• SkippyBing's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:21
    Looking at the first picture of the Ark it looks as if there are two wakes, the one that's at deck level and a sea level one just showing through the waves. I definitely don't get that problem with the Victorious. The only difference I can see is that, after brief testing, models with the Acceleration FLOLS effect get the problem and ones without don't. To confirm this could someone check the Charles de Gaulle which I don't think has them as Sylvain made it to take full advantage of his RFN gauge and/or compare the Enterprise versions, i.e. with and without the RFN gauge FLOLS.
    14 replies | 401 view(s)
  • SkippyBing's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:35
    No apology necessary! I knew it was directed at us. My point was you can't use the price of FSX to judge whether developers are being greedy. If people are trying to make a living at developing for FSX then the cost of the add-on will have to reflect it and due to the much smaller numbers of models sold vs copies of FSX the price may well be higher. They aren't being greedy they're just reflecting the true cost of developing a model. We aren't trying to make a living, more recoup some of our costs and pay for the occasional system upgrade or annual type rating exam. Consequently we can write our time off and charge less.
    54 replies | 1645 view(s)
  • SkippyBing's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:51
    That's simply not true. Back of the envelope maths indicates I'm lucky if I make about 1 an hour on the average model we produce. To make the minimum wage, in the UK, we'd have to charge around 8 times more (and still get the same sales) which would mean charging about 100 or $160 an aircraft. And that assumes we haven't spend anything on references, manuals etc.
    54 replies | 1645 view(s)
  • SkippyBing's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:51
    So the abuse would be say company x agreeing to make an FSX Wonderjet 2000, company y agreeing not to, and then company x charging $100 a copy?
    54 replies | 1645 view(s)
  • SkippyBing's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:17
    I'm not sure how the Flight Sim market gets an exemption from collusion. I also don't see how it's common sense, if only one company was going to make a specific aircraft then the customers have no choice, even if the only available model is rubbish. As it is there are two or three Phantoms coming out soon each of which will have to be top notch to get sales.
    54 replies | 1645 view(s)
  • SkippyBing's Avatar
    August 30th, 2014, 09:41
    Oddly in most industries that would be considered illegal, imagine if Ford and GM agreed that one of them would make all the compact cars and the other all the SUVs.
    54 replies | 1645 view(s)
  • SkippyBing's Avatar
    August 29th, 2014, 06:34
    As someone who's add-ons sell for $15 I don't think sales volume is that price sensitive. Certainly I remember seeing the numbers for the T-38 and thinking they'd sold at least twice what our best selling model had done. Ultimately I'd say it's more to do with the aircraft type than the price, after all I don't download much freeware I'm not interested in.
    54 replies | 1645 view(s)
  • SkippyBing's Avatar
    August 26th, 2014, 09:36
    My old graphics card used to do something like that in FSX so it may be worth checking your drivers are up to date.
    14 replies | 401 view(s)
  • SkippyBing's Avatar
    August 21st, 2014, 22:29
    Oh you're talking about a fantasy dogfight, keep taking the meds.
    16 replies | 688 view(s)
  • SkippyBing's Avatar
    August 21st, 2014, 14:48
    But they're not worth a darn during a dogfight Oh I don't know, I've done fighter evasion and it's all the zoomies can do to find a helicopter when you're telling them where you are. Hell I've had them overfly me calling no joy. Plus there are at least a couple of Iranian fighters that got shot down by Hinds in the Iran Iraq war. Back to plane guards and there were definetly S-51s being used in Korea, the RN carriers tended to borrow a USN cab to do theirs. Still if you can't handle hovering there's always fixed wing...
    16 replies | 688 view(s)
  • SkippyBing's Avatar
    August 21st, 2014, 11:54
    A future? Joking aside, it's hard to compare an 8 year old sim with a new one. Do you compare vanilla with vanilla which is fair as that's the base product you can get off the shelf. One with 8 years of add ons and one without, or both with all the add ons? After all a lot of FSX add ons work in P3D, so it's not as if all your previous investment is written off. Ultimately P3D is being developed to take advantage of 8 years of technological progress and has a future. However if you're happy with FSX there's no rush to change over, but each update makes it more tempting with little improvements here and there. For me cloud shadows are the killer USP and despite having a dual install I hardly ever touch FSX.
    15 replies | 725 view(s)
  • SkippyBing's Avatar
    August 21st, 2014, 11:41
    Mike, Thanks for that! I do find it slightly worrying that someone else has to point to a file I made to complete my response!! Skippy
    23 replies | 1338 view(s)
  • SkippyBing's Avatar
    August 21st, 2014, 09:56
    They generally did have catapults, even the Swordfish could be catapulted which seems a bit redundant for an aircraft that could be overtaken by the carrier. However they were powered by hydraulics and referred to, in the RN at least, as accelerators, although that may only have started happening once the steam catapult came into use. There is a setting in FSX.cfg that makes the catapult strength adaptive to different aircraft types, I can't remember what it is off the top of my head but a search of these forums should find it.
    23 replies | 1338 view(s)
  • SkippyBing's Avatar
    August 16th, 2014, 11:41
    Huub, great shots but it was 112 Sqn that had the shark mouths, not 122!
    5180 replies | 505515 view(s)
  • SkippyBing's Avatar
    August 16th, 2014, 05:45
    You've got quite a crosswind there Rob!
    4 replies | 481 view(s)
  • SkippyBing's Avatar
    August 3rd, 2014, 01:19
    It's possible to disable this in the sound settings for Windows and have the output go from the jackplug as per usual. I had to do a similar thing on my home theatre PC when I upgraded that to HDMI as it started sending stereo sound to the TV rather than 5.1 to the amplifier. You should be able to find what you need by googling disable HDMI audio windows, or similar.
    17 replies | 713 view(s)
No More Results
About SkippyBing

Basic Information

Signature


Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
864
Posts Per Day
0.32
Last Post
Carrier lights and wake error in P3D v2.3 Yesterday 11:21
General Information
Last Activity
Today 03:44
Join Date
February 28th, 2007
Referrals
0