Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by jallen0, Feb 18, 2020.
Long shot, but does anyone know if the Simionic G1000 apps connect? They have a connector for xplane, but I don’t remember it being native.
I use the Rift CV1 as well. I don't mind it. In fact, I don't fly without it anymore. I have a honeycomb yoke and a thursmaster throttle as physical controls. Lately for IFR procedures practice, I have been using my RAM yoke mount on the honecomb. Foreflight connected to XPlane on my iPad screencast to my desktop to LonelyScreen. Then I pull that into VR using a plugin called MoveVR. I position that MoveVR window (now displaying the Foreflight app running on my real iPad) to the same position on the yoke where my real iPad is mounted to the Honeycomb....
It all sounds convoluted, but I am able to pan and zoom with my finger on my real iPad and see the results in X Plane. I do have to peek at the (real) iPad to load up approach plates, but otherwise it is very realistic. I can practice approaches, non-standard holds, departure procedures all day long. Obviously not loggable and not close to the real thing in terms of stick-and-rudder and feel of the aircraft. But it is really good for getting the procedures down.
In fact, the vFlyteAir Arrow has the same Aspen / 430w combo as our Arrow... So it is uncanny how close the VR version looks to the real thing.
Dude, 7 out of the 30 planes are Cessnas. Many brands are completely absent. (piper? mooney?) I'm sure if there is demand, they will have DLC add-ons available. You sound like a chick at the buffet, plate piled high with roasts and chops, complaining that they ran out of prime rib.
No VR and no Pipers??? No $$$ from me.
Ah, who am I kidding. I'm buying it.
What kind of specs will it need?
Pretty much all of the specs..it needs it.
CPU: Intel Core i5-8400 or AMD Ryzen 5 1500X or better
RAM: 16 GB
OS: Windows 10 64-bit
VIDEO CARD: Radeon RX 590 or GeForce GTX 970
PIXEL SHADER: 5.1
VERTEX SHADER: 5.1
FREE DISK SPACE: 150 GB
DEDICATED VIDEO RAM: 4096 MB
CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 or AMD Ryzen 3 1200 or better
RAM: 8 GB
OS: Windows 10 64-bit
VIDEO CARD: Radeon RX 570 or GeForce GTX 770 or better
PIXEL SHADER: 5.0
VERTEX SHADER: 5.0
FREE DISK SPACE: 150 GB
DEDICATED VIDEO RAM: 2048 MB
Doesn't seem that over the top even at recommended. When they are up to the 2080 series for GeForce, a 970 is a bargain.
150gb of storage is a fair bit though...
Certainly not over the top with hardware being so cheap.
Interesting is not a single helicopter in the default aircraft list. I wonder if the game physics allow for it?
I'm slightly disappointed that you can't fly a steam 172 on the basic package. I'm also curious as to whether you can buy the airplanes in the upper packages on an á la carte basis if you have the standard edition.
Either that or you can buy a 3rd party add-on. They've confirmed that 3rd party companies will be able to sell addons still.
First, you can't have too many Cessna's and second no one ever gets enough Prime Rib! :7)
Man, I am stoked. Good hobby over the winter. Due to financial and health reasons, I am not flying for real, so this is great. But my wife, not so happy. Not so happy with the credit card charges.... new everything including computer to get the best out of this bad boy.
A “chick”? As insult? Doesn’t even work in context...it would be a dude way more often than a chick with a plate piled high with roasts and chops.
I live in rural PA and my internet speed is horrible (DSL lol). How dependent on high speed internet is the software. hopefully with the 150gb space requirement it downloads most if not all locally? I can install at work.
"...you ... need a high speed internet connection and a monthly subscription..."
In my rural area I have 20 meg down and I don't do subscriptions so I am not the target audience. Stay with X-Plane, I guess.
Don't forget "ideal"
I'll be purchasing a computer that can handle the "ideal" spec.
Hmmm...I only have a ryzen 5, but I'm good on the rest of it. I guess I'm almost ideal.
I suspect having a better computer lets you fly with higher/further visibility. One strategy used in computer games is limit the view distance in order to limit the rendering load - so maybe you can only see 20 miles instead of 30 or 50. To see further, you have to apply more processing power to it. However since it's an expanding arc, it's diminishing returns.
People also have different expectations for their framerate. When it comes to immersion, I'm really sensitive to it. Anything below 60fps is entirely unacceptable for me, but I know it's just fine for others. So in my case I'll just dial down the settings until my existing hardware can make 60+fps, or I'll open my wallet.
The recommended specs provide a subpar gaming experience. However I play a good bit of PC games so my expectations are a bit higher. Last month I built a new machine which exceed the ideal specs. Didn't want to trash it up with any Alpha builds so waiting on release (maybe beta if I get antsy) to load it up.
I am humming and hawing on what kind of computer to buy/build. I am not a computer guy.. so building one myself seems complex. I also have a tight budget, but want to be smart and get the most out of the sim? Any suggestions for you guys that have already setup for it? The minister of war and finance is already asking alot of questions about the 34" curved monitor... flight controls etc LOL
If you're not a computer guy I would probably stay away from building your own unless you want to put some time into reading/watching builds. I know a number of people who will buy a dell/hp setup and slap a new video card in.
Flight controls and the like are really up to you. At one time I used a mess of different controls, pedals and throttle quadrants. Now I just use a simple HOTAS setup that I can unplug and put away fairly easy. Most my sim gaming is either flying in a manner in which you shouldn't fly, or just IFR and everything on autopilot.
Pretty sure the subscription is only for on xbox. It was specifically stated that on PC you wouldn't need a constant internet connection besides the initial download and install, and no monthly fee. You just won't get the high detail terrain without an internet connection.
Very cool. I played around with MoveVR some as well. I also have foreflight and the same flight controls. I just hate having to use the touch controller to try and interact with the radios, totally kills it for me. So I went back and built a physical radio stack instead and in the process of adding 2 more monitors for a triple monitor setup. I'll keep VR for games like Elite: Dangerous where almost everything can be accomplished with a HOTAS.
We've got a local computer shop that charges $50 flat rate to build a PC to order. Buy the CPU/GPU/MB/Memory/OS/Case/Power Supply, etc from them, and for $50 more you pick up a ready-to-go PC with the OS and right drivers installed, and no bloatware.
I've fiddled with upgrading some old PCs for backup/secondary use, but when it comes time for a new one, I just pay the 0.05 AMU.
Hard to beat that!
I've got a 2yr old Dell XPS with the i7-7700 and 32gb ram, 256GB ssd, 1TB HD. The only thing I'd have to upgrade is the video card and probably the power supply. Thinking about getting an Nvidia GTX 1070ti if i can wedge it into the case. I don't think there's enough room for the top of the line video cards to fit in most factory cases.
Maybe a developer like Carenado will create or port over a piper.
Except XPlane runs on 3 platforms, MSFS only on MS. And a very high-powered box on top of that. No, I won’t be buying it.
I really don't think the specs are all that insane for MSFS. We will see. I will wait for it to come out and see what the masses say before purchasing a PC.
They're not. Any decent gaming computer from at least the last 5 years will run this just fine. You only need the high-end spec if you want to crank every setting to the right.
Do you know something others don't? MSFSX is still in a need of a very good 5 years ago system to get some decent performance. I am sure these guys are not going to write some super code to do all the things they say they can do now, and some later, like the IFR and other improvements.
They lost me, and a number of other Real World (RW) pilots, I lost confidence in these Assobo bunch. They originally said this sim will be focused towards the Real World pilots, than they prioritize multi player, release the product without IFR capabilities, they split the C172 in 2 different acft when the only difference is the Instrument panel, just to get more people to buy another more expensive version, they have all types of acft that not many pilots actually use or train in, now they think they can sell a Console game to real World Pilots?
There are so many things missing from the information they released to date, just hype, that I would not buy it to even play it on the console.
The Game console players never really accepted the Flight Simulators, it's too much work for their little brains, and they will likely not make a lot of money from them, especially when they want the $$$$ they are asking for, at least not in the US market.
They best get serious if they want to get RW pilots to buy it. I do not need Real Buildings, Traffic or Wx which is actually not Real even when using their definition.
I want good Flight dynamics, that can perform with reasonable number accuracy Straight and Level, Turns, Ground reference, Spins..., maneuvers with real field of views when I look Forward, Right, Left, all the VFR obstacles and important references, and aircraft that pilots use in training.
It was a bad idea to contract to an outside developer, this project could have easily been done by the original people that wrote the code before. All MSFSX needed is upgrade to 64 level, better scenery improved Flight dynamics, correct some of the views in the cockpit, and improvements in ATC with some additional external access to data, which you can actually get if you use xConn presently, but having it included would have been been helpful.
I may have another look at it next year when they say they will have the IFR done, and see if it's worth buying, For now MSFSX, XPlane and couple of others will do a much better job than this handicapped, not fully baked, sim.
You said you don't need real buildings, traffic, or weather, so then no, you don't need a high powered computer to run it if you're going to be turning down the details anyway.
IFR is already in it.
VFR references, like realistic ground references? That you get from included satellite imagery?
What you describe as "all FSX needed" is literally a complete rewrite, which is what this is.
What training aircraft are you looking for? Were they included in the original release of FSX? The flight model is better than anything that's ever been made. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's not based in reality. Yes, I feel like the release date is being rushed, but you make it sound like it's on the opposite end of the development spectrum from what it actually is.
Lol, there are tons of games and simulators that are only single platform and they do just fine. Id put heavy money that most of those running xplane are on a PC already anyway, so it's not like everyone is going to have to switch from mac to PC, or ps4 to xbox. If they want the best flight sim tech and scenery rivaling anything the best full motion simulators have, MSFS 2020 will be it.
You must not know much about code. What I mentioned is a very small part of what the overall package is. Adding some better scenery would not require much code, converting to 64 would not, they already had a lot of the VFR ground references all they need is to add some more, the Flight dynamics was very close and I fail to see how this Game based co. is capable of developing better flight dynamics.
If you are not familiar with the acft that are being used in training you will likely not know or care about anything else in aviation.
It's half baked, incomplete, and I would suggest to everyone to get the FSX, or any another sim before you buy this.
I asked what aircraft YOU were looking for, and whether they were included in the original FSX release. You can suggest all you want but you're just coming across as bitter for some reason. FSX doesn't even begin to compare to this, and to suggest otherwise is just laughable.
Fortunately, I'm not interested in best tech or scenery. I'm not about to drop $750 or more on hardware (already priced it out for someone who plans to get MSFS2020) for something I'll rarely use. I have MSFS X and 2004, and they do all that I need. In fact, haven't even turned on the Windows system in months. I keep it around for MS Access and MSFS and that's about it.
If you don't like, it don't buy it. At release, it will be free to download and try out, but you only get to fly Hawaii.