OMGWTF!!! X-Plane 10 demo is out!

[Capt. Bobo Williams]

If I could sum it up in just two words, they would be:

Unparalleled realism.

But mostly I was just drooling at the fancy graphics:

http://www.x-plane.com/

[BillW50]

In news:5vltc7182m611kq4i...@4ax.com,

OMG! I have used X-Plane 9 for years. Sounds like it is time to upgrade
again. ;-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

[ManhattanMan]

On 11/24/2011 6:26 PM, BillW50 wrote:
> In news:5vltc7182m611kq4i...@4ax.com,
> Capt. Bobo Williams wrote:
>> If I could sum it up in just two words, they would be:
>>
>> Unparalleled realism.
>>
>> But mostly I was just drooling at the fancy graphics:
>>
>> http://www.x-plane.com/
>
> OMG! I have used X-Plane 9 for years. Sounds like it is time to upgrade
> again. ;-)
>

Might depend on just who Bobo is - never saw him before around these
parts stranger.........

--
MnM

[Danny]

My guess is we have seen him too many times under other pseudonyms.





"ManhattanMan" wrote in message news:jampeg$ji7$1...@dont-email.me...

[Walt_M]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:02:08 -0600, ManhattanMan <fly...@usa.gov>
wrote:

Xenophobia pretty rampant around your neck of the woods, eh...


Walt
* * *
Offence freely given to those who wish to take it.

[Capt. Bobo Williams]

I've posted here a few times but hell if I can remember what names I
have used.

I've trolled on occasion. But mostly my posts have been constructive,
and were made with the purpose of contributing positively to the
dialogue of this newsgroup ;)

[Dude]

Thanks for the heads up. Im downloading the demo now.

Chris

[Dude]

On Nov 24, 6:02 pm, ManhattanMan <flyn...@usa.gov> wrote:
> On 11/24/2011 6:26 PM, BillW50 wrote:
>

> > Innews:5vltc7182m611kq4i...@4ax.com,

Well he is posting about the new X-Plane and gives the link from the
real X-Plane website so why would there be any scepticism? How would
it depend on anything he has to say whether or not it's good.


Chris

[Ian D]

"Dude" <chris...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ecfc0a5-379a-4d53...@g7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...

The X-PLANE home pages are different for PC and Mac. The
Mac page also has links for system requirements, and for
downloading the complete manual. Version 10 is very hardware
intensive.

Minimum requirements:
- 2 GHz multicore CPU
- 2 GB RAM
- video card with 512 MB VRAM

Recommended
- 3 GHz multicore CPU - multiple quad core CPUs even better
- 4 GB RAM - more not necessary
- video card with 1 GB VRAM, 1.5 GB, or more, for max settings

[Dan Wenz]

Now downloading at/around 14 KB/sec!!?? Awfully slow, using FIOS, 5
servers per x-Plane.

[Dude]

I used the Torrent and had it downloaded in about 2 hours. I was
getting over 1meg down.

Chris

[Gregory]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:26:40 -0600, "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:

>In news:5vltc7182m611kq4i...@4ax.com,
>Capt. Bobo Williams wrote:
>> If I could sum it up in just two words, they would be:
>>
>> Unparalleled realism.
>>
>> But mostly I was just drooling at the fancy graphics:
>>
>> http://www.x-plane.com/
>
>OMG! I have used X-Plane 9 for years. Sounds like it is time to upgrade
>again. ;-)

The screenshot below is of "Balls-8" the NASA Edwards launch platform.


http://www.x-plane.com/wp/wp-content/gallery/misc-v10-acf/x-15_4.jpg


NB-52B

The NB-52B was B-52B number 52-0008 converted to an X-15 launch
platform. It subsequently flew as the "Balls 8" in support of NASA
research until 17 December 2004, making it the oldest flying B-52B. It
was replaced by a modified B-52H.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nasa-b52-040721-wp-cr.jpg



-G

[Tom Duhamel]

On 2011-11-24 22:16, Ian D wrote:
> The X-PLANE home pages are different for PC and Mac. The
> Mac page also has links for system requirements, and for
> downloading the complete manual.

Huh? I too have a link for system requirements (which I clicked first,
before even checking the screenshots) and one for the manual. Using a PC
here. What's the difference?




Tom :)

[Dan Wenz]

On 11/25/2011 10:42 AM, Dude wrote:

>
> I used the Torrent and had it downloaded in about 2 hours. I was
> getting over 1meg down.
>
> Chris

Torrent scared me when I looked at what it does at the x-plane site -
uploads to others while I'm downloading??

[Ian D]

"Tom Duhamel" <tom420....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jaohjo$r45$1...@dont-email.me...

Aha! I see they've changed the Windows version home
page. Yesterday, it filled the full screen, and those two
items weren't there. Today it's a smaller window, with
the requirements and manual. They obviously updated
the page. Maybe they read my post.

[Bill]

"Capt. Bobo Williams" <no...@noserver.com> wrote in message
news:5vltc7182m611kq4i...@4ax.com...

Do they still have the 10 minute demo restriction? Cant do too much with
that

thanks

[ManhattanMan]

I didn't say it was good, bad, or indifferent; but, when an unknown
someone pops up from the wild blue yonder, OOHHHHing & AHHHHHing with
superlative endorsements about any product, the first thought I have is
self promoting spam.... Go ahead, call me xenophobic - oh - forget it,
already been done... :)

--
MnM

[Danny]

Torrent is the way to go. I tried the direct and was looking at 45 hours.
Torrent downloaded in a bit over 2.5. Others are now downloading from my
system, but I will stop the Utorrent proggy to do my install.
Danny



"Dan Wenz" wrote in message news:jaoisu$6j4$1...@dont-email.me...

[Danny]

Yes. Mine states joystick will quit operating in 10 minutes since disk was
not found in the drive.
Danny







"Bill" wrote in message
news:xmSzq.117608$Hr1....@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com...

[Dude]

On Nov 25, 12:52 pm, "Bill" <some...@home.net> wrote:
> "Capt. Bobo Williams" <n...@noserver.com> wrote in messagenews:5vltc7182m611kq4i...@4ax.com...

>
> > If I could sum it up in just two words, they would be:
>
> > Unparalleled realism.
>
> > But mostly I was just drooling at the fancy graphics:
>
> >http://www.x-plane.com/
>
> Do they still have the 10 minute demo restriction?  Cant do too much with
> that
>
> thanks

Yeah it's 10 min still in Demo mode.
But gives you an idea on the graphics. The planes and terrian is much
better.

Chris

[Dude]

> MnM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I understand that and have seen that before too but the link was right
to the X-Plan site so I didnt get why the concern.
No biggie
Chris

[Dude]

Yeah as you download you become a peer for others and so they can
download from you.
If you want to you can go into the settings and change the upload
speed at which others download from you and change it pretty much
nothing.
Anyway with a torrent you are downloading all the pieces of the files
from lots of people at the same time and it goes much faster. Like I
said I had it downloaded in a couple hours. It's almost 3.5Gig.

Cheers,
Chris

[NM5K]

I find it interesting, but I'm not too exited at this point.
#1, the NGX won't run under it.. :( And I'm not sure of the
fidelity of the planes they have. Like Lockheed, they seem
to have cockpitpictureaphobia when it comes to many planes..

IE: 747- seems like maybe 29 images of the exterior skin, but no
cockpit images I can find. To me, the exterior skin means doodly..
They all look good these days.. I fly from a cockpit-flight deck,
not standing out on the wing. So whada I need to see 29 images of
exterior shots for..
I want to see an image of a half zillion lights and blinky things
that all operate in an organized military manner. :)

[DonK]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:25:14 -0500, "Danny" <drm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Yes. Mine states joystick will quit operating in 10 minutes since disk was
>not found in the drive.
>Danny
>

Not only that but it takes beaucoup resources to run it well. I watched about an hour of the Youtube
videos and read a bunch of the specs. During his presentation Meyer's repeatedly says that it
requires "lots of cores", "lots of CPU's" and it spawns many, many threads. Does anyone here run
multiple CPU's each with multiple cores?

I read the limited site information about the object model and it does sound impressive (I don't
know how deep the FSX OM goes) but it's obvious that it's not going to run well on most, even top
end, machines. Meyer said repeatedly that there are no current machines that will run XPlane 10 with
all features turned on/up.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLJLfdtlI-Q&feature=related

"Austin Meyer presents his first official full integrated beta version in Lelystad at FS Weekend on
the 6th November 2011."

--

Don
Bothell, WA

The world unfolds according to its own inner algorithms of cause and effect, probability and chance without any regard for human feelings.

[NM5K]

On 11/25/2011 5:43 PM, DonK wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:25:14 -0500, "Danny"<drm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes. Mine states joystick will quit operating in 10 minutes since disk was
>> not found in the drive.
>> Danny
>>
>
> Not only that but it takes beaucoup resources to run it well. I watched about an hour of the Youtube
> videos and read a bunch of the specs. During his presentation Meyer's repeatedly says that it
> requires "lots of cores", "lots of CPU's" and it spawns many, many threads. Does anyone here run
> multiple CPU's each with multiple cores?
>
> I read the limited site information about the object model and it does sound impressive (I don't
> know how deep the FSX OM goes) but it's obvious that it's not going to run well on most, even top
> end, machines. Meyer said repeatedly that there are no current machines that will run XPlane 10 with
> all features turned on/up.
>

I thought some of the objectives sounded a bit silly to me..
And a waste of puter horsepower that should be used for the
plane being flown.
IE: the traffic aircraft are using the same exact flight
model precision as the one being flown, and each of those
traffic aircraft can hog it's own core.. :/
I mean... good grief.. Who cares if the traffic aircraft
have ultra precision? I don't really, as long as they are
close enough for gov work..
And the way they are running scenery seems to be pretty
puter hoggish.
I saw one quote that said if you were running a single CPU
box at about 3 ghz or whatever, all you would see is grass,
basic buildings, etc.. Sounded pretty stunted for what I
took to be an "average" computer these days.
I'm sure not sold at this point. And I don't know too
many people that have multi CPU boxes. Multi cores yes,
but not many with multi CPU's.
And even he says it's starting to become a "world" sim,
or whatever he called it.
Kinda like Lockheed, they seem to be forgetting it's main
purpose is a "Flight Simulator". Not a scenery/eye candy
display program.
I've got a funny feeling I'm going to be running FSX Gold
for quite a while.. :/ With planes like the 737 NGX, and
the HI-FI P-40, P-51 that are due to come out, it will still
be the best sim overall, and with the best aircraft hands down.
And more will come in the not so distant future.

[Osbert Whittlebot]

On 24/11/11 23:58, Capt. Bobo Williams wrote:
> If I could sum it up in just two words, they would be:
>
> Unparalleled realism.
>
> But mostly I was just drooling at the fancy graphics:
>
> http://www.x-plane.com/

Looks good from the blurb. Will probably buy it, its not that pricey cf
Lockheed's Prepar3d / MSFS11. Whether it will replace my FSX usage I am
very doubtful. Frankly, I don't need eye-watering ground detail. I fly
with real time weather (enhanced); air-traffic maxed; airport ground
vehicles @ 40%; scenery @ v. dense and autogen @ sparse. Flying in UK
airspace, all most all the time, you get very little time to admire the
precision, and dynamism, of the terrain model and, anyway, you can't
often actually see the ground except through the clag but dimly. But it
is probably a damn' good flight simulation product, as X-plane 9 is, and
has to be worth supporting.

Osbert (etc, etc)

[Osbert Whittlebot]

sorry Typo correction as follows:-

Frankly, I don't need eye-watering ground detail. I fly
with real time weather (enhanced); air-traffic maxed; airport ground

vehicles @ 40%; scenery complexity @ v. dense and autogen @ sparse.

Osbert (etc, etc)

[Osbert Whittlebot]

D'accord.

The only point of dissent is with your choice of 'good' FSX planes, all
seems bit thuggish. But have you tried Anthony Lynch's Tiger Moth (Ant's
Moth from AVSIM). It is beautiful, beyond words, and flies, errr .....
just like the real thing being 'easy to fly but a b*gger to master'.

Osbert (etc, etc)

[Gregory]

I tried to run X-Plane 9 demo in May 2011 on the new Dell portable PC
(Win7/32, Intel Core2 Duo E7400, 4096 RAM, DX11) however it has
a crappy Intel 4 Series integrated video chip w/1.4GB video memory.
The demo was an awful slide show, mostly through fog and haze.
Only ran it once or twice for just a couple minutes.

X-Plane could be the only way forward with flight sim. Isn't Aerosoft
working on a simulator?


-G

[Tom Duhamel]

On 2011-11-25 12:22, Dan Wenz wrote:
> Torrent scared me when I looked at what it does at the x-plane site -
> uploads to others while I'm downloading??

And what is wrong with that?

The idea of torrents is that you are not downloading from a server, but
rather from other users which are also downloading the same file. Your
client will attempt to find more peers (if any) until you can achieve a
maximum download speed. The cost is more bits toward your monthly quota
as you will upload bits in addition to download them. The link you have
originally clicked contains signatures which are used by your client to
ensure that you are receiving the correct chunks, not some random bits
that someone else would want to throw to you instead of the correct ones
(like viruses, etc).

You could turn off your upload (or slow it down) if that is a problem to
you. However, people will stop sending you anything after a while, as
their client realize you are not uploading. This is not a problem with
popular files, as there are more peers to download from.



Tom :)

[BillW50]

On 11/26/2011 11:20 AM, Gregory wrote:
> I tried to run X-Plane 9 demo in May 2011 on the new Dell portable PC
> (Win7/32, Intel Core2 Duo E7400, 4096 RAM, DX11) however it has
> a crappy Intel 4 Series integrated video chip w/1.4GB video memory.
> The demo was an awful slide show, mostly through fog and haze.
> Only ran it once or twice for just a couple minutes.

I am actually surprised by Intel's integrated graphics. No, not how
great it is (because it isn't). But rather it does better than I would
have expected. As some things it can handle quite well. For example
MSFS2k2 does pretty well. FS2004 is okay if you turn the graphics down.
But FSX I never got usable with integrated graphics. And X-Plane 9
seemed to be just as bad as FSX was with IG.

Now having said all of this. I also have five Alienware machines and
four of them has dual GPUs. And here X-Plane 9 and FSX runs great. And
during the winter months, these machines also double as space heaters
too. ;-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

[Osbert Whittlebot]

X-Plane 9 seems quite good as a sim - i've run it in XP and in linux,
the grafix are a little better than FS2004 / ACOF but the ships are much
trickier to drive (well, that's my view anyway).

"X-Plane could be the only way forward with flight sim. Isn't Aerosoft

working on a simulator?" Personally, I don't really think so - (been an
MSFS freak since 1984/5, so maybe I can't allow myself to agree with
your suggestion).

As I see it, the way ahead is likely to prove to be in the development,
by the commercial sector and by the free enthusiasts, of aircraft and in
developing the traffic / ATC functionalities etc of , and for, FSX.
There are some very hopeful signs that this is beginning to take off -
after a few years in which we old lags were intimidated, and offput, by
the quality targets set by FSX's enormously enhanced visualisation
capabilities - they are very hard to hit.

We are in a situation now where we have a software which is mature and
stable - we need not fear a new version obsoleting our OS or hardware
the year after next; which runs well on simple supportable hardware and
in a stable OS

I am running it, at present, on the least advanced hardware I could find :-

Geforce 6100PM - M2 mobo with AMD64 3800+ CPU (@2.41Gig)
4Gb 600/800Meg RAM (with only 3.25Gig Userspace available to XP/32bit)
Geforce 9500GT GPU
- in the UK you can knock that sort of box together for about 150 quid -
you probably couldn't buy one in PCWorld or Wal-Mart; not bleeding edge
enough.

I am getting absolutely satisfactory, and very satisfying, desk-top
flight simulation out of the rig. It meets my usage profile absolutely
and I don't really need to ask for any more.

prepar3d? Don't need it, its aimed a usage which I will never need;

X-plane 10? I'll buy it to try it but I can't see anything its spec to
tempt me to ditch FSX;

FlightGear? Bit old, now, to throw myself into such a demanding, and
worthy, FOSS project.



ATB
Osbert (etc, etc)

[NM5K]

On 11/26/2011 6:02 AM, Osbert Whittlebot wrote:

>
> The only point of dissent is with your choice of 'good' FSX planes, all
> seems bit thuggish. But have you tried Anthony Lynch's Tiger Moth (Ant's
> Moth from AVSIM). It is beautiful, beyond words, and flies, errr .....
> just like the real thing being 'easy to fly but a b*gger to master'.
>
> Osbert (etc, etc)

I'm talking about planes that are very close to the real deal,
right down to every switch, quirk, and behavior pattern..
There are not a whole lot out there that you can say that about.
Or at least with the degree of fidelity as the ones I mentioned.
In general, with most complicated aircraft, if the average simmer
can fly one right off the bat, something ain't right... :/
It's like the choppers in FSX. They aren't very realistic..
Why do I say this? Cuz I can fly one well enough to get around..
No way I could do that in the real world.. :(
Take the WW2 fighters that have been mentioned.. I'd have to do
a crash course on the systems to be able to fly it and not
ruinate the thing in about 8 minutes due to a fried engine, etc..
And that's the way it should be I think.
With the 737 I run, the average FSX simmer used to the stock
737NG would get in the cockpit and have severe problems trying
to fly it without a crash course on the systems.
It's that different.. Not much works the same as the stock FSX 737,
which is basically so lame I call it the Fisher Price version. :|
And the stock FSX Learjet has the same problem.. I want a PMDG
Lear. :)

[Danny]

Just like Napster and the other first Peer to Peer programs. I used to
share a few mp3's I had. I could see those who were downloading from my
computer and even "Look" at the files on their system that they were
sharing. IF they were NOT sharing, I usually kicked them from my system or
slowed their speed so much it would take them all night to d/l.

The secret, as Tom says, is sharing.



"Tom Duhamel" wrote in message news:jar9d2$6se$1...@dont-email.me...

[Osbert Whittlebot]

D'accord. Hence my recommendation, to all simmers, of Ant's Moth.

Heavy metal? Exec. Jets? etc - I can't do them, because I haven't done
the ground schools in their systems; nor flying school in the duties,
responsibilities and disciplines of operating them. If ever I sim
Jetwork its only to reccy real passenger flights I am booked on.
(Sitting in the back, clueless and not smoking, does my head in). So FSX
jets for me are strictly manual take-off from the book; Auto / FD
everything terminating in autoland, everytime.

:-)

Osbert (etc etc)

[NM5K]

On 11/27/2011 2:29 AM, Osbert Whittlebot wrote:

> D'accord. Hence my recommendation, to all simmers, of Ant's Moth.
>
> Heavy metal? Exec. Jets? etc - I can't do them, because I haven't done
> the ground schools in their systems; nor flying school in the duties,
> responsibilities and disciplines of operating them. If ever I sim
> Jetwork its only to reccy real passenger flights I am booked on.
> (Sitting in the back, clueless and not smoking, does my head in). So FSX
> jets for me are strictly manual take-off from the book; Auto / FD
> everything terminating in autoland, everytime.
>
> :-)
>
> Osbert (etc etc)

If everyone liked the same planes or flying experience,
the world would probably get boring..
Some people are not near as hard core about realism as I am,
and that's no problem at all if they are enjoying what they do.
I might try the Moth, but generally planes that go that slow
don't get out of my hanger too often, unless I want to terrify
the driving public buzzing highways, etc.. :)
I like to do that when under the clinical supervision of a doktor.
:|

[BillW50]

On 11/27/2011 2:25 PM, NM5K wrote:
> If everyone liked the same planes or flying experience,
> the world would probably get boring..
> Some people are not near as hard core about realism as I am,
> and that's no problem at all if they are enjoying what they do.
> I might try the Moth, but generally planes that go that slow
> don't get out of my hanger too often, unless I want to terrify
> the driving public buzzing highways, etc.. :)
> I like to do that when under the clinical supervision of a doktor.
> :|

I used to fly Cessnas back in the 70's, but nothing else. My dad flew RC
airplanes since the 50's and got me into them around the late 90's. RCs
is a bit tricky since you are not flying from the pilot seat. More like
from the tower view.

Now there are flight simulators and RC simulators. And I believe RC
simulators have the edge on flight simulators. I think because they
basically cost far more and there are more RC pilots than I hate to say
the phrase, real pilots. So I think this is why RC simulators have the
edge because of more money per copy and they sell more copies.

Now that is out of the way. And if you like fast, oh boy does RC
simulators have fast. Real RC has fast too, but that is another story.
Things can happen so fast that your eyes can barely keep up with it all.
Worse, you have to control what your eyes can barely keep up with. And
3D RC helos are just the worst! As you can fly them in any direction
almost instantly that it would make a lot of reports of UFOs sound lame.

Do I enjoy both RC simulators and flight simulators (even both in real
life). But when you switch from one to the other, the flight simulator
seems like your flying a snail. ;-)

I forgot what flight simulator also had RC flying, I think it was
X-Plane. Yeah that is kind of like the other RC simulators, but not
really that close at all (meaning it isn't that good at all). You can
fake MSFS a bit by speeding it up about 10 times faster than real time
to be kind of like RC flying. Although I found the elevation control to
be really off. As it is too fast compared to RC flying. But everything
else is kind of close (not anywhere near perfect, but you can sort of
get a feel for it).

As far as RC simulators goes, RealFlight is at or near the top of the
heap. Although not cheap either, every version has been priced at about
200 bucks each. I have RealFlight G2 through G5. Each one requires to
use a RealFlight controller (it has to be plugged in for copy
protection, but you don't have to use it). Knowing which version of
controller works with what version is pretty simple. Each its own except
for G5. As it will work with either the G3 or G4 controllers (G5
controller is the same as G4 actually).

Anyway if you want more speed, RC is the way to go. RealFlight at least
does have a cockpit view (instrument panel is like nil if anything). But
if you can't master like flying by tower view, at least you have that. ;-)

Using both, you know what one of my favorite view is? It is chase plane
view. This is in both RC and flight simulators. I guess it is like a
mixture of both. Plus the scenery is great. ;-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0

Centrino Core2 Duo 2GHz - 1.5GB - Windows 7

[NM5K]

On 11/27/2011 5:29 PM, BillW50 wrote:

>
> Now there are flight simulators and RC simulators. And I believe RC
> simulators have the edge on flight simulators. I think because they
> basically cost far more and there are more RC pilots than I hate to say
> the phrase, real pilots. So I think this is why RC simulators have the
> edge because of more money per copy and they sell more copies.

Two totally different animals the way I look at it.
The flight simulator is simulating a real life airplane
and flight. The RC sim is simulating flying an RC plane.
For my usual type of sim flight, an RC sim would be fairly
useless.
I would think RC sims cost more money because they sell
less copies, not more. I would think the regular flight
sims, MSFS in particular, sell a lot more copies than the
RC sims, which are pretty much only used by RC pilots.
But I never looked into the sales or price aspect..

>
> Now that is out of the way. And if you like fast, oh boy does RC
> simulators have fast. Real RC has fast too, but that is another story.
> Things can happen so fast that your eyes can barely keep up with it all.
> Worse, you have to control what your eyes can barely keep up with. And
> 3D RC helos are just the worst! As you can fly them in any direction
> almost instantly that it would make a lot of reports of UFOs sound lame.
>
> Do I enjoy both RC simulators and flight simulators (even both in real
> life). But when you switch from one to the other, the flight simulator
> seems like your flying a snail. ;-)

Yep, but that is due to the scale of things.. If the RC plane
instantly converted to real life, the plane would be doing
many times the speed of what the real world plane does.
But when I think of speed in the sim, it's usually equated with
how long it will take to get somewhere. IE: if I flew the Moth
from Houston to Dallas, it would take me about four light years.. :/
I'd be tempted to strap the stick in place and take a nap
every once in a while.. Where as in the 737, about 50 minutes or so..

>
> I forgot what flight simulator also had RC flying, I think it was
> X-Plane. Yeah that is kind of like the other RC simulators, but not
> really that close at all (meaning it isn't that good at all). You can
> fake MSFS a bit by speeding it up about 10 times faster than real time
> to be kind of like RC flying. Although I found the elevation control to
> be really off. As it is too fast compared to RC flying. But everything
> else is kind of close (not anywhere near perfect, but you can sort of
> get a feel for it).

I do it with MSFS quite often. If you see me flying an F/A 18 from
a tower view in a video, I'm flying it RC style.
Sometimes I will use spot views in landing videos, but those are almost
always replays.

>


>
> Anyway if you want more speed, RC is the way to go. RealFlight at least
> does have a cockpit view (instrument panel is like nil if anything). But
> if you can't master like flying by tower view, at least you have that. ;-)

If I want speed in the sim, I go to one of the jet fighters..
Still not quite as fast scalewise as RC, but you still move
along pretty good.

>
> Using both, you know what one of my favorite view is? It is chase plane
> view. This is in both RC and flight simulators. I guess it is like a
> mixture of both. Plus the scenery is great. ;-)

I have no problems flying from the tower view myself.

Reversing directions and controls doesn't seem to bother me
much. I think mainly because in my minds eye, I'm always
sitting in the cockpit and fly more by instinct than
actually thinking about what to do. I guess anyway..
But I've never had any trouble doing it.
I've considered getting into RC planes several times, but
never seem to get around to it.
A few friends of mine do it, usually here..
http://www.bomberfieldusa.com/index01.htm

But in the sim, I prefer the cockpit. The only time I'll
fly from an outside view is if I'm making a video or whatever
and want that view in the video. I never do it when flying
"normally" so to speak.

This is one old video I made quite a while back where I
played some in the Extra using RC view for much of the flight.
I was doing some pseudo aerobatics, and it's looks a little more
lively from a tower view, with the smoke going, etc. :)
Not one of my greatest landings.. Floaty little thang...
But I finally managed to plop it on down. :/
That video was from back when I was still running a P4..
Not quite as fluid as my newer videos.
http://imageshack.us/clip/my-videos/35/zx0.mp4/

If I flew RC, it would be mainly aerobatics that I would
be interested in. I've seen some larger RC planes that
looked quite realistic doing aerobatics when seen from a bit
of a distance.

[Copter_Six]

On 11/25/2011 6:14 PM, NM5K wrote:
> On 11/25/2011 5:43 PM, DonK wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:25:14 -0500, "Danny"<drm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. Mine states joystick will quit operating in 10 minutes since
>>> disk was
>>> not found in the drive.
>>> Danny
>

Can someone tell me what "unparalleled realism" means exactly. To get
the super correct modelling and dynamics a person needs to buy the
$600.00 version of X-Plane. What has the $50.00 version of X-Plane got
that is more realistic than FSX?


--


Copter Six
*Psychopath: A Journey Through the Madness*
=================================================
>Hopefully, you haven't ignited another flame war.

Que sera, sera...

[Copter_Six]

BillW ....... It's good to see you posting again. Why the long absence?

[ManhattanMan]

On 11/27/2011 10:47 PM, NM5K wrote:
> Yep, but that is due to the scale of things.. If the RC plane
> instantly converted to real life, the plane would be doing
> many times the speed of what the real world plane does.

True. I fly several relatively small electrics, vary from 24oz to 36oz.
We have a highway that runs parallel to our runway on the other side
of the field, speed limit 50mph (so ya know that's an average with +-
10mph) so flying a normal pattern I pretty well pace the vehicle
traffic, equaling the 50mph traffic; but, if I goose it, pass them like
they're standing still!! Meaning probably ~70-80mph speeds - some of
the hot rod fuel models blow by me, and we're a really small club! So,
if a J-3 came cruising by, I could probably fly formation with him for
maybe .25 - .5 mile, depending on eyesight and battery condition.. :)

And what ya mean, convert to real life? We ARE real life! We are REAL
AIRPLANES, just a different class. Are the drones imaginary or virtual?
No, they are REAL airplanes, just as we are, no pilot on board, only
larger scale. We ARE real pilots, just lack official certification
crap. Don't believe it - try it sometime IRL. And yeah, I have a PPL
to back it up (medical is 40 yr out of date, but what the hell)....

BTW - I had RealFlight G2 RC sim IIRC, and wasn't particularly impressed
with the VERY limited scenery. Only used it about a year, sold it,
however am told the newer versions have vastly improved the scenery
(really doubt if you could fly San Diego to LA though). But, I wasn't
using it for the scenery, only to try and get acclimated to RC flying.
BEST thing about it was you could hit reset after splattering. I
actually think flying the real model is much easier with the actual
spatial experience, but, NO reset if you have a case of dumb thumbs!
--
MnM

[BillW50]

In news:javi5i$hag$1...@news.albasani.net,
Copter_Six <c...@texas.com> typed:

> On 11/26/2011 12:07 PM, BillW50 wrote:
>> On 11/26/2011 11:20 AM, Gregory wrote:
>>> I tried to run X-Plane 9 demo in May 2011 on the new Dell portable
>>> PC (Win7/32, Intel Core2 Duo E7400, 4096 RAM, DX11) however it has
>>> a crappy Intel 4 Series integrated video chip w/1.4GB video memory.
>>> The demo was an awful slide show, mostly through fog and haze.
>>> Only ran it once or twice for just a couple minutes.
>>
>> I am actually surprised by Intel's integrated graphics. No, not how
>> great it is (because it isn't). But rather it does better than I
>> would have expected. As some things it can handle quite well. For
>> example MSFS2k2 does pretty well. FS2004 is okay if you turn the
>> graphics down. But FSX I never got usable with integrated graphics.
>> And X-Plane 9 seemed to be just as bad as FSX was with IG.
>>
>> Now having said all of this. I also have five Alienware machines and
>> four of them has dual GPUs. And here X-Plane 9 and FSX runs great.
>> And during the winter months, these machines also double as space
>> heaters too. ;-)
>
> BillW ....... It's good to see you posting again. Why the long
> absence?

Thanks and it is good to hear from you again. Honestly a bit busy, but I
have lurked from time to time. ;-)

--
Bill
Alienware M9700 ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
AMD Turion 64 ML44 2.4GHz - 2GB - Two GeForce Go 7900GS 512MB SLI

[BillW50]

In news:jb1872$130$1...@dont-email.me,
ManhattanMan <fly...@usa.gov> typed:

> BTW - I had RealFlight G2 RC sim IIRC, and wasn't particularly
> impressed with the VERY limited scenery. Only used it about a year,
> sold it, however am told the newer versions have vastly improved the
> scenery (really doubt if you could fly San Diego to LA though). But,
> I wasn't using it for the scenery, only to try and get acclimated to
> RC flying. BEST thing about it was you could hit reset after
> splattering. I actually think flying the real model is much easier
> with the actual spatial experience, but, NO reset if you have a case
> of dumb thumbs!

Well RealFlight G2 had five add-ons. Did you get those for more scenery
and crafts? Plus there was tons of others that you could download for
free that users had created. Yes you can create your own stuff too.

The five add-ons work with G2 and newer too. But those add-ons can be
downloaded for free for G4 and G5 (the free add-ons won't work for G2 or
G3). Plus G3 and up also has Expansion Packs. I think there are 8 of
them now. I have the first 7.

G3 can use the first 4 Expansion Packs
G4 can use the first 6 Expansion Packs

You can check out the demos for free at:

RealFlight G4 demo
http://forum.i3d.net/full-games-demos/78586-demo-realflight-g4.html

RealFlight G5 demo
http://www.realflight.com/free-g5-demo.html