Jump to content
  • Posts

    • When I engage the starter the gas producer and if I have the fuel switch on the gas producer will not go any higher the .5 of a percent but with the fuel off the gas producer will go up to 1.5 percent and if I try to turn the fuel on the gas producer will down. So I am not able to start the aircraft.
    • I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about? I think you mean throttle?
    • When I try to start the gas producer will not go any higher then .5 of a percent when  the fuel is on when it is off it will go up to 1.5 percent. If I add fuel then the gas producer will get dragged back down to 0.
    • Yes I agree with you on implementing SID/STAR procedures, it is hard to do and yes it would have a (small) framerate hit, but it would make TG a fully compliant Traffic app, I don't agree with the cost of commercial data as WT3 already uses the AFRE and SID/STAR data now and both are using the current data, if that was expensive then WT3 wouldn't be able to use it either, were as TG is almost twice the cost of WT3? Navigraph would be a huge beneficial bonus here, but these are smart guys and they would work to JF's benefits as well
    • Yes SID/STAR procedures would be nice but you rarely get something for nothing. It’s not unlikely that JF are achieving that low FPS by having very simplified flight plans. Making a change like adding SID/STARS might take much of that advantage away.   Now perhaps they’ve planned SID/STARS for later versions although I’ve not seen any hint of that in the feedback they’ve given in other forums on the product. If it’s planned as a future development then presumably they can accommodate it within the existing structure. If they didn’t it might mean fundamental changes to the product and often those sort of changes don’t end well.   They have said that they were aware that one concern people had around traffic programs was performance issues and I think in the product they’ve produced they’ve provided a solution to that. In other forums there are plenty of suggested features people want, including SID/STARS of course. How many of those can be incorporated without impacting the current performance would be the question. I don’t think that SID/STARS were omitted by oversight by JF.   There’s also been comment from people that the schedules aren’t current and JF have talked about the cost of commercial data to support really up to date and full data. Perhaps the same might apply for the navigational data needed for SID/STARS? As you’ve said yourself the price of the package isn’t low (JF are rarely a cheap vendor anyway). Adding in additional licensing costs, in particular if that’s on ongoing cost might be a tipping point for many users in purchasing it.
    • I have also invested a lot of time in WT3, but I don't have a snobbery as you put it towards something new like Traffic Global like I mentioned already TG has created an app that in many areas is far better than WT3 , mostly in efficiency, tools and use, but the basic procedures are important and in this area it doesn't do what is required of a traffic application, if JustFlight refine this area and add in SID/STAR procedures the application would be then highly realistic to fly within, that is the point here, not eye candy but interacting within the application.
    • There’s a big difference between 4 FPS and 8 or more.   Traffic packages in terms of simulation are for the most part eye candy. Nothing wrong in that but there’s a personal choice there about the balance between how many frames you’ll trade for increased ‘realism’. My system doesn’t have a small graphics card or weak processor.    WT3 has a very large following in X-Plane and many have invested a lot of time with it. Some reviewers are even invested in working with the product. But to me there’s a little snobbery involved here. You ‘can’t be a hard core simmer’ and use GT or its only suitable for ‘newbies’ or those with ‘weak systems’. It’s a trade off. WT3 introduces performance issues and GT is less realistic. But in the end both are eye candy or immersion features, like better clouds or ground traffic vehicles. You pays your money and makes your choice.      
    • If you are not prepared to lose 4 frames then why you would run WT3 anyway as it is a big and complex application, so that limits the users with small graphic cards and weak processors. The other point is that WT3 was basically all we had for a good Traffic App and Traffic Global shows that efficiency and with a low framerate hit can be done better 😊
    • ‘But I disagree with you on your other comments’   Your article doesn’t disagree with my comments on the frame rate impact difference between WT3 and GT. That it seems to me is not a small point. The 4-8 FPS you quote can be critical for many users. Even ‘hard core’ ones.   
    • News! - Updated : KATL - Atlanta International UHD v2.1 by Nimbus Simulations   Just into the 2020 New Year, then Nimbus Simulations have done an v2.1 version update to their KATL - Atlanta scenery, which to be honest is a bit of a surprise, but any quick update and certainly in scenery is always welcome. So what has changed? Well quite a lot in a small update kind of way.   First item is the choice of either the older Orange/Cream facade or the newer Grey/Blue facade (by replacing the textures in the "New Airport" folder) as a lot of users complained about losing the original colours...     I will admit I found the Grey/Blue a bit bland after the bright Orange/Cream (noted as Red, but it looks orange to me), but found myself warming to the facade with airport use. The main factor is what colour is correct and by airport images it is the Grey/Blue version, so I will obviously stay with that aspect of the scenery, but the choice is now there if you want it.     I made a bit of a ho-ha about the "bad algae swamp" looking mesh textures around the KATL's boundary, as they were quite ugly to the eye on any approach path. So in this updated version Nimbus has made the coloured areas more hidden by using trees to cover the worst and the results are very good in filling out the boundaries into the normal mesh...     Yes the textures still clash, and yes there are still some sharp lines between texture meshes, but at least the worst effects have been hidden on your approach paths, so it is a good fix.The custom mesh and also the ground textures have both been improved.   Ortho4XP compatibility is still missing, but Nimbus notes that Ortho4XP intergration is in the works, and it is being done being done by a third party developer.    3d Grass has also been added and it is exceptional in covering out the wide empty field areas...     ....  Nimbus noted the 3d Grass is an option because of a framerate hit, but if there is it is very minute and and the differences off or on are well worth a few extra clicks in the framerate.   Final change is that the Runway 27L/9R taxiway signs are now corrected.   So a nice update to an already excellent Atlanta scenery, and you also get the choice now of being Grey/Blue or Orange/Cream and so which colour are you? The full X-PlaneReviews v2 KATL - Atlanta review is here: Scenery Upgrade : KATL- Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta Intl Airport UHD v2 by Nimbus Simulation   ______________________________________________________________________     Yes! KATL- Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta Intl Airport UHD v2.1 by Nimbus Simulationis is now Available from the X-Plane.Org Store here :   KATL - Atlanta International UHD v2.1   Price is US$28.95 Customers of KATL v1 can get $10 off this new version: Coupon code can be found in your original invoice.   Requirements : X-Plane 11 Windows, Mac or Linux  4 GB VRAM Minimum. 8 GB+ VRAM recommended Download size: 670 Mb Current and Review version : 2.1 (January 16th 2020)   KATL v2.1 Changelog details KATL v2.1 changelog.txt __________________________________   (Disclaimer. All images and text in this review are the work and property of X-PlaneReviews, no sharing or copy of the content is allowed without consent from the author as per copyright conditions)   News by Stephen Dutton 17th January 2020 Copyright©2020: X-Plane Reviews  
    • I wasn't completely happy with the "lazy " comment, so that has been changed. But I disagree with you on your other comments. This "Traffic" application is priced at US$50+ and at that price then realistic approach, landing and departure profiles are a necessity, the so called "immersion" factor does just not cut with me as that makes the application a sort of plaything and not a realistic traffic environment. My biggest confusion is that in most areas the application is simply outstanding, but one of the most important and actually the most simplest procedure factors has been overlooked or very poorly implemented. As I noted in the summary "to create a realistic traffic application for any simulator is is a very complex undertaking" so I know how hard it is in creating something of this scale, but again these flight profiles are actually quite simple to implement and should be the heart of a US$50+ product and not just be an after thought. SD
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 68 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Member Statistics

    2029
    Total Members
    787
    Most Online
    eenvy
    Newest Member
    eenvy
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...