ha5mvo

I no longer post here but just wanted to use he opportunity to announce the release of the latest version of the PT 154. here's the release announcement as in was posted on PT's forum: Happy landings Michael - Project Tupolev

איציק, המבנה האדמיניסטרטיבי והאם IFS היא חלק אינטגראלי או חיצוני ממש לא משנה את השורה התחתונה, קרי החומר האנושי שמגיע לIFS משקף את מה שואטאיל קולטת. אני מבין את הצורך של ואטאיל במילוי השורות, מצד שני, לדעתי נעשו ועדיין נעשים משגים בכל הקשור בשמירה וטיפוח הגרעין ה"איכותי" או "הבוגר" (קרא לזה איך שתרצה). לא התכוונתי שVATIL תבחן את בגרותם של חבריה או חניכיה, רמזתי שכדאי לחטיבה לבדוק את עצמה ואולי לגבש מסקנות כיצד להיות יותר אטרקטיבית לחבר'ה יותר רציניים. זרקו פה משהו על "איכות" ו "בריחת מוחות" . מישהו פעם חשב מה מבריח מפה "מוחות"? לי אישית זכורים כמה מקרים של אנשים רציניים שניסו לרחרח ומייד עשו אחורה פנה. רון פאר,באותו הקשר, אני מסכים עם רוב דבריך מלבד המסקנה בדבר אותה אכיפה. לטעמי עוד שוטרים וגננות הם הדבר האחרון שהמקום הזה צריך! ..

@ Asaf, Hey, no "punishment" what-so-ever, just "technical reasons" , you know.. I don't disagree with a single statement in your post and for sure I can share and understand your feelings of frustration. Furthermore, I don't think you can do much more than you are already doing as IFS because the heart of the problem as I implied is not withein IFS. You guys only handle the "material" you are getting from vatil. For your type of activities you need people with an adult approach. Is Vatil providing you with that? The answer from what I gather is probably - "no" The way I see it, it is up to Vatil to examin how to retain its "adult" (again, in mind, not neccesarily in age) population or indeed make itself more attractive in that manner. IFS can only call on Vatil for help, at the end of the day you can't ask your public to be "serious" if it is not such to begin with //Michael

Just couldn't resist it.. Asaf, I do believe you guys have a problem but I think your approach is futile in that it doesn't adress the reasons behind it. You may ban an individual X or Y but they will quickly be replaced by similar Xs and Ys... Pointing the finer at them might be an easy solution, alas it's the wrong one. Quantity isn't everything. Perhaps it's worth thinking what it would take to replace some of those Xs with As and Bs, even if there's less of the latter. Good luck, and all the best //Michael

במשך 5 השנים האחרונות (בעצם פחות, לפני 5 שנים לא היה את כל עניין החתימה) הכרתם אותי כ "מיכאל". מיכאל בלבד, ללא "לוי" , "כהן" , "אמסלם" או "זוכוביצקי". אין זה מקרה, פרטיותי חשובה לי ואינני נוהג להשאיר את שמי המלא בפורומים אינטרנטיים. ברור כי הדבר אינו עולה בקנה אחד עם סעיף 11 פיסקה ב לחוקת פורום ואטיל. אולם,עושה רושם, לאיש זה לא הפריע עד כה. במהלך היום הובהר לי שלא עוד ואאלץ לבחור בין החתימה והפורום. הבחירה, לצערי, היתה פשוטה. עלי להבהיר כי אין בליבי דבר כנגד הנהלת הפורום. הם ממלאים טכנית את 11ב ככתבו ולשונו. ההגיון מאחורי 11ב ומספר האנשים שהורחקו בגללו עד כה הם נושא אחר לפוסט אחר. לא נותר לי אלה להודות לכל אלו שהתכתבו איתי במהלך השנים. אורן גבע, רן, איציק, אילן יונש, עופר,אסף עידו,ברוכי,מיקי , איתי, שאדי ,לילדים ולמבוגרים הנחמדים שהיה לי העונג לעזור ולהעזר (כן, גם לאבירי החותמת ). לואטסים ישראל ולהנהלתה אני מאחל הצלחה בהמשך דרכם ולמי שרוצה - אני עדיין המודראטור של "פרויקט טופולב" היו שלום מיכאל!

עיניין החתימה זה לא האישו, האישו זה שהבחור נעלב כביכול מחוסר התגובות שקיבל ואחרי שמישהו כבר העיר לו על החתימה (כן היה צריך או לא היה צריך זה דיון אחר) הוא בחר לבוא אלינו בטענות במקום לבדוק את עצמו. The guy got offended since he got an aggressive and condescending response. The "forum rules" had claimed thus far more victims than done any good, if you are asking me. Aaron, there's nothing rude or impolite about his posts. They contain no personal attacks either. What else does it take to become "a part of the community"?

you don't have to be a seasoned pilot. All it takes are performance charts and similar info to compare your dynamics against. the "professionals" , whoever those might be are interested in whatever suits their purposes. If its a procedural sim then dynamics or other aspects may become irrelevant. You might have different requirements and may feel it's important for a planes behaviour to be as close to reality as possible. Basically it boils down to what's important to a given user (and between you and me: it's neither system modelling nor dynamics for most...)

because, as I implied, the development started BEFORE the 767 from LDS was released. זה כבר משהו אחר. למה להם למשוך את הפיתוח של דבר כזה לכל כך הרבה זמן? Not of their own choice would be a safe guess! many things can go wrong which may slow down or even completely halt a given development process. How long did it take the oiled PMDG machine to develop their MD-11?

because, as I implied, the development started BEFORE the 767 from LDS was released.

For one, it has a complete representation of a galley and a lavatory! Now what would you have done if you had an almost-finished product that had been gathering dust for a long time and then, due to some circumstances an opportunity came about to modify and sell it for FSX? would you not have done just that? what do they have to lose? The strengths of CS are pretty famous, just as their infamous weaknesses. I'm quite convinced there would be enough folk that would rave about the newly discovered levels of realism in the modelling of a flushing toilet.

ל FS ישנם שני אלמנטים יסודיים בהקשר זה. האלמנט הראשון הוא הסימולציה, אשר מורכבת מההתנהגות האירודינאמית, מידול המערכות, התנהגות מזג האוויר והשפעתו על מודל הטיסה וכיו"ב. האלמנט השני הוא פקטור האימרסיה (immersion factor) , כלומר כל אותם מרכיבים אשר גורמים לנו לשכוח לרגע שאנו יושבים בחדר מול מחשב ולהאמין שאכן ישנו מטוס כזה או אחר ואנו מטיסים אותו. כאן באה לידי ביטוי גרפיקה (פאנלי, חיצוני ונוף), סאונד, סינרים מפורטים, AESים למינהם וכל אותם הפרטים אשר גורמים לנו להאמין שאכן מדובר בעולם "ראליסטי". התרשמותי האישית היא שהאלמנט האחרון, עבור רובם המכריע של הסימרים, הוא, הוא בעל החשיבות המכרעת. ממתי אנשים בודקים ביצועים מול טבלאות וגראפים? כמה אנשים אכן מנצלים יותר משבריר ממספר המערכות שממודלות במטוס מורכב?

I don't understand why frames should be related to realism. Frames measure how fast does a given computer run a given program (a flightsim for this matter). If anything, it is an index for how powerful ones computer is. I would have relpaced frames with systems modelling for a realism parameter

Its a known issue. Up until fsx the FS world wasn't round. In fsx, however, this matter had been resolved

Can you elaborate? which token variables would you like to see? where did it hinder you in your development? I wish them well, but I'm not holding my breath. Their projects so far do not even come near developing full scale sim from scratch There will be none in the foreseeable future, but if there was, I don't really understand why it's anything but good news. FSX is indeed a big gaffe, but I couldn't agree more with that:

You'll find a gyro on small planes, large planes ...actually, on many types of planes. Some are more accurate then others but none is effected by magnetic flux. Still, most of the world flies by magnetic headings. Maps, plates and most navigation is based on magnetic reference rather than true one. For that reason , the gyro is slaved to a magnetic flux meter which adds to or subtracts from the gyro at any given moment the magnetic variation. The end result is the magnetic heading. In the arctic region, the magnetic flux is highly unstable. it changes rapidly and at large amplitudes. Therefore, the workaround is to disable all magnetic reference and fly using true reference instead - read: gyro only. Which type of gyro and what is its accuracy is a technical rather than a principle issue

Sure you got the right article?

In terms of approaches there are indeed GPS and RNAV approaches (which don't have principle differences). To be able to fly a GPS approach the instrument needs to comply with various criteria (accuracy etc.) However, I also *thought* the question referred to RNAV in the broader sense. You will also need to differentiate the INS from the FMC. The FMC, FMS or whatever you call it is just a computer, it needs to be fed with data from various sensors. By the same token your GPS is useless without satellites.

אנשים, יש GPSים שתומכים באופציית RNAV.. מישהו מכיר משהו כזה? rephrase your question. what do you mean by "RNAV option"? research further the OBS mode...

there are special regulations for say, Canadas artic control in terms of minimal equipment requirements.The Northern Track System and Arctic Track System in the Northern and Arctic Control Areas are based on the Canadian Minimum Navigation Performance Specification (CMNPS) The Magnetic North Pole is located near the centre of Canadas NDA (Northern Domestic Area), therefore magnetic compass indications may be erratic. Thus, in this airspace, all track reference is in reference to true north and true track is used to determine cruising altitude for direction of flight in lieu of magnetic track. In addition some VORs are also aligned with true north (read have a variation of zero) to comply with true north navigation. Similar rules exist in Russian polar airspace, however, this was not much of an issue for russian made aircraft as their navigation systems and RSBN stations (the parallel of VORs) are based on true north anyway

this sort of stuff should not cause any slowdowns whatsoever. It will, however, require a massive amount of disk space. There are utilities available that can render satellite photos into scenery. The problem usualy is finding good quality high resolution sources

http://www.majesticsoftware.com/c/porta ... DashQthree נראה טוב , אבל 100 יורו :shock: אני אבדוק מה ההבדל בין הגרסאות Dima, go for the freeware version first. It has % of the payware functionality and the panels look virtually the same. This is by far the best freeware turboprop even afer all these years. if you didn't find it (it was on avsim at the time as 2 downloads base and fs9 patch)try using "dash-8 by fanda" as keywords the most up to date version should be 1.004b

look up a dash 8 by Oleksy Frolov. It dates back to the fs2002 days but has an update for fs2004. The payware product that developed from this addon is sold by "majestic sim" and is probably the best turboprop in terms of system modelling. It is behind on the graphic side though. The model was developed and serves for training purposes with "Tyrolian" and other operators. If you want high quality modelling and don't care too much about the looks you may consider spending a relatively large sum "majestic" are asking for their product.

Ido just gave away a big secret concerning development for FS, namely, that most projects are done almost exclusively by a single, or at best no more than a couple of developers. This developer will spend MANY of his free evenings and weekends developing his project. The process is often so exhausting that doing it all over again for a second time is out of the question. I can attest to that from an aircrafts model development point of view and I believe it is very much the same for scenery.

Doron, I honestly see nothing arrogant in the way MS handled the ACES situation. Just like you have admitted - they no longer found it profitable and decided to cut it down. Funny enough though , that a company with nearly nothing in its track record that has to do with programming (with all due respect to scenery developing - programming it is not) Not sure who's the arrogant side here. Perhaps I would have been less skeptical if aerosoft had already have something at hand. I'd love to eat my words but at this point there's no evidence this is nothing more than a spin. @Yarden Any new simulator will be exactly that - a NEW simulator, I don't see a way MS will allow another company to copy parts of their technology. This is unacceptable in the industry. Wilco are publishers, not developers... Once they hit the jackpot with a good product another time they were less successful with OTHER developers. Just like flight 1, they generate nothing, just publish several developers projects. As for MS, your financial evaluation is probably incorrect or else, nobody shuts down a profitable business....

Again, one should realize a simple fact. The moment one generates a new platform, it has zero compatibility with whatever was made for another platform! Not sure how many are aware what level of complexity is required to model a TU154 or a PMDG 747, let alone an entire simulator platform! I don't know what's aerosofts motive behind the announcement. a cynical stunt to draw some attention and gain some free publicity or some naive faith in their ability to be up to the task. In my opinion, for what it's worth, judging by their track record a simulator would be way, way out of their league.