Jump to content

vtracy

Members
  • Posts

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About vtracy

  • Birthday 10/24/1941

Profile Information

  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    EDDM

Recent Profile Visitors

835 profile views

vtracy's Achievements

Member

Member (2/6)

3

Reputation

  1. Yes, Don, I experimented with FlyInside. But I found it too cumbersome (haven‘t tried it for a year, though). Switched back to native P3D VR. I do not feel it is a ‚natural‘ solution; it should be integrated in the visuals. But, alas!, MS does not (yet?) aim for the simmer/trainee but for the gamer. They will not need a map at all... At the moment, though, I am fighting with the ‚moving scenery‘ that is, the occasional blurries and hickups. It is bearable but... Until now, I haven‘t found a combination of settings that let me have smooth scenery under my wings and as much detail as needed in order to find my way in VFR. Volker
  2. Hi Ewan, and others! While reading about MSFS and it‘s prerequisites, I remembered this forum thread. Where people were telling me that it is perfectly possible to have more detailed photoscenery(etc.) but that would require more data space and faster access to the data (bus speed?). Impying that that makes the request unrealistic (no critique implied! just stating). Now, MSFS comes along, it requires much bigger data storage, and thus fast access) but also better bandwith at the internet connection, ... and everybody seems to accept that as given without complaint! Strange. Instead of moving to FS, I would rather stay with good old, reliable P3D and enhance that with even better scenery, instead of switching to a new system with all the inherent problems, imperfections, new workarounds,... I know what I am talking about: I bought the de Luxe version of MSFS, being lured by the marketing info, ...and found that a. the installation failed the first two tries, b. after installation complete, the app did not get beyond the opening screen (a fault that many others found, too). When asking for support, I got a link to a webpage where ca. 20 possible reasons for that behaviour were listed together with what to do to overcome them... I de-installed the FS and am now waiting for v. 1.1 or 2.0... Volker
  3. Can I use this in VR? All the wonderful moving map/flight tracking... apps require that I exit VR, look at either the iPad or a window, and then go back to VR. Considering the popularity boost that VR will get when MSFS works in VR, it might be worth while to make the app usable in VR. Volker
  4. John, I apologize if I came across as if criticizing you; I don't. It is just that I am a bit 'mad' at not being able - apparently - to have both realistic/real and precise sceneries. As for the hardware effort(=cost), if I am so eager to have Google Earth type scenery rolling by underneath me, I must be willing ti spend. I actually have a i7-7700K OC'd to 4.7GHz and a GTX1080ti (with 11GB VRAM), plus all-SSD as repositories. That shouls give me probably not as superb a presentation as the PC of the person you mentioned but it should come close... I think. Yes, I agree, both Orbx and (for example) A2A do a phantastic job in making our hobby even more life like. It is just that simmers have asked for more since the beginning, no? Nick, I have EU Germany North and South, and True Earth NL. I like what I see under my wings. I am content with what I have. It is only that MSFS is the proverbial elephant in the room. So, it is no use saying that the software basis that P3D has restricts what can be done in the sceneries. Simmers will go to the sim that offers even better sceneries than the one they are using at the moment. I do not want the death of P3D, I want it to be a competitor, like XPlane, and Aerofly FS2, for example. Enough of that; I am going flying, from Manston to Dover and Calais. Bye! Volker
  5. Dear John! Do you really want us (Ewan and I) to actually lower the quality of views just in order to make the TEGB look better... or should I say: make the lower quality view less noticeable? I can understand - up to a certain extent - Nick in saying that basically it is an inherent fault of all photo scenery software because of the quality of the satellite photo material. O K. We may have to live with that... until MSFS2020 arrives! I saw on a video made by an independent tester/reviewer, the quality both of the aircraft interior/exterior and the scenery that he flew over! Amazing! That will be the benchmark for all products in other simulators. (Disclaimer: I do not know, could not verify, if the scenery presented in MSFS is landclass-type or photo, i. e. is it beautiful(like EU England) or is it real?) Maybe someone will find a way to combine the autogen-type of scenery items with photo wallpaper base. One can hope. Volker
  6. Nick, I am having the same issue: EU England vs TEGB, their relative merits. I have both EU England and TEGB South, that is, I had them installed alternately. And I found that EU England gives me the more "natural" look but apparently not the "real" one while TEGB South gives me the "real" situation but has too many blurry areas. The latter may be due to settings, however. So, two questions: 1 - what are the recommended (relistic!) settings for an optimal view from TEGB (South)? 2 - I have TEGB South, for P3D v4; is there an update/upgrade that a - makes it compatible with v5? b - has an improved quality for VFR flying? Tx! Volker
  7. #stiletto2, that is a very illuminating comparison. It does elaborate the advantages that TE versions have over LC ones: TE is much more complete. But as you wrote also, below 2,000 AGL (3,000 IMHO), it gets wordse in resolution. And that means, it depends on what (aircraft) and where (AGL) you are usually flying. The higher the more TE, the lower the more LC. And I confess, even if I am flying over terrain that I should know (home) I could not navigate by the terrain features, I‘d have to use landmarks and POIs. And if they are placed haflway precisely (if I can identify Dover in order to find the starting point for a Channel crossing to Calais, and find Calais airport), I can live with that and the much more „beautiful“ landscape. It is good to have the choice! Thank you, Orbx teams! Volker
  8. Guys, I did not exactly complain about any of the products. I just wanted an informed opinion on whether to install EU England or rather True Earth England South. Has anyone found out what is the difference? When I installed True Earth England South, after I has EU England installed before, I believed that that was the right thing to do for me as a VFR flyer. That is, I wanted to be able to see, and recognize, the ground, cities etc. that I was flying over. I thought that TE South would mean that it is moreprecise in its rendering of the ground. Instead, I found (IMHO) that it is worse. That is what I mean by blurries (maybe not the right term): When flying at 100-300ft, I can see blurry streets, rivers etc. as if the ground was a photo tapestry, taken at great height and(!) only sharp up to, say, 3000ft altitude. The other day, I read in a forum that there are basically two types of flyers among us: one is the air liner type, flying mostly at altitudes in the 10s of thousands of feet; the other is the GA pilot who navigates (if at all) by watching the ground, landmarks etc. I am of the latter type. I fly the Spitfire mostly as well as its competitor, the Me 109E-3 (both by A2A). And when I want to be 'civilian', I fly the Comanche and the Beech Baron 58. So, anybody out there who has the same preferences as I? If so, what sceneries do you use (preferably by Orbx)? Looking forward to an answer...;-) Volker
  9. I had True Earth England South installed. However, I did not like blurries when flying VFR. So I de-installed it and installed EU England. To me, it looks much better alrhough I am aware that the landscape is not realistic. If I could wish for something, it would be a VFR version of sceneries. Performance-wise, I have no problems with neither version of England under P3Dv5.
  10. Thanks, Mallard! I had not realized that/what the four versions were. ( Could you you perhaps write under/over each pic which scenery developer it shows ). To enlarge on my question: I should very much like to combine, e. g. VFR Germany with FTX products ( Base, LC EU ) in order to fly close to the ground. I like more to use small airfields than the big airports. These fields have to be found and then assessed as to how to approach them best... I have installed German Airfields 3/9 and they work well with P3D standard sceneries. But what about FTX products??? Volker
  11. Mallard, what is your conclusion: Is this result re. compatibility valid for the teted packages only or is it valid for all packages of a certain developer or of a certain kind ( photoreal vs vector,... )? I would be interested in using VFR sceneries in P3D in place of(?) FTX. I know that there are fundamental differences between the two, for example, as RKunst has mentioned. So I have to decide whether I want recognizable sceneries or ( e. g. ) fps-friendly ones. Volker
  12. Hi there, when I start FTX Central ( having installed EU all 3 files ), I get the bovemessage with a large number of files in a (log?) file called something like "Regional Files Validation..." I saw in other fora that files should be copied into 'scenery/textures'. The number of files here seem to be too large to simply copy from somewhere. Is there a mistake ( I made?) during install? FTX Central shows no Europe button. So, I have applied Global and 'hybrid' checked. Any hints, anybody? Volker
  13. Hi Howard, while you wait for someone to do Malaga airport, why don't you hop over to Malta, or Sicily. They have some nice (!freeware and payware ) airports. Volker
  14. Hi Brett, whenever I feel particularly 'courageous', I fly to/from Innsbruck ( LOWI ) to/from Salzburg ( Lows ). It is a CAT C airport... And if you feel up to it, try landing on RWY 08! That means, strong Foehn winds blow from East/Southeast ( with gusts out of the side valleys ), and you have to overfly the RWY 26, then - with mountains rising around you - have to do a steep turn/ descent... You can top this by imagining wartime flying, i. e. come screaming in alongside 26, pull up to lose speed, flaps then gear out in short order, turn, descend to runway. Try it in a Spitfire, a P-51, or a Me 109! Or, going from LOWI to LOWS, try the 'direct' route through the mountain passes at the end of the Inn valley. That lets you do some fancy flying... Enjoy! Volker
  15. Kev, here's a hint: Declare yourself an 'unattended minor'! ;-) Volker ( 72 )
×
×
  • Create New...