plainsman

Thank You everyone! There is a whole passel of great shots in this thread!

It isn't MSFS. I have been running it for 11/2 years and only 2 CTDs in all that time. One was due to the map issue which was repaired early on. I run Nvidea drivers and never had a problem. I am not trying to run it on an old laptop and I don't have any addons. I just use a joystick. I fly one to two hour flights and it works just fine.

What control devices are you using? Try unhooking everything except mouse and keyboard. If you no longer get crashes, add back just a joystick. If that works fine add each controller until it returns. I am suspicious you may have an assignment conflict??

I had three moon shots to get this started.

The big props are always great fare! Very well done!

Do you have this value [render scaling] at 100? If not, it might override Nvidia??

I don't use that feature but it is just a wild guess?

Grand Forks, ND to Regina, Saskatchewan

Yankton, South Dakota to Grand Forks, North Dakota

KFSD to KSTL

and

KSUS to MO8

My sympathy to you! I lived through a bunch of those in the 1950s out in West Texas. They are stifling, disorienting, and miserable! That seems to be all the way from SW Nebraska to Amarillo. Again, my sympathies!

Thanks everyone! We have so many great aircraft to enjoy! Thank You to all those that are amazing artists and modelers!

I particularly like the take off shot. You captured the moon in just the right spot, and the polluting smokestacks as well!

Congratulations Darren, quite a milestone!

The 757 is a showy aircraft as well!

Nice shot in a beautiful setting!

Three speedy airliners from 3 different eras.

I have also had the last thing you mention happen, an airliner shoots under my GA aircraft less than a mile from the runway. I understand live traffic, but ATC ought to give you a go around if an airliner is on approach. One instance coming into Auckland, NZ, the airliner was less than 50 feet beneath me. ATC isn't the strongest part of the sim! They have left room for improvement in this area.

You are making the same mistake. His pic shows a Mach reading of 0.839, way over the Mach 0.78 limit for the Airbus. The speed in knots is somewhat irrelevant in that at 17-18,000 feet and above, he should be using a Mach speed to define the acceptable performance envelope.

In other words, there are multiple constraints. He is limited to an IAS but also by a do not exceed Mach 0.78. Which ever is applicable must be honored. If he were at 2,000 feet the IAS would be the limiting factor. At 18,000 feet Mach is the limiting factor. Each limit is a function of different stresses the aircraft can sustain. Read all the comments carefully and that will become clear.

Try removing everything from your community folder, then reboot and try it with the folder empty.

A flight into the Northeast Georgia Mountains. This is the home of fine apple orchards and a great restaurant in the community of Dillard, one of those places that seats more people than the entire population of the town.

Mac, there are several things to think about in this regard. First is the structural consideration of max Mach limit. Second is the economic Mach limit which determines actual operating speeds.

On the structural side, some examples of Mach limits aside from the A320, the 737-300/400/500 had a limit of Mach 0.82 but operated below Mach 0.76. The 737-600/700/800/900 had a Mach limit of 0.785. The ERJ-195 has a Mach limit of 0.82. The 747-100/200 had Mach limits of 0.92, but operational limits of 0.84. The 747-300/400 were also Mach 0.92 limit, but operationally limited to 0.85. The 747-800 has a Mach limit of 0.900, but an operational limit of Mach 0.855.

The reason for the operational limit is largely economic. As the speed approaches Mach 1.0, pressure builds up in front of the wings. This creates drag. It takes LOTS of fuel to overcome that drag. For example, an old Convair CV990A burned about 14,000 pounds of fuel per hour at Mach 0.85 at 35,000 feet. A 737-700 (about the same passenger load), would burn about 5000 pounds of fuel at Mach 0.785 and 35,000 feet in the same time. The A320Neo will reduce that fuel burn even more. Also, since that added pressure (drag) stresses the airframe more, the life of the aircraft is reduced at Mach limits. Another limiting factor is the operational limits of the jet engines. Since a huge amount of thrust is needed to overcome the added drag, some of the operational limits may be due to limiting N1 and N2. Thus most commercial airliners operate below their design limits.

MO8 to KOLU

Like Larry mentioned, as you pass through 17,500 feet, get your instruments ready to switch speed from knots to Mach by 18,000 feet. Then stay within the Mach limits of the aircraft and you won't get the warning.

Casper, Wyoming to Wheatland, Wyoming.

What aircraft? What are your system specs?

The last update turned on everything to easy. Switch the flight assist settings to hard.