|
oh hey there's a new flight sim thread. that explains why the other one dropped out of my bookmarks. anyway there's a Washington DC scenery pack in the store, and god help me I was actually kind of tempted to buy it because it looks really good quality and Washington has a ton of really iconic buildings, obviously. It looks like they modeled not only the obvious monuments but also stuff like the Watergate and the Executive Office Building and so on. but then I saw the easter egg they added  gtfo skooma512 posted:I looked all over the cockpit for a selector lever, and people on some other forum say the same as you: There are two fuel tanks but they drain equally and without any way for the pilot to select them. There is a fuel valve down on the floor between the seats. It's not a "tank selector" in that it only has on (both tanks) and off positions, but it definitely needs to be on for fuel to flow. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Oct 9, 2020 |
#
¿
Oct 9, 2020 07:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
Cojawfee posted:
God loving DAMMIT there is an entire chapter in the FAR just about special regulations in and around Grand Canyon National Park!! 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2020 07:17
|
|
Don't let Sagebrush read this post.
|
Two possibilities: 1) Europe requires radios with 8.33KHz spacing, while the USA still uses 25KHz spacing. In the USA you can have 122.275 and 122.300 but nothing in between, and many radios don't even have the last digit (displaying them as 122.27 and 122.30). In Europe you will have 122.275, 122.280, 122.285, 122.290, and 122.300. It's possible that something is going wrong in the translation between US and European standards. 2) They just got the frequencies wrong. This seems more plausible because, as you can see, the 25KHz spacings coexist with the 8.33KHz spacings. Random fun fact: the VHF radio frequency spectrum has been constantly divided down from the earliest days of aviation radio. It ranges from 118 to 137MHz and started out with 200KHz spacings (118.0, 118.2, 118.4...) then went to 100KHz in the 1940s to get more available channels. In the mid-50s they split again to 50KHz channels (118.15, 118.20) and then in 1972 split to 25KHz as we have today. Now Europe has split the 25KHz channels again into 4 parts and the USA is slowly moving that direction. The only artifact of the old spacing is GUARD, which keeps 100KHz; there is nothing between 121.4 and 121.6 except for 121.5.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
FunOne posted:I wouldn't be surprised if development focus was on getting this done for the XBox before the Series X hits shelves. Or at least in time for Xmas. it 1000% is honestly i don't mind all the bugs with the autopilots and garmins since i like to fly the old poo poo anyway. but i want some more old poo poo planes please goddamn. where is my 737-200 and dhc-2 on floats
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 01:13
|
|
|
Mandibular Fiasco posted:Now you're talking. My Dad was a Captain on the 737-200 a long time ago and empty, these things were a rocket. Plus big bucket thrust reversers and a gravel kit meant you could get in to all sorts of places other jets couldn't get. Yeah that's the kind of stuff I like. I wanna fly an OG 737 with the cigar tube engines around a thunderstorm from like Corpus Christi to Mexico City, landing hot and high while getting jolted all over the place, and navigating only by VOR and NDB and stopwatch. Smooth autopilot cruising at the flight levels is for sissies. Also look at how smol they are  
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
Mandibular Fiasco posted:Not sure if you have seen this...looks pretty cool and highly accurate! Yeah that is a really fantastic product. But it's for X-Plane and idk if I can do that simulator any more. The world is just... Maybe they'll port it to FS2020
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
Mandibular Fiasco posted:I've largely given up trying to fly for real...costs are too great, benefits too small, time commitment enormous. I had dreamed of dusting off my logbook and finishing my PPL, but the barriers to doing so are just too big. I'd rather trick out a PC and spend a bunch of money on hardware to play with at home when I have a few hours to spare. Great to see someone like Honeycomb fitting into the mid-range of PC flight hardware. nooooo it is a large commitment of time and effort absolutely, and it costs about as much as half a new car yeah, but it is super rewarding at the end, and to be able to say that you accomplished something less than 1 in 500 people in the USA has done, and far, far fewer than that in any other country no judgment though, I do have a pilot's license (a real full one finally now) and I still think flight sims are great. I'm not gonna try to take a 152 into a thunderstorm in real life just to see what it's like Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Oct 16, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2020 00:36
|
|
|
quote:it is super rewarding at the end, and to be able to say Just for clarification. It is super rewarding to be able to do stuff like go out over the coast, pull back the power and trim the plane up for 60 knots, open the window, and just putter along with your arm in the breeze looking at the waves and the boats and the motorcycles going by on the twisty roads, lazily steering around clouds as they drift by like icebergs. All your problems are at least several thousand feet away. It is also rewarding to feel like you accomplished something that few other people have done. also i am going to fight on this point: it costs on average around $12k to get a pilot's license. That's half the cost of a new car. I drive a 18 year old car with peeling paint because I decided to skip getting a leased 328i to keep up with the Joneses and spent that money on a pilot's license instead. You don't have to be a computer toucher at google or even making 6 figures to be able to swing it -- I am neither. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Oct 16, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:Just 12K? Flight time and all? Yeah. Obviously it depends on a lot of factors, but in general you can rent a training airplane for under 120 dollars an hour (sometimes significantly under), fuel included, and instructors are another 40-70/hr. Depends where you are; planes and instructors in SF are more expensive than in Oklahoma. The minimum to do the checkride is 40 hours total, of which 20 must be dual, but the national average is more like 60 to 70 (again, you might need fewer hours if you learn to fly in Oklahoma at a podunk than if you're trying to learn under the LAX bravo shelves). You pay for the instructor's time and the time the plane's engine is running. If you come in near the low end of the average range, add 300 bucks for ground school, 500 bucks for a decent noise cancelling headset, 500 for the checkride, and a few other fees you'll be done for about 12k all in. There's a dude in the r/relationshits thread who spent that much on a gaming PC. Of course flying is not a cheap hobby, no one's saying it is, but it's not just for millionaires, or even six figgy fuckoids. I looked into it a bit and it turns out that renting a plane for an hour has pretty much always cost the equivalent of ~$100 in 2020 dollars, going back to the 1930s. There is an aviation thread if you wanna find out more or ask questions to pilots and instructors: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3821398 Carth Dookie posted:Might be a reference to the fact that general aviation fuel is leaded even now, or a reference to the boomer generations high level of long term exposure to leaded gas fumes in their youth. Supposedly small quantities of lead aren't that bad for you once your brain has stopped developing (ca. age 25), so as long as you aren't consuming so much that you get acute lead poisoning, it's probably not that bad. I still  when I see old pilots stick their fingers into the fuel tanks to check the level though. And I wouldn't want to raise kids in a house under an airport pattern. Each gallon of 100LL has the equivalent of one .22 caliber bullet dissolved into it
Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Oct 16, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2020 05:13
|
|
|
Yes, potentiometers on guitars look like potentiometers in joysticks. They're mechanically identical. (though electrically slightly different)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2020 17:13
|
|
|
look what's back! in mod form!  https://www.nexusmods.com/microsoftflightsimulator/mods/192?tab=descriptionThere are a ton more free airport and scenery improvements on that same site. I'm glad to see a little mod community popping up already, even with the jankiness of the base game and apparent incompleteness of the SDK. Now I just want my old junky planes! It's a goddamned shame that there isn't a single plane with a radial engine included with the game
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
As has been brought up a few times, they would be opening a major can of worms by hosting a community mod database, since a ton of the scenery objects and airports that you can currently download have been ripped directly from Google Earth. I do hope that the community eventually agrees on one central host for all the free/ripped stuff, at least, because not even knowing where to go to look for things is the worst. So far that NexusMods page seems like the best option but who knows. Basically there needs to be an x-plane.org but FS2020.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2020 05:45
|
|
|
Also btw are there any mods to change the type of trees that are generated in a specific zone yet? Because Yosemite is still full of like african savannah deciduous trees and it drives me nuts
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2020 06:04
|
|
|
I'm sitting here replying to emails while MSFS is running in the background with a Baron on autopilot between KLAS and KCPM for the last 40 minutes. When it gets there I will tab back in and land. God help me, I've become One Of Them. (I am really liking the Baron, incidentally, and I wish they had a steam-gauge version)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
Lord Stimperor posted:Hope you're not speeding up the simulation rate like a casual the very idea! i'm insulted
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
There's a Long-EZ and a Mooney in the in-game store now. Has anyone tried either of them? e: patch notes: quote:UI gently caress YEAH
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
The new patch reset all my xbox controller binds yet again. gently caress's sake
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
The halloween pumpkin patch landing challenge is pretty cute
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
FunOne posted:Still haven't figured out where I'm supposed to land. I'm probably flying right over it. Scenery is great and the failures are a nice touch. There's a grass strip with jack-o-lantern edge-lights 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
eh they're all wrong anyway. the romanian countryside absolutely does not have streetlights like that. also right when you start the challenge there's a line of lamps like 200 feet in the air -- at first I thought "cool, floating lanterns!!" but no lol. Again, hoping modders can fix this stuff. Overall the world still looks fantastic but i would like a few simple adjustments to e.g. the balance of trees that are generated (there aren't anywhere near enough evergreens), the overall yellow/blue balance of the shading (too yellow), and the density of the streetlights
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2020 04:24
|
|
|
It's completely baffling to me that the world map is just that huge gray blob instead of, like, I don't know, Bing maps aerial imagery maybe???? For a game that purports to be all about VFR, you'd think they would make it really easy to scroll around looking down on the world until you spot a cool lake or village or airport and then just drop into the flight simulator right above it. Or at least they'd put in a street map so you can find your house instead of having to google the airport code and work your way down the roads (which is fun too, but like...come on). If I had my way the world map would have at least five layers: topographic shaded, aerial photos, street maps, VFR sectionals, and IFR charts. Also airports would be pink and blue icons like on FAA sectionals, not these invisible dots. i'm thiiis close to downloading the SDK and starting to hack it apart myself. how hard can it be to put new textures on a sphere
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2020 22:43
|
|
|
i mean bing maps itself seems to handle streaming aerial photography in real time pretty fuckin well
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2020 23:45
|
|
|
It's baffling that they have the actual name of every airport in the game but the TTS still says KILO HOTEL ALPHA FOXTROT TRAFFIC without fail. Nobody says that in real life! Ugh! Lots of little things about this game are baffling (welcome to flight sims, all you newbies) and I can't wait for the modding community to really pick up because most of them seem trivial to fix. It's not like I'm one of the Il-2 spergs demanding accurate herding behavior when you fly low over cows and scare them away. Just listen to some fuckin untowered operations on youtube for a while and edit the radio call strings to match
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
It was on the banana forums way back when so I doubt you can find it any more. To clarify, the banana forums were the 1C forums back when they were developing Il-2: Cliffs of Dover. They had a bright yellow background. That game was in development hell for like a decade, and I would ascribe most of the delay to their attempts to cater to their utterly insane spergy fanbase. Some of the things I recall them wanting were: - The aforementioned scattering cows in the fields, because some poster had just read an RAF pilot's memoir where he mentioned buzzing cattle for fun. The poster also googled a scientific paper on herding dynamics and posted it in the thread for reference - Accurately changing seasons on a day-by-day basis, not just four texture sets according to the time of year - Accurately growing plantlife, e.g. fields of wheat getting taller day by day as you got closer to the harvest. The grass around airfields should also grow, and once in a while a guy with a lawnmower should come by and cut it down - All battle damage to your airplane should be tracked and incorporated into the model, so if you got shot in the tail, the plane should grow a metal patch where the bullet hit and it would remain there for the rest of the campaign. Paint would also realistically chip and weather - If you got shot down over hostile territory, there should be a minigame where you have to escape and evade enemy patrols and get back to the French coast. Then you would be taken back to England and the campaign would advance a few weeks or months to simulate your recuperation in hospital. If you get caught by the Germans, your campaign is over, of course - A ton of people suspiciously focused on making sure all the swastikas and nazi insignia are correctly modeled - Dozens more things I can't remember This kind of poo poo is why I'm not upset when the sim developer ignores most of the community requests. They should make an effort to fix things that are obviously broken, but if they start to go down the rabbit hole of implementing what people ask for, it's suicide. I'd rather try to fix the strings and the trees myself and let them focus on making a good engine that runs smoothly and reliably, which is the one thing that all these spergs never seem to care about
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 01:14
|
|
|
Oh I just remembered another thing about CLOD: the Spitfire negative-G behavior. When the game came out, within days people were howling on the forums that the Spitfire's engine cut out way too early under negative G loads, and it was ruining their flying. It was obvious how wrong it was because these people had been flying virtual Spitfires for years and no other flight sim had ever screwed it up this badly! Some of the posters probably had more hours in simulated Spitfires than any real pilot in history had in the real plane! How could the developers make such a stupid and obvious mistake!!! ...then after a week or so the devs made a post that documented how they had hired an actual survivor Spitfire and had the pilot take it up and perform negative-G maneuvers with recording instruments aboard, and they'd used the data to make by far the most accurate Spitfire ever simulated. Every other game was wrong. Oops
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 07:51
|
|
|
It's a simulator, so the documentation is the PHAK, the FAR/AIM, the AFH, and the airplane's POH. All are available online. I agree that the game could use some more tutorials, though, especially on basic stuff like pattern entries, airspaces, and VFR radio nav.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 20:07
|
|
|
I have a 3900X and MainThread is locked at about ~15ms per frame, 62.5fps equivalent. Right now I'm GPU bound because I have a 1060, but assuming you throw all the graphics and CPU power in the world at it, MainThread will remain your bottleneck. A liquid nitrogen cooled core whatever drawing three times the power of my 3900X might get 30% more single-core performance, maybe 90fps tops, and that's it. Personally I would be completely fine with 60fps -- anything above 40, really, since this isn't a twitch shooter and that's where my display's VRR kicks in -- but yeah nobody on the planet is getting more than 90fps at any resolution until they optimize MainThread or split its load. skooma512 posted:They said they only want DX12 for ray tracing and not for performance. No! Ray tracing is bullshit! They should add DX12 for DLSS, which would be a massive and obvious boost to performance at high resolutions! Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Nov 5, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
lobsterminator posted:Every payware plane always says it was tested and proven accurate by a real pilot experienced with said plane. You can have two version of the same plane that feel really different but both were testified as being accurate by a real pilot. FWIW you can also have two versions of the same plane in real life that feel really different from one another, especially at the edge of the envelope like the stall or the landing flare. One of the 152s I fly tends to float in the flare for a nice long time, and will not break in the stall unless you really abruptly pull the yoke back. Another one thunks down quickly and snaps over the edge when you just hold the nose at 30 degrees with the power out. It's just the subtleties of each specific airframe and configuration. One plane consistently burns about 5% more fuel per hour for a given power setting than the other. Shrug. The majority of the "REALISM performance mods" that I am seeing already for FS2020 just say "adjusted to better match POH values" and I'd put money down that the people writing the mods have not actually flown a plane in real life because nothing actually matches the POH exactly in real life anyway. When I tried out the 152 in FS2020 it didn't behave exactly like the one that I fly most often. But I checked out the speeds and performance a bit and concluded that it basically flies like one with a brand new engine, hitting optimum figures in all circumstances. That's perfectly fine and any good pilot can adjust their flying to accommodate for the specifics of the airframe. I think the spergs just don't have the experience to know what qualifies as "wrong" and what is within the range of normal variation. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Nov 5, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
That reminds me randomly that I saw a Jaguar driving aggressively on the 101 the other day with license plate SF STIG and I was just like lol what a loving tool
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
Lord Stimperor posted:People were melting down over the fact that when a bullet struck your engine, the game would roll a dice to determine whether your engine was damaged, instead of accurately modeling the bullet trajectory through the engine cover and various components. Oh yeah this is a real big one. One of the things that CLOD was supposed to implement -- don't know if they actually did, but it would help explain the lovely performance -- was a complete physically simulated engine model. All 16 pistons running on their conrods, valves opening and closing, fuel going in and exhaust coming out, air going into the supercharger, yada yada. The idea being that if you were shot in the engine, yes, the bullet would damage specific components and create ~~realistic~~ engine failures, like power loss because a cylinder was punched open or oil pressure dropping because a line was cut, as opposed to just rolling a die and failing some subsystems which is IMMERSION BREAKING and I CAN TOTALLY TELL. agh get hosed
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
And I bet the model you come up with would have an extremely close correlation with the one that you wrote by dividing the engine into half a dozen hitboxes, looking at what components lie in each one, and making your best guess as to what would fail if bullets hit in that area.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
i mean would it count as lying when you install a password cracker into your paying customers' computers and then, when discovered, first claim it doesn't exist, then claim it "only activates when it detects a pirated version," despite third-party hackers determining that it cracks all your passwords and emails them to the developers immediately regardless of the situation? if a sim developer had done something like that, i mean.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2020 04:49
|
|
|
It is a Cessna 172S with G1000. The premium edition bonus one is also a 172S but with regular avionics.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2020 01:39
|
|
|
You mean the honeycomb doesn't even have a spring return on the ignition switch?? rofl smdh
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 03:43
|
|
|
sigher posted:Does any flight sim hardware do this? Seems like it wouldn't be worth the cost designing and implementing this when no other PC hardware ever uses something like this. https://i.imgur.com/xrDcxsl.mp4
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 06:08
|
|
|
Almost, but you need to know your pressure altitude, not your indicated altitude. Find your pressure altitude by setting 29.92 on the altimeter and reading the value that comes up. Get your outside air temperature from the wing root thermometer at the upper corner of the windshield (or wherever it is). Set those two values opposite each other at the top of the gauge, then read your TAS from the position of the needle against the white sector at the lower left of the gauge. Don't forget to set your altimeter back to its proper value afterwards. Right now it is set for a standard day at sea level, with 15C opposite 0 feet, which is why your IAS and TAS are indicated equal.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2020 01:47
|
|
|
uXs posted:Can you fly under those bridges? was about to post this
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
SuperTeeJay posted:I made the mistake of turning on AP with a selected altitude of 2,000ft while half-way through the East Coast discovery tour and at 3,500ft - the plane immediately nosedived and came apart. I'm hoping that type of poo poo can't happen in real life. That's not very typical, I'd like to make that point.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
uXs posted:Can you fly under those bridges? Yes, kind of!  There was still a weird squeak and the plane shook and hit the ground when I flew through it one way, but the other way it was fine. Clearly not perfect but at least they are recognizing that you can actually fly under bridges in real life. Maybe they will keep improving it. Niagara Falls looks pretty good, incidentally. Of course most bridges still look like this. Idk why they can't just extrude the roadbed and leave it empty underneath. It's really not that hard  Also they did put in the visitor's center at Cape Canaveral, and it looks neat,  but all of the actual space launch facilities are still generic brick shithouses where the launch pads should be. Look at the VAB. Look what they did to my boy 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2020 01:24
|
|