LA

Good looking panel & rivet detail. I'll have to get this someday (soon). Have to get the DC-3 first.

Take a few more months. I don't have my new simming computer yet. Maybe by the end of the year. Your schedule is fine...

In reality...... You'll seldom find any vintage warbirds or airliners such as the DC-3, who don't use a handheld GPS in the cockpit, to navigate across the country (USA) attending airshows, etc. Too much advantage, versus the old methods. Other than that, since flight simulation is entertainment, then by all means, navigate with just VORs, maps, and pencils. I'm just pointing this out, because the original question is quite legit.

That's the reality of it. It's a major undertaking just itself, let alone simulating some of these aircraft. I became a real life GPS "junkie" in 1993. For several years, portable GPSs had more features than panel mounts, due to the fact of the certification process. I've had had a real interest in CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) accidents since the late 70's when a airliner (DC-8 cargo) smashed into the mountain, close to where I lived. It didn't take long to realize, that moving map GPS with terrain, was a major improvement over the radio nav systems. Sim GPSs were never able to catch up with those I used for real life mountain flight. My "later" aviation Garmin portables (296,496,696) were ahead of the Garmin 430/530 panel mounts for computing power, and resolution. The portable had a much better terrain display. This didn't change, until the Garmin 1000 panel mount became available. Now, some sim users are still dealing with the KLN90......which I consider as vastly inferior. It's just older than some of those hills out there. I wouldn't even care to simulate a 430, but that's me. I know that there are some "semi" editions of the Garmin 1000 for simming, but not full featured. Besides, even the 1000 is getting older, by todays standards.

The realities of the GPS situation. In the last 10, probably 15 years.......I haven't seen a real life classic, including warbirds, Connies, etc, that at least doesn't have a portable GPS on board. But that's for real life. Simming has other requirements to keep ones interest, because watching the scenery go by, isn't quite as exciting as real life scenery might be. I seldom use GPS for flight simming. For real life aviation, I'm a GPS advocate......big time! Since I did start using moving map GPS in 1993, I wouldn't ever bother with something as antique as a KLN90. I even consider the Garmin 430s and 530s as old, considering a Garmin portable I had years ago, had much better computing power and resolution. Being realistic, in todays real life aviation.....GPS does replace the navigator. And with more precision, than was ever possible with the VOR system. Let alone the systems that predated that system. You don't need that 3rd flight member to keep track. You're now within 3'of your actual location with the GPS screen. Altitude with WAAS and comparible systems is even more accurate than barometric altitude, if you need to miss the nearest mountain. Weather, winds, terrain mapping, and altimeter settings are available for hundreds of miles in all directions. And that's with just a quick glance at the screen. Especially useful for all of the restricted areas, that are in my part of the world. Mostly military. And for what it's worth, a friend of mine, who flies a Boeing 737 -800 in which GPS is the main navigation source, keeps track of GPS "failure" for me. We are looking at 14 years now. There is an occasional NOTAM for testing, but it's been no big deal. So.......use a portable for realistic flying in todays enviroment, or use the other methods simulate the way it was done.....then.

Agree.......I would really like to be there.

A few things. X-Plane won't be starting with "auto-rudder", if that setting is on in FSX. A single engine plane, or twins will drift to the left, if the props are turning clockwise from the cockpit view. Requires right rudder. But then there is a problem, in which some are calling the "torque bug". X-Plane is not compensating enough for forces that over ride the torque the sim is simulating. Where most "torque roll" is overcome by forces of lift and spiral propwash by the time the plane is ready to leave the ground......you're still getting a roll on climb, as well as possibly in cruise. For the time being, this has been compensated with some built in aileron trim, changes within the wing airfoil settings, as well as just limiting the simulated torque. It's a problem thats being worked on, for the next beta release, hopefully. Aileron trim settings, are not a real answer, as the 172 doesn't have aileron trim to start with. Numerous add-ons do have one form or another, to compensate for this roll, until the initial problem is solved.

As I've heard, it does have that X-Plane thing............about overdoing torque, which in fact requires lots of aileron trim, which in fact.............isn't all that real. Left pull on runway? Great! Use rudder to compensate. A want to left roll after takeoff, which requires throwing in the aileron trim, not so great. Since it's now a verified fact, that X-Plane hasn't been able to compensate for some of the forces that counteract roll from torque...........it's now being worked on. From the review: " have flown the Dash 8 Q400 several times now and it handles really well. It realistically depicts the engine torque which will pull you over to the left as you run down the runway and as you climb out, forcing you to make corrections or adjust your aileron trim settings to compensate." Earlier this year, torque or no torque became a passion of mine. I wasn't experiencing it in real life, after the takeoff roll, in which my left wheel was sometimes pushed towards the runway surface ( I called my little RV6A with a constant speed prop, a torque monster on touch and goes, where it was very evident.). So I spent weeks reading pilot reports, and talking to many pilots. One even flew the single engine Skyraider in Vietnam, which had the most horsepower ever for a single engine piston airplane. Around 2600 HP as I remember. Since he's been a flight instructor in the years since then, and owns a plane like I had...........I put out the question. I asked about aileron. "Wrong control" he says! "It's rudder, lots of right rudder!" I also ran this notion by another forum, our experimental builders forum. One response from one who flies an Air Tractor (crop duster) with a P&W turbine said that yes, the torque does exist. Then because I mentioned it, he really thought about it, his next time up. He replied back, that "torque" as it turns out, was just inconsequental. We do know that torque exists, it's just that the other forces counteract it. We shouldn't have to be throwing in a bunch of aileron trim. It causes drag. And when you pull back power, it will want to start rolling the opposite direction.

Charcoal flavored mashed potatoes.... This new cloud addon, is great, isn't it? Nice to see X-Plane screenshots, in which the clouds add to the scene, instead of detract.

Tom K. ...........A good, sensible reply.

At this point, I'm just rather tired of all this "different" camp crap. As someone said at Avsim............we all share a common interest, don't we? As far as I'm concerned, a desktop simulation will just be an extenstion of flight, that I enjoyed in the past. It will be to re-create flights, some nostalgia of piston machines before my time, and an interest in modern commercial airliners (visted Boeing last evening). I don't care to be limited by one specific simulation. After using desktop sims since there beginning, I'm well aware of quality additions versus the lesser variety. Each sim has both, and everything in between. Most of all, I could care less about comparing stock to addon's. It doesn't mean a damn thing, if you're trying to achieve the best out a simulation. It's pointless to even use it as an argument, yet so many seem to do so. I don't believe it will benefit too many, to use LM's marketing as an excuse to head the simming population in one specific direction. Although I don't regularly participate in the LM discussions, it's become a dead issue at the other forum. If developers are counting on P3D to fall through, anytime soon, then you might want to get a second job, if you haven't already.

Good for the Skymaxx, and a waste of time reading statements from those who hope Lockheed Martin pulls the plug.

I guess I don't understand exactly what you're trying to do. Are you creating settings, that make it so you have to hold pressure on the yoke, to remain level? If so, then why? Afterall, people actually pay good money to have aircraft re-rigged, in order to get rid of as much drag as possible, and the annoyance of holding constant pressures against the flight surfaces. Or maybe I'm just getting the wrong impression, of what your trying to accomplish.

I'm glad I just noticed this thread. Didn't know about the progress of this Archer. Will be looking forward to it.