effte

The big iron flies NDB procedures off the INS or even GPS these days, with raw data monitoring (at least in theory - legend has it a B744 skipper got in trouble for flying a hold on a non-operational and NOTAMed NDB). The joy of trying to establish on local thunderstorms is becoming a GA thing, so we can happily cheat in DCS I think. IIRC, you're even allowed to use GNSS in lieu of markers on approaches in the US these days - maybe even in lieu of DME, can't really recall the regs there.

Depth, ...so you can turn the APU off.

Naaaah, you can punch in the NDB coordinates and fly faux NDB approaches on steerpoints. Much more fun. ;)

I spotted one. The localizer, as depicted, is focused on approach threshold rather than the antenna array. Other than that, it seems right?

Hours later, it still said I had four hours to go on the demo install. Abysmally slow download speeds from two servers (numbered 4 and 7 - what about 1-3 and 5-6?). How many copies sold at US$80 (without a retail chain to feed, mind you) does it take to actually provide bandwidth to potential customers? Well, if you design your install as a torrent download of sorts there's gonna be a possibility to interrupt the install and continue from where it left off, especially when it's a multi-hour affair even with a high-bandwidth internet connection. Right. Right?! Nope. When you hit "quit" you are informed that you will have to start over if you do quit the install. You are then offered a button to 'cancel'. Allright, I'll just let it run overnight, so I 'cancel' quitting. Aha. The other button blanks out, leaving the 'cancel' button and the fine print next to it on-screen for a few seconds. You get ample time to read the text completing the 'cancel' button with 'the download and delete the partially installed demo of X-Plane 10'. Then the install quits, assumedly doing what it said and deleting the partial install. Third page on The Book of interface design, I think. 'Cancel' is to be used to 'cancel' the current action and return to what you were doing. ZQuickSilverZ, 120% agreed on XP9. Judging by my experience so far, I suspect you will find an interface in XP10 which isn't exactly following the established interface design guidelines. The PR feed probably calls it 'unique' and 'innovative'. I will give it another chance. Don't miss it. Same bat time, same bat channel. I'd like to make clear that I really, really hope to be wrong and find a great sim. As I've stated, I have no love lost for FSX and FS9 is running on life support these days. We need a replacement to come along.

No accusation suspected. The flight sim sector is indeed plagued with "fanboism", as it has been called in some forums. I think ragging on X-Plane is one of the most efficient ways of bringing them out of the woodwork, but FS has it's fair share as well. As for first impression, you got it in my last post. Still waiting to be able to have a second impression. :) Oh, this just in: TrackIR support still broken in FSX. Viewpoint repositioning only works as long as TIR is disabled. There's a way around it though, if you feel you need to be able to reposition your viewpoint in flight. Buy an addon, costing more than the simulator itself costs in the bargain bins. I'm sticking with FS9... but I think I have said that already? :D

Well, X-Plane has always been the biggest, best, most realistic, most scientific simulator with the best coverage, best scenery, best atmosphere, best graphics, most addons etc etc etc according to Austin and the X-Plane fans, in every version. At the asking price, it had to be. Especially once you had shelled out that amount. So far, it hasn't ever been in the eyes of most of the rest of the world. I wouldn't go the route of accusing the appreciation for other products of being the product of less-than-objective fans if I was in the X-plane camp. :) Installing the demo as I'm typing, so I guess I'll see for myself in a bit. One thing is for certain though: The FS series isn't moving anywhere. FSX is still a bugfest IMO, and will never be anything else. The rest of the world moves on. It will be surpassed. If XP10 is that new summit, or if it will be XP11... or something else entirely... remains to be seen. (Oh great, the demo installer just started a built-in torrent client on my system without asking. "In a bit" seems to be three hours away at the moment.)

Zenga, you need to read the post before the post you replied to, as well as the third post preceding it. No, the discussion at the time was not "how to fly and enhance and ILS approach with the hog". All sorted now, so the post served it's purpose. :thumbup:

No, they're less awful. :) That aside, it's easier to get hold of high-grade aircraft for FSX, freeware in particular but also payware. Less crap to wade through, certainly, or at least easier to filter - be it due to whatever reason, that's my subjective experience. Once the aircraft issue is sorted, I've found FS far more complete, with the caveat that I have not tried XP10. Guess I have to do that someday soonish.

Sobek, for add-ons, I'd agree. However, the sim maker provides the default aircraft with a product labelled as a flight simulator and not a flight environment.

Yes, and I second the opinion! :D

Erm, approaches when you CAN'T see the runway is what the ILS is there for. I feel like I got a glimpse into an alternate reality here, with discussion about whether or not to use it in visual conditions... :)

To enjoy FS you need: 1) Base simulator 2) One good aircraft, payware or freeware Most people aren't content with flying one aircraft, and don't want to limit themselves, to the free ones. Hence the "you need to buy add-ons" opinions. Try the XP demo. FWIW, I found XP9 useless out of the box. All gimmick, nothing which flew well.

Well, if we are going to rate things by "achievement per development team member", then one-man development efforts will likely boom. :) Me, I tend to judge by absolute quality and in that respect, for a "fly around the real world in a manner as close to real world flying as possible", FS9 still holds my personal highschore. FSX has slightly better handling but is more buggy in most other respects, meaning FS9 is still my choice. With a good set of third-party terrain, mind you. X-Plane 9 was... interesting. If I wanted to plod around in the detailed sceneries and nothing else then maybe, just maybe... provided I could find a good C172 and King Air 200. No joy there so far. Have yet to give X-plane 10 a shot, but I read the list of improvements and they weren't the ones I was hoping for. The series has never failed to underwhelm me - and that's even without considering Austin's constant marketing hype.

Nothing to see... move on, move on... FS9 it is then, for the foreseeable future.

No, you do get better overall performance when it is cold. Significantly so.

But a higher RPM isn't the purpose in itself, right? What does the higher RPM (and increased mass flow) enable the engine to produce more of... ? ;)

You'd think aircraft would get lighter with more advanced avionics. Interestingly, they usually don't. We rip out one clock and put in two elecronic boxes and a display/control head... and it all just got heavier. More capable, but heavier. Bit of the same with UAVs. Rip out the pilot, ejection seat, life support, pressurization, presentation etc etc. Allright. Lots of space, lots of weight saved. Now, add advanced comms gear (with encryption worth the name this time around), sensor suites, automation... whooops! Back where you started. Humans are amazingly space and weight efficient sensor suites and infomation processors. Then you want HALE and can't AAR (yet - I'm sure we'll see it), so you end up filling every nook and cranny with fuel. Where's that 18 kilometer runway when you need it? Still don't see UAVs in the A/A role either, or in the near future. Now, tell me where I'm mistaken as seen from a UAV driver's perspective. ;)

One way to visualize it: Consider the temperature of the air in a container as the speed of the air molecules. Pressure is created as the molecules bump into the walls of the container. Increase the speed of the molecules, and you need fewer to create the same pressure. Same pressure, same volume, fewer molecules - lower density. Cheers, Fred

Reading the whole thread probably would have been a good idea. At a given pressure, colder means denser. Ideal gas law: pV = nRT pressure, Volume, number of particles, R is a constant, T is the temperature (in Kelvin, of course). Only fully applicable to ideal gases, which the atmosphere isn't, but still tells you the relationships involved. n = pV/(RT), or "the amount of air molecules (i e density) in a given volume is proportional to the inverse of the temperature (1/T)". Double the temperature, half the density. The rest, well, don't think you know anything just since it was taught in ground school. I'm afraid they teach just enough to let people sit up front and drive without screwing up too badly, and simplify to make it understandable enough after a very short time in the classrom and without a background in physics, maths or engineering. Unfortunately, "enough" in this case is often far from "correct". I'm often horrified by just how little you really are required to know and understand to hold an ATPL, leave alone a CPL. Fortunately, most pilots know more... or we'd have an AF447 every few weeks.

Couple of references here. Cheers, Fred

"Clean configuration" has a clear and unambigious meaning in all kinds of aviation where we're not engaged in delivering unwanted cargo without landing - gear and flaps up. However, And if we are to get specific: The dash one goes on to talk about "clean + 11 pylons" for best glide (obviously using Tharos' definition above). In the stores configuration charts, 'clean' is defined as 'pylon removed'. Under adverse weather ops, it's back to using clean to mean "no flaps". Under stores drag, we have "Baseline aircraft is clean with 11 pylons installed". Under definitions on external stores, 'clean' is not an included alternative. I can see where it gets confusing... :D (And then we have not even mentioned the "clean aircraft concept" from winter ops yet... muahaha!) Edit: I also added my AAR A/S references in my earlier post, as promised.

Frostiken, you need to hang out at more northern (or southern) latitudes. :) Oil temperatures become a problem eventually, with aux gearboxes requiring warmup time and what not. Cheers, Fred

F4 is cheating and engaging a "tractor beam" once latched on. Even in BMS. No idea why.

Ah, this thread is looking better. Nice. Well done, I edited my post as well. Clean is used to denote gear and flaps up, but I have seen it used to mean "without stores" as well. I used it in the first sense, which is obvious from context only if you have the right background I guess. I should have been more careful with the terminology. Apologies for the ambiguity.