Posts by Spit40

Yes I take your point. ILS (and local terrain) is probably what makes it complex otherwise you could just pick whichever runway is closest to upwind or randomly pick from parallel runways. That is kind of what I'm doing now. That data could be got without external references - just by looking at the FS2 runway definition files. In terms of what random scenarios could be offered by PJ I'm not entirely sure what's realistic but plenty of real world pilots on this forum would be able to suggest things. Maybe something to consider when you have more time.

Quote from Ozav8r

I'm a Pimax 8K Kickstarter backer, but as my number is high (in the 5.000's) I still have some time to decide if I should "downgrade" to the 5K+. I am using VR almost exclusively for flight simming, and I am drawn to the higher resolution and reduced SDE on the 8K, but the improved clarity and sharpness reported by reviewers of the 5K+ over the 8K, is very tempting. What to do.......?

When do you expect to get your Pimax? Have they been in contact recently?

It seems to me that 8k is a waste of time if It only receives 5k's worth of pixels.

Hey perestain I have another idea for an improvement. I've used Pilot Journey for every flight i've made since you launched it. I love the variety of time and weather it generates so i've been thinking of other aspects of my flights which i don't tend to vary but i could.

How about if PJ did some ATC style things like specify what runway you should land on and whether you had to join the traffic pattern or should fly straight in?

Quote from TomB

I guess this only works with touch controllers?

i don't think there's any other way.

• Launch FS2 in VR
• Click the Touch menu button,
• click to view the desktop
• find notepad
• Point at it with Touch, click and hold the trigger while you use the grab action to pull it out of the desktop into its own window
• Now while holding the grab, move it where you want it
• Size it with the thumb joystick
• Point at the pin icon bottom right to pin it inside your VR view
• Now click the touch menu again to return to FS2
• Mess around a bit grabbing and moving to position it where you want in the aircraft

This actually works pretty well and I use it on every flight now. I make a few notes about navigational aids, elevation of the airfield I'm landing at etc. I put them in a notepad file then use the Rift's new pin window feature to place the notes on the copilot's seat so I can glance at them when I need. PDFs of approach plates work too. It looks a bit funny if you switch to a different view than the pilot's but I'll live with that until IPACS make the electronic flight bag they've been talking about.

I'm really enjoying your weekly updates. Thanks !

Quote from Overloaded

It is not a VOR, it's a TACAN only transmitter intended for military aircraft, the only use to civilian aircraft is as a sort of stand-alone DME, not of much use to light aircraft but an accurate input for an Area Navigation system in larger planes. The DME is much more RNAV dependable than a VOR signal.

Only a VORTAC is worth showing on civilian charts. Another factor with charts is that VORs are being withdrawn at a high rate and FS2 will feature VORs that are not there anymore.

If you select the Las Vegas 1:500,000 chart in SkyVector or if you have real charts, the Nav Aid symbols are shown on the edge.

Thanks. With that circle over it I thought it was a VORTAC, but zooming in I see it is just a TACAN. So FS2 shouldn't have let me use it as a VOR after all.

I hope FS2 hangs on to the old VORs so I can carry on retro-flying. It feels too easy using GPS.

Yes FS2 recognises it as a VOR Ray but i don't like the Fs2 navigation screens. I'm just wondering why the proper chart doesn't show a VOR symbol. Overloaded thanks for reminding me about the 'world lo' option in skyvector. I generally use 'world vfr'. Do you know why this VOR wouldn't appear on the 'world vfr' map?

I am curious whether anyone else is tempted to go for the 5K plus. It is fairly clear that this is the better option compared to the Pimax 8k which upsamples rather than use native resolution. I am on Oculus at the moment, so the switch would mean giving up on the oculus tracking system and going with the Vive technology. Hanging around for a decent oculus upgrade no longer seems sensible since oculus announced that the Rift S will only be an incremental improvement and they don't really want to cater to the high end PC market segment.

Ideally I would have waited for the 8Kx as I don't like to upgrade hardware unless there is a good step up. I really don't think that near-term GPU technology can handle it though. We need foveated rendering but nobody is talking about being even close with that. So I'm left wondering whether to compromise on the 5K plus on the basis that nothing better will be available for a good 18 to 24 months.

I'd be interested in the thoughts of others in similar situations.

I just made a short flight courtesy of PilotJourney from Furnace Creek to Inyokern. I like to use Skyvector to work out distances, flIght levels, navigational aids and headings. At first i thought there were no VORs in range (especially as FS2 doesn't register them beyond 60nm or so) but then discovered that China Lake has a TACAN/VOR.

My question is about how to know this from a glance at the chart. I see none of the usual markings. No mention of the 111.6 frequency. Is there something to indicate a navaid of some kind?

I'm pleased to see Steam VR at 60% too. If you could get to 100% you'd be using all the pixels at native res.

I find it interesting how the CPU is a factor - we're always hearing how the CPU sits quite relaxed in FS2.

Your previous report was Steam VR 40% - have you noticed extra clarity moving to 60% ?

The other take away from this is that holding out for the 8Kx is perhaps not a good idea. Until we have foveated rendering no GPU will be able to cope for a good while to come with 8k pixels natively rendered.

Quote from Jet-Pack

This is not correct, its not just a countdown, we actually simulate fuel flow and fuel pressure on the each of the fuel lines and also simulate fuel valves, etc.. (see my post above)

Great. So no mass reduction and no engine cut out but for perestain 's pilot journey it would be fit for purpose to stick a fuel level into the tsc before launching fs2 and there could be a penalty for the fuel low light coming on e.g. Emergency landing/recovery/repair.

Quote from J van E

Looks more like a countdown timer to me. It has no relation to anything you do. Right now the 'visual fuelflow' is more some sort of gimmick. As said before, once it hits zero the times stops but you simpy keep flying. There also is no change in weight which is why you can so easily skip a part of flight using the Location screen: your weight at arrival will be the same as your take off weight anyway.

thanks for the clarification.

Quote from J van E

It's only visual indeed and weight and balance never change. Fuel usage isn't simulated (yet).

..but it does go down? At a sensible rate from your experience?

Quote from sydel7912

Hello,

I found out that the low fuel warning in the C172 never illuminates so I've played around with the settings in the TMD file and had to change the logic condition from 0.01892705 to 16.01892705 to finally see the warning below average 5 gallons.

Just wanted to let you know.

Code

            <[logic_greater][LeftFuelLow][]
                <[string8][Input0][16.01892705]>  //<[string8][Input0][0.01892705]>
                <[string8][Input1][LeftFuelTank.Output]>
            >

Also, I have a question for Jan Jet-Pack (IPACS) : is there a way to calculate a random value for the fuel fill level?

Code

            // 26 Gal avgas with 0.780 kg per l avgas
            <[fuel_tank][LeftFuelTank][]
                <[float64][MaximumQuantity][76.768]>
                <[float64][FillLevel][0.22]> --> random formula with result between say 0.30 and 0.80
                <[string8][InputPressure][LeftWingFuelLine.Output]>
                <[string8][AddFlow][LeftWingFuelLine.AddFlow]>
            >

This is interesting. I haven't looked closely - does the C172 record fuel usage? And is it reasonably accurate? Also I guess it would be possible to manually edit the C172 TSC file and modify <[float64][FillLevel][0.22]> before launching FS2. This might be done using perestain 's Pilot Journey mission generator which already edits main.mcf.

I doubt the aircraft would plummet to the ground if fuel hit 0 but for Pilot Journey it would be interesting to incorporate a penalty for triggering the low fuel light.

Quote from W.B.

That's really cheerful, I was afraid there won't be more IPACS scenery but only orbx in the future. To be honest, I prefer IPACS's regions than orbx's(specifically speaking: netherlands trueearth). Although IPACS don't place buildings and vegetations as accurately as orbx does, but they provide much much better airports. Shouldn't airports be spent the most work to build in a flight simulator scenery? It's an incredible scenery but I rarely fly in netherlands in aerofly because of the airports. Hoping British and PNW trueearth can improve a bit.

To make all 40+ airports in a region (500+ in the UK) to the quality of handmade individual airports isn't possible for a price most people would pay. I'm sure they will improve though after this first region release. Do you have a list of what you'd most like to see?

Quote from jetflyer

Thanks for your reply Spit40.

I checked (again) some other airports I have installed and they are all fine.

Then I installed some other FSCloud airports from Norway and guess what, they have also that "spikes".

So there must be something wrong with the (my) elevation files in that region.

Have to invesigate that.

I just worked out the same thing. I don't think it is the airport. It's the elevation data for Norway. This has been talked about before. FS2's elevation gets weird above certain latitudes.

Will try to get a chance later today. Are you sure all your other FSCP airports are still working OK? Can you see anything different about this one?

Quote from kai503

It's like building a real plane.

looking fantastic. Yes, that's the impression i have formed about the challenge of building aircraft - it does seem to be as complex as a real one.