty hairy landing just now. I decided I was going to do a puddle jump (not really, just a short 30 min flight) in a CRJ70 (I believe is the name) from Nagasaki, Japan to Fukuoka, Japan.

Took off and it was light rain and broken skies at dusk. By the time I got to Fukuoka, visibility was practically Zero. I mean the runway was fogged in! I was lucky that I had some practice lately on ILS landings because I glided right in and saw the runway just seconds before I actually landed on it. Pretty tense when you cant see anything around you for visual reference!


EDIT: It was fogged in because I made it so, I wanted to try a challenging ILS landing today :)

[thestoon]

Another difficult - and indeed high-risk - landing, is Lukla, Nepal.

Samedan, Switzerland, also is not the easiest, if following the realistic approach procedures. I think they also demand special license there, but I am not certain.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, Kai Tak, Hong Kong, now dead however.

Sion is my favourite. Starts as a 6 (eek!) degree glideslope ILS approach, offset 7 degrees from the runway, becoming visual at 3500ft, left turn over the town, followed by a right turn to land. Alps on either side. Not much room for mistakes.

This is it done in real life..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1pu84CoMsM

[reignofdeath]

I hate to Necro an old thread but I figure may as well use this one instead of putting up a new one.

Who here still invests time into FSX? Skybird or anyone?? Im looking back through this thread but its been about 6 months since I've flown and Im going to probably need some advice soon, lots of it. I am going to be getting a new joystick soon since my old one kinda took a crap, and then I might go for Track IR, 130$ is modest. haha.

Casey

[Herr-Berbunch]

Not had FSX installed for a few months, and not played for a few before that.

What stick are you thinking of? And TrackIR is a must and well worth it. :D

[reignofdeath]

Not had FSX installed for a few months, and not played for a few before that.

What stick are you thinking of? And TrackIR is a must and well worth it. :D


Honestly, the NEX here on base has some promising decently priced ones, Ill give the names after.

And shame, I need some teachings.. my first flight was horrendous. I forgot how much of a pain it can be sometimes. But I did get it to line up right.

A few things though;

1) I flew from LAX to Las Vegas.. they originally directed me out into the PAcific and never turned me to make a course change, what gives??


2) If I remember correct (im 99% sure I did it right in my approach) but once you get your runway, you tune your NAV 1 freq to that and when they send you in on an approach you'll hit the NAV LOC button so it locks onto the Localizer signal? Once it shows its lined up then descend to 3k ft to intercept the Glideslope from below, now do you hit APP (Approach hold) right as you come up to the GS or as soon as youre good on your localizer??


3) What exactly is the course selector for again?? (Not the autopilot heading selector, but the yellow one) To set the course of the runway you will be landing on right?? Well where do I find that information at??

All in all it was a brutal little flight, thanks to ATC one leg that was supposed to be 5 minutes turned into a 20 minute adventure the wrongway... must say some very unhappy passengers, 40 minutes delayed. Not to mention.. Orbit Airlines is now thinking of suing KLAX ATCs for wasting so much fuel.. its a crazy world we live in. :arrgh!:

[Herr-Berbunch]

3) What exactly is the course selector for again?? (Not the autopilot heading selector, but the yellow one) To set the course of the runway you will be landing on right?? Well where do I find that information at??



It's painted in big white letters at the start of each runway. :O:

[reignofdeath]

It's painted in big white letters at the start of each runway. :O:


Well all the Is next to eachother or the Numbers before them ?!:arrgh!:

[Herr-Berbunch]

Damnit - numbers!

[reignofdeath]

Damnit - numbers!


Haha I got that now. Seriously though, do you remember a way in the GPS to look up the course of a runway?? I cant remember exactly how to find it.. I found the screen to show what approaches look like but it doesnt give me a course.

[Red October1984]

I'm still over here rocking FS2004... :O:

[reignofdeath]

I'm still over here rocking FS2004... :O:


I had FS 1998 but 2004 was in a engineering class where we learned to do different engineering systems like flying and such, that was the first time i saw the beauty of the mountains and was like ,its gorgeous :P

[reignofdeath]

On another random note, I love what FSX has done to me. Now anytime I fly, when we get ready to land I am talking to myself wahts happening in my head. (Okay now theyre lining up with the localizer, we've hit the glideslope, touchdown and speedbreakes in 3, 2, 1) lol

I find it funny.

[Red October1984]

I had FS 1998 but 2004 was in a engineering class where we learned to do different engineering systems like flying and such, that was the first time i saw the beauty of the mountains and was like ,its gorgeous :P

Nice :woot:

When I was little, Dad came home with FS2002 Pro edition and I fell in love with flying right then, right there. I spent hours with it....then FS2004....and now....Modded FS2004

Should upgrade to FSX. :)

[reignofdeath]

Nice :woot:

When I was little, Dad came home with FS2002 Pro edition and I fell in love with flying right then, right there. I spent hours with it....then FS2004....and now....Modded FS2004

Should upgrade to FSX. :)

Be sure your computer can handle it.. it taxes a computer bad.

So I just had a flight from LAX to Tijuana, and all was good, had the autopilot line up the localizer and capture the glideslope, disengaged and dropped my speed (I had it coming in at 180) and slammed into the ground and crashed :shifty:) I have some training to do.. poop.

[reignofdeath]

It's painted in big white letters at the start of each runway. :O:

I thought you were messing with me but now I remember, the numbers are your course heading.. haha thanks for the reply. Sorry for being a douche.

[Red October1984]

Be sure your computer can handle it.. it taxes a computer bad.

I could run the demo just fine...but I hear all the time about how demanding it is... :hmmm:

[reignofdeath]

I could run the demo just fine...but I hear all the time about how demanding it is... :hmmm:

Same with my old computer. The Demo is way easier on the computer. Id estimate youd probably have to play medium or low settings for really good frames throughout. I play on some Med/Higher settings and I get stutters at LAX mostly. In the air above 10k ft im usually good and smooth

[CCIP]

Also I'm not sure how much of it is an "upgrade". FS9 can do almost everything that FSX can, the only serious difference is some eye candy and compatibility with more modern add-ons - but considering those add-ons are expensive and require a computer miles better than what you have, I don't see why you'd go to FSX anyway. FS9, meanwhile, is more stable and efficient than FSX ever was or will be. If you're "upgrading", you may as well be going right to Prepar3D.

[reignofdeath]

Also I'm not sure how much of it is an "upgrade". FS9 can do almost everything that FSX can, the only serious difference is some eye candy and compatibility with more modern add-ons - but considering those add-ons are expensive and require a computer miles better than what you have, I don't see why you'd go to FSX anyway. FS9, meanwhile, is more stable and efficient than FSX ever was or will be. If you're "upgrading", you may as well be going right to Prepar3D.

Do you have Prepar3D?? I'm trying to find someone with a firsthand experience on an upgrade from FSX to Prepar3D and can notice any performance or quality increases??

I mean theres youtube vids but I would really like some first hand accounts.

EDIT: It also seems there is an Aerofly Flight Simulator now as well, looks pretty nice, but I wonder how good it is.

[Skybird]

Sorry I'm late to the party. Haven't flown since many months, I'm all Assetto Corsa currently.

Updating to P3D: I caution that step, altho9gh I had high hopes for it. See here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=210030

If your FSX is stable and you do not run into any problems, I see no urgent need to move to P3D 2.0, or 1.0. Once thought so, but no longer.

The ILS landing course: the white number on the runway is rounded and can deviate form real course up to 4°. Even 1° deviation can lead to last minute disaster. Open the map, and check the airport for the precise runway data there: course, length, altitude.

Thanks for having nominated me in those once-a-year votings! ;)

Aerofly is looking good, but offers little variation, also it is not the ost realistic. I used it and described it here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=199003&highlight=Aerofly
You use it for a couple of days, maybe return for some aerobatics with simplified physics occasionally - and then forget about it.

[Red October1984]

Same with my old computer. The Demo is way easier on the computer. Id estimate youd probably have to play medium or low settings for really good frames throughout. I play on some Med/Higher settings and I get stutters at LAX mostly. In the air above 10k ft im usually good and smooth

I have to run a lot of games at med/low so that wouldn't be a big deal to me.

Also I'm not sure how much of it is an "upgrade". FS9 can do almost everything that FSX can, the only serious difference is some eye candy and compatibility with more modern add-ons - but considering those add-ons are expensive and require a computer miles better than what you have, I don't see why you'd go to FSX anyway. FS9, meanwhile, is more stable and efficient than FSX ever was or will be. If you're "upgrading", you may as well be going right to Prepar3D.

Seems like there's also JUST as many or more addons for FS9 than there is for X.

:hmmm:

[Skybird]

Complexity of FSX addons, both scenery and cockpits, has gone much higher now than in FS9, with the new PMDG 777 apparently being the new king on the hill (I have not tried it so far). In the early years, FS9 had the edge over FSX in IFR, with FSX being superior in VFR. But that gap in IFR has reversed, FSX now has the lead in that field. For that reaosn, the really complex aircraft addons no longer are done for FS9, it just cannot support their needs in software preconditions (not to mention hardware demands).

Regarding flight physics and simulation of the air and how especially small planes behave in it, FSX is better. FS9 is too undynamic there. I don't say FSX does it fully realistically, but it is much better than FS9.

If hardware sets limits, there is nothing wrong in staying with FS9 if it is stable, I did the change from 9 to X years late myself. Once the hardware is there that can support FSX, there is no argument anymore to install FS9. If one does not plan many addons and stuff, I would maybe go with P3D 2.0 (maybe one wins stability and some frames, at worse you gain nothing, but also do not get hurt). If addons, especially PMDG and aircraft stuff, is a must, I would stay with FSX currently.

Too bad that bringing P3D to 64Bit (no memory limit then anymore) is so extremely stellar a project (all addons would need to be made compatible if they should run in it), and unlikely to happen. Of course true multicore support would be welcomed, too. But also, currently no plans for that, it seems. Too bad. As PMDG indicated, the legal licensing issues also are anything but minor. I once had higher hopes for P3D.

[reignofdeath]

Complexity of FSX addons, both scenery and cockpits, has gone much higher now than in FS9, with the new PMDG 777 apparently being the new king on the hill (I have not tried it so far). In the early years, FS9 had the edge over FSX in IFR, with FSX being superior in VFR. But that gap in IFR has reversed, FSX now has the lead in that field. For that reaosn, the really complex aircraft addons no longer are done for FS9, it just cannot support their needs in software preconditions (not to mention hardware demands).

Regarding flight physics and simulation of the air and how especially small planes behave in it, FSX is better. FS9 is too undynamic there. I don't say FSX does it fully realistically, but it is much better than FS9.

If hardware sets limits, there is nothing wrong in staying with FS9 if it is stable, I did the change from 9 to X years late myself. Once the hardware is there that can support FSX, there is no argument anymore to install FS9. If one does not plan many addons and stuff, I would maybe go with P3D 2.0 (maybe one wins stability and some frames, at worse you gain nothing, but also do not get hurt). If addons, especially PMDG and aircraft stuff, is a must, I would stay with FSX currently.

Too bad that bringing P3D to 64Bit (no memory limit then anymore) is so extremely stellar a project (all addons would need to be made compatible if they should run in it), and unlikely to happen. Of course true multicore support would be welcomed, too. But also, currently no plans for that, it seems. Too bad. As PMDG indicated, the legal licensing issues also are anything but minor. I once had higher hopes for P3D.

Soooo its confirmed then?? Thats a bummer, still beingi.. V2.0 looks like its solved alot of problems and made alot of optimizations that FSX does not have. After comparing side by side videos, as well as watching the framerates in said videos, with Identical settings, P3D has managed to pull out better frame rates sometimes far better in instances. That and the fact that LM is currently supporting it and still working on it. Still makes me want to give it a shot, granted I will probably wait until I get a proper desktop rig running.

EDIT: And no problem for the nomination, you deserved it with the length of posts you wrote up for me.

[Skybird]

EDIT: And no problem for the nomination, you deserved it with the length of posts you wrote up for me.
For me that's difficult a statement to come to terms with. You see since 15 years everybody is complaining about the length of my posts, you must be the first one saying thanks for their lengths. :D Feels like being warped into an alternate reality.

[Red October1984]

For me that's difficult a statement to come to terms with. You see since 15 years everybody is complaining about the length of my posts, you must be the first one saying thanks for their lengths. :D Feels like being warped into an alternate reality.

I'll be honest and say I enjoy long posts in a thread if it's actually got a point and there's no arguing and bickering going on.

So about a quarter of long posts are worth reading. That doesn't just go for you. :smug:

[reignofdeath]

For me that's difficult a statement to come to terms with. You see since 15 years everybody is complaining about the length of my posts, you must be the first one saying thanks for their lengths. :D Feels like being warped into an alternate reality.

Yours in here I usually find insightful, and very informational.

[reignofdeath]

Can anyone tell me how to fly holding patterns or what the pattern is around an airport?? I hear alot of people talking about doing a touch and go and going back around in the pattern and now doing touching and going.

[Red October1984]

Can anyone tell me how to fly holding patterns or what the pattern is around an airport?? I hear alot of people talking about doing a touch and go and going back around in the pattern and now doing touching and going.

The only pattern I know is upwind, crosswind, downwind and landing. :hmmm:

I wish I could go more hardcore on flight sim...but my stick sucks and it's hard to keep the plane under control sometimes.

[CCIP]

Can anyone tell me how to fly holding patterns or what the pattern is around an airport?? I hear alot of people talking about doing a touch and go and going back around in the pattern and now doing touching and going.

Here's a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfield_traffic_pattern

And for holding patterns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_(aviation)

[reignofdeath]

And what can you guys dig up on the NDB, VOR or ADF?? I really have no clue what they do.

[Skybird]

VOR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoiUrTjuo6U (note the linked films on the right)

NDB:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=NDB%20explain&sm=3

ADF:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy0DLVRb9HE


And then again, as I told you last year already ;) , the lessons in the section "Navigation" of FSX's own library, in German it is called "Ausbildungszentrum". You find the option on the left of the main screen of FSX.

[reignofdeath]

VOR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoiUrTjuo6U (note the linked films on the right)

NDB:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=NDB%20explain&sm=3

ADF:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy0DLVRb9HE


And then again, as I told you last year already ;) , the lessons in the section "Navigation" of FSX's own library, in German it is called "Ausbildungszentrum". You find the option on the left of the main screen of FSX.

Forgot. Thanks :oops:

EDIT:

So after reading and watching, following a VOR is basically like homing in on a localizer (except the plane wont automatically do it, well it can but yeah) its a needle that you essentially want to line up with (Its has one bearing). And each one goes on for an infinite distance intersecting other VORs??

[Skybird]

Ranges of VORs vary, some reach 30 miles, others for over a hundred miles. It depends on their purpose. Important only is that two VORs sharing a frequency are not so close that they lie within the range of the other.

Like with ILS transmitters, they all share the same small couple of frequencies, but since their range is very limited, it usually does not matter. Occasionally it happened that I made approach to an airport and still was some distance away, and saw the needle come to life, when it received another airport's ILS near my course.

Vor a VOR, you can preset a desired course on the instrujment on whcih you want toi approach the station. A localiser in not discriminating its signals allowing that, nor does a NDB do that: that's wha it is called non-directional beacon. You still can do that, but need to do it unguided, by using eyesight and a compass and estimate your vector manually. VOR of course is more precise and thus allows radio navigation.

As always, I ignore GPS in my explanations. GPS makes flightsimming boring.

[reignofdeath]

Ranges of VORs vary, some reach 30 miles, others for over a hundred miles. It depends on their purpose. Important only is that two VORs sharing a frequency are not so close that they lie within the range of the other.

Like with ILS transmitters, they all share the same small couple of frequencies, but since their range is very limited, it usually does not matter. Occasionally it happened that I made approach to an airport and still was some distance away, and saw the needle come to life, when it received another airport's ILS near my course.

Vor a VOR, you can preset a desired course on the instrujment on whcih you want toi approach the station. A localiser in not discriminating its signals allowing that, nor does a NDB do that: that's wha it is called non-directional beacon. You still can do that, but need to do it unguided, by using eyesight and a compass and estimate your vector manually. VOR of course is more precise and thus allows radio navigation.

As always, I ignore GPS in my explanations. GPS makes flightsimming boring.


Aye its kinda boring that I can just climb to FL 200 and flip the switch to GPS and the autopilot locks on and everything.

I mean don't get me wrong, thats potentially how they do it on long international flights right? To keep their hands free and let them focus on maintaining awareness, but for practical purposes of 'learning' how to fly I think I am going to start doing much more manual. For now, its going to be following my GPS routes (Since it can be set to follow VOR to VOR anyways) constantyl tuning into different NAV stations with just me in the cockpit can get a bit taxing.

I must say though on another note, I wish there was a better ATC mod out there... being handed off between the XXX Approach and XXX center 10 times while in the damn airspace is a huge pain in my butt. I hate it I really do. I want to get online and fly with someone else in the cockpit with me with someone real behind the ATC. Just to get a feel for what its like. But eh I digress. I need to work on handling the plane on my own. I feel cheap that I set it to autopilot for most of the flight and the landing.

[reignofdeath]

Okay.... so you guys may hate me for this.. whats the take on XPlane 10??

It uses multi core so it could run smoother.. and I am not sure if the addons are htere for it like FSX..

I bought it on deployment but didnt like it, but I only used it for a bit.. A) I was use to FSX and using the controls FSX offered (Like the keyboard shortcuts and ATC)

and B) the menus sucked.. I mean I coudlnt find anything.. and the amount of planes didnt seem to be there... I mean.. yeah.

But after looking at it it seems like it may be the better choice afterall?


EDIT: And for FSX, how much of a hit is PMDG 737 FPS wise??

[Herr-Berbunch]

Picked up X-plane 8 many years ago but really struggled with it after years of MSFS so shelved it. Potentially it's always seemed better though.

[reignofdeath]

Picked up X-plane 8 many years ago but really struggled with it after years of MSFS so shelved it. Potentially it's always seemed better though.


Hmmm okay

[Skybird]

Okay.... so you guys may hate me for this.. whats the take on XPlane 10??

Quality of cockpit modules still does not compare, nor does quantity. The visuals in cockpits are inferior, imo.


EDIT: And for FSX, how much of a hit is PMDG 737 FPS wise??What is your rig right now? And screen size? I also would say that for such cockpits, TrackIR is a must.

[Skybird]

I must say though on another note, I wish there was a better ATC mod out there... being handed off between the XXX Approach and XXX center 10 times while in the damn airspace is a huge pain in my butt. I hate it I really do. I want to get online and fly with someone else in the cockpit with me with someone real behind the ATC. Just to get a feel for what its like. But eh I digress. I need to work on handling the plane on my own. I feel cheap that I set it to autopilot for most of the flight and the landing.
Online seems to be your best bid.

Flying airliners most of the time in midair in auto modes, is realistic. Because there are passengers who will feel eternally thankful if you spare them zig-zags and ups-and-downs. ;)

[reignofdeath]

Quality of cockpit modules still does not compare, nor does quantity. The visuals in cockpits are inferior, imo.

What is your rig right now? And screen size? I also would say that for such cockpits, TrackIR is a must.

Asus G55V with 16gb of ram, and I run the screen at 1080 Res, 15 inch screen.

As far as Track IR goes, Im definitely getting it because I also wanted to get IL2 1942 and start playing that again and I def need Track IR for that puppy.

[Skybird]

I googled a review for an Asus G55V. Sounds to me as if it could handle PMDG stuff, but dont take my word as a guarantee. Consider the new PMDG 777. Fly by wire, and rated as even surpassing the 737NGX. Google it. I wait for getting the FS fever again, then will probably buy it.Currently I only do Assetto Corsa, Skyrim,
VP4 and The Hunter.

[reignofdeath]

I googled a review for an Asus G55V. Sounds to me as if it could handle PMDG stuff, but dont take my word as a guarantee. Consider the new PMDG 777. Fly by wire, and rated as even surpassing the 737NGX. Google it. I wait for getting the FS fever again, then will probably buy it.Currently I only do Assetto Corsa, Skyrim,
VP4 and The Hunter.

VP4?? and how is the Hunter?? Still enjoying it?? I remember i had a bit of fun with the demo, but I hate subscription games really. The fact that I cant just buy it like the old Deer Hunters irks me. Wish I could just get DH4 to work on my system.

EDIT: The 777 is the newest Boeing right?? I recognize the wing shape, all lifted and such. Is it meant to replace the 737s as far as size goes?

[Skybird]

VP4 = Virtual Pool 4. Brilliant simulation, brilliant.

Still enjoy The Hunter, though they currently have some server issues that cause some annoyances. Multiplayer has arrived months ago, and new reserves. The migrate to new servers now.

The 777 is much bigger than the 737. 737 is continental/medium-range, 777 is global/long-range flyer. The sim bases on tehcnology developed for 737, PMDG says, but goes beyond it. You can safely expect the same amount of technical excellence and in-depth-simulation of systems.

[reignofdeath]

VP4 = Virtual Pool 4. Brilliant simulation, brilliant.

Still enjoy The Hunter, though they currently have some server issues that cause some annoyances. Multiplayer has arrived months ago, and new reserves. The migrate to new servers now.

The 777 is much bigger than the 737. 737 is continental/medium-range, 777 is global/long-range flyer. The sim bases on tehcnology developed for 737, PMDG says, but goes beyond it. You can safely expect the same amount of technical excellence and in-depth-simulation of systems.


Good to hear, its unfortunate that recently I haven't gotten to play FSX I will pick it back up again here soon though!