lnuss

I fully understand his attitude, and I share it, to a large degree. I've been in computers, one way or another, for 40+ years, including a stint working with some folks at Bell Labs where I discovered how certain folks can easily bypass most "safeguards." I also learned how inadvertent bugs can be a bear to find, along with a few other things. The main point being that perhaps I know too much, causing me to be extremely skeptical about the safety of computers. Add to that the (relatively recent) growing spate of "hacked" systems, the proliferation of malware AND the way more and more otherwise reputable businesses are gathering information they're not entitled to, then SELLING it, often to bad actors, or otherwise misusing it, and you eventually develop a very pessimistic outlook on such things. Certainly he doesn't HAVE to join, but as I often do, he's researching what he'd get into if he DID join.

:cool::rolleyes::pilot:

Does this happen all the time, or only when you ignore it for a while? After you haven't responded to ATC for some time, it will drop. If it's not that, then I have no idea.

As Zippy says, some piston aircraft can do so. He lists a couple. Many (most) piston airliners (in real life) have reverse thrust. However, that doesn't automatically make it available in the sim. Best I can tell, it takes a special work-around by aircraft designers to get the reverse thrust on piston engine aircraft, while the sim itself makes it simple for a turboprop. However, IRL the mechanism allowing reverse thrust is expensive and adds complexity (as well as weight) so its use has been limited in smaller aircraft. But there has recently been an STC* to add reverse thrust to certain Cessna singles equipped with certain props, see this AOPA article, probably for sea plane use. * STC -- Supplemental Type Certificate A Type Certificate is the paperwork/authorization from the FAA that an aircraft has been FAA approved for normal production in standard (non-experimental) categories. An STC is issued when an aircraft modification has gone through a lot of expensive, elaborate testing and is shown to have no adverse effects on an aircraft. An STC'ed product is generally sold by the developer, but in any case must be applied to individual aircraft on a one-at-a-time basis, that is, there is no blanket approval. Each installation must follow rigid installation procedures and the associated paperwork must be properly done.

Set your aircraft up the way you want it, then save the flight. Then each time you want it that way, you can load the flight, OR you can make the saved flight the default.

The adjustments are in the sound.cfg, but the SDK tells you what parameters are available and (more or less) what each means.

Best I can tell you is to dig into the SDK sound file section and modify the offending sound files, per aircraft. Each aircraft has information in those sound files that control what sound does from each view.

He DID say the C-172 was also misbehaving. If the ailerons are locked to the side, that is often, as mentioned above, because the autopilot is turned on -- that would generally also affect the elevator though, unless heading/wing level was engaged but not altitude hold. Check the yaw damper, too. Also, as Luke said, check your axis assignments. There's also a chance that some keyboard key associated with the controls is stuck. Or perhaps it would help to unplug any stick/yoke/pedals from their associated USB port, wait a minute or two, then plug them back in -- a friend had to do that periodically. If you're using FSUIPC there's a slight chance something there could be messed up, though I think it's not very likely.

Have you checked your fuel loading? Sounds as if you might be burning fuel from the left tank only, causing a considerable imbalance (the sim is much more sensitive to this than most real aircraft). Try switching fuel tanks, but first you might go into the aircraft menu and make your wing tanks have the same amount of fuel, then during flight switch tanks every 20-30 minutes. OR, if there is a BOTH position on the fuel selector, use it.

You STILL need to do your research. The pertinent FAR (they're available at faa.gov) is below, but the 200 hours is a requirement only for those transitioning from powered flight, and it is 200 hours of powered experience as seen in (2) below. In (1) below it requires 25 hours in a glider (from scratch) and at least 100 flights. 14CFR Part §61.129 Aeronautical experience: (f) For a glider rating. A person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate with a glider category rating must log at least— (1) 25 hours of flight time as a pilot in a glider and that flight time must include at least 100 flights in a glider as pilot in command, including at least— (i) Three hours of flight training in a glider with an authorized instructor or 10 training flights in a glider with an authorized instructor on the areas of operation listed in §61.127(b)(6) of this part, including at least 3 training flights in a glider with an authorized instructor in preparation for the practical test within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test; and (ii) 2 hours of solo flight that include not less than 10 solo flights in a glider on the areas of operation listed in §61.127(b)(6) of this part; or (2) 200 hours of flight time as a pilot in heavier-than-air aircraft and at least 20 flights in a glider as pilot in command, including at least— (i) Three hours of flight training in a glider or 10 training flights in a glider with an authorized instructor on the areas of operation listed in §61.127(b)(6) of this part including at least 3 training flights in a glider with an authorized instructor in preparation for the practical test within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test; and (ii) 5 solo flights in a glider on the areas of operation listed in §61.127(b)(6) of this part. Certainly those primary types exist(ed) but they aren't typically used TODAY, regardless of how Schweizer, Wright, etc. learned way back when. But that's a HISTORICAL list, they're ALL single seat, most are in museums now, if they exist at all now, and they most certainly could not be used in CAP training/cadet orientation rides, and it would be a rare instance today (if possible at all) to see a single seater used for training. History says the accident rate was high (I wonder why). CAP, when I was a cadet in the '50s, didn't have a comprehensive glider program -- that came years later -- and you'll certainly never find a so-called primary glider used for that today. If they were ever used in CAP, it was an individual CAP pilot or CAP Squadron, and NOT part of the official CAP program. Note that "kids i went to school with who were in cap" aren't necessarily the most accurate source, especially when it's your memory (unless you are still going to school with them, perhaps). I see little information in your posts that I can trust. Get your facts straight about today's operation, don't try to use 1920s/1930s operations as a basis for what today needs, ESPECIALLY when you talk about safety then use unsafe examples. That was totally uncalled for, but could more easily apply to you. I won't even be back to read this thread again. You're wasting our time with misinformation.

(My Underline) I don't know where you got your information about CAP using what you describe as "primary" gliders. I was involved with CAP cadet glider operations in the last few years before I retired from CAP (with 30 years), and sailplanes were in use. After reading your assertion I hunted for something about CAP using "primary" gliders, and found nothing, although there is plenty of information talking about primary TRAINING, which is a different thing entirely. Give me your source for this CAP information ALSO, please. Do your research, learn what you are talking about, before you post such information. There is one place that MIGHT require 200 hours of flying time (as a licensed pilot) and that is in giving orientation rides to cadets. That's true for airplanes and I think the same figure applies for gliders. Do your research.

14CFR is Title 14 of the Code Of Federal Regulations of the United States -- in other words, it is direct from the FAA regulations online. It has NEVER been a 200 hour requirement. I don't know where you get your information, but it is erroneous. I'd sure like to know your source of information for THAT one. The Wrights actually designed and made their own propellers, and for power they turned to their shop mechanic, Charlie Taylor, who built an engine in just six weeks in close consultation with the brothers. Perhaps you should do a bit of research before publishing "facts." I wasn't going to come back to this thread, but I couldn't let this erroneous information stand.

14CFR Part 61.109: (f) For a glider category rating. (1) If the applicant for a private pilot certificate with a glider category rating has not logged at least 40 hours of flight time as a pilot in a heavier-than-air aircraft, the applicant must log at least 10 hours of flight time in a glider in the areas of operation listed in §61.107(b)(6) of this part, and that flight time must include at least— (i) 20 flights in a glider in the areas of operations listed in §61.107(b)(6) of this part, including at least 3 training flights with an authorized instructor in a glider in preparation for the practical test that must have been performed within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test; and (ii) 2 hours of solo flight time in a glider in the areas of operation listed in §61.107(b)(6) of this part, with not less than 10 launches and landings being performed.

You're welcome, Sharlie. :eek: :pilot: ;)

Perhaps it comes from jumping in on your very first post with a very long post with lots of links that take forever to load and coming with such hype, promoting a program (it seems to me) with the tone of the post being that EVERYONE really NEEDS your program, coming on like a used car salesman. And doing all this from someone we've never heard of. This approach of yours comes across as blarney, as if you're the only one who knows about gliding/soaring, and with a hard-to-take "tone of voice" that tends to repel some of us. Ease off, try to get to know your audience here, and take a more gentle approach to your sales tactics -- yes it's sales, even though it may not be for money, as such -- and maybe you could get a bit more interest and less of a "negative argumentative group." And just so you know, I do have a Commercial Pilot certificate with Airplane Single & Multiengine Land; Instrument Airplane; Glider. I'm also a former CFII. The only reason I mention this is to let you know that yes, I do have a pertinent aviation background. I'm not sure which photo you mean, but without SOME means of generating a fair chunk of drag gliders can be somewhat dangerous to land, ESPECIALLY at the "25 or 30 degrees" nose down attitude. And check out the Schweizer 2-33 as a primary glider, which has BOTH spoilers AND dive brakes. Yes, there are a few with only flaps (drag generators), but SOMETHING has to generate that drag, especially for student pilots and low experience pilots, else there would be all kinds of problems with such pilots getting them on the ground. OK, enough said.

Many folks read that lowercase L as an uppercase I. As Zippy is indicating, the login ID is (I'll do it in upper case) LNUSS, not INUSS. Or, reading the name towards the bottom of my post you can see that my name is Larry. And Zippy's post included a quote of the post to which he was replying -- I say that so you can see who he was talking to.

And then SP1 and SP2, as I said in the post immediately above.

For real pilots there are benefits (safety and otherwise) for having some sailplane/glider experience. For real pilots there are benefits (safety and otherwise) to having tailwheel experience. For real pilots there are benefits (safety and otherwise) to having a large variety of different experiences, including flying many different aircraft types. But for simmers, the benefits to all that aren't nearly as great, ESPECIALLY the SAFETY benefits, since there is never a safety risk in the sim. And even though there's bound to be a lot of fun in all that FOR SOME PEOPLE, not everyone is into doing that stuff, anymore than some of us care about doing "airline"-type stuff. You're pushing what I suppose (I didn't read ALL the hype) is your sim, but you're doing it as if it would affect real world safety for people who (mostly) are strictly doing this on a computer. And if real world safety IS an actual benefit for someone, they're better off getting the experience for real. AND, you're doing this on the FIRST AND ONLY post you've made on these forums, possibly for sales?? You paint a glowing picture, but I suspect things won't be quite that rosy in reality. Also, note that this forum isn't really intended as a sales platform. However, Nels DID fix some links for you (giving me a VERY slow refresh of the page while I wait for various resources to load), so maybe he's OK with it. In any case a lot of that can be done in FSX and in P3D, perhaps even in XPlane, especially with an add-on or two (I've done it). BUT, you do seem to offer some additional experiences that some folks may enjoy, so hope it works out for you. But please reduce the hype. ---Soapbox done---

I'm not sure what you mean "the first FSX" since when FSX initially came out there were two versions, FSX and FSX Deluxe. Deluxe was the same program but with a number of extras, including the SDK, so a Deluxe installation is standalone. There was no previous version to these, unless you go back to FS9 (FS2004). If you do get either of these, you'll also want to get the SP1 and SP2 updates. The FSX and FSX Deluxe are on disc, while the SP1 and SP2 are downloads. All that being said FSX-SE (Steam Edition), as Jorgen recommends, is reportedly good (I have the Deluxe, so don't know directly about steam) so that's probably a better bet, plus it's cheaper.

FSX needs most of its performance in the CPU, though a decent GPU helps some. P3D needs a good GPU and a good CPU, since both have strong effects on performance.

That depends on who you talk to. You certainly will have to wait a while for that one. We should know how nice before this time next year. You could pick up FSX-SE pretty cheap for now, get a lot of use out of it for not much money, and switch to another later, should you so choose. But ultimately it has to be YOUR choice -- no one else can do more than offer facts and opinions, most of which you can see in one form or another on the various forums here.

Hmmm... I thought it was Software Development Kit. Oh, well.

Paul, Those parameters don't change the aircraft behavior, rather they are for reference to what someone expects. You'll need to increase power and/or decrease drag in order to speed up. However I wonder if you have a true picture of what INDICATED airspeed is vs. TRUE airspeed. The way you've phrased your posts is the reason I ask. Anyway the 0.9+ mach is nearly the speed of sound so compressibility could rear its ugly head (at least in real life, don't know about the sim) if you go faster than that mach. And at jet altitudes 400+ kts IAS will be well past mach 1. At 350 KIAS you're not only crowding mach 1, but you're at the structural limit for the airframe, and you probably are somewhere around 500 Kts TRUE airspeed (KTAS). Remember that the airspeed indicator is just a pressure reading instrument, so in thinner air it reads lower for a given TAS than it does in thicker air. BUT, as mallcott says above, back up your aircraft.cfg file and have fun changing whatever you like.

Before my friend passed away, we'd fly in direct connect multiplayer (not through a server) and explore North America (mostly), often flying formation, but at least usually within sight of each other, mostly at low altitudes. We flew a multitude of different aircraft types, from the Grumman Goose, Cub, Baron, Cessnas, to the L-39 jet trainer, to Bird Dogs, DC-3s, D-18s, and more. Back in the FS98 days I wrote an article, "Fun With Multiplayer" that was on this site for many years, though I can't find it on this site now, but the article dealt with specifics on how we were enjoying the sim back then. We progressed through the various versions of FS, too, right up to P3D V2. So typically we might skim just above a highway or river, or perhaps down a canyon, or get a little higher and practice tight formation (as in 3 feet away close). We always set it up to talk to each other, generally by a standalone program for VOIP. For quite a number of years we used "mumble/murmur" (one a small server, the other the client program), a free, open source program that gives very clear speech. So we were able to make comments to each other, often just, "Hey, look at three o'clock -- pretty." Or, "Hey, check this out." Before FSX we'd sometimes change aircraft in the middle of a flight (FSX won't let you do that), sometimes surprising the other guy, other times talking it over before deciding we'd both switch. With FSX and, later, with P3D V2, we got ORBX, ultimately getting ALL of the regions available for North America, which covered much of the western U.S. and Canada, even into southern Alaska. With ORBX there were often surprises, such as a tractor or combine in the middle of a farm field, or maybe a couple of horses or cows near a remote airport, perhaps even a deer or two. Near a farm there might be a fence, or perhaps at a very remote field there might be a port-a-potty or a snowcat. We found sloping runways that ORBX used special techniques to create, lots of objects on most of the airports that made them seem more lifelike, and we enjoyed the much improved mesh that came with the regions. Sometimes we'd top a hill and it would look almost photographic, with gorgeous views, other times we'd be in a bit flatter area with less scenery. Usually sometime during the session we'd stop at an airport and put on an airshow for each other, then we'd take off for more exploration. We never did get to all the airports in ORBX, though we sure made it to at least several hundred. Once the sim made it possible, we'd also occasionally connect in the shared cockpit mode, so that one could sightsee while the other flew, then switch off. With all the above said, let me set up a little background. Forty five years ago he had a glider operation in New Mexico, later adding a flight school. I towed gliders for him and, later, instructed part time for his flight school (we even taught aerobatics and tailwheels). We soon got to be good friends, keeping in touch even after I had moved to Colorado and he to Texas, and with both of us eventually out of commercial aviation, we still remained good friends. So that's the background that helped us develop our operating style for enjoying the sim. Oh, yes -- to give you an idea of the attitude he had (and I shared it), the name of his flight operation was "Pegasus Aerial Sports" and we had more than just typical Cessna/Piper training, including a Stearman, a Great Lakes, several Citabrias, etc. Hope this helps give you ideas on how to enjoy the sim.

Perhaps you could elaborate on what's confusing. Is it the aviation terminology (there's a glossary down in the "Real Aviation Tutorials & FAQs" section)? Are you currently running a sim (simulator)?