lmhariano

Nice pictures! Judging from them, you're flying the Posky 741 with the RFP 742 panel and CIVA INS... but what edits did you do to the panel?

Short answer: Remove the mipmaps from these aircraft textures. It should get the job done. Extended answer: This is one of the few things that can't be taken straight from NickN's FSX Bible: for flyable FS9 aircraft, forget about mipmaps. I don't know if this is because of FS9, or because of having the textures in BMP, but the thing is that mipmaps do not work as well in FS9 when compared to FSX. However, do not ever remove mipmaps from AI aircraft or scenery textures.

Not with default ATC. You may switch to Radar Contact (abandonware, hard-coded region/units) or PF3 (payware, regions with inHg/mbar can be customized).

I use Metric (altimeter in feet) for having weights in Kg and volumes in liters, but altitude in feet (obviously). I never cared about lat/lon.

Yes: look at the [GENERAL] section, there should be a line for atc_model=. It should say B787. Now; when FS9 was released, the 787 wasn't even an idea (the project was called 7E7 back then). Maybe you have to add this model via EditVoicepack.

Also, it depends on your country: Steam is not exactly following exchange rates, but they also adjust prices based on the country you make the purchase. Living in South America, I've been able to get some amazing deals...

Thank you Mark! I wasn't so off regarding differences then. I've been using a lot of HJG's offerings. I used to fly your MD for some time (with the Payne panels) until I got the Maddog for €15 (a bargain!). Maybe I'll have to play with the Maddog FDE to reflect the fuel and engine differences (I know no one will support this, but well). What FDE upgrades are expected for the HJG birds? PS: Please tell me you've tried the Juan Valdez coffee...

Oh, now I understand. Anyway, externally, there are almost no differences between all the MD-80 models (-81, -82, -83 and -88). All the differences lie in flight decks, engines and fuel tanks. FDE (and maybe gauges) would have to be modified to reflect this, but it's OK for me as is...

Thank you all for your words! I'm glad you've liked it. Hahaha, true: I was already approaching my hometown airport (SKBG). Sorry, I didn't understand...

Avianca MD-82*, from SKBO to SKBG. *In the real world, Avianca had MD-83. However, the Maddog for FS9 only simulates the MD-82.

Maybe it's a Vatsim issue? I've had yesterday the same problem with REX (using Vatsim as WX source). I had to switch to REX servers as source.

Have you set axis and button assignments and sensitivities to this controller in FSX? I never liked the default FSX assignments.

OK, I did my own tests using my 32" TV. Its native resolution is the same as my laptop (just 1366x768), but I can force it to run at 1920x1080. I know I won't be having the clarity I expect, but at least I can simulate the load on my GPU. I had to reduce AA, from 8xSQ to just 8xS. The 940MX is too weak to handle all that AA at that resolution (with add-on airports, real WX, and the iFly 747v2). I don't want to think how much will my GPU suffer with an even higher resolution. Conclusion: In my case, a 2K monitor will be a waste of money until I upgrade to something with a better GPU.

That rig looks also lovely. Congratulations! If you decide to install FSX there, can you tell us how does it look, performance wise?

Thanks, Robin, but I think you didn't get it: my idea is to buy a new monitor and use that instead of my laptop's display. After that, I'll set FS9's resolution to the native one of the monitor I'm buying. What I don't know is if my GPU is powerful enough for a 2560x1440 monitor, or if I should settle with a 1920x1080 one.

Yes, they do. You have to assign a keystroke in the iFly configuration options.

Hello everyone. I'd like to "upgrade my monitor" to my laptop, i.e., get an external monitor and connect it to my laptop, as single display. These are my current specs: ASUS Vivobook X556UQ laptop Intel i5 7200U @ 2.7 GHz (TurboBoost disabled for stability) 6 GB DDR3 RAM Nvidia GT940MX 1 TB HDD 256 GB SSD (with Windows, FS2004 and other programs there) Windows 10 Home 15" LED display, 1366 x 768 Right now I'm able to keep 30 FPS and to use the 1/2 refresh rate in FS9. I'm sick and tired of this low resolution, and I want something better. I was thinking of a 1920x1080 (24" or a bit higher), but then I saw the 2K monitors (2560x1440). However, I saw some comments in forums where people reported that their GPUs were not powerful enough for the resolution. These comments were for 4K monitors, but driven by 1060-1070 desktop GPUs, and with FSX). Has anyone tried using FS9 in a 2K or 4K monitor with FS9, using a GPU similar to mine? What are your opinions?

Another student of yours, Peer? :P https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ukraine-TSOU/Antonov-PZL-Mielec-An-2/5561229

Your old rig should be fine for FS9 as is. However, your new computer looks sweet, even for FSX (at least if you don't use any payware sceneries). Liquid cooling is only a must if you overclock, otherwise, it's just overkill. If you have the money, why don't you go for it? The only software I had issues to run in Windows 10 was Text-o-matic, but after a reformat (and I dunno what else) I was able to make it run. Just try downloading a new wrapper from F1 and reinstall from there.

It has, but it requires to have an initial trim set for takeoff. After the plane is flying, the plane is able to trim by itself.

If you can stretch your budget a bit, you can try any of the options Tom gave you, and add a cheap Nvidia GPU. It will do wonders, when compared with the Intel GPU (specially regarding image quality with that IGP).

Nice pics, Aharon! Is this the freeware Overland MD-11?

Beautiful pictures, Stratocaster! Which addons did you use for the sceneries and plane?

Wow, quite a feat what you've done. Good job! How did you do with the 2D background bitmaps? There are some 3D-only planes for which I'd like to create a 2D panel.

It's been always available, as donationware. Check the OP's signature, he gives there info about how to get it. As soon as I was able to make lights work (with lots of help from the developer), I started using FS9+Evo more than FSX+Orbx Global, if you want a fair comparison.