Beiträge von Overloaded

    With HDR enabled in WIN11 FS2 on startup gets an announcement that Auto HDR is running (provided that V-sync is selected) but FS4 does not.

    FS2 looks well balanced when HDR is selected in Windows but with FS4 it is either a bit muddy with HDR enabled or a bit ‘soot and whitewash’ with SDR/HDR not enabled. I tried entering aerofly_fs_4.exe and its path into the Win11 graphics page’s Auto HDR app list but nothing happens. Is anyone getting Auto HDR working with FS4?

    The HDR calibration is successful.

    (I tried an X-planes 12 would-be bad HDR fix involving changing an Nvidia setting ‘Vulkan/OpenGL present method’ from auto to ‘prefer layered on DXGI Swapchain’ and it did nothing.)

    Use reduced thrust to match the sim’s pre-set landing weight value. The only semi functional FMC presumably ignores our cosmetic performance entries so try combining autothrottle speeds with manually selected rates of climb, reducing the climb rates as the needed N1s creep up with altitude. By 31,000 feet you should simulate only a small amount of excess thrust over that required to maintain speed.
    You can regard any imperfection in the sim as an on the day deferred defect and work around it to get the job done.

    Hopefully.

    About 50% of northern European skies during the winter half of the year are covered with dull somewhat boring grey stratus clouds. Surely it must be easier to depict textureless depth only clouds with no or few breaks. Breaking through solid or near solid cloud descending under a mile from the runway is harder and therefore far more interesting. Fluffy pretty cumulus with as much gap as cloud cover at the sim's current cloud maximum has room for improvement.

    If broken stratus is difficult then solid would be just fine. Cumulus cannot be solid anyway, there can be no local cumulus updraughts without corresponding downdraughts (which increase the air temperature and so rapidly evaporate any cloud content).

    It seems true in several places, I haven’t assessed the entire globe. Another factor is that VORs only are calibrated occasionally so their broadcast bearings might be wildly incompatible with those of relatively close VORs with only tiny actual variation differences but surveyed and adjusted on different dates. My local variation has drifted by about five degrees from when I started so it can be a significant factor.


    Omega had enormous world wide range with only a handful of transmitters but it needed an incredible amount of electricity. I like nav aids but know just enough to know how little fine detail I do know about it. Old cockpits with primitive layouts are my favourite.

    The Baltic was on the great circle route to China from London before the airspace to the east closed. I never got off but the scenery was gorgeous.

    They are out of sync, fly to the variation and you need to add two degrees to VOR radials. It is not a big deal as VORs are supposed to be +/- a few degrees anyway, too precise is bad, too accurate is bad. Aerofly DME (like in real life) is reliable for distance output, the Aerofly range of the VORs and DMEs should be more random and ideally be influenced by altitude and terrain.
    Aero is still useful but there were dedicated professional standard nav capable sims when I was learning.

    (Having got MSFS I’ll look up the 1930s Boeing 247 sim. It has Radio Range a wonderfully useful aid for its time which only needed an ordinary A.M. radio and a pair of earphones. I only just missed the outrageous Omega and the affordable Decca and Loran were being withdrawn around my time).

    Perhaps we will get more navigation and less Yeti?

    They are essential and a core procedure in real world legal and safe instrument flying. Not having them is like not having cockpit windows to instrument pilots.

    The Steam sale has three days left to run. I just got MSFS 2020. It and X-plane do audio idents.
    They do not compete with Aerofly as it does not do audio idents and the admins have not entered into discussion about the lack of idents.
    There is no market place competition because to me Aerofly without audio idents is in a special and separate category of not able bodied home computer flight simulator which I will continue to massively enjoy and support. It has significant strengths that the other two lack.

    (Jan this post is about us users and customers having an opportunity to get audio idents).

    I do not remember these height anomalies being addressed by the developers with any commitment to engineer a repair. Perhaps I missed it. It would be quite sad if they survive all the way to the eventual obsolescence of this fine version of Aerofly.

    Holding the heights is great too, that’s a Cessna autopilot running hour of fun unless you have a second pilot doing the nav tuning!
    Doing it in the sim you can clearly see the ominous high ground just on the west side of the hold and to the north of the procedures.

    This chart really brings to life the MSA minimum sector altitude insert (bottom right) showing the 4700 feet sector between the 005 to 095 degrees bearings TO the VNY VOR. You can get away with just 4600 feet flying directly between VENTURA and TOAKS!
    Either could be the (IAF) start of the instrument approach.

    An approach chart is compelling and draws one towards having a serious go in Aerofly. Some of us will end up doing them for real some time in the future.