KiloWatt

Hi all, I've noticed a slightly annoying trend regarding VOR navigation in the sim and I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding something... It seems that the bearings given in the flight plan to/from a VOR are out by a couple of degrees when I cross-reference them with the purple track overlayed on the G1000 (and presumably other FMC systems). The effect of this is: 1. When I fly strictly according to the VOR radials, my flightpath tends to diverge from the purple line, 2. On the last leg of the flight, when flying away from a VOR and to the destination airport, my (VOR based) flightpath often misses the distination airport by a some distance. Is there some dissonance between true/magnetic north in the flightplan/FMC that I'm not aware of? I'd love for someone to educate me...

While I've never tried to do what you described, I have had much better luck with the autopilot if I completely program the required settings and activated the required functions, before actualling turning it on. For example, last night before departing an airport, I pre-programmed the autopilot for a specific altitude, vertical speed and VOR radial before I even started to taxi to the runway. I also pressed the ALT, VS, and NAV buttons (bot not the AP button). Then, at about 1000ft AGL, I just flipped the AP switch and it flew perfectly. Now sure, that was on the ground. But previously, if I had switched on the autopilot and then pressed the ALT, VS and NAV buttons, it would have tried to murder me; even when already in the air.

I just flew past a container ship off the coast of Hawaii. Oddly, it was going backwards...

I don't disagree at all; overclocking adds another variable that complicates matters when trying to optimise your simming experience. However, I overclocked my CPU and GPU, and haven't had any major problems with the sim: very few CTDs, and performance is quite reasonable for what I'm working with. Long winded way to say: it's beneficial if approached carefully and methodically. Regarding the CPU aspect in your comparison: it's something I've been thinking about recently. I was always under the impression that if you merely want a higher resolution, with all else being the same, only the GPU needs to be upgraded and not the CPU. The reason I thought this was that there are more pixels to perform processing on (like anti-aliasing, for example) and higher resolutions also require more VRAM to store the frames in the frame buffer. I think that both of those aspects (processing power and VRAM) are associated with a higher-end GPU, but not really CPU. However, I might be wrong on this and am geniunly curious to find out what others think: Does increasing resolution alone require a more poweful CPU?

Ok, as I was saying... The easiest, and best, way to get nosewheel steering on this sucker is to use the DA40-NGX mod from Mrtommymxr. It also adds a flying-boat load of other improvements. Here you go: https://flightsim.to/file/2738/da40-ngx-project If I'm not mistaken, you also need to use the G1000 mod, which you can grab here: https://www.msfsaddon.com/2020/09/msfs2020-garmin-g1000-improvements-mods.html

Yep, it has a free castering nosewheel. So at low speed, use very careful differential braking. At higher taxiing speeds, rudder deflection will cause enough of an aerodynamic yaw to steer the plane on the ground. Edit: You can modify a config file to enable nosewheel steering. On the clock now, but will try to post it later.

Nice job! The second screenshot looks great! Without google, no chance!

Completely automatic. Just one lever for the throttle. It takes a little getting used to; for example, when crossing the threshold and going to idle, you'd hear the prop speed increasing, despite reducing the power. But once you get used to that and the fuel transfer system, it's fantastic.

I had a spectacular late afternoon flight yesterday between Halifax and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. The environment in this part of the world is truly incredible. By the way, the modded DA40NG is such a great little plane; it's very easy to fly and fairly quick. Certianly, it's a great upgrade from a Skyhawk. I never like the idea of a microchip deciding when to lean the mixture and what RPM setting to use. But I have to say, it does a great job at it.

I think you're in the wrong forum, friend.

There's also an excellent DA40NG mod by the same fellow. I have been practicing a lot with the DA40 recently, in preparation for the bushtrip, and it's been a blast. https://flightsim.to/file/2738/da40-ngx-project However, I think that SU4 broke the DA40 mod, because I've experienced numerous CTDs with it in my community folder. I've yet to do enough testing to confirm, however. In any event, I would wait until the developer comments on the effect that SU4 has had on the DA40 mod.

Hi Rob, To give you a direct answer: that system will run the sim, but probably not well. What level of performance will you'll be satisfied with? If you were hoping for 20-30 FPS, with settings on low to medium at 1080p, it will do alright and you'll probably be fairly satisfied. But more that that will likely not be possible. The RAM and GPU are definite weak links in that system. I know the minimum spec is 8 GB RAM, but realistically 16 GB is the minimum that anyone should accept (in my opinion). That GPU is somewhat more powerful than a GTX770, which is the minimum required. I used the run the sim on 770; it worked better than I expected, but not great. Anyway, I expect the 1650Ti to do ok, nothing more. Like the others suggested, get gamepass for a month and see how your system handles it. Just let it install overnight, it definitely takes a while.

I've never seen them either. We should be able to shed some light on what you're seeing if you post a screenshot.

Oh it's certainly "multi core capable", and all 4 of my cores are used simultanously. But there is still a main thread. I'm no computer scientist, but presumably there is one thread does that a lot of the "delegation" work to other threads and perhaps the GPU (I might be talking out of my arse, it's just how I think of it). FYI, I've read somewhere that the point of diminishing returns is about the six cores .

Yeah, a year ago I bought the 970 for C$150. This card, despite just about hanging on by a thread, now goes for over C$350. It is most assuredly not worth that. Yup. I overclocked my puny R3 (a 65W chip) and put a wildly oversized 215W cooler on it. It didn't impove my average framerate too much, but the framerate consistently is much improved. I regret buying average ram however; should have just jumped for higher tier RAM.

I think Plainsman made good suggestions there. What's your budget for a new GPU, though?

Only about 60 and started playing around September last year. But I have a baby in the house, so long stretches of personal time is quite scarce...

30% OC on the 970? I believe the core clock on the card is 1315 MHz, which would mean that you achieved about 1710 MHz; does that sound about right? Mine became unstable at around 1515 MHz (which seems to be the average). Did you water-cool that sucker to achieve that? I have a 75 Hz monitor, so I aim for 37-38 fps, which I can usually achieve outside of major cities; but that absolutely necessitates 80% resolution scaling on this old card. I also find that it uses 3.5 GB of VRAM pretty much at startup, and will start to use the remaining (and much slower) 0.5 GB if it has to - I'm sure it's a driver optimization thing. Ah, yes. A common misconception, due to the unintuitive naming scheme that Nvidia uses. The opposite is actually true, a 970 is considerably more powerful than a 1050, and even a 1050Ti. In fact, even a GTX770 (my previous GPU) is more powerful than a 1050Ti (which means a 1050ti is slightly below minimum spec). Check it out: https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-970-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1050-Ti/2577vs3649 https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-770-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1050-Ti/2174vs3649

My rig, settings, and thus general performance, is roughly similar to yours. I might suggest an overclock on the CPU and GPU, it seemed to help me smooth out some stutters. Actually, I'm quite curious if your CPU is a bottleneck? The utilization of one of my R3 3100 cores is close to 100%, while my 970 is also at 100%. So it seems like perfectly balanced system, for my configuration. I use my native resolution (2560 x 1080), but with a 80% resolution scaling [Yes, yes, some of you will clutch your pearls and won't be able to imagine how I could stand the blurriness. We'll, I don't think it's that bad]. I also like my clouds, so I set that and buildings to high. I don't care much for shadows, so all those settings are turned way down. Rest are generally medium.

I fully agree with your comment about the wakes. If I can add to that: water droplets on the windscreen when you land on water. Having done some watersports in my day, I find it slightly jarring when I land on water, and the windscreen remains bone dry. I guess they already have the foundation for this, since the rain on the windscreen looks quite convincing (in my opinion, anyway). On a related noted, I saw a review of a helicopter recently. The bloke landed the thing on a sports field with lots of grass, which didn't budge even when the chopper was hovering 1 metre above the ground. Now, I think helicopters are an abomination. But even the those damned to fly the things deserve a little love.

Hmmmm....I don't recall any version since 95 (my first) having crashes. But I have the memory of a goldfish, so I'm probably wrong. Anyway, I'm happy to be the prude and say I don't support adding the feature. I live near the site where Swissair 111 went down. And although the accident predates my arrival by many years, it nevertheless breaks my heart to drive by the memorial. But I know I'm being a hypocrite, because I have enjoyed my fair share of first person shooters and many people die in gun violence and war... This particular matter is just close to my heart...

Haha, that's a risk you're going to have to take, my friend. But it would make sense to me that most bugs are introduced with the files that alter the core of the sim (i.e., the files which are downloaded and installed upon loading the sim). I would think that the marketplace files are pure scenery and mostly harmless. Just my opinion though...

I don't know which airport is KSEA and what it's elevation is; but if it's quite high perhaps the mixture is too rich? You also mentioned that the plane was loaded with fuel (and perhaps simulated baggage and fuel?); did you check if it was overloaded or perhaps not balanced? What about icing, how was the weather conditions? Lastly, did you try without the mod? Perhaps the mod screwed things up? These are just a few random ideas off the top of my head. I hope something helps.

Yeah YT tutorials should be anyone's first port of call when struggling with something. I think everyone knows who Squirrel is; but those new to the sim, he made some great tutorials. Now I'm kind of curious about the manual. It's been a while since I've looked at it, and it's probably been updated a few times since. I'll check it out over lunch...

I bought the manual. Personally, I didn't really find it particularly useful. I'm actually struggling to think of a single practical thing I learnt from that manual... It's a great history lesson on FS though. I don't mean to crap on Mr. Stinger, I know you're just trying to help. But IMO, rather burn the money, you'll at least get a little heat that way. :p