|
Gotcha. Thanks!
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
You could also file with any of the 3 departures from KINT with a GSO transition.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
simble posted:You could also file with any of the 3 departures from KINT with a GSO transition. ...And if you don't file one of them, real ATC would just amend your clearance and make you fly one of them, anyway. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
http://i.imgur.com/EOI1SGU.gifv Ughhghgh I can't wait for 1-3 years down the line when VR poo poo like this is fleshed out and not super-prototype anymore Phi230 fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Ahaha what the gently caress sort of little Trump hands are those supposed to be?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
Agreed that looks awful. Imagine having to focus on your hands and double check you flicked a switch. Pilots need split second reactions that's why hotas and huds were developed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
I wonder how much haptic feedback you need to really make this work. Rotary knobs are probably more difficult but for buttons and switches, having just a bit of pressure on the fingertip might be enough to tell you that you're touching something. It might even be enough to feel your way through a row of knobs and find the third one, for example. Of course it might not work at all, I'm just speculating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
Yeah, without a real button panel, you're better off just binding everything you actually need after engine on to your hotas. I hope you like flying warbirds 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
This is the same problem with touch screen devices too. Unless you're looking at the actual button (or near as makes no difference) its very hard to find a specific point in 3d space without a tactile response to guide you. I just can't see how complex clickable VR cockpits will work without it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
Incredibly basic warbirds. Trying to do any of the hands off stuff in a DCS plane like using the UFC would be a loving nightmare. Also lol using that for civilian sims. The knobs on a real aviation radio are tiny.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
Literally no fun allowed gently caress yall im going home
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Yeah, if you're looking at it, it's actually really easy to hit things in VR (I guess in no small part thanks to stereo 3d), and at least with the vive, haptic feedback makes it feel almost natural. But if you're not actively looking at the button you're trying to hit, it's not going to happen without collateral damage, exact same issue as touch displays.EvilJoven posted:Incredibly basic warbirds. Eh, a mustang needs throttle, prop pitch, supercharger stage, radiator, flaps, rudder, gear, and a joystick with 2-3 triggers once you're in the air. Even the most basic hotas around has enough buttons these days I think. As soon as you move past world war 2 or something like a sabre/mig-15 level, it's over though. Definitely hoping we get some sort of force feedback for button panels in VR eventually. EvilJoven posted:Also lol using that for civilian sims. The knobs on a real aviation radio are tiny. That's just the thing, the vive controllers track incredibly well. The entire issue is that haptic feedback alone isn't enough unless you're looking at something. Well, that and the stupid glove models in DCS often act terrible, but that's more a DCS issue. Beyond that, it's incredible how easy it is to hit the tiniest things with the controllers on the first try. You just reach out and grab it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
You could use Voice Attack or something similar to help, especially in a plane that would normally have a co-pilot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
It's great people managed to update the stock FSX fix and navaids database. One thing's that bugging me is the outdated airspaces. Is anyone aware of any initiative to update those? I only found one project limited to the UK, and it seems airspaces air particulary difficult, as they're all baked into a single world .bgl file.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
What would people suggest for a progression of planes? I know the "lessons" missions go from Trike Ultralight > Piper Cub > C172 > Glider > CRJ-700, but I'm curious where I should go in Free Flight if I'm comfortable with the C172. Something stock, preferably. Maybe a twin prop like the King Air 350? I guess that would introduce some extra features without going full-jetliner like a Boeing. By the way, I'd just like to say that a) I'm awful at trimming, abd b) I'm loving awful at the glider mission. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Honestly if you want progression you should go stock 172 > A2A 172.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Daimo posted:Honestly if you want progression you should go stock 172 > A2A 172. I've done that  The A2A 172 is brilliant. I've still got plenty of flying to do in that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
I really like the Aerosoft Twin Otter. It's not too big a step from a Cessna but adds a bit more complexity and engine management. And it's fun to fly. And it has a great built-in checklist menu system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:I've done that There's some really good video on YouTube about VOR navigation and basic airmanship built around FSX. Look at people prepping for PilotEdge exams. Do some of that. Or set a goal like I'm going to start in London and fly my Cessna all around the British Isles via GPS. Or fly Ontario California to somewhere in New York. Eventually you will get a weather engine for your flight sim and start seeking out bad weather, or get into the Vatsim or PilotEdge scene. Edit +1 the Twottter
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:There's some really good video on YouTube about VOR navigation and basic airmanship built around FSX. Look at people prepping for PilotEdge exams. Do some of that. PilotEdge vids look good. I'm always looking for good instructional videos on Youtube.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
The Aerosoft Twin Otter is fun as gently caress. The Autopilot is kinda janky basic and old school, the cockpit layout is weird as soon as you look away from the 6 pack and the engines need a bunch of finesse because the PT6A doesn't like to be rushed but does like to catch fire if you dont treat it right. All of this combines to make it super fun to fly, especially if you find the bone stock FSX planes with a 6 pack and a bendix stack boring after a while. It's also a STOL amphibian and even if it isn't terribly realistic I love flying amphibians in flight simulators. I hear the RealAir Turbine Duke is also great, has engine failures if you don't treat em right and is quite the sports car. Thinking of getting it if it goes on sale. EDIT: There should be like a master list of planes that actually have more realistic failure states and management requirements. Hooning it up in the Carenado 337 and the Flight Replicas Super Cubs is fun for a bit but when there's nothing to break it can get pretty dull. So far from what I have: All A2A Planes. Aerosoft Twin Otter (Engine management, can be turned on or off) EvilJoven fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Jun 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Can confirm that the Turbine Duke has engine failures. Fire alarm goes out pretty quick if you take off engines blaring.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
The Turbo Duke is my favorite GA plane in FSX.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Ok then I would find a nice twin engine Carenado aircraft you like for your next step.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:The Turbo Duke is my favorite GA plane in FSX. The Duke, turbine or otherwise, is pretty much the definition of sexy personal-use twin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Turns out Combat Air Patrol 2 is an unmitigated disaster
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Dang the Duke looks hella good, gonna save up my lunch money for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Turns out Combat Air Patrol 2 is an unmitigated disaster Oh my god. 33% on Steam.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Turns out Combat Air Patrol 2 is an unmitigated disaster Jesus Christ. Why can't we have nice things? EDIT: seriously I'm just about at the point where I regret spending so much on my Warthog. It was fun for a bit but after tooling around trying to find the fun in DCS, being frustrated (and never all that interested in the F-16) to the point of quitting on BMS and the disaster that has been the new IL-2s it seems like such a waste. What I've been doing with flight sims this past year could easily be done with a CH Yoke at 1/3rd the cost. Maybe those space combat sims that are on the horizon (not Star Citizen that is going to fail and be funny) will be fun for shooting dudes. EvilJoven fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Jun 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:Jesus Christ. Why can't we have nice things? hey bro it's early acess please calm your tits bro..I mean the developer doesn't say in the the EA file that it's all broken and needs a lot of poo poo.. and for $30 you bet your rear end you would expect something that didn't have the bugs listed in the first few reviews. But its' early access brah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:I'm curious where I should go in Free Flight if I'm comfortable with the C172. A good step would be something faster with retractable gear and a constant speed prop. A Bonanza for example. The Baron is also a good choice. It's a twin, but twins fly like fast singles, until you lose an engine anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
The A2A Comanche is also a fun complex plane. Slower than a Bonanza but it's all the fun of a complex aircraft with all the cool A2A stuff that comes with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
CAP 2 bad? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
hannibal posted:Were they? I never really looked at them. Are they any good? A couple of the later lessons are completely broken in FSX:SE, but overall they're good. Just be aware that if a lessons starts randomly failing you, there's likely a bug in it. Googling will give varied results and suggestions for how to pass them, but they are hit/miss as far as whether you've actually learned the skill vs. are just cheesing it to get past it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Megadyptes posted:CAP 2 bad? Watching a livestream it looks horrendous. Nothing in the cockpit actually functions, let alone have any clickable aspects to it. . The game looks like it was released like 6 years ago on a console. The overall avionics are Arma 2 level, honestly. You lock on with a button (default is tab I think?), all contacts show up on the hud as green squares. Its somehow even more simplistic than Ace Combat or Strike Fighters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
W E L P
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Haha that's amazingly bad sounding, even by casual flight game standards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:I've done that Does this ever go on sale? $50 for one plane, man ...
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
AnimalChin posted:Does this ever go on sale? $50 for one plane, man ... I had some money burning a hole in my PayPal account, but I've heard it does go on sale.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
Checking my gmail archives I apparently bought the 172 for 37.49 USD so I guess it was on sale back in May 2015. Phi230 posted:Watching a livestream it looks horrendous. Nothing in the cockpit actually functions, let alone have any clickable aspects to it. . The game looks like it was released like 6 years ago on a console. Flight sims are now dead to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 21:49
|
|