Jump to content

Slickrock

Registered Users
  • Posts

    88
  • Joined

Social Profile

  • Homepage
    http://www.ambestsquad.com

Slickrock's Achievements

Community Guru

Community Guru (4/7)

  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges

10

Reputation

  1. After watching this, I wouldn't be setting flaps anything. What I would be doing is cutting power, and/or feathering those props very quickly, and opening that canopy very quickly. Then, I'm jumping out and off this heap. As far as your buddy in the back firing off the machine gun goes, you might wanna radio him and let him know, I ain't in the plane anymore. See ya! :cool:
  2. This thing ain't easy to land on. Not for me. And certainly not in the F/A-18. 😬 I would like to see anybody else do it though. However, first, I wanna get in my Lake Renegade turbo ambhib plane and taxi along the port side, and watch anybody else try from there. That way, I'll be safely far away from the flight deck.. Go ahead. It would be fun. After a couple ramp strikes and so forth. A bit of advice. Always know where the jettison handle is. 🙃
  3. It's a one-of-a-kind aircraft, isn't it? Never will be anything like Concorde again, for that matter. I don't see how you can go from flying this aircraft, to flying something else. I am very confused as to why the Concorde would not be used for at least some special trips to PHNL. Of course, we couold throw in Hong Kong and Rio de Janeiro while we're at it. It looks like there are some high value targets that were completely missed to me, for some reason.
  4. Just like with all advanced map editors that Novalogic had, and still has with their game titles. If you offset, or misuse the X, y offset, your map objects, including your runway, will be hovering 10 or 20 feet above the terrain, water. Some of these guys managed to invert the object, a ship stuck with the bow down into the ocean as well. You can get as meticulous, and organized, or as goofy as you wanna get with this stuff. Novalogic was doin', as well as cheaters online, in windows 98.
  5. Yeah? An guess what? Valve's/steam control panel, and everything else that goes with steam, particular emphasis on the word CONTROL, now rests "peacefully" inside your computer. Not mine. ;)
  6. Good on ya's. I'm just happy not to have to look at steam's logo smeared on FSX anymore every time I try to start it. I don't want steam "repairing" anything. Especially me windows registry which they are certainly doing to you, and whatever it is that you people boot up. :eek:
  7. At this point, it doesn't really matter, since I'm not using steam for anything at all. :p There's nothin' "complicated about it. Steam has their fingerprints all over the users PC, just as much as the issued titles people download, that steam rules over. It's that simple. Obviously, they are gonna wanna control the more popular titles. That's why microsoft's FSX SE is known as, umm, duh... Flight Simulator X STEAM EDITION. :(
  8. :p What's yer windows 10 got to with steam creeping around in my computer? And, like i told whoever made the other meaningless disinfo comment on my post, my anti-steam copy of FSX, that I tediously installed, boots up faster than yours, or his, on your best combined days. Count on it dude. Furthermore, i don't "think" about win 10 at all. Let alone installing the concoction.
  9. One of my favorite arrivals, of course. Especially after I got the Boryspil' scenery and taxiing my Concorde up to the ramp. Always a pleasure, using this arrival.
  10. After trying to get FSX to load off of steam, like wading though a swamp, I finally had enough. Also, I don't know what these people do with the windows registry, but I wiped everything off. Reformatted, got the win 7 professional back on, and dug up my CD's of FSX standard, no acceleration. After cleaning up my computer, I dumped what steam had off into a folder I made. After finally getting past microsoft's hideous roll back failure to install, fatal error and everything else, I got the copy of the SDK and installed that first. Then install FSX, SP1 and SP2. Now, a clean boot like I've never seen or don't remember ever seeing, and certainly not on FSX SE. Sure, some aircraft don't work but guess what? I combined the panel off a FS2004 download and entered that on the steam's F/A-18 windows 00 entry, which gives me a working F10 HUD. Using the steam first VC entry lines, and cutting out the add-on VC entry, I don't have the HUD or instruments working there, but the cockpit is clean with all textures. That's all I need. I have my own feel for airspeed in VC mode anyways. Always have had. Yay! Now, a fully operational F/A-18 without FSX accelerated and, more importantly, without steam's involvement in my projects. My F-4J F-10 HUD doesn't work, but at least it's clean without black colored glass. However, My U.S.S America and Enterprise textures still come out beautiful. AND everything in VC works and looks just fine. Without doing anything at all, my favorite one-of-a-kind Corsair air frame is all completely there, nothing missing, everything works. That black glass on the VC of my UKMIL Hawks have even gone to clear glass. I don't care if the HUD is there or not. Yay! And the entire 747 package, with E1 exite function, E2, E3, loading ramps, and E4, ALL work just like in your accelerated add-on. Therefore, I'm not gonna touch this thing by getting FSX accelerated, or anything else. My pilotable U.S.S. Nimitz has black textures on the hangar deck, but just overhead and on bulkheads on the side. You can still see good enough to taxi. Flight deck textures, lights, tow truck, elevator, and everything else work just fine. P-47 add-ons work as well. All this with out FSX accelration, gold, or whatever else. Nobody wants to take me on in aircraft operations anyways so AIcarriers2 doesn't matter. I land at the carrier scenery in Pensacola, anyways, which shows up just fine. My PC boots up again, and FSX boots up like I've never seen it, or ever rememebr seeing it before. And last, but certainly not least, I'm finally off that hideous dump of a service, known as steam. And like a character said on a TV show once: "and I and NEVER, goin' back. :D:o
  11. You already stated my opinion on this for me when you started off with your intro with "The thing IS".... So, therefore, you not only did you already provide my opinion for me on this, you have stated a fact as well, haven't you? You could simply carry on your factual observation to the reported 767 crash of Atlas Air flight 3591, couldn't you? What is your "opinion" on Airbus 330 in regards to Qantas flt. 72? I know what mine is, as far as what I call meddling engineering is concerned. By the way, I'm being generous. The actual A330 pilot calls it "psycho" automation. What about the recent Atlas Air flight 3591 crash? You want my opinion on that as well? Here's my opinion: I find it very dubious and hard to believe. To say the very least. What about two plane crashes in Cessna's 414 models where 5 people just happened to be killed in both back to back episodes? Here: "On August 5, 2018, about 1229 Pacific daylight time, a Cessna 414 airplane, N727RP, sustained substantial damage when it impacted the ground in a shopping mall parking lot in Santa Ana, California. The private pilot and four passengers were fatally injured." So about 5 months later you have yet another Cessna 414 crashing in Yorba Linda, practically the exact same Laurel Canyon-ish, SOCAL area, with exactly the same number of people killed in that incident. The N number on that one is N414RS. You saw it on the "news", right? As a side note, so, umm, has SOCAL sort of transformed into the new Bermuda Triangle or something? Or has it always been that way, and everybody goes, ..eh..:rolleyes: So then, should have all Cessna 414A's been restricted from flying? :confused:
  12. Newsflash, dude: I don't need a better example than this. The example I provided in this forum is unequivocal in regards to my original post. For some bizarre reason, you decide to link up a video that does absolutely nothing but iterate and support the very point I make. For what possible purpose? Again, you thought you would try to refute my comment, trying to make yourself appear more knowledgeable about the Navy, or aerodynamics, or whatever it was or is you think you're accomplishing, and you simply failed. Again. :rolleyes:
  13. Knowing that the people on whom you depend, or the people whom you support, who are "experts", apparently, are the ones who came up with the "official cause" of TWA flt. 800, as well as John Kennedy Jr.'s Saratoga II incident, I would say that you need a couple of bags of salt. At least.
  14. Actually, it's showing you, and anybody like you, proof of the fact. What does the point in time of the plane landing on the Forrestal, shown in the pictures, have to do with anything, especially proving some sort of "point" that you think you are making? :confused:
×
×
  • Create New...