ChrisVon

Actually, Philipp, as the link I pointed to suggests above, as well as a screenshot from the FAA's Advisory Circular entitled "Aviation Weather Services" that I'm providing in this post, a METAR wind observation is given in TRUE. But I approached this problem a different way. I reversed my thinking, and I now realize that what the user inputs in the environmental section of X-Plane is in actuality MAGNETIC wind direction. If you take that into account, then the wind direction that X-Plane is displaying in the data output is TRUE. This makes sense if you refer to my previous screenshots and pretend that the reported winds are 281 degrees at 20 knots. To obtain an accurate wind direction for the sim to apply to the environment, one must take 281 degrees, and ADD the magnetic variation to get 270 magnetic degrees. This of course is exactly what you do when you plot a course by hand on a sectional...... But here's where the REAL problem is I think: When X-Plane reads a METAR (real weather downloaded) report, it assumes that the wind in the METAR is MAGNETIC (as proven by the fact that my Piper Cub weather vaned into the wind and settled in the direction that the wind was input in the environmental parameters. In principle, what X-Plane is actually doing, is taking a TRUE wind direction provided by the METAR, and placing it in a field requiring a MAGNETIC direction. This isn't MUCH of a problem in areas (such as where I live), where magnetic variation is +/- 1 degree (in other words, the affect is negligable). But if X-Plane is reading a METAR with the assumption that wind direction is MAGNETIC, then flight planning (especially in-flight checkpoint recording), becomes problematic. Until someone with more stroke than myself brings this to the development team's attention, the workaround is just not to use real weather, and manually enter the environmental parameters between weather reporting stations. (And yes, I submitted a bug report, but I don't anticipate much success with that.)

http://www.met.tamu.edu/class/metar/quick-metar.html

Hi All, I'm wondering if anyone else shares my thoughts on the subject of wind direction, and how X-Plane implements it in the virtual world. It's my understanding that wind direction is reported as relating to TRUE north, and that the pilot, in doing his flight planning, must take into account the magnetic variation when compensating for it's velocity in his wind correction angle calculations. So here's what I'm observing in 10.40 beta 5. I set my plane at KLAX (Los Angeles Intl), and set the surface wind (or 2000 by default in the environmental parameters), to 270 degrees, with a (stiff) velocity of 20 knots. When I setup the data output for "Atmosphere: Weather" to display to the cockpit, I see the wind direction as being 281.8 degrees. With a magnetic variation of -11.83 degrees (as reported by X-Plane for that particular location), shouldn't the wind direction calculated by the simulator be 258 degrees (subtracting the 11.83 degree magnetic variation from the 270 degree TRUE wind direction). I also took a Piper Cub, set it on the runway, and released the brake to allow it to "weather vane" into the wind. Again, I would have suspected my magnetic compass to show me pointed on a heading of 258 degrees. Instead, it points to 270 degrees (the TRUE direction that you set in the environmental parameters section in the sim). I haven't been current in the real thing for some time, so my rationale might be off in this. But I reviewed a couple of King Schools DVD's about METAR decoding and Cross Country VFR planning and flying that BOTH say that wind direction is given in TRUE north direction, and, as stated above, the pilot must apply the correction himself to get magnetic. None of this would concern most people if the only flying they do is through GPS or NAV radios, since the CDI would tell you in which direction and by how far off your course line you actually are. I prefer doing VFR flying "the old fashioned way", with a compass and stopwatch, and a flight log that I update passing over visual checkpoints, so a correct wind correction angle is a MUST, especially if I'm flying something as slow as a Cub (who's slow cruise speed EXACERBATES the problem of having a wrong wind calculation), with a wind / direction that requires a correction greater that 1 degree off the nose either direction. I'm attaching a couple of screenshots to show you what I'm trying to convey, but please feel free to respond with another question of my (possible) flawed logic, or if you need more information. Thanks! Chris

Well, as a loyal X-Plane user since v. 2.5.......X-Plane, you were a good friend. I won't speak for the professional community of persons using X-Plane (flight schools & instructors, aerospace corporations, government agencies, etc.), but I'd have issues knowing that my software that I use can be purchased from steam, right along side with (as another poster here pointed out), violent, gore filled GAMES. Can you imagine the following conversation?: Student in NTPS (National Test Pilot School): WOW, this sim is GREAT! What's it called?! IP: X-Plane! Student: Could I get this for MY computer? IP: Uhhhh, yeeeaaah. Student: How? IP: (Putting his head down and trying not to say it too loud).....Steam. Student: Oh. All THIS coming at a time when X-Plane was attracting more and more 3rd party developers, especially those that have been well established in the MSFS world. The only saving grace will be that XP will be available on disk as well, which I understand they said it will.....but for how long? I work away from home in the Gulf of Mexico, and am gone for days, if not WEEKS at a time, with NO INTERNET! if and when the day comes DVD and / or dongle is dropped from the lineup (and I can see that coming), how is someone with no internet connection available supposed to enjoy his software that his computer demands to be connected to steam on? I remember a few years back, Austin gloating how MS listed their MSFS under the "games" section on their own website. How different is this now for X-Plane? Chris

I posted this at: www.simmerspaintshop.com, but thought I'd drop a line here as well. I know that most here have the latest / greatest Adobe paint packages, but for those that don't and want it REAL cheap, this link: http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/index.html should get you good and started. I am running Windows 8, and so far, both Photoshop and Illustrator work ok. As I mentioned at simmerspaintshop.com, if this is a repost, please excuse the "lateness" of my reporting. Chris Vondenstein

"The new Motherboards are designed with overclockers in mind now......" I didn't know that about the motherboards, but almost had the impressions that overclocking (today anyway)is no longer in the realm of the hard-core hacker. It was my impression way back when, that there were two types of users who were overclockers: Those that HAVE over-temped their processors, and those that will. Which is why I initially (as indicated by my earlier post) was somewhat gun-shy about the idea of overclocking. I might change my mind then and go for the "K". I just need to do my homework on it I guess. Off topic a bit now, I noticed AtomicFrawg that you released scenery for 3R2 (Legros Memorial in South Louisiana), and that your location has you at KLFT. These are old stomping grounds for me, when I still flew (got my license in Abbeville in '97. I'm originally from Gueydan, but live in Youngsville now.

Yeah, that's why I was asking.....I had noticed a significant price difference between the two (at NewEgg), and wondered if I could put that difference towards something else. SqrtOfNegOne, I noticed that in your signature, you mention something about Intel's "Haswell" chipsets. I hadn't heard of any developments with new chipsets (though as I mentioned in my first post, I've been out of the game for a while). What is their objective with that set (if you know), and when is it expected to be released (target quarter / year)? I might just wait till THAT comes out, so that the chipset I want drops in price upon it's release. Thanks for the replies, guys! Chris

Hi all! I'm looking to build a system in the coming weeks / months, and have been eyeing the 3770K vs. the 3770. Please excuse my ignorance to this (it's been over a decade since I've scratch built a PC), but am I correct in assuming the "K" designation means that the processor can be overclocked? If so, do I fair better (cost wise anyway), getting the standard 3770 if I DON'T overclock (I've always been nervous about overclocking, and prefer not to), or does the "K" offer more spead than the 3770 without overclocking as well (or are there other features or performance enhancements that the "K" has over the 3770 in a non-overclocking environment? Thank y'all for your time! Chris

I don't think it has foreign airports and such, but for the U.S. I use the following link: http://aeronav.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=aeronav/applications If you pull up the associated instrument procedure,for an airport (assuming that airport has one), it will have an associated airport chart for it. You can get sectionals, high / low IFR routes, IAPs, etc. with this link. Use this service while you can. The FAA had no problem putting this on it's web site and keeping the data current and up to date for FREE.....until people actually started downloading it and using it.

I gotta be honest, I don't think there's a whole lot "wrong" with what I've seen in screen shots / videos. But to be fair, I've never been a "rivet counter" either. For me, it's all about the flight modeling, and if the correct measurements were placed, along with accurate airfoil data (obtainable I assume to the public for this type of aircraft's age), then X-Plane will take care of the rest. Anything after that is lagniappe as far as I'm concerned (or the "gravy" if that makes more sense to ya'll). I'm not saying I would buy this for $20 if the panel used "default" setups produced by Plane Maker, but I've seen a similar aircraft (in fact, another A-4) sold on another site, for another flight sim (which will remain nameless ;-) lol) that's half the price of what the .org is selling, but who's panel really isn't nearly as impressive. In fact, it should be about $5 instead of $10. There's really no point in going over the flight model to this competitor's rendition (since the designer is having to "feed" parameters in for the sim to read), but if the attention to detail of the panel is any indication of the aerodynamics, well..... I can see me buying this aircraft sooner rather than later (especially if 10 comes out before long, and the author will verify that it works as it should in 10.) Could there be room for improbement? Of course, but name ONE product out there that has never been "touched up". Heck, how many versions of of the Star Wars films have been released since the originals! lol Chris

OK, I was under the impression that you couldn't use the LFT VOR because it didn't have the heavy bold dark line as the actual approach Segments did. I appreciate the help, and again, thanks! Chris

I appreciate it. It's actually the ending so it will be very short, so won't be too long to explain. It would be finalizing on the H07 high alt Enroute chart, towards the top near Baton Rouge, west bound on the J590. After flying over the BTR VOR, I COULD keep on the J590 OR turn on the R211 to CLYNT intersection to prep for the IAF at the ACADI NDB for the ILS RWY 34 instrument approach to New Iberia (KARA). But CLYNT is not in the high alt Enroute chart. It IS on the low Enroute, along with ROSEY and LULEW, which are also depicted on the other approach plates for New Iberia. I know that ATC will also have a part in my approach with possible vectoring and such, but in the event that they are unable to for whatever reason, and they allow me to fly as my plan was filed, would my logic be sound in doing what I described above, or would there be a problem with filing with the following, ".....J590 BTR CLYNT ACADI", since CLYNT is not on the High Alt Enroute chart? Or could I bypass CLYNT all together and go straight to the NDB ((since CLYNT is used for the missed approach?). Also, I obviously know that my desire for an ILS for RWY 34 will only be feasible due to the airport traffic / winds, and picking the runway is out of my control. Thanks in advance!

I'm wanting to get into high altitude (above 18000 feet) IFR flight and I have a question about chart usage. I'm very familiar on the use and methods for IFR flying and navigation, but what I want to know is, if I'm flying with high Enroute charts, do I "swich over" to low Enroute once below 18000 feet. Part of the reason I ask, is because I was planning a flight with high altitude routes, then noticed that a fix that appears as part of an approach to an airport doesn't show up on the high altitude, but is present on the low Enroute chart. In other words, by navigating with low Enroute, I could set myself up with a fix that appears on BOTH the low Enroute and the approach plate.....this fix does not appear on the high Enroute for me to work into my planning. If anyone can advise I'd appreciate it. If I need to clarifie, I can and show examples if necessary.

That's what it looks like. If he adds the citation to the iPad version, I'll more than likely buy it.

You're actually right about this. I noticed it with I-Pad apps. One here for a buck, then one there for a buck, and eventually, you spend slot of money. Lol I will say though, at one time Digital Edge PC was advertising taking preorders for XP-10 and I THINK that it was listed for $80. I'd want to say that that was reliable since Digital Edge supplies Laminar Research with their PCs, and I also think that the owner is Austin's tech support guy, but I might not be right on this. At any rate, the advertisement has since been taken down (I regret not taking a screen grab of it.) No sense in speculating I guess. Regardless, I've had X-Plane since version 3.0, so I'm committed to the cause! Lol