'Taboo Question'

[Panther_99FS]

Okay...
What payware aircraft have you flown the least & why :ques: :kilroy:

For me,
It's probably the Eaglesoft Colombia.....Reason is that as of late, I'm not into the high-tech systems.....:cost1:

[pointy31]

Aerosoft Super Cub, I find the freeware Super Cub by Mr. Narcizo is a more accurate rendition, and the Aerosoft version has a GIRL flying it...:costumes:

[heywooood]

EagleSofts Twinkie...I just dont get good frame rates in it for the settings I like in FSX. The default Baron is my only twin now.

I hope Miltons D-18 and the Commanders will be redone in FSX sdk soon. :kilroy:

All my other payware performs well -

RealAir Scout/Citabria and SF260

RazBams A-6 Intruder

IcarusGolds Pitts

Alphasims T-6 / Harvard

All of the Caranado Fleet released to date<----these perform better than default FSX planes in most cases

The rest is all freeware and I'd like to thank those people right now for them profusely. :applause:

Its a drag because I love that Piper Twin in every other sense - but it just kills my FPS...

[MudMarine]

AS T-34......flown it once and wished I hadn't bought it!

[ColoKent]

...Abacus S-2F (not thrilled with the quality)

...AS Caribou (spinners don't show in FSX)

Anyway...those are my two most regretted.

Kent

[MCDesigns]

AS Blackhawk, it is just to resource intensive on my system, which really sucks!:isadizzy:

[gajit]

Sadly its the Aerosoft F-16 as my system can cope with every other aircraft's self shadow - but not that one. :banghead:

[Mithrin]

Same here, certainly it is an outstanding product but there's no way in hell I can enjoy that with my current system...which happily plays any other game on full settings.

[stiz]

a2a's B377, its just a bit to hard on the frames for me to fly it smoothly :frown:

[cheezyflier]

carenado 152. it looks real nice, but for me, is impossible to trim for straight and level flight.

[Roger]

a2a's B377, its just a bit to hard on the frames for me to fly it smoothly :frown:

Same plane but for me it's not possible to fly from spot view which is where I spend most of a flight. If I'd understood that without Accusim it was still a vc intense experience I wouldn't have bought it. A real shame because it looks beautiful.

[Thoe6969]

Eaglesofts Colombia for me also,it's only payware plane I have that brings my system to it's knees.I don't know why cause the Twinkie gets good frames.

[VaporZ]

Iris Simulations Beechcraft Texan II / Harvard II

This young French Canadian Lady CAF Officer is flying the real one
as QFI at NFTC Moose Jaw and convinced me last june to buy it !!!

Thanks to her !
She was right !
:ernae:
VaporZ

http://images.cjb.net/41521.jpg (http://www.cjb.net/images.html?41521.jpg)

[IanP]

First Class Sim/ Dan Dunn's Miles Magister - flown once, will never fly again. VC is horrible. Expensive AI fodder at best.

Ian P.

[jmig]

carenado 152. it looks real nice, but for me, is impossible to trim for straight and level flight.

That is because the airframe is bent and out of alignment from all the student landing. :costumes:

I should know, I learned to fly in a C-150/152.

If there is one airplane I wish I hadn't bought it is the Alphasim F-5E. I consider the flight model to be wrong and the VC to be below the standards of the time. However, the flight model is my biggest complaint.

[kilo delta]

CaptainSim's 757

[hinch]

Shockwave/A2A HE219 - it's a great bit of modelling and textures, it sounds awesome, and the visibility is good - it's just really really dull somehow.

There's a few others that have been installed and didn't last a week too.

[SpaceWeevil]

Believe it or not, the RealAir Spitfire for FSX. The cockpits are too sparse, it sits wrong on the ground to my eyes, sounds more like a Tucano than a Spitfire, at least on my system, and - I don't know - there's just something wrong with the wings. Look at any Spitfire picture or see one flying and check out the dihedral (the up-angle of the wings to the horizontal). It's only six degrees but, with the thin wings and the eliptical shape, it looks very pronounced. This one looks too flat & shallow, and it spoils the whole thing for me. I reckon Plane Design still have the best Spitfire to date, but I've given up trying to get it working in SP2 - roll on their Mk VIII.

[SpaceWeevil]

Oh, and the Just Flight / Aeroplane Heaven Mosquito - I've uninstalled it and replaced it with Dave Garwood's freeware Beaufighter.

[Nick C]

I couldn't begin to start. Eye's too big for my belly type scenario. :costumes:

[lifejogger]

The Ealgesoft Cirrus SR22. I can't read the numbers on the glass instrument pane.:banghead::banghead:

[N400QW]

Then by all means adjust your monitor and video card settings. Another option is to use the Zoom panel or the Zoomed Avidyne popups :isadizzy:

[bkeske]

.....mmmm.....much of the problem may be that we just have too many to fly, and do not get to learn each ones quirks. But, I do think it is interesting to hear folks having FR issues with planes like the 377, F16, Columbia, etc. I have a fairly outdated machine by current standards, and do not have many issues there....and lifejogger, I'm not sure if you are flying from the VC or not, but with the newest ES Cirrus's, you really have to crank down the display brightness in the MFD/PFD to see things more sharply....but as someone who wears bifocals, I do have issues now and then, which is why I bought separate 'reading glasses' to wear while simming.

Now....I take a rather methodical approach to all these aircraft I don't have time enough to fly as much as I should. I actually keep a graph of all my aircraft I fly, and how much time I have in each (there is a log book tool I use that does this easily for me that creates .csv files I can import into Excel). That way, I get to see which ones are being ignored. I highlight the ones that deserve more attention, and fly them exclusively till they start to gather more hours, thus providing myself the opportunity to fly much more of my fleet.....some I have simply forgotten about. More often than not, once I fly these 'ignored aircraft', I wonder why I have done so in the first place. Then I have those fairly new aircraft like the F16 and 377. Once I get some time in others, I'm going to try and concentrate on these two. I love the 377, as my father used to fly KC97's with SAC long ago, so have always had a soft spot for this bird. But man, the aircraft really takes much time to learn, and you really have to be dedicated to it in order to learn the systems...which I do enjoy. So it will get its turn, but only when I really want to dedicate time to it, as it just isn't an aircraft you 'jump in and go'. I really can't figure out what to do with the F16, but I'll figure it out, and will probably fly it totally different than all my others.

Are there some I don't fly? Sure...after several flights, I just cannot get used to the Rutan's cunard aerodynamics while landing, and it has become frustrating to me. Or, the DA Piper Cheyenne which while absolutely beautiful, has way too many bugs for me to give it further hours. The bugs are mostly related to the Trimble, and I'm just kinda 'done with it'. But these cases are actually few. Some simply get ignored, and deserve more time. One of the great things about simming is we get to enjoy all these various experiances which would be impossible in real life.

[stiz]

But, I do think it is interesting to hear folks having FR issues with planes like the 377, F16, Columbia, etc. I have a fairly outdated machine by current standards, and do not have many issues there....

It all depends on the person really, some people can fly with 10fps, whislt others can bear anything less than 30, for me if i dont get above 25fps on the cold front weather theme but with vis set to 30 i get rid of it as it just isnt smooth for me, the 377 is right on that mark :frown:

[dswo]

Great topic, Panther.

My biggest disappointment: Digital Aviation Dornier Do 27 for FSX. When I reviewed it for AVSIM, I thought the framerates were adequate. And for FS9, they are. In FSX, they are just low enough that something else is always more fun. I still like the look of it -- a lot -- and especially the concept: take care of that engine!

[FLighT01]

For me it's always a matter of just not being able to get smooth enough frame rates with some add dons in FSX. I loved the Shockwave B-17, Aerosoft F-16, and F1's Tiger Moth in FS9. No matter what I try ( using FSX versions and with all updates applied, I didn't try to kluge the FS9 versions in) I can not get acceptable framerates in FSX, just stutters (and outright freezes with the B-17). I chalk it up to my particular combination of graphic settings and hardware and setup. With 12 or so other add on planes in my hangar (two others from Aerosoft: Twotter and Beaver) running just fine in FSX I see it as a specific interaction problem with my system. I have a newer, higher spec'd box to try them with eventually, maybe that will help, maybe not. I won't turn down any settings for these 3 planes given that the other 12 run without a hitch. It's just the way things go with FSX sometimes. The fact that many others have success running these in FSX keeps me investigating, maybe I'll stumble onto something down the road, maybe not, no biggie.

[bkeske]

Great topic, Panther.

My biggest disappointment: Digital Aviation Dornier Do 27 for FSX. When I reviewed it for AVSIM, I thought the framerates were adequate. And for FS9, they are. In FSX, they are just low enough that something else is always more fun. I still like the look of it -- a lot -- and especially the concept: take care of that engine!

Ah yes, another frustrating DA release. I loved it in FS9, but to this day, the FSX version was nothing more than a 'port', and it performs miserably. Yup, put the Do as another I have locked in my hanger, never to be taken out....unless a real FSX version is created.

[Bomber_12th]

My only bad decision so far was to purchase the CS Space Shuttle. An excellently crafted machine, both through modeling, texturing, and systems, but there is just not much you can do with it at all, besides fly the few pre-made flights, which are all nearly totally controlled by auto-pilot. I had it installed for about a month after I purchased it, mastered the re-entry and landing, and then lost complete interest in it. After that purchase, I really began thinking through my flight sim purchases more - along the lines of whether or not I could really enjoy it for years to come, and never be bored by it.

[cheezyflier]

That is because the airframe is bent and out of alignment from all the student landing. :costumes:



i should have known better! panther told me it was the only plane he never crashed, and not to worry about the salvage title :costumes:

[Overshoe]

Eaglesoft Citation X. There's nothing wrong with the aircraft, but despite trying very hard, I just don't enjoy flying jets. It will stay in FS9 and maybe I'll get the urge again.

[CBris]

Funnily enough I see some planes here that are in my hangar too and yet I still fly them. The JF Tiger Moth is a case in hand - it may well be a painter's nightmare and a disc hog, but I love that plane. A pity it isn't a true FSX and doesn't display in DX10. I could rant on about the paintkit for hours, but if you stick to very simple paints and avoid/ignore the atrocious mapping, it is such a sweet plane to fly.

The one that disappointed me most though, is the Do27 fro DA. Absolutely wonderful in FS9, but without the full FSX functionality and paintability.

How strange too, because the Do27 for X was reasonably priced and the Tiger is a credit card eater...

[Cazzie]

First of all, I do not have very much payware aircraft, I tend to blow my donuts on all the scenery enhancement I can get. We have such excellent freeware aircraft for FS9 and now FSX, I just cannot warrant getting a payware aircraft lest I know for sure it is (a) something I dearly want like Mike's L-4 or (b) something I know is going to be a first-rate product like Carenado's T-34. The price "has" to be right too!

So I would have to say I fly all of my payware aircraft in FS9 and FSX.

But my favorite mounts in both sims continue to be freeware aircraft: the LIC Champs and Eagles, Piglet's Mooney Mite in FSX and T-28 in FS9 and his Waco in both, Stuart's Fokker D.VII (all of Stuart's and anyone else's WW I planes, I am a fanatic for WW I aircraft), Manuele's SVA 5 and 9 series, Robert Bruce's Brisfit, Uncle Milton's Spartan, etc.

Caz

[Bjoern]

Wilco E-Jets.

No time to get into systems.

[Navy Chief]

NickC,

Your avatar is too cool! Now, if I can just find one like that with a cat!

NC

[Warrant]

carenado 152. it looks real nice, but for me, is impossible to trim for straight and level flight.


With my Saitec Flight Yoke i can trim it and fly it like a baby's butt.

Do you have trim switches on your flight yoke, if yes, have you programmed/tweaked them with the right sensitivity/null zone?

[Dexdoggy]

MY least used payware is the A2A P-51; only because of the SP2 issues. I spend a great deal of time instead in the Iris P-40 Kittyhawk (Aces of the Commonwealth) - I love this plane, and anything that has Carenado in it's tittle!

[bkeske]

.......i can trim it and fly it like a baby's butt.


I agree, I think the 152 is very easy to get trimmed-out. For me, it is a joy to fly.

[Pepere]

CLS AB310 - Don't like the VC.. Up side is good FPS... I like flying tubliners. There are several GA planes I've purchased and not flown much at all because I fly tubliners so much. The most used tubliner is the B737-600 at 38 hours. The nearest GA aircraft is the Ballanca Viking at 10 hours.

David

[bkeske]

Shoot man, I have 13 in the Viking, and just bought it ;)

In FSX, I have the most hours in the ES Twinkie at 70.

[FAC257]

I'm in sort of a backwards situation with this question.

I love flying every payware aircraft I own, but do have some things I like a little more or a little less in each.

My predicament at the moment is that I can't stop flying the B377. Partly because I'm in the middle of a world tour, but also because after spending time with an Accusim equipped aircraft makes just about any other aircraft I have, payware or default seem "lifeless".

I purchased the 377 right at the end of July and by the end of this week will roll over the 500 flight hours mark in her.

The funny thing is that since the end of July I've also purchased the Carenado Pa-28, C206, C182RG, C182Q, C152, Mentor and the Eaglesoft SR22G3 Turbo. Between that whole lot I haven't logged but about 2 hours and that was only because I couldn't land the 377 at Saba to check out the new scenery. :)

[cheezyflier]

With my Saitec Flight Yoke i can trim it and fly it like a baby's butt.

Do you have trim switches on your flight yoke, if yes, have you programmed/tweaked them with the right sensitivity/null zone?


actually, i don't have a yoke at all. that could be part of the problem. i use one of these:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41GlaomDsUL.jpg

i wish i had a yoke and pedals but i have been told that i don't have enough computer to use them.

[ryanbatc]

Then by all means adjust your monitor and video card settings. Another option is to use the Zoom panel or the Zoomed Avidyne popups :isadizzy:

The issue is that when using nHancer AA settings the text is blurry, but this happens with all aircraft using vector graphics. I get it on the dreamfleet dakota which uses the RXP GNS430. And unfortunately a lot of users prefer nHancer because you can crank the AA vs. FSX in-game settings.

[N400QW]

Ryan, the use of third party tweakers is not recommended by MS. FSX likes to use application controlled settings.

We fail to see how use of tweakers means there is something amiss with our products :isadizzy:

[chinookmark]

Acceleration Agusta AH101. It just doesn't seem to fly right, like the rotor is out of phase. And the surging engines annoy me.

Aerosoft Seahawk/Jayhawk. I love these aircraft. They are extremely detailed, and I love the avionics. But recently I've gotten into more detailed scenery, weather, and AI, and these kill the FR with the Aerosoft 60's. Also, they seem maybe a little too stable for my tastes. I'm not talking realism, but for what I want out of FSX, they are too stable and sluggish (although I could tweak the .cfg a bit). And the other thing is the avionics. This is really more of a hardware/practicality problem. I have a hard time working the cyclic and the mouse at the same time, all while holding a steady hover and looking at the panel steadily enough (TrackIR) to turn knobs and push buttons.

Least flown of all time: B314 Clipper for FS2002/04. Never got the darned thing more than 10 feet off the water. Mostly I was just too lazy to ****. But I was also not impressed with the VC. It got the job done, but it just didn't inspire me.

[LCBORDEN]

CWDT HELLCAT, on my system this son of a pup is a frame killer. plus not enough buttons and such work. I also purchased the AH mossie, and don't fly it a lick. Not sure why. once again, I don't feel it offers what I expected I guess.

Ol' Jarhead :173go1:

[ryanbatc]

Ryan, the use of third party tweakers is not recommended by MS. FSX likes to use application controlled settings.

We fail to see how use of tweakers means there is something amiss with our products :isadizzy:

The problem is with vector graphics, mostly glass mfd/pfd's. This can be with ANY piece of software. If I use in-game settings, all my autogen shimmers and it is yucky - not to mention the jaggies on the airplanes, since in-game AA only does about 4x.

[huub vink]

As I hardly fly in FSX (except for beta testing), the most expensive payware I hardly use is most probably FSX :costumes:.

The Icarusgold Fiat CR32 for FS2004 is the payware aircraft I have purchased and have hardly ever flown. The quality does not come close to the screenshots on the web-site.

Cheers,
Huub

[c87]

PMDG 747-400X. I was seduced by the eye candy posted in all those screenshot forums and having had actual experience with this bird in a past real life, I had to have it. Way too complicated for the very brief times I can peel away to get some sim time in. I'm embarassed to say, I haven't even taken one flight yet. Someday.......

[LCBORDEN]

well said Huub, I too have all the FSX discs but until I can lay out some serious jingle for a high end machine, or actually hear of a high end machine that can run it, FSX just gathers dust. As so many of you folks have said "once bitten, twice shy" It will take serious convincing for me to buy any "new" offerring without a lot of research.

ol'Jarhead :wavey:

[jmig]

actually, i don't have a yoke at all. that could be part of the problem. i use one of these:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41GlaomDsUL.jpg

i wish i had a yoke and pedals but i have been told that i don't have enough computer to use them.

Cheezy, you can assign buttons for trim on that alien penis.

[hews500d]

Cheezy, you can assign buttons for trim on that alien penis.



:costumes::costumes::icon_eek:

[IanP]

The new Saitek Cyborg is released on Friday, according to Amazon. More buttons, more throttles, even more convoluted design. What are you going to nickname that one, jmig? :icon_lol:

Ian P.

[MaddogK]

<snipped>

Are there some I don't fly? Sure...after several flights, I just cannot get used to the Rutan's cunard aerodynamics while landing, and it has become frustrating to me. Or, the DA Piper Cheyenne which while absolutely beautiful, has way too many bugs for me to give it further hours. The bugs are mostly related to the Trimble, and I'm just kinda 'done with it'. But these cases are actually few. Some simply get ignored, and deserve more time. One of the great things about simming is we get to enjoy all these various experiances which would be impossible in real life.

Don't give up on the DA Cheyenne just yet. I also went thru the 'I'm done with this junk plane' mood almost a year ago, but in the last week I started working on the Cheyenne panel again and found with just a couple of small mods the plane's Trimble nav unit starts working again, and I've not managed to crash the sim since I fixed the panel.

Firstly- buy the simflyer GPX-SX pack and extract the kmd-550 and the toggle_id150 gauges from the pack with panel studio and put these 2 gauges in your main fs9 gauge folder.(I used the KMD-550TCAS)

Now restore the SP2 panel files to the A/C your working on (I used the 1A vfr/ifr panel for my tests) as well as all the gauge files for the DA Cheyenne from SP2 to the main fs9 gauge folder.

Search the internet for a file named "pa31bk.zip"- I found it on DA's website (I believe), they're a set of alternate panel config files I used for 'ideas', open the file for your panel from this pack and keep it open in notepad. If you use these panel 'as-is' note the author removed one of the transponders from the secondary radio panel, you'll need to change the last number on the component line from '2' to '1' as the author removed transponder #1 by mistake.

Now open up your cheyenne panel your working on, and copy from the pa31bk.zip config (the donor file) the line "Window14=KMD550 Popup" and paste it into your 'real' cheyenne panel file under the 'windows titles' section making sure the window number is changed to reflect it being the last window in the list.

Now copy the entire 'window14' section from the donor file and paste it into your Cheyenne panel in the same position as in the windows list, and rename it to 'windowXX' (XX=whatever number you gave it in the windows section above). Insert into this window whatever GPS unit you desire. </snipped>I used the stock Garmin GPS-500 unit.

<snipped>
Now in window 5 of the 'real' cheyenne panel you want to add:
gaugeXX=kmd550, 0,9,328,210
gaugeXX=toggle_ID150, 45,30,200,150
</snipped>Remove the file directory name "SFGPXSX!" from both lines in this section (Both gauges are extracted and are in the fs9 gauge folder). I had problems using these gauges in their recieved state, and extracting them to individual gauges made them work properly.
<snipped> >>You're covering the faux GPS display with the working KMD-550 you extracted, and hiding the 'pop-up toggle' behind that. Fill in the XX with the next two sequential gauge numbers for that window.


Add or remove NOTHING more to the panel- it will cause the sim to crash.

Thats it !

Operation: Before flight load a flight plan and after the Trimble unit warms up hit 'aux' and 'enter' and the trimble will be setup with your flight plan, Alternately you can open the second radio stack, click on the KMD-550 unit and your GPS unit (whichever one you chose for the popup window) should appear- in my case the GPS-500, select my goto dest on this unit, then go back to the trimble, hit 'aux', then enter and my picked dest will be loaded into the trimble.

The trick with this Trimble unit and the stock autopilot is getting it to follow a GPS route, but simpler after you do it a few times: take off as normal but notice the GPS nav mode won't engage- bring up the second radio stack and fly the plane manually over the GPS track (on the kmd-550 display) or use the heading bug. As soon as the plane crosses the GPS track-engage GPS nav mode, and the trimble unit should lock to the track and otto will fly the route. If another destination is desired choose one in your 'popup window', then hit 'aux' and 'enter' on the trimble and the otto will turn to intercept the new track.

18 months I've been working on this headache, but I've finally got the DA Cheyenne stable and predictable, and it has become one of my favorite planes of any payware product I've bought in the last 2 years. If with this config it's still not stable (CTD's, ETC) try studying my panel CFG file. ALSO- if it's not working correctly try removing your FSUIPC registration key from the 'modules' folder- for some strange reason my registration of FSUIPC cause many glitches, running unregistered FSUIPC cured many issues with this plane. Make sure you do this on an un-edited copy of your original panel file, I've had nothing but bad luck with any other gauges that are not part of SP2's gauge file set and the EXTRACTED simflyer files.

AWW NUTZ ! Just noticed this was the FSX forums- disregard the above unless someone wants to test it in FSX. Attached is my working PA31T 1A VFR/IFR panel.
</snipped>

[jankees]

Interesting topic!
For me, the biggest diappointment was probably the AH/JF Mosquito, the model is OK I guess, but I don't like the textures, I don't like the VC, and there is no real paintkit. Flew it a bit, even did one repaint, but uninstalled it.
Anotyher one that I don't fly as much is the IRIS P-40, it seems a bit simple compared to the A2A P-40. I also bought the C-130 in the big sale, but haven't done much with it. I used to fly the FS9 version a lot, and I do like the model, but somehow I never get round to flying it.
My main problem at the moment is that compared to the Accusim Razorback, everything else seems simple and lifeless, so I hardly fly anything else...

[Henry]

Interesting topic!
For me, the biggest diappointment was probably the AH/JF Mosquito, the model is OK I guess, but I don't like the textures, I don't like the VC, and there is no real paintkit. Flew it a bit, even did one repaint, but uninstalled it.

ahhhhhhhh sacrilege
:faint:
The paint kit yup.
yup i know i am biased
my only problem is the paint kit
now of course i have great respect for Baz
and his paints he is great
but the ones that came with it
are great i would just love more
i realy have no problem with any payware that i own
but i watch the forums before i buy
my only wish is the corenado bonanza
was fsx
but i purchased it for fs9
H

[harleyman]

LOL I knew the skeeter would get ya Henry...

You go Odie..........:ernae:

I don't own many, but I fly the all.........

[Barvan40]

AFS Eurofighter Typhoon was one of my first add-ons for FSX. I found it was terrible, bad flight dynamics, bad VC and cheesy looking afterburner effect. After flying it for a few minutes I was disgusted with it so I uninstalled it and put it in my DO NOT FLY hangar.

[Brian_Gladden]

For me it was the Flight 1 Piper Meridian. While it is advertised for FS 2004 it crashed my system, all my other Reality XP gauges and nearly the whole sim.

I got a refund but it took me two weeks to get all my third party gauge issues straitened out.

Next would be the Eaglesoft Twin Comanche. Love the model but it's a bit too hard on my system. Same for the Flight 1 PC-12.

Payware that I fly the most would be the Carenado Cessna 206, followed by the 182 and then the Areosoft Beaver. I have all three of them for both FSX and FS9 (Even though 95% of my sim time is in FS9)

Brian

[CG_1976]

Good question. My least flown is lionhearts Kodiak awaiting the new one and the most flown, Anything with USCG colors or Cuban FAR.

[deimos256]

Alpha turbo Mentor, the painfully slow vc loading killed it and will kill all Alpha releases for me until they put the hammer down about it. Plenty of high end VCs load instantly if not within a second, but their notable releases take up to 8 or 10. unacceptable for someone who switches to external a lot.

[Pepere]

CaptainSim's 757

Ditto here. Has a killer's instinct for FPS. Also the wilco's E-Jets same FPS killer properties + autopilot that doesn't like GoFlight modules. Big $ planes too. :faint:

David

[SolarEagle]

Ryan, the use of third party tweakers is not recommended by MS. FSX likes to use application controlled settings.

We fail to see how use of tweakers means there is something amiss with our products :isadizzy:

Nobody has said there's something amiss with your product, you added that part. I've only seen people state facts, that supersampling causes an issue with it.

I would say supersampling is a necessity with FSX, so your spinning stars and defensive assertion that MS recommends we not use nHancer is looking a bit silly to me. No wonder this thread is titled 'Taboo Question'. lol

[some1]

I would say supersampling is a necessity with FSX, so your spinning stars and defensive assertion that MS recommends we not use nHancer is looking a bit silly to me.

I don't know where you've read it, but no, supersampling is not a necessity, just the opposite I'd say. While this antialiasing mode may offer very good quality, it is also a "brute force" approach that causes significant FPS hit (not so big in FSX as it is not GPU limited) and may cause strange visuals, just like it does with gauges in FSX. It's was the first approach to antialiasing, and there's a reason why you can't set it from any modern computer game or nvidia control panel.

This mode works by drawing each frame in double resolution (horizontally, vertically or both) and then shrinking it to the resolution you have set. This means everything is smoothed, even gauges and 2D graphics. But too much smoothing means blurring small things like text, especially in lower resolutions.

If you're using such a powerful tool with many nonstandard options like nHancer, you have to know every option you're setting. If you get unexpected results, well, you can blame only yourself, not the devs, hardware manufacturer or nhancer author. When using nhancer with FSX, stick to multisampling antialiasing (stay away from supersampling or combined modes) and to reduce texture shimmering at high anizo settings, set negative LOD bias to CLAMP on the optimizations tab. And that should be all.


And back to topic, which plane I've flown the least? Probably Iris F-20: bought it on a sale without much thinking, didn't like the way it flies, weird afterburner and HUD borrowed from F/A-18, even though overall visuals are not so bad.

[brettt777]

My biggest disappointment was the Just Flight P-38. I alreay had the FSD Lightning which is awesome, and if memory serves, I bought the JF P-38 because it had some different paints than the FSD plane. But the graphics were horrible; almost cartoonish, and the FM was just as bad. I have the knowledge to tweak a FM but can't do anything about the graphics so didn't bother. I think everything else I have been pretty happy with. Although.... there seem to be a number of payway planes that require far too much control surface movement to fly the plane and do any maneuvering. As an aviation maintenance guy that gets to fly some pretty cool planes on a regular basis, I know it doesn't work this way in the real world. Just a thought...

[DaveKDEN]

GAS Ryan ST-A. Right after I purchased it SWingman's freeware model was released. In many ways I find it to be more a pleasing design. Bought the GAS model on sale though, so no big deal.

Although I've purchased many a payware add-on, I tend to enjoy a well designed freeware model more. Not meant to be a knock on payware developers, but I usually tend to move on after a very limited time spent on any particular add-on. As such, I've all too often felt my money wasn't well spent on payware stuff. HOWEVER, there are many timeless classics on the payware front that I've enjoyed for a very long time.

[falcon409]

GAS Ryan ST-A. Right after I purchased it SWingman's freeware model was released. In many ways I find it to be more a pleasing design. Bought the GAS model on sale though, so no big deal.
Although I've purchased many a payware add-on, I tend to enjoy a well designed freeware model more. Not meant to be a knock on payware developers, but I usually tend to move on after a very limited time spent on any particular add-on. As such, I've all too often felt my money wasn't well spent on payware stuff. HOWEVER, there are many timeless classics on the payware front that I've enjoyed for a very long time.
You make some good points Dave. . .I've probably got a handful of aircraft that would fit this thread, but the bottom line, especially now is that paying $30, $40 and more for any aircraft that I'm probably going to fly less than a dozen times and then load it onto a DVD for "Later", is just silly anymore. Add to that the large number of high quality freeware offerings by some extremely talented designers and I can easily forgo the payware stuff and be perfectly content.

[Kiwikat]

Holy thread revival Batman! This thing is 4 years old! :isadizzy:

[Francois]

Holy thread revival Batman! This thing is 4 years old! :isadizzy:

ROFLMAO, I was thinking just that....... when I reached the last page of it ;)

[jeansy]

well i guess a few people know by the last few discussions ive been involved which developers xxxxed me off