okbob

Yeparroooo

I concur, whole-heartedly.

Thanks guys. I don't know how I missed that. Happy Saturday, Bob

My apologies if this has already been asked, as I've not found an answer anywhere. Many thanks, Bob Kellogg

If you took the screenshot, you have the copyright, not the model producer. But if you took the model-producer's photo and published that yourself, you would be in technical violation of copyright law. And a work is deemed copyrighted when published. Period. Proof of copyright is made easier if one also files with the copyright office and includes the c in a circle.

I'm 75, a private pilot single-engine-land, and still use FSX to practice and write gauges. I also have MSFS, but only use it for the eye candy of flying the C152 around my local area (OKC). For more serious work, its FSX.

Very nice, thanks.

I have both. I use FSX for serious simming. Plus I can easily customize the gauges, panels and cockpits to look exactly like what I fly, or want to fly. On the other hand, I use MSFS for pretty jaunts around the patch in their stock Cessna 152. And boy, does my city landscape look real!! However, I cannot customize the panel to look like the ones that I rent, nor can I adjust the flight characteristics. But I expect that they will simplify/expand/explain the SDK sometime in the not-too-distant future to where I can figure out how to do those things that I can do in FSX. Until then, I'll happily fly both. Cool beans, okBob

Like Larry says, there's a few of us

You might try adding: Background_Color=0,0,1

Let me suggest that moving from a single-engine airplane to a twin is a large step-up in emergency preparedness training. in addition to retractable gear and constant speed props (which you can learn in a Mooney, for example), you must also learn what to do when one of the engines quits. There will be adverse yaw (due to asymmetric thrust created by just one engine working) and new minimum speeds to learn (such as minimum single engine speed, below which you don't have enough rudder to correct the yaw). Plus identifying which engine quit, and whether it is the one with the most adverse yaw. Other than that, the only big difference is the speeds at which they fly, and the altitudes they can achieve. You might try googling POH for the model plane you're interested in. POH is short for pilot's operating handbook. If you look, you can find a free pdf for just about any aircraft. Also, google flight review for the plane, and you can read about flying it in magazines such as Flying, AOPA Pilot, etc. As for the speeds, I make an index card for each of the airplanes that I fly: on it I list clean and dirty stall speeds; best angle/rate of climb; maneuvering speed; gear/flaps speeds; and blue line speed for twins. Plus any quirks. Cool beans and good luck.

August, I read your review and must say that you've not only captured many of my thots, but added even more thoughtful analysis. I, too, received MSFS as a Christmas gift. I've been flight simming, and real flying, for many years. I'd been holding off on MSFS, but the gift was irresistible. I wanted to upgrade to the Deluxe edition before installing it, because I wanted the analog-gauge C172 and the C152 Aerobat. But, alas, Microsoft Store would not let me do that. The eye candy of MSFS down low is truly awesome. And flights around Oklahoma City (as you pointed out) look a whole lot like what I see out the windscreen (well, except for the control tower at Wiley Post, PWA, my home airport). But the inability to revise a panel to match the aircraft that I fly is more than troublesome to me. In FSX (and historically, in FS9 too) I can make a 2d panel for any airplane, a panel that matches my needs. Single engine land, thank you. Tail dragger preferred, aerobats a fun luxury. MSFS C152 does spin better than in FSX, I must say. Although as others have said, MSFS is too twitchy, even when I work the joystick control elements. I've looked into the SDK a little bit, which is still crude, basic and not complete. The complexity is daunting, and I'm not sure that I will want to learn another language (HTML vs XML). And I am not sure I'll even be able to edit gauges if they're built into the model, or place my own gauges on a panel somewhere. That's a real regret for me. And I guess 2D panels are now history in MSFS. And so my bottom line is that I'll probably launch in the C152 or the Carbon Cub to just play around in my neighborhood. But if I want to do some serious, say nav and IFR, practice then I'll be back in FSX, thank you very much.

2d update. It took 3.5 hours to install. A small portion went onto the c: drive, and then it let me point it to my SSD to install the 128.15GB. This installed just like described in this forum, so thank you all for the tips. OMG, the scenery is amazing. I managed to fly the C152 from PWA to OKC, and the scenery pretty much matched what I see from a real airplane. Wow. So now I've got to get my controls set, joystick calibrated, etc. Cool beans y'all; and remember, 2020 is nearly hindsight. OkBob

Just a quick follow-up. I've talked to folks at the Microsoft Store (not sure just where that is), and the short version is that I can't upgrade the gift certificate. Rats. And I've cleared a new SSD drive to hold the bulk, after the kernel is installed on c: Xrossing my fingers and getting started next.

Thanks for the tips, gentlemen. Much obliged. Okbob

I received MSFS Standard download as a gift. I have not installed it, yet. I knew to install FSX in c:FSX. 1. Am wondering about whether there are similar suggestions for MSFS2020? 2. Also, once downloaded, how many GB are actually installed? Can you split the installation over two drives? 3. Is it possible to upgrade to Deluxe when I redeem the gift certificate? Many thanks, okbob