History:

Years ago, I had some nice experiences with FS5, sing a gameport, but I
sought more pilot proficency realism.

So I bought Jeppesen's Flight Pro 6.0, upgraded to 6.2, to get IFR
practice. I got it to work about half the time using a Wingman Joystick
on USB. It required the retail CD to be in the CD drive, and that worked.

Then I changed to an XP laptop, no game port, just USB.

Now, when I try to use the Jepp Flitpro, the system balks, claiming
that the retail CD is not in the CD drive despite that it really is in
there. XP (Lenovo Thinkpad with XP) seems to not satify the Jepp
flitepro identification scheme for CD presence indicator (whatever that
might be). One can run Flitepro anyway, but there is no sound, and it
quits within about 2 minutes of flight.

How can I get the CD to be recognized?

Alternatively, which FS today is worthwhile?

Angelo Campanella

angelo Campanella writes:

> Alternatively, which FS today is worthwhile?

FSX is the current version, but FS 2004 (also known as FS9) is more performant
and possibly a better choice if you want to practice things like IFR, mainly
because more add-ons are available, and with the add-ons you can come far
closer to real life in your simulation (especially with respect to IFR).

Mxsmanic wrote:
> angelo Campanella writes:
>> Alternatively, which FS today is worthwhile?
> FSX is the current version, but FS 2004 (also known as FS9) is more performant
> and possibly a better choice if you want to practice things like IFR, mainly
> because more add-ons are available, and with the add-ons you can come far
> closer to real life in your simulation (especially with respect to IFR).

So I went out and spent just over 20 bucks (with tax) and installed it
this eveing. All I can say is that it's come a long way, baby (since
FS5). It seem to have all I need for IFR practice.

I mounted he Mooney (like my acft) ans am now getting familiar. but the
yoke I have (a Logictec Wingman) has a very sqirrely rudder. The rudder
is all over the place! I can't tell whether it is the pot inside or bad
logic somewhere. Taxiing is a menace, and takeoffs a pain in the butt.

I tried to open up the joystick base, but something is not letting go
to pop off the bottom, and the top screws (lallens) just turn round and
round and go nowhere. Anybody have any ideas?

And, oh, thanks to Mxsmanic for the FS9 tip.

Ang. C.

angelo Campanella writes:

> So I went out and spent just over 20 bucks (with tax) and installed it
> this eveing. All I can say is that it's come a long way, baby (since
> FS5). It seem to have all I need for IFR practice.

It's especially good for that. Since there's no physical movement and limited
visiblity, it's less useful for VFR. But since IFR is all about watching the
instruments, and since the instruments are simulated quite well in FS, it can
be very useful for IFR (even though it's not certified by the FAA).

> I mounted he Mooney (like my acft) ans am now getting familiar. but the
> yoke I have (a Logictec Wingman) has a very sqirrely rudder. The rudder
> is all over the place! I can't tell whether it is the pot inside or bad
> logic somewhere. Taxiing is a menace, and takeoffs a pain in the butt.

Consider getting a set of pedals. It makes flying the sim a lot more
enjoyable, especially for VFR. I use the Saitek X52 joystick and throttle,
plus the Saitek pedals.

Also, consider getting payware add-on aircraft. Many of the payware add-ons
are so good that using them is almost like getting a new, upgraded simulator,
and they match the real aircraft exactly in appearance and almost perfectly in
behavior, particularly for instrument flight. RealityXP makes a set of Garmin
GPS units that behave _exactly_ like the real things (because they use
Garmin's own software), and you can practice on the sim and then use the same
GPS unit in real life without missing a beat.

My favorite aircraft for GA is Dreamfleet's Beechcraft Baron 58, but if you
fly a Mooney there's probably someone else out there who has an ultrarealistic
version of that. (Not that the default FS9 aircraft are _unrealistic_, but
the add-ons are in a class by themselves.)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> angelo Campanella writes:
>>I mounted he Mooney (like my acft) ans am now getting familiar. but the
>>yoke I have (a Logictec Wingman) has a very sqirrely rudder. The rudder
>>is all over the place! I can't tell whether it is the pot inside or bad
>>logic somewhere. Taxiing is a menace, and takeoffs a pain in the butt.
> Consider getting a set of pedals. It makes flying the sim a lot more
> enjoyable, especially for VFR. I use the Saitek X52 joystick and throttle,
> plus the Saitek pedals.

Pedals might do it, but its not required for IFR practice which is all
about timing and decision making. The fault is in the rudder system
which amounts to a potentiometer and a digitizer. I am content to
function without a rudder (old FS5 joystick has none), but the Wingman
joystick has more buttons which are very useful. I need to find a way to
nix the rudder control inputs.

> Also, consider getting payware add-on aircraft.

That's a good suggestion. My mooney is a J-model wile the sim is an M-
higher performance model.

> Many of the payware add-ons
> are so good that using them is almost like getting a new, upgraded simulator,
> and they match the real aircraft exactly in appearance and almost perfectly in
> behavior, particularly for instrument flight. RealityXP makes a set of Garmin
> GPS units that behave _exactly_ like the real things (because they use
> Garmin's own software), and you can practice on the sim and then use the same
> GPS unit in real life without missing a beat.

Can I choose the Garmin model?

> My favorite aircraft for GA is Dreamfleet's Beechcraft Baron 58,

Never did have any interest in twins. Twice the probability of an engine
failure (and more maintenance and more costs).

> but if you
> fly a Mooney there's probably someone else out there who has an ultrarealistic
> version of that. (Not that the default FS9 aircraft are _unrealistic_, but
> the add-ons are in a class by themselves.)

Aircraft characteristics deviations are not much of a nuisance. I am
still fighting fundamental capabilities (where are the controls and
buttons. Why is the rudder so schizophrenic? It is NEVER straight and
NEVER constant right now.

angelo Campanella writes:

> Pedals might do it, but its not required for IFR practice which is all
> about timing and decision making. The fault is in the rudder system
> which amounts to a potentiometer and a digitizer. I am content to
> function without a rudder (old FS5 joystick has none), but the Wingman
> joystick has more buttons which are very useful. I need to find a way to
> nix the rudder control inputs.

You can do that in the configuration. You can also set autorudder so that the
sim handles the rudder for you, if you wish.

> Can I choose the Garmin model?

I think you can, if you buy the RealityXP gauges separately. When the come
pre-installed with an add-on aircraft, you get whatever the aircraft modeler
has decided upon. For the Baron 58 from Dreamfleet that I like to fly, it's a
Garmin GNS 530.

> Never did have any interest in twins. Twice the probability of an engine
> failure (and more maintenance and more costs).

Actually the probability is slightly less than twice as high, and you can
still fly on one engine, whereas you cannot fly on zero engines. The
probability of a total engine failure (both engines) on a twin is far lower
than that of a total failure on a single. But I know there are arguments both
ways. In the sim the engines never fail unless you want them to, so it's not
an issue.

> Aircraft characteristics deviations are not much of a nuisance. I am
> still fighting fundamental capabilities (where are the controls and
> buttons. Why is the rudder so schizophrenic? It is NEVER straight and
> NEVER constant right now.

It has to be a physical problem with your controls. My rudder behaves very
well with the Saitek pedals (and before that it behaved very well with the
twist axis on my joystick), so it's not the sim.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> angelo Campanella writes:
>>Aircraft characteristics deviations are not much of a nuisance. I am
>>still fighting fundamental capabilities (where are the controls and
>>buttons. Why is the rudder so schizophrenic? It is NEVER straight and
>>NEVER constant right now.
> It has to be a physical problem with your controls. My rudder behaves very
> well with the Saitek pedals (and before that it behaved very well with the
> twist axis on my joystick), so it's not the sim.

OK. I need to know how to burrow into the Wingman yoke pots. This yoke
base has a tamper-proof assembly where the last screw holding the lid on
is not apparent.

Ang. C.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> You can do that in the configuration. You can also set autorudder so that the
> sim handles the rudder for you, if you wish.

Can't find auto rudder. I set rudder sensitivity to zero and maximized
the dead band. Now the rudder is numb. Yoke right-left serves to steer
on the ground.

BUT one takeoff occurred where I hd the old rudder back.

Furthermore, now I can't get my home town airports any more. Seems that
half the important airports in Ohio are now Missing.

What to do?
Ang. C.

angelo Campanella wrote:
>> You can do that in the configuration. You can also set autorudder so
>> that the
>> sim handles the rudder for you, if you wish.
> Can't find auto rudder. I set rudder sensitivity to zero and maximized
> the dead band. Now the rudder is numb. Yoke right-left serves to steer
> on the ground.

Later: Bent on a "kill or cure mission, I tore into the Wingman
joystick. Ths base cover was as rugged as ever, but I discovered 4 more
screws on the stick itself, 2 on the side and two in the stick bottom.
This came apart in a most complex manner to show the rudder pot insde
the middle of the stick. About the same time, the bottom popped off!.
Seems that a collar in the base has snags onto the base core. Anyway,
The rudder pot, I find, is scratchy but improves with a lot of
recycling, so I reassembed all (miraculously), and I now have
passable(?) rudder action, and I can fly the plane now.

> Furthermore, now I can't get my home town airports any more. Seems that
> half the important airports in Ohio are now Missing.

I did a 100% removal and re-install, and that seemed to get airports
back. Now for some practice finally.

More later.

> Ang. C.
>

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:41:37 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:


> It's especially good for that. Since there's no physical movement and limited
> visiblity, it's less useful for VFR. But since IFR is all about watching the
> instruments, and since the instruments are simulated quite well in FS, it can
> be very useful for IFR (even though it's not certified by the FAA).

Yea, but the problem I have with IFR in FS9 is that the flight controller
cancels my flight plan if I don't maintain my altitude within 300ft. or
something like that. Wish there was an option to turn that rule off or the
game gives you more time to get back to correct altitude before it cancels
the flight plan.

Fish wrote:
>>It's especially good for that. Since there's no physical movement and limited
>>visiblity, it's less useful for VFR. But since IFR is all about watching the
>>instruments, and since the instruments are simulated quite well in FS, it can
>>be very useful for IFR (even though it's not certified by the FAA).
> Yea, but the problem I have with IFR in FS9 is that the flight controller
> cancels my flight plan if I don't maintain my altitude within 300ft. or
> something like that. Wish there was an option to turn that rule off or the
> game gives you more time to get back to correct altitude before it cancels
> the flight plan.

Yep. Life sucks. But in the real world, ATC gets squirrely like that as
far as real altitude is concerned. In real life, the flight plan is not
cancelled, but a stern warning of "violation" soon follows, and possible
administrtive woe for the pilot for months following, unless correction
is immediate if not sooner.

Ang. C.
..

Fish writes:

> Yea, but the problem I have with IFR in FS9 is that the flight controller
> cancels my flight plan if I don't maintain my altitude within 300ft. or
> something like that. Wish there was an option to turn that rule off or the
> game gives you more time to get back to correct altitude before it cancels
> the flight plan.

You can use VATSIM to have actual human controllers to guide you instead of
computer-generated stuff, which eliminates the problems you describe. Like
real-world controllers, they don't cancel your IFR flight plan just because
you stray off course or away from your altitude.

I sympathize with your complaint, and that is a major pet peeve of mine with
the computer-generated ATC in the sim (I don't use it much any more--if I want
ATC as I fly, I use VATSIM).

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:00:05 +0000, angelo Campanella wrote:


> Yep. Life sucks. But in the real world, ATC gets squirrely like that as
> far as real altitude is concerned. In real life, the flight plan is not
> cancelled, but a stern warning of "violation" soon follows, and possible
> administrtive woe for the pilot for months following, unless correction
> is immediate if not sooner.
>
> Ang. C.
> .

Yea, but in RL when flying a 747 you get a co-pilot to help out. No such
luck in FS9. :)

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:14:13 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:


> You can use VATSIM to have actual human controllers to guide you instead of
> computer-generated stuff, which eliminates the problems you describe. Like
> real-world controllers, they don't cancel your IFR flight plan just because
> you stray off course or away from your altitude.
>
> I sympathize with your complaint, and that is a major pet peeve of mine with
> the computer-generated ATC in the sim (I don't use it much any more--if I want
> ATC as I fly, I use VATSIM).

Never tried VATSIM but perhaps I will one of these days. Just never
considered that as a fun MP game, maybe it is though. Thanks.

I'm fine with IFR so long as I use the autopilot controls to set course,
altitude etc.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Fish writes:
>
>> Yea, but the problem I have with IFR in FS9 is that the flight
>> controller cancels my flight plan if I don't maintain my altitude
>> within 300ft. or something like that. Wish there was an option to
>> turn that rule off or the game gives you more time to get back to
>> correct altitude before it cancels the flight plan.
>
> You can use VATSIM to have actual human controllers to guide you
> instead of computer-generated stuff, which eliminates the problems you
> describe. Like real-world controllers, they don't cancel your IFR
> flight plan just because you stray off course or away from your
> altitude.
>
> I sympathize with your complaint, and that is a major pet peeve of
> mine with the computer-generated ATC in the sim (I don't use it much
> any more--if I want ATC as I fly, I use VATSIM).



A: you don't fly, fjukkwit. and

B:

Controllers?


Bwahawhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwha!


Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> angelo Campanella writes:
>
>> So I went out and spent just over 20 bucks (with tax) and installed
>> it this eveing. All I can say is that it's come a long way, baby
>> (since FS5). It seem to have all I need for IFR practice.
>
> It's especially good for that. Since there's no physical movement and
> limited visiblity, it's less useful for VFR. But since IFR is all
> about watching the instruments, and since the instruments are
> simulated quite well in FS, it can be very useful for IFR (even though
> it's not certified by the FAA).
>
>> I mounted he Mooney (like my acft) ans am now getting familiar. but
>> the yoke I have (a Logictec Wingman) has a very sqirrely rudder. The
>> rudder is all over the place! I can't tell whether it is the pot
>> inside or bad logic somewhere. Taxiing is a menace, and takeoffs a
>> pain in the butt.
>
> Consider getting a set of pedals. It makes flying the sim a lot more
> enjoyable, especially for VFR. I use the Saitek X52 joystick and
> throttle, plus the Saitek pedals.
>
> Also, consider getting payware add-on aircraft. Many of the payware
> add-ons are so good that using them is almost like getting a new,
> upgraded simulator, and they match the real aircraft exactly in
> appearance and almost perfectly in behavior, particularly for
> instrument flight. RealityXP makes a set of Garmin GPS units that
> behave _exactly_ like the real things (because they use Garmin's own
> software), and you can practice on the sim and then use the same GPS
> unit in real life without missing a beat.
>
> My favorite aircraft for GA is Dreamfleet's Beechcraft Baron 58, but
> if you fly a Mooney there's probably someone else out there who has an
> ultrarealistic version of that. (Not that the default FS9 aircraft
> are _unrealistic_, but the add-ons are in a class by themselves.)
>



God you're even more pathetic than I thought.

Bertie