lnuss

I've not explored the default G1000 in the sim to any degree, but it, much as the Garmin 500, is no where near complete in its functionality, compared to the real ones. Tiger's link to the tutorial should help you find what functions are available.

Better yet, you can install ALL of P3D on the D" drive with little or no difference in performance while flying, leaving the C: drive for stuff that MUST reside there. And as Vic says, the faster C: drive won't impact P3D performance beyond the initial load -- even that won't be "6 (six) times faster" since the rest of the system isn't "6 (six) times faster."

Go for the second drive -- you'll greatly appreciate the extra storage space.

When you say you roll left but the aircraft moves right, 1) is the airplane rolling to the left with the nose moving to the right, 2) or is it rolling to the right, or is it rolling OK to the left but just sliding to the right? Each scenario described above has a different cause/solution. 1) This is adverse yaw, and it requires that rudder be coordinated with the aileron. Note, though, that some sim models have a faulty flight model that does this in such a way that rudder doesn't help very much. 2) This is reversed ailerons, and either needs a check box applied (as described previously) or needs the flight model fixed. 3) This is the cross wind situation and is fixed as described by mallcott. The picture didn't help, but perhaps a more complete description of the aircraft behavior will help here, including what the nose does, what the wings do, and what the path is over the ground.

A circling approach is a very specific type of instrument approach, where you follow the navaids down to a certain point (generally circling minimums), then do roughly as the Zipper describes, that is, fly downwind, base, or whatever it takes to get past the approach end of the other runway and make a decent visual approach -- there may be other restrictions such as keep on one side away from high terrain, etc. This is usually flown lower than a normal pattern altitude (usually at the "circling minimum" altitude on the approach plate) and requires that the runway be kept in sight at all times. A circling approach is not authorized FROM ALL instrument approaches, or TO ALL runways, but for those for which it is authorized there are circling minimums, and sometimes other information, published on the plate.

One big change from FS9 to FSX is the location of aircraft. Mine are in D:\fsx\SimObjects\Airplanes, where in FS9 it would have been D:\fsx\Airplanes. If Mr. Zippy can't help then check out WHERE your downloaded aircraft are installed. This might be why you have trouble with other aircraft, too. If that's not your problem then I, too, am stumped.

Just in case the weird replies above don't clue you in, we don't seem to be able to understand what you're asking about. Perhaps you did a literal translation from some other language, but in any case you'll need to make your question a bit more clear to us.

Vanilla IS good, almost as good as Cherries Garcia... :cool: I don't know what to think yet. I'm purely in a wait and see mode, since it's pre-alpha and since few details are available about how it will really work. I do like the idea of MS getting back in the sim business if they'll do it "right." Maybe I'll actually have an opinion somewhere near this time next year. Cheers...

It appears that the maximum vertical speed was too high during your approach, which was the only point of failure. I don't know what the target v/s is (programmed, that is), but 1000 fpm is likely not desirable during the approach, and especially when you're closer to the ground, the latter part of the approach. In other words, at some point during the approach you let your rate of descent get too high. Apparently your average v/s was OK, though, so I'd not worry about it unless you did that near the ground.

I ignore it for the short time it's a problem, or I set the time manually, or I set a different time zone. I sure can't change the program behavior.

The FSX programming used the then current time to switch to/from DST as defined by the U.S. This was in the 2005 time frame. The switch to/from DST today has changed. I expect that Steam hasn't changed the originally programmed switching time.

Apparently we must, Mark. In real life my eyes are NOT locked straight ahead with my head doing all the turning. They move in various ways, though coordinated with head movement. It takes a bit of getting used to, but most folks can soon adapt. But in real life the scenery doesn't stay in one spot ahead of you, either, as it does in the sim, and you certainly don't see the panel stay straight ahead of you while looking in various directions, as if it were locked onto your head. And in real life you can see more in the cockpit than just an instrument panel. You can look up at an overhead panel (on aircraft so equipped), you can look down at the floor to check where the fuel lever is set, at the left side panel where throttles, trim, fuses and other things are located on various aircraft. Heck, in the Cub I used to have, you had to look up at each wing root to see the fuel gauges, to the right wing root for the master switch and lighting switches, at the left wing root to turn on or adjust the intercom, look at and reach down to the floor with your left hand to operate the flaps, and look at/reach to the left side of the cockpit to operate trim and carb heat. Granted that I can't reach into the screen for each of those things, but with TrackIR in the VC I can at least look in those places and see appropriate views outside that help me know the aircraft attitude, even if I'm looking for more than a few seconds. AND, I rarely need to look at the panel since I fly by attitude and sound as much as anything, with an occasional quick glance at the panel if needed. This is true of both real life and of the sim. The above, combined with a HOTAS so that I rarely have to take my hands off the stick and throttle, helps make the immersion more "real" to me. The various switches, etc. on the HOTAS are assigned to gear, flaps, view changes (if TrackIR is paused as it often is in spot view), trim, spoilers/dive brakes, prop and mixture controls and more are programmed to the HOTAS so that it's rare to need the keyboard. So with TrackIR, VC and HOTAS I'm able to fly around with almost everything second nature, not having to think about it any more than I do in a real aircraft, for most things, thus the immersion is more complete. But it does take a little time and practice to get things to that point, though for most folks it's not difficult. FS9, FSX or P3D with TrackIR, VC (even shadows within the VC in P3D) and HOTAS is how you sim. "2D panel" is no good. :rolleyes: I had a friend with whom I flew multiplayer almost every weekend for over twenty years (we went back in real life flying twice that long) who couldn't seem to get used to it, either, so I know there are a few folks who have trouble with the adaptation. But he still used the VC quite a bit, though he also used the 2D. However he'd cobbled up a sort of HUD that sat at the bottom of the screen with a couple of "essentials" on it and flew with that a lot, too. We did formation a lot, sometimes loose, sometimes tight (difficult when aircraft are sliding back and forth in relation to each other -- FSX solved that almost all the time), but we also just flew in the same vicinity, often low to the ground (sometimes skimming the treetops), and we sometimes shared a cockpit (try that in FS2004). And we did all that while using the free/open source Mumble/Murmur to talk to each other (he was in Dallas, I'm in Denver) and share the experience. He was a real life pilot too, CFI, etc. with over 10,000 hours (real). FS2004 has one big advantage, but we never went back after switching to FSX, because of its other advantages. That advantage is that we absolutely loved to land, switch aircraft and fly them for a while. We loved to change weather/time of day/night in the middle of a session. FSX had changed the multiplayer interface such that it was no longer possible, but the other advantages of FSX were too valuable to us to go back.

RFI=Radio Frequency Interference :pilot: IFR=I Follow [Roads|Rivers|Railroads] :confused: IRF=Oof :cool: FRI=Hot Grease Cooking FIR=A type of tree RIF=A Guitar Lick (needs another F??)/Reduction In Force :rolleyes:

Hmmm... IRF -- is that a modified OOOF? :cool: If you're talking about the flight plan being changed and continuing with ATC, then Zippy has the answer. If you just want to go there, use the three flight controls to initiate a turn, perhaps punching in a DIRECT TO on the GPS for guidance, if needed.

I have a TrackIR and with the VC I can lean forward or back or left or right, raise up or hunker down, tilt my head, look up or down, look left right or any combination of all of these, and all without use of my hands, just move my head and, perhaps, torso if needed. On downwind I can look back at a 45º for a moment when in the pattern, then back straight ahead, or any other direction, even pause the view (makes it as if TrackIR weren't there, letting you use arrow keys, etc.), NONE of which is possible in the so-called 2D view. This makes it more like flying in a real aircraft. But it does take a little practice to make it second nature. "2D" sucks... :pilot:

Sounds good. BTW, I prefer a VC...

Mark, that is not what I've seen posted by some folks out there, and it's not what I disagree with. I won't have any argument with folks who say there's a performance problem with FSX that they don't have with FS9 -- that's not a surprise, since FSX is decidedly more demanding on the system. I won't have any argument with those who say they like FS9 with its add-ons better than FSX with the add-ons they have. I agree with that. It does, indeed, depend on what each individual wants. Where I have the problem is with posts like this in post #23: This from post #24: There have been no releases of either sim "today." They're still the same as they were way back when. Add-ons are different and more plentiful, but that's not the sim. There IS no 2019 FS9 or FSX. This one from post #45: At least it states add-ons are needed, but your add-ons and my add-ons are different, so your setup matches your preference and that's fine, but it has NOTHING to do with "used FS2004 in the last 12 months" -- that's just add-ons, not the sim. This from post #71: And even this one from post #76: FSX allows higher resolution scenery, for one thing. FSX has dynamic objects. e.g.: The ferries crossing the Puget Sound run on real schedules, birds and cars and more. FSX has a revamped multiplayer function with shared cockpit feature. FSX multiplayer does a better job of keeping formation aircraft together, with a good extrapolation of position, instead of jumping back and forth a bit as internet lag delays position updates, then catches up. FSX has miscellaneous enhancements such as more camera angles, views, user settings. Whether these changes (and others) mean much to you is, of course, a personal choice. If not, and if performance is a problem for you, then staying with FS2004 might be good for you, but there definitely are differences. Anyhow, for those who are saying they prefer FS2004/FS9 witgh the add-ons they have is not a problem. It's those who bash FSX for the wrong reasons (sure it's more demanding, but...). But thanks for this statement: It's undoubtedly true for many, though it's never been true for me (or a good friend of mine, either), even on the 2005 machine I had at the release of FSX and even on my current 2010 machine.

Excuse me. What has changed in "today's" FS9, OTHER THAN the various ADD-ONS that are available? No one but NO ONE has explained that so that I can understand it. Those contending that FS9 is better merely make the statement, but have given NO evidence I have come across. And saying that FSX is dull, lifeless, whatever derogatory remark doesn't make it so. I, along with a number of others here, haven't seen it that way at all. SHOW ME! And if you are comparing FS9 with today's available add-ons, then you MUST use FSX with today's available add-ons as a point of comparison, or else you ARE COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES. Let's have a fair comparison, people. ====================== I don't have a problem with folks telling me they like the FS9 WITH IT'S ADD-ONS better than FSX, but be honest.

Since 1977 was before MS got involved with FS, I'd expect that it's for either the first version of FS for the IBM PC (circa 1981) or, at latest, version two. I remember that approach to documentation, but it's apparently too expensive now to actually provide a paper copy. Even as late as FS2000 MS provided a nice printed copy of "Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000 Professional Edition Pilot's Handbook" which cover features, using Ron Machado's learning package included with the sim, data on the included aircraft (including panel layout, etc.) and various charts (I just looked through my copy).

It's good that things are working out for you. Enjoy!

Of course not. It may help, to a limited degree, in interesting some young folks in aviation, and it may help, to some degree, to let non-pilots learn about aviation and, particularly, about flying an airplane and operating some systems. It also will, as have those versions before it, provide a way for pilots, new and old, to get some practice in various kinds of procedures (instrument, VOR, NDB and more). But it won't teach a lot of what even a Private Pilot needs to know, it won't even come close to preparing a person for any flight test, or even a written test, for any certificate or rating. It won't do that even with a CFI on hand all the time, though that would add benefit to FS use, but that's just as true of previous versions (X-Plane too). Of course it won't address what Dave mentioned at all, and most other problems it'll be of very limited assistance. However, it might help some folks to maintain their interest in flying, so that's a plus.

It's different for different people. AND, this is only one of many developers saying that -- what's the background of the others? Besides, it doesn't have to start as a kid in order to become an experienced pilot -- I know of several who started late and still became quite good. So you don't have to have a lifelong passion to become a good pilot and find out about experiences, especially if you are willing to listen to and learn from those who have the experience. Not ONE of us has had all the experiences that we learn from -- not one, unless that one is ill-informed. I'll disagree with that, up to a point. That type of input is needed, but it doesn't have to be the actual programmers with all that experience IF they listen to those who DO have the experience. I applaud the fact that he is willing to learn by doing, getting involved with the field so he can learn what's needed (it doesn't have to ALL be HIS experience). So there's no need to be "appalled" at what you read. Ease off, please, and lets find out what they actually wind up with when it's completed, instead of trying to pre-judge it based on a pre-Alpha version and a CNN article.

Not a problem, Keith, I just wanted to get us back on track for the OP. Sometimes a fuel imbalance can cause wing low problems in many FS aircraft, often to a greater degree than I ever saw in real aircraft.

This is all well and good, but has little to do with the OP's question, which is about a problem in the flight model of the FSX default C-172, which has the airplane sliding sideways (defying laws of physics) for a few seconds after wings level. That same problem will also result in sustained turns with more than a gentle bank (30º plus, for certain) causing the aircraft to start descending after a bit, but back pressure causing the nose to rise (much as if top rudder were added, rather than in the fashion of real aircraft). So one cannot hold altitude (you can, in a real aircraft, including the C-172, in at least a 45º bank). This problem is NOT the same as larger, heavier aircraft taking longer to react, this is an aircraft doing the (real world) impossible. If it makes no sense to you, go back, read our descriptions, then try it yourself. Fly the FSX C-172 in slow flight just a few hundred AGL, then make a turn (yes, try to keep the ball centered, too) such as turning base to final, then level your wings, with NO wind. Do this from the 6 o'clock locked (not rubber band) spot view, and see what happens. Did you slide sideways for a bit? Now get more altitude, then add full power to the C-172 and make a 45º (or even a 30º) banked turn. Hold that turn (use cockpit or spot view here, makes no difference) round and round and round, attempting to maintain altitude. What happens to altitude? What happens to pitch attitude? Now use a modified .air file with the values I supplied above and go through those exercises again. Is there a difference? Check out other facets of handling. Is there any change? For better? For worse? Bye.

Mallcott, I wasn't advising him to play around with unknown parameters, I was offering values that had been worked out by an expert (not me) and, more importantly, were tested to show an improvement in handling, and that would alleviate his specifically stated problem. AND, I reiterate that, so long as he saves a copy of the original, he can't hurt anything, since the original can then be reinstated.