[Idea] Flight plan
fadeh
I follow this ng from one week now and I realized that we're spread
among many countries (I'm a smart guy, I know :D): some are from US,
Canada, Australia, Denmark and so on. I basicly came up with this idea:
it would be cool if everyone (almost) would share a flight plan matching
this criteria:
- FP must be from an interesting zone near his home
- The entire trip -> no longer than 45mins (+/-10mins)
Then we can upload our fp somewhere on the net and when you have some
free time you can download a fp an learn what's cool in a foreign
country far far away.
What do you think about?
fadeh
Guy
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fb3m.62066$Ux.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
Sounds like a good idea... let me think of a good one here in Florida, US
Guy
John Ward
What's a Flight Plan, mate?
Regards,
John Ward
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fb3m.62066$Ux.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
Tom Garrett
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fb3m.62066$Ux.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>
> I follow this ng from one week now and I realized that we're spread among
> many countries (I'm a smart guy, I know :D): some are from US, Canada,
> Australia, Denmark and so on.
WHAT?!?!?! I thought all you guys were just down the street from me. Crap.
Tom in Tucson
RobertVA
There's actually someone who doesn't launch the sim on the spur of the
moment, fly in whatever direction looks interesting and have to consult
map view to find a place to land?!
Tom Duhamel
> Hey guys,
>
> I follow this ng from one week now and I realized that we're spread
> among many countries (I'm a smart guy, I know :D): some are from US,
> Canada, Australia, Denmark and so on. I basicly came up with this idea:
You are right, we are from very different places of the world. I'm from
Sherbrooke, Quï¿œbec, Canada. Sherbrooke is a 140,000 inhabitant city,
making it the 6th city in size in the province, located in the South,
less than 45 minutes drive from the US border. It is 90 minutes drive
(45 minutes flying) from Montrï¿œal, the province largest city and the 3rd
one in the country.
And where are you from?
> it would be cool if everyone (almost) would share a flight plan matching
> this criteria:
>
> - FP must be from an interesting zone near his home
> - The entire trip -> no longer than 45mins (+/-10mins)
>
No need to upload anything, we could just give some data.
My home airport is CYSC, located about 20 km off the city. I do a lot of
flights starting or ending there. Actually, I like to save my flight
after landing and continue from there for the next flight, wherever I am
at that time. I fly a lot in between Montreal (CYUL), St-Hubert (CYHU --
known for the most important flying school in the province) and other
nearby smaller airports.
Both the mesh and scenery are quite badly rendered in FS9 for this area
of the world, so I use two free sets of file to enhance a little. These
are unusable in FSX, but I have never used FSX and therefore cannot say
if QC is better done in there.
If you want, CYSC to CYHU is about 45 minutes apart, by air, but the
scenery is not going to be very interesting. For a good scenery
(assuming that FSX render this part of the world better by default than
FS9) I found out that CYUL (Montreal) to Pearson, Toronto (two big
airports, so expect delays if you use realistic procedures) is quite
interesting, mainly because most of the flight is done near the
St-Laurence river and the Great Lakes, giving quite a nice area to look at.
If you ever fly to or from CYSC (my home airport) remember that
Sherbrooke is located in the Appalachian mountains, so plan a flight at
5000 feet or above or you risk hitting nasty surprises (the official
chart states 7900 as a safe altitude). I like to fly South from there,
because the mountains an the many major lakes makes for something to
look at (but remember that the US now requires that we have a valid
passport for crossing their border -- because Bush thought terrorists
entered their country from Canada).
Happy flying, and make sure to post pictures for me to see about FSX in
my area of the world.
Tom :)
Danny
my Mediafire site and post a link to that file here in the NG.
Danny
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fb3m.62066$Ux.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
Tom Duhamel
> There's actually someone who doesn't launch the sim on the spur of the
> moment, fly in whatever direction looks interesting and have to consult
> map view to find a place to land?!
Remind me not to fly with you!!
John Ward
In that case, you've never truly lived, mate, yet!... :-))
Regards,
John Ward
"Tom Duhamel" <tom420....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h2jtkr$8cd$1...@aioe.org...
TOCA
"John Ward" <jrm...@tpg.com.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:4a4d444e$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Hi fadeh,
>
> What's a Flight Plan, mate?
>
> Regards,
> John Ward
It's a thing used by organized people, to figure out how to get from where
they are to where they want to be. A bit like using maps and asking for
directions while driving, totally unnessecerry but some people likes it that
way ;o)
Tommy C, Denmark
TOCA
"RobertVA" <robert_c7...@invalid.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:HGd3m.2251$dd4....@newsfe10.iad...
>
> There's actually someone who doesn't launch the sim on the spur of the
> moment, fly in whatever direction looks interesting and have to consult
> map view to find a place to land?!
Are you saying there is an other way to do it? *Shock*
Tommy C, Denmark
fadeh
> There's actually someone who doesn't launch the sim on the spur of the
> moment, fly in whatever direction looks interesting and have to consult
> map view to find a place to land?!
Ehehe the meaning of this idea is too share something you like with your
sim-friends so you have to make a flight plan or something to show them
the coolest place on earth ;)
fadeh
TOCA
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:9fb3m.62066$Ux.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
Nice plan, how ever there is one small flaw in it, as most towns and cities
outside USA are not verry accurately made in the FS, so before heading off
to vissit that area of the World, you'll need the add-on scenery that covers
that area, or you will only see auto generated buildings and landmarks.
The good thing though is, that there are a lot of enthusiasts in the world,
who have made freeware sceneries for most parts of the world, which makes
vissiting the area a bit more like going there :o)
The down side (for you) is, that most of those are for FS9, but the FSX ones
are becomming more and more available :o)
Go to sites like http://www.avsim.com/ or http://www.surclaro.com/ and
register an user account, that will give you access to most sceneries and
planes. Be aware though, some are better made than others.
Tommy C, Denmark
fadeh
> And where are you from?
Turin, Italy. A big city in the north-west of Italy mostly known for
Juventus and FIAT.
> No need to upload anything, we could just give some data.
> [snip]
> Happy flying, and make sure to post pictures for me to see about FSX in
> my area of the world.
Cool, thank you. I'm gonna fly this route with FSX to see what it's look
like and I'll post some screen later.
Canada is a country I wish to visit especially after I've met two
Canadian in my last year trip through the middle east, they were truly
pleasing people.
fadeh
donbutts
"donbutts" <donney...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wPk3m.4359$FP6....@newsfe16.ams2...
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I follow this ng from one week now and I realized that we're spread among
>> many countries (I'm a smart guy, I know :D): some are from US, Canada,
>> Australia, Denmark and so on. I basicly came up with this idea: it would
>> be cool if everyone (almost) would share a flight plan matching this
>> criteria:
>
> I could do a flight plan for my area as it's absolutely fantastic to fly
> about scenic wise but you other guys would be doing it in Microyuk default
> textures... may as well try the Sahara desert.
>
> :-(
>
> Butts
> NZ
Quilljar
was called 'quilling about' LOL
--
Quilly
Bookstore
http://stores.lulu.com/quilljar
fadeh
>> not a bad idea but 50% of us are using FS9.... if that's a problem.
>> I could do a flight plan for my area as it's absolutely fantastic to fly
>> about scenic wise but you other guys would be doing it in Microyuk default
>> textures... may as well try the Sahara desert.
Dont think that FS9 it's a problem at all. I'm pretty sure you can
convert fp from FS9 to FSX. And anyway FS9 is pretty cheap right now so
if you all are using FS9 I'm gonna buy it.
fadeh
Slap
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
news:%4m3m.62426$Ux.4...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
I have all the flight simulators... well actually I sold the original one
that worked on the Radio Shack Color Computer in the 80's, -before MS bought
the company. I usually keep the current one and the last used flight sim on
my computer, in this case FS9 and FSX. I've not used FS9 since FSX came
out.
I also use flight sim as an excuse to get a better computer, better video
card, better and bigger monitor. Never spent a lot... for FSX I just bought
a entry level dual core from HP at a boxing day sale. Then a few months
later a nice video card. Others haven't done that or have many add-ons they
invested in so stay with FS9 to enjoy the experience.
Nothing wrong with buying FS9 and in fact it would be interesting to see
your opinion on the two sims. My opinion is FSX is far nicer and not having
a lot of add-ons for FS9 anyway I never use it.
--
dave
fadeh
> Happy flying, and make sure to post pictures for me to see about FSX in
> my area of the world.
Here we are :)
Flight from CYUL to CYYZ, it was cool with many lakes and stuff.
Here are some ss (photoshopped a little bit).
http://img36.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=ss8y.jpg
First is while climbing from CYUL, others from Champlain Lake (maybe)
and the last one is Toronto CYYZ ;)
fadeh
fadeh
> Nothing wrong with buying FS9 and in fact it would be interesting to see
> your opinion on the two sims. My opinion is FSX is far nicer and not
> having a lot of add-ons for FS9 anyway I never use it.
The only thing I cant fully understand in FSX is the unstable framerate.
I've got a pretty nice pc: Core 2 Duo E8400 + 2GB corsair + 2x74gb wd
raptor 10000rpm + hd4870 512mb but it seems I cant have a solid and high
framerate at almost high level of details (and 1280x1024), considering
FSX is "old" it's quite strange. I can run every new game @max details
without problems. Do you have any suggestion about?
Thanx,
fadeh
Danny
???.pln file. There is NO conversion necessary. You can place the ???.pln
file in the FS9 Documents folder and it will work or vise versa.
Danny
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
news:%4m3m.62426$Ux.4...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
TOCA
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
Tweaking with the settings is the best way to improve frame rates in every
version of MSFS :o)
FSX was not made for pressent day computers, but some what future proof, as
was FS9 and FS8 when they arrived.
One way of getting better performance is by switching to a 64 bit Windows,
if you haven't allready done that, it adds an extra 10% to the performance
in MSFS.
Then there are all the standard PC tweaks, like moving the page file to the
second hard drive, and over clocking.
Some of the things in FS, that really slows down things are Traffic and
clouds, so start by moving their sliders a bit to the left, and see what
happens.
What I can read from your hardware specs, you should be good to go at a tad
over medium settings, your processor is up for the task, make sure your FSB
and RAM speed is set to, and supports, at least the 1333MHz that the CPU is
supporting. For improvements from the hardware, you will need a motherboard
that supports DDR3 RAM and the next step up on the CPU, for one with a FSB
running at 1600MHz (QX9770), but they costs 5 times as much as the E8400,
which makes an i7 chipset system look like a reasonable alternative :o/
Hope you understood the geek talk ;o)
Tommy C, Denmark
Slap
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
news:qXm3m.62509$Ux.3...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>
> The only thing I cant fully understand in FSX is the unstable framerate.
> I've got a pretty nice pc: Core 2 Duo E8400 + 2GB corsair + 2x74gb wd
> raptor 10000rpm + hd4870 512mb but it seems I cant have a solid and high
> framerate at almost high level of details (and 1280x1024), considering FSX
> is "old" it's quite strange. I can run every new game @max details without
> problems. Do you have any suggestion about?
>
No, not from me anyhow.
I don't turn on the frame rate display. I might when I get my 'super
computer' but for now if it flies smooth (and it does with the service
packs) I'm happy enough.
--
dave
Andrew B
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
Hello fadeh,
I know it isn't really that local to me, Scotland not England, but ....
One flight that I like in FS9 is Plockton (UK10) to Inverness (EGPE) that
takes you West to East across Scotland using Loch Ness (the one with the
monster) as the main guide. I must admit I have an updated terrain mesh and
scenery but from memory the basic was pretty good. What it looks like in FSX
I don't know but I would be interested to hear about it if you try it.
Unlicensed Plockton has 02/20 runway 597m x 23m asphalt at 80ft AMSL and no
lighting (airport detail is virtually non existant in FS9).
One guide on the web states :- 'High ground to the South and East, trees on
20 final. R02 left circuit. R20 right circuit. No deadside joins. All
circuits over the sea.'
Nearest NDB is at Broadford on the Isle of Skye, so it's not much use on
this trip.
In fact most of the flight will be by dead reckoning and most likely in
marginal VFR conditions at one or other end of the flight unless you get
lucky, so watch out for high ground I don't want to hear about controlled
flight into terrain!
I would suggest a take off from R20 and head South South West to the Kyle of
Lochalsh (the gap between the mainland and the Isle of Skye). Keep over the
water and follow the left side coast heading East South East eventually
heading up Loch Duich, ignore the loch on the left. At the end of the Loch
head East South East between the mountains (middle valley) until you see
Loch Cluanie and again follow this loch East. About two miles after the end
of the loch turn South for about four miles and then head East down the
valley, another loch should appear which you follow (not the first going
west). About file miles past the end of the loch turn North East towards
Fort Augustus and Loch Ness. If you have made it this far you are doing
really well and the worst is over in terms of navigation. Travel the length
of Loch Ness and continue on the same heading until you see the sea coast
and then, keeping over land, follow the Southern coast Eastwards until you
spot Inverness (EGPE).
If you want nav aids for Inverness:-
Tower/Arrival 122.6
Runway 24/06 Asphalt 1887m x 46m at 31ft AMSL
NDB 370.0 ident KS Kinloss (a little further along the coast)
VOR + DME 109.2 ident INS Inverness
DME 109.8 ident KSS Kinloss
Your Cessna C172SP Skyhawk should be a fine choice for this flight and
should
take under one hour to complete.
You know I think I will set this up and give it a go myself as it's some
time since I last tried it and it was always fun if the navigation went
well.
--
Andrew B (Cheshire, England)
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
(Lord Kelvin, president Royal Society, 1895.)
fadeh
> What I can read from your hardware specs, you should be good to go at a tad
> over medium settings, your processor is up for the task, make sure your FSB
> and RAM speed is set to, and supports, at least the 1333MHz that the CPU is
> supporting. For improvements from the hardware, you will need a motherboard
> that supports DDR3 RAM and the next step up on the CPU, for one with a FSB
> running at 1600MHz (QX9770), but they costs 5 times as much as the E8400,
> which makes an i7 chipset system look like a reasonable alternative :o/
Hey Toca,
FSX was released on October 2006, almost three year ago :O
I've played games with a muuuuuuuuuuuuch better graphic than fsx so I
wonder why it's programmed that bad ;)
Anyway, I'm going to tweak some settings and overclock a little bit (cpu
is still @3Ghz and my ram are pc6400 so I've got some range for
overclocking).
Thank you,
fadeh
Slap
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
news:pgp3m.161$vG4...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
> FSX was released on October 2006, almost three year ago :O
> I've played games with a muuuuuuuuuuuuch better graphic than fsx so I
> wonder why it's programmed that bad ;)
>
It's a simulator. Not a tiny game with a tiny graphics background sheet to
move a few bullets and bad guys around.
It models the world, clouds, weather, moon, stars, lakes, roads, rivers
other aircraft (A1), boats, cars, trucks. Thousands of airports, golf
places all accurate to their real world coordinates. This ain't no piece of
shit game. You can take the most complicated game on the planet and MS
Flight Sim is doing thousands more calculations per second sitting on the
runway with the engines turned off.
In a few years when computing power to handle it becomes reasonable in price
you will have what you require.
--
dave
TOCA
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
Oh, you are going to get into trouble for using the G word, MSFS is a sim,
not a G thing ;o)
Games are mostly running on the video/graphics card, this sim is processor
dependant, that's one of the major differences, appart from it not being a
game for kids :o)
Games like WoW and CS will get major improvements from using a top shelve
video card vs. an entry level one, MSFS does not care, as long as it's a
256MB one or better, on AGP 8x or faster.
WoW will not notice much differense between an entry level core 2 Duo and a
quad core extreme, MSFS will.
Get a top notch i7 Extreme system, and cut the expences by re using your
current video card, and you will notice a huge improvement, wait for next
years top system, and maybe you will be able to move all the sliders to the
right.
MSFS is dependant on raw calculating power, meaning a bad ass big CPU, super
fast FSB and chipset plus lots of fast RAM, for FSX 1GB is absolutely
minimum, while 2GB is bare minimum.
On my old rig, I could run Battlefield, WoW, and other war games at max
settings, and the machine was hardly sweatting, while FS9 gave it a fight
for the money. For the first year of FSX, no one was able to eaven run at
mid range settings, unless they liked slide shows, and 90% of all posts in
here were about how to make it fly, same thing happened when FS9 was new.
One other major difference between MSFS and games, is the "playing" area, in
MSFS it's the entire globe, in games it's rarely much more than the size of
a medium sized village per level. In MSFS the borders and coast lines have
to mach Google Earth, in games they just need to be in there, some where.
How would you like to fly FSX, if it had to reload new levels, each time you
were handed over to the next ATC center? ;o)
Tommy C, Denmark
Tom Duhamel
> Flight from CYUL to CYYZ, it was cool with many lakes and stuff.
Just like I told you, a lot of water on that route.
>
> http://img36.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=ss8y.jpg
>
> First is while climbing from CYUL, others from Champlain Lake (maybe)
> and the last one is Toronto CYYZ ;)
>
>
>
>
> fadeh
Lake Champlain is located in the USA (except for the very small northern
portion which is located in the very South of Quï¿œbec) right on the
border between the states of New York and Vermont. Unless you were lost,
you are not suppose to sight this lake on that route.
The lake you cross just before reaching Toronto is Lake Ontario. The
lake is located South-East of Toronto, so you won't exactly cross it on
a straight route, you will actually fly just over the North shore. This
lake (one of the Great Lakes) is so large that even at 5000 feet you
barely see the other shore across.
I think you images are posted backward on imageshack because the very
first image appears to be Toronto. Arthur (SnakeEyes) will be better at
this, but to me on the horizon on the far left it looks like the CN
Tower and the Blue Jay stadium (can't remember actual name). I've been
in Toronto only once in my life, about 5 years ago, and I've been by
car/bus.
The fifth image however is definitely Montrï¿œal. You didn't capture its
main landmark (the Olympic Stadium, host of the 1976 olympic games and
former home of the Expo baseball team), but you did a great job at
capturing the three bridges which give access to the Montreal island.
Downtown is visible on the far left on the other side of the Island, and
the closest bridge is the Jacques-Cartier bridge (named after the French
explored who discovered the entrance of the St-Laurence river, on the
East coast of province of Quï¿œbec). The downtown is not very well
represented however, for real it is larger and goes well beyond the JC
bridge.
My conclusion after viewing the images, is that the scenery looks better
in FSX when compared to FS9, but the details aren't better, I recognize
the same features, one of them being the total absence of civilizations
on places which are densely built in real life :)
I can tell from your pictures that you haven't flown using real weather,
because the weather here have been ugly (rain, low ceiling, ...) for the
last few days. For the last few weeks, I've started to use real weather,
however ugly it is, so to give me some new challenges. My other flights
went somewhat well, but last night I completely lost my airport because
of the low ceiling. I tried to land using NDB at CYSC, which is not very
helpful when you can't get a visual.
Basically CYSC (my home airport) has NDB, located right in front of the
runway, which is good to make your approach, but once you passed the NDB
you must get a visual on the runway to complete your landing. CYSC also
has a VOR/DME, but it is not located in front of the runway. It is
instead located about half a mile on one side of the runway, close the
the middle. It is supposed to be used as a helper to locate the runway
and enter the pattern, but is of no use for final approach.
In this case, I was following the NDB, and when I cross over it (I know
because the needle will suddenly go crazy and eventually points back
instead of ahead. At that point, I normally get a good visual and I can
complete a visual landing. However, after a time which was greater than
I'm used to, I was still looking for the runway. I decided to cheat and
checked the GPS, and realized I had went over it without ever seeing it.
Now I know a visibility of 2 miles is not enough to do this procedure,
so I will need to learn a thing or two for my next rain in heavy weather.
Tom :)
Tom Duhamel
> FSX was released on October 2006, almost three year ago :O
FS9 was released in July 2003, six years ago. When I bought it a few
months after that date I had a Pentium III at 500 MHz with a Voodoo 3
card. It ran fine at 15 fps... with most of the sliders to the left. Now
I run FS9 on a laptop which I bought just over 2 years ago, so FS9 was
over 4 years old at the time. I now run it with some sliders to the
right, some at 3/4, and some in the middle. Only those with a top-notch
very recent computer will move most of the sliders to the right.
FSX, which is quite older than my laptop, is definitely not going to run
well on it, I won't even try.
> I've played games with a muuuuuuuuuuuuch better graphic than fsx so I
> wonder why it's programmed that bad ;)
Here is the great differences between FS and a typical game. Others have
already replied, but I had different details to tell you about.
Typical shooter:
- The levels are designed so that only a small area is visible at a time
- The characters and all of the actions you can accomplish in the game
don't require much CPU time because they are very simple
In WoW, if your computer is barely minimum, entering one of the larger
cities with a lot of population going about their business, your will be
slowed down a little, but to help lower computers you will notice they
have split the cities in smaller areas, so that your computer has less
to calculate at a given time.
FS:
- You see a very large area (easily 60 miles in every directions, when
the sky is clear) with a lot of details (buildings, lakes, mountains...)
It needs a lot of memory and quite some work on both the CPU and the gfx
card to render the area
- We are not merely calculating the movement of some character and where
the target is when shooting, we are calculating a lot of things, like
flight dynamics. These calculations are performed by the CPU (the gfx
card renders the graphics, it doesn't calculate flight dynamics)
- The strategy used by typical games (make smaller areas to reduce the
area you see at once) just cannot work in FS
Because there is a lot of action in typical games, the software is
designed to give you a high fps. However, in FS, a lower fps is fine
since not that much can happen on the screen at one particular time.
Even though you are flying at over 100 kts (a speed somewhat faster than
a typical shooter) you see things from a distance (except for takeoff
and landing) so the things seem to move slowly.
>
> Anyway, I'm going to tweak some settings and overclock a little bit (cpu
> is still @3Ghz and my ram are pc6400 so I've got some range for
> overclocking).
>
Just don't go overboard, we wouldn't like to lose you already :)
Oh! And don't call FS a game anymore. Only Microsoft thinks it's a game :)
>
> Thank you,
>
> fadeh
shywon
He said the G word!!
shywon
fadeh
> He said the G word!!
> shywon
Damn guys, didnt mean to hurt your feelings, I'm sorry! :D
Anyway I dont think it's wrong to call FSX a game, because it is! It's
like when people want to call Bob Dylan a poet. He's not a poet, a poet
doesnt sing. He is a songwriter, a great one. Only if you think that the
music is full of bullshit like Britney Spears you might want to put BD
in another category, but that's wrong because there are just good artist
and bad artist not good arts and bad arts. Again, FSX is a simulation
game. Nothing wrong with it, only if you think games are for idiots you
might want etc etc I'm sure you get my point ;)
For the technical part I must say you have some good points but I still
have some dubts, for example it's true that a sim game have to render
the entire world but not at the same time. What affects your frame rate
is what you see in the screen at the same time so what Slap says "It
models the world, clouds, weather, moon, stars, lakes, roads, rivers
other aircraft (A1), boats, cars, trucks. Thousands of airports, golf
places all accurate to their real world coordinates." is just partially
true.
I'm not saying FSX isnt huge, because it is, but what affects your
framerate isnt just the possiblity of doing something.
As TOCA said a simulation requires cpu power mostly and maybe this is
the answer. I can just imagine some of the calculations it needs to be a
great simulator but maybe I'm not aware of every aspects of the game ;)
fadeh
fadeh
> Lake Champlain is located in the USA (except for the very small northern
> portion which is located in the very South of Quï¿œbec) right on the
> border between the states of New York and Vermont. Unless you were lost,
> you are not suppose to sight this lake on that route.
>
> The lake you cross just before reaching Toronto is Lake Ontario. The
> lake is located South-East of Toronto, so you won't exactly cross it on
> a straight route, you will actually fly just over the North shore. This
> lake (one of the Great Lakes) is so large that even at 5000 feet you
> barely see the other shore across.
Damn my pics are in a random order :)
Most of them are from a lake near the CYUL airport mmmm What's the name
of that lake?
> I think you images are posted backward on imageshack because the very
> first image appears to be Toronto. Arthur (SnakeEyes) will be better at
> this, but to me on the horizon on the far left it looks like the CN
> Tower and the Blue Jay stadium (can't remember actual name). I've been
> in Toronto only once in my life, about 5 years ago, and I've been by
> car/bus.
Yeah, the first one is definetly Toronto and was one of the last I took
(I've taken many photos but posted just a few)
> The fifth image however is definitely Montrï¿œal. You didn't capture its
> main landmark (the Olympic Stadium, host of the 1976 olympic games and
> former home of the Expo baseball team), but you did a great job at
> capturing the three bridges which give access to the Montreal island.
> Downtown is visible on the far left on the other side of the Island, and
> the closest bridge is the Jacques-Cartier bridge (named after the French
> explored who discovered the entrance of the St-Laurence river, on the
> East coast of province of Quï¿œbec). The downtown is not very well
> represented however, for real it is larger and goes well beyond the JC
> bridge.
Yeah it's Montreal! Nice explanation, thank you ;)
> My conclusion after viewing the images, is that the scenery looks better
> in FSX when compared to FS9, but the details aren't better, I recognize
> the same features, one of them being the total absence of civilizations
> on places which are densely built in real life :)
What free scenary do you use to improve this area in fs9?
> I can tell from your pictures that you haven't flown using real weather,
> because the weather here have been ugly (rain, low ceiling, ...) for the
> last few days. For the last few weeks, I've started to use real weather,
> however ugly it is, so to give me some new challenges. My other flights
> went somewhat well, but last night I completely lost my airport because
> of the low ceiling. I tried to land using NDB at CYSC, which is not very
> helpful when you can't get a visual.
Yeah, basicly that's why I still use a nice and fair weather, I'm still
not that good to risk some crosswind landing and stuff :D
> Basically CYSC (my home airport) has NDB, located right in front of the
> runway, which is good to make your approach, but once you passed the NDB
> you must get a visual on the runway to complete your landing. CYSC also
> has a VOR/DME, but it is not located in front of the runway. It is
> instead located about half a mile on one side of the runway, close the
> the middle. It is supposed to be used as a helper to locate the runway
> and enter the pattern, but is of no use for final approach.
>
> In this case, I was following the NDB, and when I cross over it (I know
> because the needle will suddenly go crazy and eventually points back
> instead of ahead. At that point, I normally get a good visual and I can
> complete a visual landing. However, after a time which was greater than
> I'm used to, I was still looking for the runway. I decided to cheat and
> checked the GPS, and realized I had went over it without ever seeing it.
> Now I know a visibility of 2 miles is not enough to do this procedure,
> so I will need to learn a thing or two for my next rain in heavy weather.
Cool, does CYSC have an ILS for this kind of situation?
I'm going to try a trip from CYSC from I-still-dont-know and I'll post
some comparative pictures.
Thank you for you exhaustive explanation, is a pleasure to read such
great informations in a single post ;)
fadeh
fadeh
> [snip]
> Your Cessna C172SP Skyhawk should be a fine choice for this flight and
> should
> take under one hour to complete.
Wow, thank you! Sounds really cool I'm gonna try this one for sure and
I'll let you know.
fadeh
fadeh
flight :D
Need to check your indication using google maps and then I'm going to
retry this flight. Here are some sshot, I was heading SW the islands I
can see in front of me are the Isle of Skye you talked about?
http://img11.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=scotland3.jpg
fadeh
TOCA
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> shywon ha scritto:
>> He said the G word!!
>> shywon
>
> framerate isnt just the possiblity of doing something.
>
> As TOCA said a simulation requires cpu power mostly and maybe this is the
> answer. I can just imagine some of the calculations it needs to be a great
> simulator but maybe I'm not aware of every aspects of the game ;)
>
>
>
> fadeh
FS is not only working on the stuff you can see, but also the things
happening beyond the horrizon, when you hear ATC talking to an other A/C,
then that plane is actually some where out there, being monitored for model,
speed altitude, possition and flight plan (yes AI traffic uses flight plans,
they are not randomly generatd), which is why AI traffic is such a frame
rate killer. Also the weather is calculated for huge distances from where
you are, and for no less than a continent at a time, to make sure your
transissions from one weather system to the next is as smooth as IRL.
It's a big world out there ;o)
Tommy C, Denmark
Andrew B
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
The area does look good in FSX, thanks for the screenshots.
It can be a tricky route to follow.
I have posted a series of Google maps with it marked out on
alt.binaries.flightsims.screenshots.
I should have said that the directions are a guide as the loch shores are
not constant in a single direction.
It helps that I have driven the A87 and A82 many times.
Hope this helps
fadeh
> The area does look good in FSX, thanks for the screenshots.
>
> It can be a tricky route to follow.
Ok, here's the map
http://maps.google.it/maps/ms?hl=it&gl=it&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=110975311673659844073.00046de117edd2a96f767
After I studied it a little bit I feel like I can do it :)
Let's see!
fadeh
MikeW
> shywon ha scritto:
>> He said the G word!!
>> shywon
>
Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh dear!
You haven't met Crash Lander yet, have you? Just thought it best to warn you
that he has a ruddy great shottie..... shotgun to us civilised folk. :-)
--
MikeW
Shrewsbury, UK
A pilot who doesn't have any fear probably isn't flying his plane to its
maximum.
fadeh
> You haven't met Crash Lander yet, have you? Just thought it best to warn you
> that he has a ruddy great shottie..... shotgun to us civilised folk. :-)
I'm fucking scared now!
Tell me more about him :D
Danny
is a rare occasion when you see that language in this group. We tend to be
a bit more mature with our postings as you should have noticed if you have
been reading the group for any time period.
Danny
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
news:2KJ3m.744$vG4...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
fadeh
> Hope this helps
Yay! I did it, cant belive cause this area is full of lakes and it's
kinda hard to take the right route but thanx to your invaluable tips and
google maps I landed in Inverness :)
Here are some more sshots:
http://img16.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=lochnessspotted.jpg
(random order, as usual)
1- near Loch Ness
2- Fly over Loch Ness
3- Approacching Inverness Airport
4- Inverness Airport spotted
5- Loch Duich spotted
Thank you,
fadeh
MikeW
> I'm fucking scared now!
fadeh,
It's very rare for contributors of this group to use that kind of language
in this forum. You will find that most of us here, as Danny has already
pointed out, are mature and sensible, and refrain from that type of
language. This is just friendly advice, because if you continue in that sort
of vein, you will find that other contributors will be very reluctant to
converse with you.
> Tell me more about him :D
Crash Lander?
Oh, he is the smart, handsome one from down under, who all the Nigerian
women absolutely adore, so much so they all want to send him millions of
dollars, and........No that's enough for now, I don't want to embarrass him.
Anyway, folks in this group do not refer FS9, FSX as a game, simply because
it's not; its a flight simulator. Whenever anyone mentions the G name here,
the red mist comes down in front of Crash Landers face and he rushes off to
get his 'shottie'. :-)
--
MikeW
Shrewsbury, UK
Try to keep the number of your landings equal to the number of your
takeoffs.
fadeh
> It's very rare for contributors of this group to use that kind of language
> in this forum. You will find that most of us here, as Danny has already
> pointed out, are mature and sensible, and refrain from that type of
> language. This is just friendly advice, because if you continue in that sort
> of vein, you will find that other contributors will be very reluctant to
> converse with you.
Ok, I'm really sorry, even if I dont think that say one dirty word is
immature (I usually judge people for what they say not how they say it)
I'm going to not use this kind of "language" anymore. I like to be part
of this community because I found many interesting people so I want to
follow your unwritten rules.
Sorry again,
fadeh
Danny
it is not a 'dirty word'. I can not recall a time during my conversations
with friends, relatives, pastor, priest, neighbor, when it would have been
appropriate to use the F word. It seems some people try to see how many
times they can use it in a sentence.
To me, it demonstrates ignorance and a lack of care or concern for those
with whom you are talking, working, texting, posting and for those who might
be standing within earshot that are not part of you conversation.
Lest you do not get the gist of my post . . . the F word . . . IS A
DIRTY WORD.
I think you will be and are Welcome here and can contribute to the
collective knowledge.
Danny
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
news:l7N3m.877$vG4...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
fadeh
> Unfortunately, more and more people seem to think the way you do and
> believe it is not a 'dirty word'.
Maybe you misunderstood they way I handle such words. I dont think it's
not a "dirty word" (because it is) and I never said that. I just said
that used sparingly it doesnt demostrate an immature behavior. But
that's me, I understand that other people dont think the same, fine
then, if I want to have a relationship with such people I have to speak
clean, not that hard for me. I'm not used to such words, I just use it
sometimes as intensifying (like: I'm very scared).
I'm not a native english speaker too so maybe I dont even understand the
seriousness of this word for native english speaker.
Anyway I get the point, no problem for me.
fadeh
MikeW
>
> Sorry again,
>
> fadeh
On behalf of the group, fadeh, apologies accepted. I think you will enjoy
your time here and you will soon get to know the various personalities.
Just don't mention the G word :-)
--
MikeW
Shrewsbury, UK
There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold,
pilots!
ManhattanMan
Don't get too upset, it's thrown about quite liberally these days, and has
lost much of it's "sear your brain" effect. It's one of those words that
are about the most diametrically opposed in the english (perhaps others?)
language! You can be looking another human in the eye, and say: (1) F**k
you, or (2) Let's f**k. Same word, with totally opposite meaning - one
saying I'd like to cut your heart out and feed it to the pigs, the other
saying I'd like to experience one of the greatest pleasures in life with
you... So saying "Let's fornicate" is OK? Or "Let's get it on" is any
different?
A great primer for this stuff, is George Carlin's vintage album "Seven words
you can't say on TV". SPOT ON!!!
fadeh
> Andrew B ha scritto:
>> The area does look good in FSX, thanks for the screenshots.
>>
>> It can be a tricky route to follow.
>
> Ok, here's the map
> http://maps.google.it/maps/ms?hl=it&gl=it&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=110975311673659844073.00046de117edd2a96f767
Does this link work for you? The right one should be this:
http://maps.google.it/maps/ms?hl=it&gl=it&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=110975311673659844073.00046de117edd2a96f767&z=9
fadeh
fadeh
> A great primer for this stuff, is George Carlin's vintage album "Seven words
> you can't say on TV". SPOT ON!!!
Not upset at all ;)
Didnt know anything about this George Carlin, going to read something on
wikipedia :D
Thank you,
fadeh
fadeh
> On behalf of the group, fadeh, apologies accepted. I think you will enjoy
> your time here and you will soon get to know the various personalities.
> Just don't mention the G word :-)
Thank you all guys :)
F and G are banned, lesson learned :D
fadeh
fadeh
> Happy flying, and make sure to post pictures for me to see about FSX in
> my area of the world.
Hey mate,
still following this thread?
Just ended a flight from your home airport (CYSC) to CYHU following this
route:
http://maps.google.it/maps/ms?hl=it&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=110975311673659844073.00046de75c7e5f0dff736&t=h&z=9
It was a huge trip like two hours or more, I didnt take a look at
distances :O
I do agree this area isnt rendered that well without any improvement,
I'm going to read something about UT Canada, looks cool. Anyway I
enjoyed this trip and I learned something more about your homeland ;)
Here are some sshots (random order):
http://img200.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=quebec5.jpg
- Landing at CYHU
- It's an hard land (just after the take off)
- First lake I met
- One of the last lakes I met
- Toronto by night
Thank you,
fadeh
fadeh
Why dont you post something about Denmark, it's a cool country, isnt it?
fadeh
fadeh
> - Toronto by night
It's Montreal :D
fadeh
Slap
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
news:QxQ3m.949$vG4...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
> I do agree this area isnt rendered that well without any improvement, I'm
> going to read something about UT Canada, looks cool. Anyway I enjoyed this
> trip and I learned something more about your homeland ;)
>
That would be 'UTX' X is for FSX. They still sell, but do not support 'UT'
which is for FS9 or FS 2004. If you buy you have to be careful you buy for
the right Flight Sim.
I'm from Canada so I've bought UTX Canada. UTX mostly does proper placement
of roads, lakes, etc. It also adds and fixes many towns, cities, etc. Not
really scenery. It is great for people that like to fly VFR.
For example my city... Edmonton (CYXD) MS forgot to do the south half of the
city (other side of the river). That would be a half million people. UTX
Canada fixed the missing parts and because it was over a certain population
hand digitized the commercial, residential, golf courses, parks, etc.
Making it look like a city from the air, but not like Edmonton, just generic
stuff but the industrial areas are in their correct place. MS did throw a
few nice buildings in downtown tho which are correct except for one name and
location of our hockey arena.
Anyway for FSX it UTX for FS9 (2004) it is UT, be it USA, Canada, Europe,
whatever.
--
dave
Crash Lander
> fadeh wrote:
> > shywon ha scritto:
> > > He said the G word!!
> >> shywon
> >
> > Anyway I dont think it's wrong to call FSX a game,
>
> Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh dear!
>
> You haven't met Crash Lander yet, have you? Just thought it best to
> warn you that he has a ruddy great shottie..... shotgun to us
> civilised folk. :-)
**teeth clensching........eyes narrowing.......fists
tightening.....slow but deliberate arm movement towards Shirley (the
shottie)........breathing deepening.......deep tribal growling
beginning to rumble from deep within...**
--
Crash Lander
Some people say I suffer from A.D.D. but they.... OH look!! A chicken!!
http://www.straightandleveldownunder.net
Walter Mitty II
<fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote:
[chuckle] What an effing compliant person you are, Fadeh.
Totalitarian regimes everywhere highly value such charateristics. ;-)
Walt
* * *
Tom Duhamel
> What free scenary do you use to improve this area in fs9?
I use "Scï¿œnes du Quï¿œbec", which requires "Mesh du Quï¿œbec"
The first one is the scenery pack, the second one is a mesh. Both cover
pretty much the entire QC. Both give only subtle changes, but still good
ones, in particular when you know the real places. To my knowledge, none
were updated for FSX, and in fact are quite old. They were available on
Avsim (which is currently down) and perhaps on obscure sites.
>
> Cool, does CYSC have an ILS for this kind of situation?
CYSC does not provide ILS. Only VOR/DME and NDB.
> I'm going to try a trip from CYSC from I-still-dont-know and I'll post
> some comparative pictures.
If there is a rough hill just prior to runway 14, you will know they
haven't updated the mesh in FSX. That is one of the errors which is
fixed by "Mesh du Quebec". There is a hill in front of 14, but it won't
be an obstacle at all if you have a correct slope.
>
>
> Thank you for you exhaustive explanation, is a pleasure to read such
> great informations in a single post ;)
I hope you like reading me, I don't like spending time writing for
nothing :P
Happy simming
Tom :)
Tom Duhamel
> Just ended a flight from your home airport (CYSC) to CYHU following this
> route:
> http://maps.google.it/maps/ms?hl=it&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=110975311673659844073.00046de75c7e5f0dff736&t=h&z=9
>
>
> It was a huge trip like two hours or more, I didnt take a look at
> distances :O
Huh? It is about 90 minutes by car. Perhaps you should set you throttle
power to a little more than 10% lol
Are you sure you haven't got lost somewhere? :P
Really, I fly this area, and it's about 45 minutes at 130 kts (maybe a
few extra minutes in the 172 as it flies slightly slower)
> I do agree this area isnt rendered that well without any improvement,
> I'm going to read something about UT Canada, looks cool. Anyway I
> enjoyed this trip and I learned something more about your homeland ;)
UT definitely looks good and I was considering buying it myself. Not as
cheap as I would hope though.
>
> Here are some sshots (random order):
> http://img200.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=quebec5.jpg
>
> - Landing at CYHU
> - It's an hard land (just after the take off)
> - First lake I met
> - One of the last lakes I met
> - Toronto by night
You should turn on the lights when flying by night, or you will be
invisible to traffic :P
As I understand, you are suppose to turn on the beacon just prior to
starting your engine, so to warn people not to approach the propeller,
and turn it off only after the engine is off. You should wait for until
you arrive on the runway for takeoff before turning on the other lights
(nav and stobes) to avoid visual discomfort to others, and turn them off
again after landing as you leave the runway. Taxi and Landing lights are
for use at night only, and their use is pretty obvious, but again it's
better to not turn the landing light on before you are on the runway, or
others might become aggressive toward you.
Tom :)
fadeh
> [snip]
Thanx for your explanation Dave, much appreciate. I'm going to read
something more about addons and stuff looks like you can really make a
new simulator out of fsx (as you said in a previous post).
fadeh
fadeh
> Huh? It is about 90 minutes by car. Perhaps you should set you throttle
> power to a little more than 10% lol
Yeah really, I made that map before the take off, just to study the area
a little bit. Accordingly to google maps it's long 252km -> 136nm.
I didnt follow the same route perfectly so maybe was even more for me,
anyway I use the skyhawk with a cruise speed of 100knots (land at lower
speeds and climbing at 80knots).
I also usually practice some maneuvers during the trip (like slow speed,
stall, steep turn and stuff). In the end it's not strange at all it took
like 2hrs to complete ;)
> As I understand, you are suppose to turn on the beacon just prior to
> starting your engine, so to warn people not to approach the propeller,
> and turn it off only after the engine is off. You should wait for until
> you arrive on the runway for takeoff before turning on the other lights
> (nav and stobes) to avoid visual discomfort to others, and turn them off
> again after landing as you leave the runway. Taxi and Landing lights are
> for use at night only, and their use is pretty obvious, but again it's
> better to not turn the landing light on before you are on the runway, or
> others might become aggressive toward you.
Thanks for your advice, i've never read anything about lights and how to
correctly use them, but I definetly have to, in the case the night is
going to catch me again by surprise ;)
fadeh
fadeh
> [chuckle] What an effing compliant person you are, Fadeh.
> Totalitarian regimes everywhere highly value such charateristics. ;-)
Ehehe, I'm not forced by anyone to follow this group so it's like a
tradeoff! Liberty for valuable informations ;)
fadeh
fadeh
> **teeth clensching........eyes narrowing.......fists
> tightening.....slow but deliberate arm movement towards Shirley (the
> shottie)........breathing deepening.......deep tribal growling
> beginning to rumble from deep within...**
Oh ehm.. here he is.... I'm running away!
fadeh
Andrew B
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
Well done and it looks like you were set up for a great landing in the dusk
at Inverness and I now wish I had a system that could run FSX.
It is very easy to get a bit lost in that area and with poor weather at low
altitude it can be very dangerous.
You may also enjoy a flight from London Heathrow (EGLL) to London City
(EGLC) which is a easier to navigate but will show some of the sights of
London. Just take off from the busiest U.K. airport and head due east, at
some point about five miles out you should see the river Thames somewhere
around Kew Gardens. Follow the river downstream (Eastwards) as it bends past
Battersea Power Station (four chimneys), the Houses of Parliament (Big
Ben), the London Eye (large wheel), St Paul's Cathedral, HMS Belfast
(warship), Canary Wharf (office tower block), Millennium Dome ( err.. a
dome!), the Thames Barrier (across the river), and just north of the barrier
is London City Airport between King George V Dock and Royal Albert Dock. It
should be a different type of scenery on a fine day.
I'm glad you are enjoying the flying.
--
Andrew B (Cheshire, England)
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
(Lord Kelvin, president Royal Society, 1895.)
TOCA
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:lDQ3m.951$vG4...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
> Forget to thank you TOCA ;)
>
> Why dont you post something about Denmark, it's a cool country, isnt it?
>
>
> fadeh
Most welcome.
It mostly is, but not for the past few days, as summer is doing its outmost
to show what global warming is all about. 30C with humidity at or above 80%,
it's like living in a sauna.
Oh.....you were not talking about the temperature, and the ongoing heat
wave? ;o)
Well yes it's the nicest place on earth, no dangerous insects or animals
sneaking arround, no wolcanoes, earthquakes might hit 3,5 once a century,
the girls like to sunbath topless, yup nice place :o)
In the default MSFS world however it's just a pancake flat piece of grass
land, not a lot to see except a lot of water and lots of small lumps of flat
grass land.
However some nice people have made loads of add-on sceneries for all the old
versions, mostly FS9, which makes it worth a visit
http://www.sitecenter.dk/tommyc/nss-folder/foto2/fsscr000.JPG and
http://www.sitecenter.dk/tommyc/nss-folder/foto2/fsscr001.JPG :o)
The files can be found here: http://www.fsnordic.net/ and they are all free
of charges :o)
What I like the most about those add-on sceneries is, that they makes VFR
flying a lot easier, as you can use ordinary road maps for navigating :o)
Tommy C, Denmark
fadeh
> However some nice people have made loads of add-on sceneries for all the old
> versions, mostly FS9, which makes it worth a visit
> http://www.sitecenter.dk/tommyc/nss-folder/foto2/fsscr000.JPG and
> http://www.sitecenter.dk/tommyc/nss-folder/foto2/fsscr001.JPG :o)
>
> The files can be found here: http://www.fsnordic.net/ and they are all free
> of charges :o)
Lol u made my day :D
Too bad they are for fs9 or previous versions only.
What about UTX Europe? I'm reading something about among many sites and
it looks a really good addon, does it improve Denmark significantly? I'm
considering the possibility of buy the entire UTX sets :O
Last question: didnt find an UTX for Asia/Africa/Oceania, are they
racist? :D
fadeh
fadeh
> You may also enjoy a flight from London Heathrow (EGLL) to London City
> (EGLC) which is a easier to navigate but will show some of the sights of
> London. Just take off from the busiest U.K. airport and head due east, at
> some point about five miles out you should see the river Thames somewhere
> around Kew Gardens. Follow the river downstream (Eastwards) as it bends past
> Battersea Power Station (four chimneys), the Houses of Parliament (Big
> Ben), the London Eye (large wheel), St Paul's Cathedral, HMS Belfast
> (warship), Canary Wharf (office tower block), Millennium Dome ( err.. a
> dome!), the Thames Barrier (across the river), and just north of the barrier
> is London City Airport between King George V Dock and Royal Albert Dock. It
> should be a different type of scenery on a fine day.
Going to try this flight for sure, hope the standard scenery provided by
FSX is cool enough for such a nice city like London.
Just a question for everyone: what's the technical difference between a
scenary addon and a photo-based scenery addon? Maybe the answer is
trivial and I might know it but I want to be sure ;)
(My guess is that a photo-based scenery uses some satellite photos in
order to render the enviroment... but I read something similar about UTX
sceneray and they are not called photo-based and that's why I'm a little
bit confused... maybe because UTX use satellite info to correctly place
stuff but not for visual improvment..)
fadeh
Walter Mitty II
There is something to be said for that apporach. ;-)
Walt
* * *
Danny
festivities, that you have your hand on the correct 'joystick'! Maybe that
is what the X is for in FSX
Danny
"TOCA" <n...@valid.com> wrote in message
news:4a508900$0$15876$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
Slap
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
news:dA04m.1142$vG4...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
> Just a question for everyone: what's the technical difference between a
> scenary addon and a photo-based scenery addon? Maybe the answer is trivial
> and I might know it but I want to be sure ;)
>
I never tried photo scenery that you can buy. Typically it's not done right
in my book. I've done some myself (a snap from Google Earth) but only to
the place generic buildings for accuracy and then I turn it off. Why?
Photo scenery sits on top of and covers up the FSX scenery. The stuff I do
just doesn't do the night or seasons very good at all. I'm not sure if the
stuff you can buy does it properly. Maybe someone knows but if it doesn't
have winter or night...
> (My guess is that a photo-based scenery uses some satellite photos in
> order to render the enviroment... but I read something similar about UTX
> sceneray and they are not called photo-based and that's why I'm a little
> bit confused... maybe because UTX use satellite info to correctly place
> stuff but not for visual improvment..)
>
Think of UTX as you would a GPS unit. The background for UTX is of course
is FSX. The background for a GPS unit is probably something like Google
maps.
The UTX people purchase the GPS data from various suppliers (depends on
country) and then process for the Flight Sim to re-sell to you and me.
Still my favorite add-on.
--
dave
TOCA
"Danny" <drm...@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:h2q79n$1js$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Wow. I have never seen that Tommy. Make sure, while parked at the beach
> festivities, that you have your hand on the correct 'joystick'! Maybe
> that is what the X is for in FSX
>
> Danny
>
No it's why FS9 is rated +16, while FSX is rated E ;o)
Tommy C, Denmark
Slap
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
news:Hh04m.1130$vG4...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>
> What about UTX Europe? I'm reading something about among many sites and it
> looks a really good addon, does it improve Denmark significantly? I'm
> considering the possibility of buy the entire UTX sets :O
>
The UTX forum is here...
http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_topics.asp?FID=19
The developers are always there. Join up and ask them but someone here
might have UTX Europe and can answer your question. At that page there is
screen shots for Europe (top few stickies). Also the 4th sticky - USA
slideshow is a great general idea on what UTX does.
> Last question: didnt find an UTX for Asia/Africa/Oceania, are they racist?
> :D
>
No. I think often the cost of purchasing the data - well they would not be
able to recover costs. Probably not enough FSX users in say Africa to
justify the data purchase. Australia is done by I think Orbx or something
like that. Very good I understand. There are people here from Australia
that know. Orbx is here...
http://orbxsystems.com/products.html
--
dave
TOCA
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
I can't be sure, as I still haven't made the plunge for FSX, but I have what
seams to be a simmilar ting for my FS9, called FS-Global. What it does is
improving the terrain, making mountains look like mountains and not roling
hills, and it also makes auto generated towns a bit more realistic, by
putting industrial areas where they belong, instead of the standard mess of
industrial buildings and living quarters placed at random, some major roads
are added in their correct locations, and a few more nice extra features.
You see, MSFS is made in USA, which is why that area is made in a better
ressolution, and with more details, than the rest of the world, UTX and
others like that, gives you the same landclass ressolution in the rest of
the world as MS gave the US, not the landmark buildings, but the major roads
and more realistic looking mountains and cities, plus it corrects the shore
lines a bit.
The best comparrison I can think of, from the top of my head, is a satelite
used for depicting the FS world, for USA, MS used a 8 Megapixel camera, and
a 3-5 Mpix one for the rest of the world, UTX used a 12 Mpix camera.
Tommy C, Denmark
TOCA
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>
> Just a question for everyone: what's the technical difference between a
> scenary addon and a photo-based scenery addon? Maybe the answer is trivial
> and I might know it but I want to be sure ;)
>
> (My guess is that a photo-based scenery uses some satellite photos in
> order to render the enviroment... but I read something similar about UTX
> sceneray and they are not called photo-based and that's why I'm a little
> bit confused... maybe because UTX use satellite info to correctly place
> stuff but not for visual improvment..)
>
>
> fadeh
Sandard sceneries are made from satelite images, using different degrees of
acuracy (ressolution), while photo sceneries usually are made from photos
taken from aircrafts and renderedinto the FS. Photo real scneries are the
most accurate, when it comes to shore lines, and lanscape types (forrests,
farm fields, urban areas, etc.) they usually even have harbours and marinas
depicted, and a collection of landmark buildings.
Photoreal sceneries are emensly expensive, but if you are into VFR flying
and sight seeing, they are the best avilable. However the nimber of creative
people using MSFS is unbelievable, so you are able to get most major cities
of the world at bagain prizes from most FS sites, made by people who makes
them the hard way, by photgraphing the buildings and rendering them one by
one into the sim, using GPS coordinates.
I love going sight seeing in the sim world, but I have notised that there is
not a lot to see, outside the US of A, so when ever I get an idea for a new
place to visit, i go chasing for add-on sceneries for that part of the world
and installs them, before flying there, also get the local airports for the
best experience ;o)
One of the best I've come across is Glacier Bay, Alaska, which again I
haven't yet seen for FSX :o/
On the down side, those extra sceneries does slow your sim down, when flying
near them, as it makes for more buildings and stuff to be computed :o(
Tommy C, Denmark
Sim tourrist
fadeh
I'm going to buy maybe with a mesh-optimizer like FS Global 2008.
fadeh
fadeh
fadeh
fadeh
> Still my favorite add-on.
Yeah, after reading a lot I'm going to give a try to UTX Europe, thanx
for you explanation!
fadeh
fadeh
something free).
fadeh
fadeh
> Going to try this flight for sure, hope the standard scenery provided by
> FSX is cool enough for such a nice city like London.
Done. Spotted the majority of sites using FSX vanilla. I'm going to do a
comparative test when UTX Europe comes in to my hand. I've also seen
some good scenery for London only (like the Aerosoft one) but I dont
think I'm going to spend some money for just a city. I'm looking for a
free one tho.
I'll let you know, if you're interested ;)
fadeh
MikeW
You got off lightly there, fadeh! ROTFL
--
MikeW
Shrewsbury, UK
If you're faced with a forced landing, fly the thing as far into the crash
as possible.
Danny
Fjords and Tongass Fjords for FS9 as well.These add-ons really improved
simming in Alaska.
Holger Sandman has just finish Tongass Fjords for FS10. Payware, however.
Danny
"TOCA" <n...@valid.com> wrote in message
news:4a50b6fb$0$15895$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
Slap
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
> Yeah, thank you, already been on that forum. UTX is definetly something
> I'm going to buy maybe with a mesh-optimizer like FS Global 2008.
>
>
>
> fadeh
FSGenesis does mesh and could use the bucks. Might even have a sale on.
Not sure how his mesh compares with FS Global 2008 as to cost and coverage.
Someone should know. I just bought the Canada Mesh only. Tough to get out
of Canada with a prop ya know.
Now the Duke (RealAir) has all the nav stuff so I'm going to start
traveling... as soon as I get my yoke set up (yeah!).
FSGenesis is here...
http://www.fsgenesis.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc
looks like $59 for world wide coverage for FSX. Not sure how that compares
with FSGlobal in price.... looked it up... it appears you get both fs9 and
fsx for the same price?
--
dave
fadeh
> looks like $59 for world wide coverage for FSX. Not sure how that
> compares with FSGlobal in price.... looked it up... it appears you get
> both fs9 and fsx for the same price?
Yeah, the package contains both versions on 4 DVDs (2 x DVD5 and 2 x
Double-Layer DVD10).
fadeh
TOCA
"Danny" <drm...@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:h2r290$uk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In the same vein as Glacier Bay V2 for FS9, there was the payware Misty
> Fjords and Tongass Fjords for FS9 as well.These add-ons really improved
> simming in Alaska.
>
> Holger Sandman has just finish Tongass Fjords for FS10. Payware, however.
> Danny
>
>
>
he must be a true patriot, making such an effort to make his home state look
great :o)
Tommy C, Denmark
scott s.
news:4a50ad9f$0$15889$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk:
>
> You see, MSFS is made in USA, which is why that area is made in a
> better ressolution, and with more details, than the rest of the
> world, UTX and others like that, gives you the same landclass
> ressolution in the rest of the world as MS gave the US, not the
> landmark buildings, but the major roads and more realistic looking
> mountains and cities, plus it corrects the shore lines a bit.
That, and the fact you can go to the USGS data servers and download
for free 0.3 m resolution photo data for much of the US, 30m or better
horizontal resolution elevation data, and terrain vector data
including shorelines, streams, and roads all for FREE. You can
download from NOAA for FREE all marine navigational charts (raster and
vector) for the US. Try doing that anywhere else in the world (Canada
has some stuff on their Geobase site, but not as much). UK wants you
to buy from UK Ordnance Survey, any data you need. Don't even think
you have a chance of getting data for the continent, let alone other
parts of the world.
scott s.
.
Andrew B
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
Just tried the flight again myself and I didn't see HMS Belfast or the
London Barrage and yet I'm sure the barrage was there at one time or
another. I can only think that it may have been when I was using VFR Photo
Scenery for Wales and South West England which I decided to remove a while
ago.
You may find http://walhalla.mine.nu/fsx.php an interesting site, try seeing
what Italy brings up. I should say that this site is providing links and
also that some scenery is better than others, it can be rather hit and miss
with what you get and how easily it installs (well in FS9 at any rate, don't
know about FSX). Also some of the links may require registration.
fadeh
> Just tried the flight again myself and I didn't see HMS Belfast or the
> London Barrage and yet I'm sure the barrage was there at one time or
> another. I can only think that it may have been when I was using VFR Photo
> Scenery for Wales and South West England which I decided to remove a while
> ago.
Exactly, HMS Belfast and Thames Barrier are missing. I dont expect to
see them in UTX Europe anyway :\
If you have any other cool trip, please show me ;)
> You may find http://walhalla.mine.nu/fsx.php an interesting site, try seeing
> what Italy brings up. I should say that this site is providing links and
> also that some scenery is better than others, it can be rather hit and miss
> with what you get and how easily it installs (well in FS9 at any rate, don't
> know about FSX). Also some of the links may require registration.
Wow what a nice site. Too bad most file were on avsim's library. Is
there a mirror of avsim somewhere on the net (going to search by myself
too)?
(I know my english my sounds funny/incomprehensible, I'm sorry ;))
fadeh
fadeh
http://orbxsystems.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=cbe18569b35efef35ee5777f95f8e3ae&board=70.0
Have fun,
fadeh
Tom Duhamel
> Wow what a nice site. Too bad most file were on avsim's library. Is
> there a mirror of avsim somewhere on the net (going to search by myself
> too)?
A mirror of what was probably the largest collection of FS files,
probably several hundred gigabytes in size? I doubt it :)
However, the guy behind Avsim said he had recovered over 90% of the
files that the site should be back any day from now. I guess we need to
be patient, and donate our loose change in order to help him.
It's been almost two months now, and I hate when I find something cool,
only to realize the link takes you to avsim...
Tom :)
Andrew B
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
>
> If you have any other cool trip, please show me ;)
Had to think long and hard about this one. I have had considerable enjoyment
from route planning and flying a round the world trip, a round Australia
trip and a round the UK trip . I am currently flying a round Europe trip
taking in all the airstrips able to take a Boeing 737 (it could take some
time), North America is probably next unless I get distracted. However they
were not true sightseeing flights though I did see some sights.
You could perhaps try to follow the route that 'Flight 19' failed to
complete and do it by headings without the use of a GPS.
From Fort Lauderdale fly almost due east for 56 miles (90 km) until reaching
Hens and Chickens Shoals (where bombing practice was planned) then continue
due east another 67 miles (108 km) before turning onto a course of 346 for
73 miles (117 km) over-flying Grand Bahamas Island. Finally, turn onto a
course of 241 degrees for 120 miles (193 km), bringing you back to NAS Ft.
Lauderdale. This will take over a couple of hours.
There is also a number of lists on the web of the worlds most dangerous
airports. Try a flight into (EGPR) as it is a dangerous and unique
international airport possibly taking off from say Glasgow (EGPF) though
again it will take over an hour.
You should also try a flight further North in order to experience the Aurora
Borealis, a flight from Akureyi (BIAR) to Keflavik (BIKF) should be about
155 miles and have the desired result.
>
> Wow what a nice site. Too bad most file were on avsim's library. Is there
> a mirror of avsim somewhere on the net (going to search by myself too)?
>
Sorry but Avsim suffered a major outage that they are gradually recovering
from, all due to the worlds biggest (expletives deleted) who should suffer
from all the worlds greatest curses coming true at once.
(I know my english my sounds funny/incomprehensible, I'm sorry ;))
>
Your English sounds just fine, molto meglio di uno dei miei limitato
italiano.
Dallas
> I'm not a native english speaker too so maybe I dont even understand the
> seriousness of this word for native english speaker.
Your English is better that many English speakers... What is your native
language? Italian?
--
Dallas
fadeh
> Your English is better that many English speakers... What is your native
> language? Italian?
Yep!
fadeh
> Had to think long and hard about this one. I have had considerable enjoyment
> from route planning and flying a round the world trip, a round Australia
> trip and a round the UK trip . I am currently flying a round Europe trip
> taking in all the airstrips able to take a Boeing 737 (it could take some
> time), North America is probably next unless I get distracted. However they
> were not true sightseeing flights though I did see some sights.
USA coast to coast is definetly something I want to try these days!
Need to do a flight plan, it requires a lot of time I guess, maybe we
can share some informations ;)
> You could perhaps try to follow the route that 'Flight 19' failed to
> complete and do it by headings without the use of a GPS.
> From Fort Lauderdale fly almost due east for 56 miles (90 km) until reaching
> Hens and Chickens Shoals (where bombing practice was planned) then continue
> due east another 67 miles (108 km) before turning onto a course of 346 for
> 73 miles (117 km) over-flying Grand Bahamas Island. Finally, turn onto a
> course of 241 degrees for 120 miles (193 km), bringing you back to NAS Ft.
> Lauderdale. This will take over a couple of hours.
Cool, I wasn't aware of this "Flight 19", I'm reading about it on
wikipedia right now, thanx Andrew.
> There is also a number of lists on the web of the worlds most dangerous
> airports. Try a flight into (EGPR) as it is a dangerous and unique
> international airport possibly taking off from say Glasgow (EGPF) though
> again it will take over an hour.
Sounds funny ;)
Once I've heard about an Honduras's airport that's considered one of the
most dangerous of the world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAxAso8xSo0
> You should also try a flight further North in order to experience the Aurora
> Borealis, a flight from Akureyi (BIAR) to Keflavik (BIKF) should be about
> 155 miles and have the desired result.
Wow, in my wish-list.
> Sorry but Avsim suffered a major outage that they are gradually recovering
> from, all due to the worlds biggest (expletives deleted) who should suffer
> from all the worlds greatest curses coming true at once.
Lol! Yeah too bad... Hope they can get that site up and running again :\
> (I know my english my sounds funny/incomprehensible, I'm sorry ;))
>
> Your English sounds just fine, molto meglio di uno dei miei limitato
> italiano.
Nice! Almost right ;)
Thanx,
fadeh
Cow@me.com Canuck
"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:3a38dii2n5iw.1s...@40tude.net...
Dallas
> Wot eez yourz meester Dallas?
'Merican
--
Dallas
Dallas
> Dallas ha scritto:
>> What is your native language? Italian?
> Yep!
Yeah, I could tell by your accent.
:- )
--
Dallas
fadeh
> Yeah, I could tell by your accent.
Damn, is that obvious? :D
fadeh
Andrew B
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> wrote in message
> Andrew B ha scritto:
>> You should also try a flight further North in order to experience the
>> Aurora
>> Borealis, a flight from Akureyi (BIAR) to Keflavik (BIKF) should be
>> about
>> 155 miles and have the desired result.
>
> Wow, in my wish-list.
>
Tried this myself last night and for some reason no Northern Lights! I'm not
sure why, maybe I'm normally higher as I'm usually flying the stock 737 or
larger but I did get the 172 up to 15,000ft without success. I tried various
seasons and times but still nothing. Maybe I was too far West or maybe it
was the weather (I use real world), I don't know but I will try again
tonight with other locations until I find them again and then let you know,
if I find them.
Reading about it seems to indicate that the best chances are at night,
September to October and March to April and the further North the better.
They have always seemed easy to find until last night :-(
fadeh
> Tried this myself last night and for some reason no Northern Lights!
Same here. There are some tips on the web to spot it, but looks like AB
is "totally" random so it's a matter of luck.
Anyway I took some cool pics I wanna share, hope you like it:
http://img36.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=iceland3.jpg
fadeh
TOCA
"fadeh" <fad...@CHECETOCCAFAgmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:Wx25m.4013$vG4....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
You are deffinately not going to see Auroras this time of year, as the sun
is not setting above the areas where they occur ;o)
Yes they are randomly occuring, when you fly North of the 60th paralel, in
the mid Winther season you can even find it as far South as 50'N. I have
seen them when flying home to EKCH from some where in the Southern Europe
:o)
My first encounter with the Aurora Borealis was durring my first "Arround
the World non stop" flight, in the Virgin Global Flyer, and I imediately had
to report it here :o)
My guess is, that you need to go South, this time of year, to see the Aurora
Australis instead? Try places like the Falkland Islands or South Georgia
Islands, they should be far enough down there, I don't think neither
Melbourne nor Auckland is far enough?
Tommy C, Denmark
fadeh
> You are deffinately not going to see Auroras this time of year, as the sun
> is not setting above the areas where they occur ;o)
Yep I was just switching among seasons to take sshots, I do not usually
use real weather/time ;)
> My first encounter with the Aurora Borealis was durring my first "Arround
> the World non stop" flight, in the Virgin Global Flyer, and I imediately had
> to report it here :o)
Wow sounds pretty cool, how was it?
> My guess is, that you need to go South, this time of year, to see the Aurora
> Australis instead? Try places like the Falkland Islands or South Georgia
> Islands, they should be far enough down there, I don't think neither
> Melbourne nor Auckland is far enough?
Ye, I'm definetly going to try again and again from different locations,
I'll let you know.
Thanx for your help,
fadeh