Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender:
  • Location:
    North America
  • Interests:
    Science, the Arts, Crypto-zoology, Photography, Flight Tech., Drummer, (over 55 years), Photo-art CG manipulation, Wildlife preservation and strong supporter of humane organizations.

Recent Profile Visitors

973 profile views

wingclip's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (4/6)




Community Answers

  1. Yes, thanks for that Paulb. There's a 3-position toggle switch at the end of the left throttle. With that assigned to the "Upper" & "Lower" level calls, the TARGET software is able to expand all the buttons and switches by at least double. In FSX, when I flew fixed wing aircraft, I used the "Upper Level" position, and for choppers, I used the "Lower level". The Center position was then for a mix of operations that could be used for either aircraft. This permitted me to assign the same buttons for new needs, such as auto-hover, hoist up/down, and/or a variety off other binds. Now I know only too well that I can do the same in the MSFS profiler, but in FSX and ROF, the TARGET was very useful. That said, I'm NOT convinced that I'll use the TARGET software for MSFS just yet. I'm probably going to try without the TARGET because the less software running in the background, the better. In other words, if I don't find any need to run TARGET (or even FSUIPC), then I won't run them. But as far as setting up the TM Warthog HOTAS using the TARGET it's as easy, (and at times, just as complicated), as it is with MSFS. There's no real advantage or disadvantage to using one over the other, in that respect. There is one small advantage to TARGET, and that is the fact that you can transfer the .tmc, or .fcf files from someone who may have offered their configuration in a given TM website, (I've done that). However, it's likely that their configuration wouldn't line up with how I would want my controls to work, so.... Six of one, half dozen of the other. Rich
  2. Thanks John, way ahead of you there! I've been following his stuff since day 1. However, the most recent posts he's done, (or that I could find), are from 2021 and several versions off MSFS back. The latest MSFS store edition has had some changes that eliminated some of the button assignment names and/orr selections shown in his videos. That said, I was able to find the compatible assignment names. Still, it's not the assignments or button binds with the Honeycomb controls that bother me, it's the camera view control selections in MSFS that I don't like, but I'm getting through that and I'll have it all together. As for the TM Warthog HOTAS, I'm confident that I'll get it going. It's just the time that it takes to configure the system. Before the latest version of MSFS, some people were having trouble with the TARGET programming and MSFS compatibility. But upon rereading some o those posts, it seems that the problem is their lack of familiarity with the TARGET software. I have a lot off experience with that system so I don't anticipate any problems, (it's just time consuming). I don't know why, but I've always seemed to have a kind of 'natural understanding' with helicopters. I've never had any formal training, but when I was in Taos, NM back in 2015, I took a helicopter tour flight. The only other person that was supposed to take the same tour, (a stranger), asked the pilot to drop her off back at the landing pad just two minutes after he took off, (she was very uncomfortable and way too nervous for it). That left just me in the chopper, (a Bell 206B, if I remember correctly). By that time, I had been flying FSX for about 6 years and logged a lot of sim hours in helicopters. The pilot was very familiar with FSX and eventually asked if I'd like to "take the stick?". We were about 4000 or 5000 feet AGL and about 12000 MSL. We were coming down from atop the Taos Ski Area mountain, (summer time). In just a short few minutes, he gave me full control of the 206 and even let me attempt a hover, (though we were at least 2500 AGL nowhere near the ground). I came to find that his other job was as an instructor for helicopters. I started to reason out that he was probably trying to get me signed up for my license. I don't know about now, but back then, a private license for helicopters costs a lot more than a private license for fixed-wing aircraft. Anyway, I don't know if he was just giving me a 'sales pitch' but he said that he was convinced I could've landed the helicopter on my own. He said, had it not been for the various violations with the tour company's policies, he would have let me try! LOL, Other than that time in 2016, I had about 10 or 15 minutes flight time in a Cessna 172 when I was about 15 years old. My father had a license and took me up one day, but all I did was hold the plane level as he went through a few charts. So, yes, I certainly want to get some helicopters in MSFS very soon! Rich
  3. Hey PMB, thanks for that info on FSRealistic! I just got the opportunity to check out their present software and I think I'm going to give it a try. As a matter of fact, I did buy Mt Cook, and I forgot about it! (My thanks to Paulb & John Heaton) LOL, I bought Mt. Cook when I bought PADU! In fact, I haven't had a chance to fly any of the new stuff that I bought & installed anytime after 10-23-20! I just realized that! I've been prepping my Thrustmaster Warthog control system for use in MSFFS and it appears that it'll take a lot longer than I expected. As a result, I've used all my free time researching the best way to setup the TM Warthog using the TARGET software. I had a great deal of success using the TARGET software when I flew FSX, but I'm still in the beginning stages of setting it up for MSFS... I can understand why the MSFS Control Profiling UI is like it is. There are so many different Flight Sim control systems out there that MSFS must accommodate. My control systems are barely in the 'mid-grade' category. The really high-end control systems for planes like the commercial Boeings, Airbus, etc. can cost well over $3000 USD. MSFS had to take those systems in consideration or risk bad reviews. There's FSUIPC, (and I do have a payware version for FSX), which I'm beginning to think I may need to seriously consider buying for MSFS. If I go with FSUIPC, it may mean having to pitch all the info I've read and learned for the Honeycomb system (and whatever I've managed to assemble for the TM Warthog system), but if I'm going to do it, I need to do it now rather than continuing to use a lot of time to set it up. Another issue I've been struggling with is the MSFS Camera view system and their applied nomenclature, which makes it hard for me to select what I want from any particular camera view. I try to keep as many of my 'most often used' camera operations assigned to my control system, but I'm not sure I can get the results I want... PMB has mentioned "FSRealistic" and if it's anything of an improvement over the present MSFS system, I think I need to investigate it. Maybe what I need to do at this point is simply use the rest of my free time that I've got tonight to check out the airfields and mesh I purchased, rather than continuing my task of setting up the Thrustmaster controls. The Honeycomb flight control system I have is basically doing a good job, though there's still a lot off room for improvement. I think I'll hook it up and go fly Mt Cook. MY Thanks to all! Rich
  4. There's no doubt about it for me. I don't have that much time left but if I ever get the chance, the Top of my list is Milford Sound. It's the one place that I'd like to spend at least one week. That may never happen, so the next best thing is to have it installed in MSFS. (Actually, I always liked the FSX version. I never found anything wrong with the textures and I ran FSX at 2048 resolution and with a 6.50000 terrain LOD.) But that's just me. Rich PS @ tuisong: Nice cockpit, but may I suggest a 32" curved center monitor straddled by two 22" monitors so that you don't have that break in the forward view.
  5. LOL! Thank you, Perk! I've been trying to understand MSFS's use of the terms like, "Drone" and "Translate" for a while now! I tried the "Drone" camera but by the time I got to that point, I was so frustrated with the "Translate" option, that I doubt I gave the "Drone" option any kind of patients. Part off the problem was the way the Alpha Yoke's Hat switch behaved with FS. The "Translate" term bothered me because I can't understand if they meant "Pan", or "Shift", or even "Glide" to the left or Right, etc. I have TrackIR and recently tried it but MSFS wasn't responding to the TrackIR program. I'll be reinstalling the TrackIR software and trying again soon and I'm sure I can get it working, but even then, I only used TrackIR for internal, cockpit views, not any external ones. Anyway, the views I often used in FSX (as I was landing, for example), was the 2-D cockpit, but with just a few gauges showing. However, I always enjoyed the FSX effect in the external view, where the plane fly's past at speed, and then snaps back as if pulled back by a rubber band. It leaves the user in a position behind the plane. Or what about if I wanted to see the plane from a point on the ground as it approached for a landing? Again, these are questions meant for the support forum, so I'm using them here as examples of what I intend to post in that section, (but I won't complain if you happen to answer them, ). I never did like those "attached to the plane" type of views, (like on a wing tip or at the top of the vertical stabilizer). And don't even get me started on the instant replay, like watching the last 45 seconds of a flight just after landing. Again, I'll post it in the support section. Rich
  6. BTW, does anyone know if FS2020 has a "First Person" mode like Orbx offered for FSX? I've got a long way to go when it comes to the camera modes in MSFS. As I said, I'll be posting some questions about that in the support section soon. Rich
  7. Thank you Perk. Are you speaking about the same NZMF freeware that Andrew mentioned?
  8. "...a lot has changed, developers move on." You said it all when you said that! I keep forgetting that this is a very real fact and I should know better. "...good freeware version of Milford Sound over on Flight Sim.TO" Thank you for that Andrew, I'll check it out! Like I said, I haven't flown the MSFS version of NZMF yet. I was busy trying to setup the basic flight controls for the sim, which took some time, (but I've finally got it figured out. My only other issue is with the FS camera views. I'll be posting a few questions about that in the support forum soon. Rich
  9. Hi folks, So in the last few days, I've increased my Orbx Library content by at least 60%. Today, I added PADU, NZMC, and Antarctica. A few days ago, I bought all the Mesh products available on Orbx Direct, as well as airfield like Bella Coola, Ketchikan, and Darrington. In FSX, for me, the absolute top 3 airfields were PADU, (Unalaska), 3w5, (Concrete), and the number one on my list: NZMF, Milford Sound (on the South Island, just west of Queenstown for those who had never been there). In FSX, I had NZMF draped with jumping dolphins & killer whales. I had the animated waterfalls and tour boats. I flew it in choppers and for some reason, I favored the A10 Warthog the most when I flew fixed-wing aircraft. I think I liked flying the A10 in that area because it could fly low & slow and then quickly generate enough thrust to clear nearby cliffs. I confess, I have NOT been to Milford Sound in MSFS yet! However, I fully intend to go there on the very next flight session. At this point, (and because Orbx hasn't released any ads for an upcoming NZMF), I must assume that MSFS has a very well developed version of Milford Sound and probably of Queenstown as well. That would be the only explanation I could think of for why Orbx hasn't already released it. They did a fantastic job with so many FSX airfields and NZMF was just a beautiful rendition. So, I'm going to check out MSFS's version and I'll try not to be too critical in my comparison to the FSX NZMF, (but it won't be easy). Rich
  10. Just an FYI; I spoke to an ASUS 'tech-support rep' about the M.2 and what kind of compatibility I would have with an M.2 4Gen x4 SSD. I knew I'd have some compromising to deal with and the mobo specs actually break it down in detail. However, the info is put in a way that can leave one with multiple interpretations. It left me scratching my head and the ASUS tech rep seemed just as lost about it. The problem comes down to the system's hardware config & specs. The CPU, GPU, and which PCIe slot/s are used along with which SATA ports are in use, all have something to do with it. At first, after the rep returned from his research and said if I installed the M.2 in "slot 1", the GPU would shutdown and I would have to use the CPU's iGPU. However, I challenged that answer by reading the specs regarding the M.2 Slot1 and PCIe info from the manual. He left to check and returned saying that the M.2 in slot 1 and the PCIe GPU in the first slot will work. At that point I didn't press him for any more info because I felt he was doing the same thing I was; reading the specs from the manual and getting a different interpretation than he did when he read it the first time. The Maximus XII Formula has three M.2 slots and depending on which PCIe slot the GPU is installed, the M.2 SSD will have an affect on it and/or one or more sets of SATA ports. You can quickly lose the GPU and/or cut the M.2 speed in half if you're not careful. In my case, if I installed a M.2_4 x4 SSD in any one of the three slots, I would almost certainly wind up compromising something in a significant way. The 'best-case' configuration according to the Asus Max XII Formula specs is: "PCI Express x1: 1 x PCIe 3.0 x1 slot** ** The PCIEX1 shares bandwidth with M.2_1. When M.2_1 runs x4 mode, PCIEX1 will be disabled." Yet, just before that specification, it says this: "1 x PCIe 3.0 x16 slot (supports x4 mode)* * The PCIEX16_3 shares bandwidth with M.2_3. When M.2_3 runs x4 mode, PCIEX16_3 will be disabled. When M.2_3 and PCIEX16_3 are both occupied, M.2_3 runs x2 mode, PCIEX16_3 runs X1 mode." I feel like I'm chasing my tail trying to understand that, but It appears that I can run an M.2 x2 SSD and my GPU without giving up either and maintaining the SSD's X2 speed. Of course, I would lose the use of two Sata Ports regardless of what I do. The 'morel to this story': The Seagate Firecuda is an M.2 4x4 SSD runs a confirmed 7400mb/s and costs about $210 for the 1TB. The Crucial's 1TB M.2 x2 Gen4 SSD runs at 6600mb/s and costs about $60 less. Therefore, I ordered the Crucial 1TB M.2 SSD and if I find I can't use my GPU in it's present PCIe slot, I'll install the M.2 in my other desktop because I don't think have enough room to move that RTX 2070 Super to any other slot. That info is for anyone who may run into this themselves. Rich
  11. Thank you W2DR! Well then, I guess I'll transfer the O/S to the M.2 drive. Thanks for the compliment on my system, which seems to be very close match to yours! LOL. In fact, after I bought the Maximus XII Formula, I realized I could have save $100 and still have gotten pretty much the same options that I was interested in if I bought the Hero Max XII instead. I'll be building another system in the near future, (or may even upgrade this one, though it's barely been a year since I built it). Unless there's a considerably better mobo on the market by then, I'm probably going to go with the Hero. I've had no problems with the CPU i7-10700K and no crashes but I may try the i9-10900K. I may even go with the i9-11900K but I don't know much about it yet. It also has a 125w TDP (same as the 10700K) and so does the 10900K. (I thought the 10900K was a 95w TDP CPU until I just checked on it again. Apparently I was reading the "TDP Down" spec when I looked at it back in 2020). Anyway, thanks again for the help and BTW I just watched the original B&W version of that movie again about 3 or 4 nights ago! "Klaatu barada nickto"
  12. Hi Folks, My most recent system build includes an ASUS ROG Maximus XII Formula Z490 motherboard and i7-10700K CPU. (My basic system specs are included below). I have 5 internally mounted SSDs. 4 are 500GB and 1 is a 1TB equally partitioned in half to about 500GB each. I’ve never tried any of the M.2 SSDs but can’t ignore the speeds they are capable of. I am using the motherboard’s built-in cooling loop and from what I’ve read, that would help when using M.2 drives because of the heat. However, I’ve been ignoring these drives because they all seem to require displacing two or more the SATA drive ports. I may have to change out some of my 500GB SSDs and install 1TB SSDs with partitions to make up for the displaced drives. I’ll be talking to ASUS techs tomorrow about specific alternatives I may have regarding my board so I’m not looking for an answer about that here. However, my question for the Orbx community has to do with the best application and utilization of an M.2 drive if I were to install one. (Also, it should be made clear that I have not installed FS2020 in my computer yet.) I presently have Windows 10 Pro installed and I will be installing MS FS2020 soon. Therefore, if I were to install an M.2 drive, (I’m presently looking at a 1TB Seagate Firecuda M.2 PCIe Gen4 ×4 NVMe 1.4), would I have better flight-sim performance by partitioning the M.2 drive and sharing it with the O/S? I would first transfer the Windows 10 Pro O/S from its present Sata SSD location to one of the two partitions that I would create on the M.2. Then I would make a fresh installation FS2020 on the remaining partitioned space? Would that be the best way to go if I stall only a single, 1TB M.2 drive? I originally planned to install FS2020 on a dedicated SSD and may still do that, but it depends on what suggestions I get here. Thank you, Rich Basic System Specs: O/S: Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Motherboard: ASUS ROG Z490 Maximus XII Formula LGA 1200 RAM: T-Force XTreem 3600MHz, 32GB (2 x 16 gb) PSU: EVGA Supernova 1300G2 1300W PSU CPU: Intel i7–10700K (OC’d 5.2 GHz) GPU: EVGA RTX-2070 Super
  13. Thanks Nick, that's incredibly good news! I know that you've had the actual FSX download at some point, so how did the Steam version and the actual program compare? Did they perform equally well and was the Steam version as flexible to manipulate as the program? Would you have access to the FSX exec files in such a way that you could edit it? Rich
  14. Thanks Nick, but I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'might suit your purposes better'. I just want to run MSFS the same way I ran my FSX for the last 10 years. Install, add-ons when I want them, get the best performance at the highest resolution, etc., etc. I had the double disc set of FSX deluxe installed in my other computer. I read info from some people that the FSX steam ran better then their downloaded version, but most of them didn't have near the add-ons that I ran on my platform. There are so many other factors and variables that will affect how well FSX (or any other sim) will run on their systems, (as you know even better than I do!). So I never really put much weight behind that kind of comparison, at least, not w/o knowing a lot about what they were running and how. I set FSX to maintain 32fps and 90% of the time, it held that frame rate. I'll be hoping for the same from MSFS. FSX held the 32fps while I flew over the highest quality landscapes, with high-resolution aircraft and 5m terrain mesh. All the resource-grabbing software running while I had a thunderstorm and fog configured to boot! LOL. And all that with a 2048 resolution setting and something like 6.500000 LOD, (I've forgotten the precise references for the two settings but I'm sure you know what I mean). LOL, it was a lot of fun and I didn't always make it down in such a way that I could have walked away in one piece. It's been a long time, (almost 2 years) since I flew FSX because of some significant and abrupt changes in my life, but I'm going to get back up there or die trying! Do you know if the Steam version has all the same and complete capabilities that any other version would have? In addition, would you happen to know if Steam would be loading my system with ads and background programs that I don't want and have nothing to do with the sim platform? I'm just worried that Steam would do what the other gaming websites do, run advertisements, track my activity regarding on line purchases and browsing. Then start emailing me all kinds of stuff. I suppose a lot of other sites do that too, (Google, for one), but I'm worried about in-game advertising interruptions. Thanks for the suggestion, and I know I could have the wrong impression about Steam, but that's what I'm trying to sort out now. Rich
  • Create New...