Regia Aeronautica Savoia Marchetti S.M. 73 by 1941

No moment of rest for my WW2 planes collection! :):) Italian Regia Aeronautica Savoia Marchetti S.M. 73 leaving East from Benghazi, current Libya, by May 1941

-- my WWII planes pics with no test of plane's behavior, gauges, etc. --

Hi all! Thanks for your comments

Yes, it's a much typical camo of WW2 Italian planes, because they used their planes much in Libya or Somalias. I like it too :cool:

Hi all! Thanks for your comments

Yes, it's a much typical camo of WW2 Italian planes, because they used their planes much in Libya or Somalias. I like it too :cool:

Salut Gérard, were you able to get the 2D panel to function or does she ship with only VC? because I saw two different panel.cfg files with it (one for narrow and one for wide monitors), I thought there should be a 2D panel but I get greeted by the picture saying 2D panel not available. Is that normal or am I missing something?

Thanks.

Khalid

Hi Khalid!

Usually I don't test thoroughly those WW2 planes. They are mostly for my collection of WW2 planes

I think however that Savoia works just with the VC because I just saw like you, some message pics of the author saying that the plane doesn't have any 2D panel. On the other hand, if I remember well, that zip comes with a config I'd never seen until now: a kind of basis, and versions. If really of importance, that might be a question of re-arranging that structure

Hi Khalid!

 

Usually I don't test thoroughly those WW2 planes. They are mostly for my collection of WW2 planes

 

I think however that Savoia works just with the VC because I just saw like you, some message pics of the author saying that the plane doesn't have any 2D panel. On the other hand, if I remember well, that zip comes with a config I'd never seen until now: a kind of basis, and versions. If really of importance, that might be a question of re-arranging that structure

Sadly more and more people are discarding the 2d panels. Call me a dinosaur, old fashioned, of the old school, outdated, outmoded, or whatever but I spend a considerable proportion of my flying time staring at the old 2d cockpit, if available. I find it easier to follow, easy on the eyes, more legible and more real time up to date, and easier on the frame rate as well. I don't understand what these developers -in general- would lose by adding one. It would not constitute a significant addition to the effort of making a flying base model. That trend started with payware products but now it has crept on to the freeware as well. Sad. I can but lament this.

Best wishes.

Khalid

Sadly more and more people are discarding the 2d panels. Call me a dinosaur, old fashioned, of the old school, outdated, outmoded, or whatever but I spend a considerable proportion of my flying time staring at the old 2d cockpit, if available. I find it easier to follow, easy on the eyes, more legible and more real time up to date, and easier on the frame rate as well. I don't understand what these developers -in general- would lose by adding one. It would not constitute a significant addition to the effort of making a flying base model. That trend started with payware products but now it has crept on to the freeware as well. Sad. I can but lament this.

 

Best wishes.

 

Khalid

Khalid - +1 on the 2d panels. I, too, prefer the 2d panels over the VC. You say, "I find it easier to follow, easy on the eyes, more legible and more real time up to date, and easier on the frame rate as well." Also, I love tinkering/tweeking panels and you can only do that with 2d panels. I look at some of these panels the developers provide and I often ask myself what were they thinking? Why didn't they place this instrument here/there, why didn't they include this instrument with their downloads? So many questions, but, I try to tweek things the way I want them to be if I am going to be flying them. Also, many people out there are under the belief FSX can fly FS2004 aircraft without issues. That might be so with some FS2004 downloads, but many times you just might have to drop an FSX panel and/or sound folder in it, just to get it to work! I just feel that 2d panels afford me a little extra flexibility that the VC panels don't. With that said, I download freeware exclusively, because "if it ain't right and I can't tweek it to make it right, it goes in the trash! Imagine, you purchase a payware aircraft, drop $50 to get it, only to find it just wasn't what you were looking for! No thank you, I have had good luck with freeware downloads, the developers out there do a very good job in giving us something to smile about! Thank them for that!

For me, I am a + user of 2d panels!

Rick

Khalid - +1 on the 2d panels. I, too, prefer the 2d panels over the VC. You say, "I find it easier to follow, easy on the eyes, more legible and more real time up to date, and easier on the frame rate as well." Also, I love tinkering/tweeking panels and you can only do that with 2d panels. I look at some of these panels the developers provide and I often ask myself what were they thinking? Why didn't they place this instrument here/there, why didn't they include this instrument with their downloads? So many questions, but, I try to tweek things the way I want them to be if I am going to be flying them. Also, many people out there are under the belief FSX can fly FS2004 aircraft without issues. That might be so with some FS2004 downloads, but many times you just might have to drop an FSX panel and/or sound folder in it, just to get it to work! I just feel that 2d panels afford me a little extra flexibility that the VC panels don't. With that said, I download freeware exclusively, because "if it ain't right and I can't tweek it to make it right, it goes in the trash! Imagine, you purchase a payware aircraft, drop $50 to get it, only to find it just wasn't what you were looking for! No thank you, I have had good luck with freeware downloads, the developers out there do a very good job in giving us something to smile about! Thank them for that!

 

For me, I am a + user of 2d panels!

 

Rick

Thank you Rick, but I also apologise to Gerard for sounding like a rant. Glad someone agrees with me and feels the same way.

I also apologise to Gerard for sounding like a rant

no harm :) Such posts are interesting for the community. Now that I have settled myself into flying a max of 2-3 planes in FSX, I had not seen how things were evolving. Personally, I like to fly a 3D flightdeck for cause that I defend the idea of flying realistically. Having my French PPL, I found that possible even before FSX and even as none of the FS franchise versions were agreed for pilot's training. A 3D, I think, renders well the heaviness of a RW flight deck. The world of airmen is a one of numerous tasks, and ones to be done and decided quickly :):) On the other hand, 2Ds are sometimes working more quickly in terms of fps, for example. Freeware and payware authors just should keep with the FS tradition of having both:cool: :cool: