MS Flight Sim X

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
I still have problems with that in MSFS too. I also can't land on the
runway (or at least stay on the runway) and can't even line up with the
runway w/o a 10 mile final and an ILS.

I suspect that it is either it is the lack of depth perception without a
true 3D view or we're relying the G-forces that are produced when we're in a
turn to tell us how much to bank as compared to just reading the gauges...

"Grumman-581" writes:

I suspect that it is either it is the lack of depth perception without a
true 3D view or we're relying the G-forces that are produced when we're in a
turn to tell us how much to bank as compared to just reading the gauges...

Plus a limited field of vision, since it is difficult to "turn one's
head" in MSFS.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Robert M. Gary writes:

I still have problems with that in MSFS too. I also can't land on the
runway (or at least stay on the runway) and can't even line up with the
runway w/o a 10 mile final and an ILS.

What type of joystick/yoke/throttle combination and model are you
using (if any)?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

gpsman writes:

IIRC you never bothered to complete the flight lessons in MSFS and
haven't yet achieved the proficiency to climb to altitude and level off
without porpoising... and have never flown a real aircraft for a single
second

If flying normally in the simulator is no good with respect to flying
for real, then the lessons aren't, either.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

John Theune wrote:
Jay - I recommend you upgrade your system at the hotel to this version
if you have not already. I think you'll be impressed.

Other than the fact that it requires XP or Vista... And is picky about
video cards -- the *one* machine that I have that has the misfortune to
have come with XP installed upon it will not run MS FS X because of the
onboard video not being supposedly compatible... Luckily I found this
out by downloaded the demo instead of paying for the actual software...

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
...
John Theune wrote:
Jay - I recommend you upgrade your system at the hotel to this version if
you have not already. I think you'll be impressed.

Other than the fact that it requires XP or Vista... And is picky about
video cards -- the *one* machine that I have that has the misfortune to
have come with XP installed upon it will not run MS FS X because of the
onboard video not being supposedly compatible... Luckily I found this out
by downloaded the demo instead of paying for the actual software...

If you are considering any new game here is a neat little website called
System Requirement Lab. Id does require that you allow Active-X but I have
used it with no problems or malware as a result. It will check your computer
against a number of games and see if you have the system needed to run them.
It's not perfect but it works.

http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srl

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srl

COOL! Thanks for the link!

-c

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
...
John Theune wrote:
Jay - I recommend you upgrade your system at the hotel to this version if
you have not already. I think you'll be impressed.

Other than the fact that it requires XP or Vista... And is picky about
video cards -- the *one* machine that I have that has the misfortune to
have come with XP installed upon it will not run MS FS X because of the
onboard video not being supposedly compatible... Luckily I found this out
by downloaded the demo instead of paying for the actual software...

For any kind of graphics-intense simulation such as this you should expect
to require a graphics card update, and, above all, make sure you've updated
your machine to the latest video drivers because the stuff that comes
bundled with the computer usually isn't current. I have having to upgrade
hardware to keep up with software, but that's the way things tend to go.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...
I have having to upgrade hardware to keep up with
software, but that's the way things tend to go.

I still have machines that I have Office-95 installed upon and they do more
than I need for that sort of work... XP takes more resources and does not
provide any benefits to me... Even though I own a copy of Visual Studio
..NET, I use Visual Studio v6 for program development since it does
everything that I *need* it to do... I do not like the idea of upgrading my
hardware just because some MS developer decided to make the O/S a but more
bloated... I buy new hardware when it gets down to the price where it is in
the pocket change range... For example, I bought a new Seagate 400G HD the
other day because it was $90 at Fry's... It's only ATA-100, but it's fast
enough for things that are not being accessed constantly...

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
...

I hate having to upgrade hardware to keep up with software, but that's
the way things tend to go.

I still have machines that I have Office-95 installed upon and they do
more
than I need for that sort of work... XP

Office-95 =/= Windows 95.

do not like the idea of upgrading my hardware just because some MS
developer decided to make the O/S a but more
bloated...

Just make sure your Win95 has a working firewall, wireless networking
comparable to the one bundled with XP if you're going to require those
services. Your OS decision is definately dependent upon the applications
you intend to use. If you just want a word processor and a spreadsheet, for
example, a 486 with MS Word 1.0 and Lotus 1-2-3 would be plenty sufficient.
I use a Linux system at work that won't run MS applications and found a
server downstairs that hadn't even been rebooted in five years. (!!!) It's
so old the admin team is afraid to reboot it because it might not start up.
But if you want to run FS-X, you're not going to be able to run it on
Office-95.

It torques me too...the consumer economy is full of people who drop $300 on
the new I-Pod model even though the other two they have work just fine, or
who drop $300 they can't afford on a new video card so they can play the new
version of Halflife...and then upgrade again a year later. Guys like this
would probably choke on the idea that I fly a 1974 Arrow.

For example, I bought a new Seagate 400G HD the other day because it was
$90 at Fry's...

Really? That's definately a score. They'll probably be coming down
approaching Xma$, but that's less than half what they were selling for
earlier this year.

-c