Any flight simmers here?

[SolusLupus]

Kerbin, Earth, fictional planet-side, whatever.

And I have the paid version.

[VincentMcConnell]

Kerbin, Earth, fictional planet-side, whatever.

And I have the paid version.

Nice. All of my saved crafts are real NASA ones (with the exception of two of my best creations).
Like this Saturn V carrying the "Kerpollo" spacecrafts.

[SolusLupus]

I call mine the "Too Many Engines", or TME if you will.

TME Mk. 1:



It's incredibly stable, given its symmetrical design.  Four sets of three big boosters, making twelve in total; enough fuel in the second stage to align with where it needs to go.  I do not have a third stage for landing, but it's great for crashing on the moon.  It would be ridiculously simple to modify for a third stage too, since it's such a simple design.

And I came up with it only on my third try, so I'm kind of proud.  My friend, Jetman, was all like "It took me several tries just to break atmo!"

[LunarOrbit]

Any word on when Kerbal Space Program will be adding the ability to dock two spacecraft together? That's the feature I'm looking forward to the most.

[VincentMcConnell]

Any word on when Kerbal Space Program will be adding the ability to dock two spacecraft together? That's the feature I'm looking forward to the most.

Docking is going to be implemented, but it's been pushed back. It turns out the devs realized it was much harder than they thought, and they have to change a lot of coding for it to work. It was supposed to be in .16, but EVAs took up so much of their time that we probably won't see it until .17. I'm guessing .17 will be out in a few months or so. .16 is just weeks from being released.

[VincentMcConnell]

I call mine the "Too Many Engines", or TME if you will...

That looks pretty stable. I don't use tricouplers, though, as it makes pitching into orbit fairly hard. Your best bet is to radially attach boosters and then use fuel lines to route fuel through all the different tanks for super efficiency. I can put a quick test craft for you to give a try if you'd like. All stock.

[dwight]

I just successfully installed the Lockheed Martin Prepar3d and I am duly impressed. Considering this is still in development stage it has so much potential it is not funny. It also supports stereoscopic 3d so I can maintain my immersion as I had for FSX. I only heard about this product 2 weeks ago, but the development of it by LM and 3rd parties has spread like wildfire. When the 64bit support kicks in that will be it - LM will have the market edge. It is the logical progression from FSX and the beauty is most of the FSX sceneries and aircraft are compatible for the most part without any tweaking or modification.

[LunarOrbit]

Are they going to have non-Lockheed (ie. Boeing) planes in Prepar3d? I'm assuming they need Boeings permission and that it won't be as forthcoming as it would have been for Microsoft because they aren't a competitor.

[PetersCreek]

Great thread.  I'm definitely going to look Prepar3D over.  I'm running FSX on my desktop with a few Saitek "simpit" accessories:


Click fo mo bigger

Since this photo was taken, I've added TrackIR and a radio stack to the setup and I've got my eye on a few more, like the instrument and TPM modules.

I mostly fly GA over Alaskan scenery in the C172, C208, Twin Otter, etc.  Since I work in an air traffic facility, I get to rescue expired sectionals and terminal procedures books before they hit the recycle bin and use them to add a little depth to the sim experience.

[VincentMcConnell]

OMG! I want that set up!!

[PetersCreek]

When I'm in the FSX buying mood, I usually do business with Flight Sim Pilot Shop.  They carry Saitek hardware and others, including panels for heavies, running into thousands of dollars.  Many (or most) of their aircraft and other software add ons are available for immediate download after purchase.

While I'm at it, I'll recommend the only flight sim book I own, Microsoft Flight Simulator X for Pilots - Real World Training.  It's intended for pilots (or student pilots) looking to use FSX as a learning tool to enhance "Real World" flight training.  Conversely, I've found it enjoyably useful in bringing more of the real world into my sim flying. 

[dwight]

LO importing aircraft into P3D is, for the most part, simply copying over the aircraft data folder from FSX to P3D. The forum on the LM site explains how to do it. I have only setup the system to run and I am in the UK for 48 hours, so I cant give anything more than what I have done so far. I concur with PetersCreek's book recommendation.

Here is my setup. Out of shot are the rudder pedals and since it was taken I too have added the radio panel. It is also activated with anaglyph 3d although this photo is of FSX:

[dwight]

Oh before I forget, I did one flight on P3D at the default airport using building storms as a weather preset. All I can say is WOW!

[LunarOrbit]

What are the specs of your computers, Dwight and Peter? I've always had low frame rates in FSX. Even now, with a fairly high end laptop built years after FSX was released, I see the frame rate drop to 10-15fps in large cities. And I imagine Prepar3D will be even more demanding.

[Abaddon]

What are the specs of your computers, Dwight and Peter? I've always had low frame rates in FSX. Even now, with a fairly high end laptop built years after FSX was released, I see the frame rate drop to 10-15fps in large cities. And I imagine Prepar3D will be even more demanding.

FS hound here also from FS2000 onwards.
Sadly, my ex trashed all my gear and media, so I do not have it on my current PC.
Last version I had was ACOF, and I bought so many add-ons, also sadly lost to she who shall not be named.
Yes I would go for a virtual airline, but my dearly ex-beloved broke up the gear and destroyed the disks.

I very much liked the cold and dark start-ups, where you had to do everything, including the programming of the FMC.

ETA: Right down to smashing the joysticks FFS.