The new Boeing 787 Dreamliner landed in the UK for the first time, it is part of some world tour to promote the aircraft.
British airways and Virgin ordered a few of those, so I guess they will start been common sight in the coming months.
I am more a fan of the bigger Airbus A380, but I think that both aircrafts serve a diferent market. The airbus is more suited to the long haul, and I am a fan of that.
The 787 is lighter and therefore a lot more fuel efficient, this is why they call it a 'green' aircraft.
I saw an interview this morning on Sky News regarding the design process of the aircraft, they had no problem admitting that they actively looked at ways of safeguarding the bottom line of airlines. They realise that most passengers couldn't care less about the bigger or faster aircraft, what they want, above all else, is a cheaper aircraft.
I just find it amusing how Boeing is trying to make it sound as if the environment mattered.
Have a look at the boeing site for some more pictures.
I did a big of googling, and it looks like he spent 150K and a little over 3 years to build this simulator. He did a some of his own software development, but I could not find exactly what software he used, (FSX or X-Plane).
What I like most about it, is that it can fit in the garage. If I ever build my own simulator I will definitely aim to build something that can be put in the garage rather than taking a section of the lounge.
If you have more info on the software used, (or any other info really), let me know.
The new prepar3D from Lockheed Martin has been around for a couple of months already, I played it the other night and I must say, I am not impressed.
Firstly because it looks a lot like FSX, (on the website they claim that it 'furthers the development of Microsoft ESP(tm)'), maybe it still looks too much like MS Flight simulator to me.
Secondly, the price, either $10,00 a month or up to $199,00, I think it is a bit steep.
And lastly, the community is very small, maybe this will improve in the near future, but I think it is a bit on the ‘light’ side.
On the plus side, it is been actively developed, so it will put life back into the old FSX, developers that have been stabbed in the back by MS Flight/Arcade will be happy to see that there is a new revenue stream from P3D. The guys on the FSDeveloper forum seem to be working hard on it.
So, I will proudly sit on the fence, I will give it another 6 months and see what it’s like, for now I will stick to X-Plane
In preparation for the 2012 Olympics British Airways has repainted 9 of their A319s, watch how they explain the process Personally I think that the 'Dove' design is a bit ugly, but I guess it is just a personal choice.
I saw this a few months ago, a man in England has recreated the inside of a Pan Am 747 he has spent a fortune on buying every 1st class Pan Am artifacts, from the blanket to the peanut bags, (apparently). Myself I would like to recreate the inside of the cockpit, (complete with a couple 50 inch screen and moving controls :) ).
I think the video is pretty cool too, Anthony Toth, (the man with the passion), does not strike me as a crazy hoarder, but rather as a careful collector, (check out all the extra stuff he has in his storage area).
The other day I installed MS Flight on my 'main' computer. But, truth be told, I don't really like it. But that's not to say I want to give up on it altogether, I just don't want it on my main X-Plane/FSX rig, (I don't like some of the 'other' stuff that Microsoft installed as well like MS Game).
So I thought I'd move it to my laptop, (it is a game after all, so I might as well play while watching TV), my daughter can also use it to learn how ti use the mouse, ('fly' to the baloons... now 'fly' up to the clouds...).
Let me first say that if bandwith is not a problem for you, then download MS Flight again, it is probably the safest option.
What do you need to run MS Flight without re-downloading the +/- 1.4Gb of data.
1- VS2010 redist (32bit version), this is used my many many MS applications, so there is no harm in installing this. The 64 bit version can be found here. 2- Directx web installer, it is a web install, it will download whatever it needs, (up to 22Mb I think). You can download the full install, just look for it on the Microsoft website). 3- MS game for windows Live, (this is apparently used by all the windows games from now on). Don't let the name "Games for Windows Marketplace Client" fool you, this is just some helper files. 4- Finally, copy MS flight folder, it is normaly found in the "C:\Program Files\" folder, it is called, "Microsoft flight". If you have a x64 bit version of Windows/machine then it will be in the "C:\Program Files (x86)\" folder
Once this is all done, you should be able to run MS Flight.
Ok, so I took the plunge, and installed MS Flight, the download took forever, I have a fairly good connection, but downloading +1.5Gb still took a while. I am not bashing Microsoft here, I realise that they must be a higher than normal load on their servers.
Anyway, the game was installed and after a few basic questions I was up and running. As expected MS Flight is a very, very watered down version of their own Flight Simulator X, the game is nothing more than a teaser to force you to buy more realisticaircrafts, better sceneries and so forth. But after playing for a while, you get the feeling that there is nothing any add-on can do to change the experience from playing a game to flying a real aircraft.
Don't get me wrong, the graphics are really top, and apparently the scenery of Hawaii is as accurate as can be... but who cares, I don't want to spend all my time flying around the same airports, I want to fly a big bird between JFK and LHR.
Another thing that surprised me is that, although I have a good machine, the game play wasn't that great. My machine is slightly above their 'minimum requirement', but it still wasn't as smooth as I was expecting it.
I'll try and post some more pictures later this week, (I am lazy and I can't come up with better ones than those on the net already).
Bottom line, if you want a Flight Simulator, use X-Plane or Flight Simulator X, if you want to play a Flight game ... you should be doing your homework.
A lot of kids are going to be exited soon for MS Flight is soon to be released. Now that we know it is a game, (with an aviation angle of some sort), Microsoft has made sure that people will not be breaking down the turnstiles to play it.
But, lets give credit where credit is due, their marketing team has done a superb job, the few images/webcasts that have been released reaaaallly look good, and I have also no doubt that they will get a air amount of users playing the game, even if only to look at it, (Dare I even predict that the numbers will start to dwindle soon after the launch?).
Lets face it, I will probably also download it, but mainly to compare it to FSX and X-Plane, (still waiting for it!). But once I've had a good laugh and moan I will remove it.
Not sure if anyone noticed the clever marketing angle, the game was first advertised as potentially free, well it wont be, they are already offering:
"In addition to exploring the Big Island of Hawaii for free, you can unlock access to the skies over the remaining Hawaiian Islands by purchasing the Hawaiian Adventure Pack, the first in a series of expansions for Microsoft Flight, which includes:
Hundreds of miles to explore Stunning recreations of landmark features, from the breathtaking Waimea Canyon in Kaua’i to the high-rise hotels of Waikiki New challenges 20 new missions The Vans RV-6A, a two-seat, single-engine, low-wing homebuilt airplane made famous for its speed and maneuverability."
The way I read it, you get a little bit of a, very small, island, and you must pay to see/get more of it. Imagine how much it will be to get New York, London, Paris, or an entire country! The cost will be announced soon, but I suspect it will not be more than a couple of USD, (either that or the entire earth pack would be worth millions at that rate).
You also get to buy some new planes, there has been some rumbling around the add-on developers, (the one or two that I know), that only a select group of them will be allowed to create new aircraft and to make money out of it.
Those of you on facebook will be amused at the lattest post from the flight team.
"Microsoft Flight Just a friendly reminder: our game is rated E for Everyone, and our Facebook page is also an E-rated environment. Please keep the language of comments clean. Thanks! :-)"
I guess they have been getting a lot of bad press and reviews for their new arcade game. They obviously don't care what people are saying, (they have not responsed to most/some of the comments), but one has to wonder why they keep pushing for this game time. I wasn't chosen as one of their beta testers, I guess I don't fall under the new target audience they are looking for.
I say, lets all move to X-Plane, (although I am still waiting for mine :)), and leave the games for the kids. How many combat flight simulator games have failled in the past? what do you think for a similar type of game, ... with no combat?
I was reading some reports to what, (might have), happened to flight 447, (a doomed Air France flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris).
I was reading an article about 'what really happened to flight 447', basically the aircraft got into some weather and the crew tried to climb out of it. The speed indicators got iced up, the crew then started the de-icing procedures, the autopilot disconnected because of the ice and they now had to fly the aircraft manually.
This started a chain of event that would cause a stall that the pilots did not get out of.
The sad part in this story is that the aircraft was never in any real danger, there was nothing wrong with it to begin with. The ice that cause the AP to disengage was not something out of the ordinary, you could even argue that all they had to do was fly straight for a couple of minutes while the de-icing was happening, (they knew it would take a few minutes).
A few minutes before the crash the captain had gone to rest, while the copilot and the second copilot were flying the bird, for some time there was a bit of confusion as to who was in command of the aircraft, (the younger, less experienced, of the two pilots was trying to climb while the other pilot was confused as to what was happening). Eventually, when the more experience co-pilot finally took control, he seems to have been confused for a while, (and he kept on trying to pull up), when they finally realised what was going on, it was too late, (and the other pilot was still trying to climb anyway).
I am sure everybody has their own explanation as to what happened, from 2 co-pilots and no captain to the airbus stick no giving input if the stick is been pulled by the other pilot.
Personally I think the issue had more to do with the confusion as to who was in charge, who controlled the bird. You can try and blame Airbus as much as you want, but nothing was faulty, the plane was stalling and all the instruments clearly indicate that it was.
The more senior of the two pilot never knew that the other was pulling the nose into a stall, should the instruments display who is in command? Should there be an indication when the controls are been 'averaged'?
Amongst pilots it is often seen as taboo to point fingers at a fellow pilot, we often try to look for every technical reasons why there was a crash. But all the signs were there for them to see, maybe the training is what failed? Maybe they relied too much on the computers to fly them out of the problems?
Did the junior co-pilot panic and tried to climb against his better judgement/training? Did the more senior co-pilot forget some of his own basic training? Why did the captain, (when he finally arrived), not take control of the aircraft?
I guess we will never know what really happened, (or, to be more specific, why they did what they did), BEA has yet to finalise what actually happened on the flight, according to their interim report, they seem to be heavily leaning toward a human error, (given what I have read I tend to agree).
The flokes at Microsoft have released a new video of the new Micosoft flight, (or a webiaode as they call it).
As expected it looks good, but it does not really tell us what kind of beast we will need to run the new simulator. I think once the beta program has started we will have a clearer picture of what sort of machines will be needed.
I still haven't heard back from them if I have been accepted or not :(
There is also a press release about a potential free download sometime around spring, (I am guessing they mean spring in the US, but they could say they meant spring in the South in case they don't make their own deadline).
As I said before, I have never really been a big fan of combat flight simulators, a while ago I played with the Jane's simulator, (I am showing my age now ), but I never liked the 'feel' of those games.
It might come as a shock to some, but I was never a real life fighter pilot, (too short I was told!), I simply cannot fly those birds or find the targets.
On some of those missions you have something like 2 missiles and you have to hit a target smaller than my back garden... with a Spitfire or a P-52. As it is a simulator I cannot turn my head quickly to look behind me, or look below in one quick mouse move, (let alone center my point of view).
In a dog fight, (surprisingly, those were my favourites for a while), I was never able to shoot down even the dumbest of enemy pilots, with all the settings set 'super-easy', (or whatever it is called). They are too fast, I overshot too many times, and they out ran almost all my bullets.
How our boys defended England in the 40s, I will never know, but I respected them that little more after getting lost off the coast of France looking for one single enemy V bomb.
My problem always was with the training, most of those games 'train' you with what they feel is a simple mission, but I think they would need to train you on how to 'catch' approaching enemy target. How to move you head around while not loosing your bearing. They need to train you on the simulator before they train you on playing with the simulator, the dynamics of the game as simply too different.
On most single player games, (like call of duty and so on), they take you to the firring range, show you how to throw a grenade and so on...
Anyways, the reason why I though about Combat simulators is because I was reading a blog entry about World of Planes, (The firing line), and I must say, it looks rather good, having said that, I still wouldn't go to the shop to buy one :), I might play the demo first and see if Combat simulators have improved from what I remember them.
I saw a report in the dailymail about Paro airport. Apparenlty it is a very dangerous airport. Personally I like the look of the airport and Bhutan, the whole country looks very nice.
My last flight of the year will probably be to try and land a big bird on that runway.
The guys at Microsoft are inviting us to register for their Beta program, (where we get a chance to break it before the general public does).
All you need to do is to login with your Live passport, (or whatever fancy name they gave it), and wait to see if you are selected. Needless to say, I applied, I didn't have a Gamertag, (never heard of it before), but getting one was very straight forward. MS has never hidden the fact that the new simulator will be a lot more 'game' and a lot more interactive, (all pilots of the world unite!), so it is not really a surprise that we need a gamertag, truth be told it wont hurt to have one anyway...
You can also start to follow them on Facebook as well, (as I did), it should make it easier to get news from them if you are big into Facebook.
If you are selected I don't think you are allowed to say anything about the game, I hope I am accepted, I miss the MS simulators... Let me know if you are selected, (and you think it is ok to mention it).
X-Plane 10, (or shall we start calling it X-Plane X or even X-10?)
A while back Austin Meyer did an official presentation of X-Plane 10, the video is of very poor quality, on a very poor quality projector, but it is very interesting to hear him explain the new 'features' of X-10.
I think Austin was trying to make a point that the new simulator is very scalable, it will run perfectly well on an 'average' machines, but if you manage to throw more and more CPUs at it, it will run even better.
I am not sure I agree with the amount of CPU 'lost' on cars and trucks, but I am almost certain it is an option that can be set. I much rather see a busy airport rather than seen a busy freeway leading to the airport.
I have ordered my version of X-10 and I believe they have started shipping them out, (but I have not got my email yet). Once it arrives I will play around a little and give a proper review on it.
I remember seen this a couple of years ago, the IL-76 taking off in Australia, the pilot is leaving it 'till the very last minute to lift her up.
I can only assume that it was fully loaded, and the pilot knew all along what he was doing, it was a clear day, with no real obstruction at the end of the runway like a mountain or something,l so he could use all of it without too much worry. But I just love the running commentary of air traffic control in the background.
Here is a slightly better shot of another IL-76(Ilyushin) taking off, better sound of the big bird.
Does anybody know if/where we can get that bird on FSX or X-Plane?
The people at VirtalFly, (a Spanish compagny), have released a pretty cool looking home simulator, with full(ish), motion.
What I like about it is the fact that you are locked inside this egg shaped 'egg', most home simulator don't imerse you into the game as much. I am not sure why they chose FSX as the smulator, X-Plane would probably have been a better choice because of the flight dynamics and so forth.
Maybe it had something to do with the API exposed by X-Plane and Flight simulator, but I know from a friend of mine who is a developer that both X-Plane and FSX are both about as hard/easy to work with, what do you guys think? (also X-Plane is still alive and well, FSX on the other hand is a dead duck).
The other neat thing is that it is not 'ugly' to look at, you can put it in your spare room, (if you have one), or in the garage and it does not look bad. No wires running all over the place, no weird looking chair to worry about, (and the kids/wife can't break it when you are not home).
The down side? The price, for £35,995, (lets call it £36,000 shall we), it seems a little steep for the home user and for FSX. I would have been a little happier with the latest X-Plane, that would have made me feel like I am not buying a second hand car. But you have to remember, we are talking about a simulator here, this is not a toy, this is the real think, or as real as you will get unless you want to buy a simulator from British Airways.
According to them, you can fly
Cessna 172
Piper Seneca
Mooney Bravo
But, as this is FSX I guess you can load any models available, (but maybe the movements will not work as well but I cannot see how that could possible as FSX uses the same commands regardless of the model you use).
You can also get free delivery, but I don't know how that works in the US/UK, (as they are in Spain), and if you are in Australia for example. They will also send an instructor for 1 or 2 days, will he really come over to Australia, the US or the UK?
They also have some info about the 737 but I cannot find as much information as the OVO-04 and read more about their simulator here
The guys at Microsoft flight have released a list of the hardware they are developing under.
This is the machine with low graphic settings.
CPU: Dual Core 2.0 GHz GPU: 256 MB card capable of shader 3.0 (DX 9.0c compliant) HD: 10 GB Hard Drive space OS: WinXP SP3 RAM: 2.0GB
And the one on high settings.
CPU: Intel® Core™ i7 960 @ 3.20GHz, AMD® Phenom™ II X6 1100T 3.3 GHz or better GPU: ATI Radeon™ HD 5870, NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 560 or better HD: 10 GB Hard Drive space OS: Windows 7 64-bit RAM: 6GB
I have 4Gb but otherwise I should be ok with the ‘high’ settings. My motherboard can handle more memory anyway, so I could be tempted to buy more if need be.
In all fairness I think it is a pretty fair machine, not too exceptional.
Do you guys have a beast big enough to handle the new game simulator?
The fine people of just flight have released their Boeing 757-200 for free. To me, the tactic is fairly obvious, they are giving away the 757 in the hope you will purchase other liveries. They also get your email address, (and phone number???), and will probably push their products that way.
I am a big fan of free :), so I thought I'd give it a try.
Good points:
1- It's free 2- The sounds are very, very, good 3- The virtual cockpit is not bad. 4- Did I mention that it was free? 5- It flies very well, I did a few circuits around England, and it 'feels' better than the default Boeing.
Bad points:
1- While I understand the need to advertise their other products, I feel that they are pushing them a bit too much. 2- The download server did not work properly for me the first few times. 3- To download it you have to create an account, I understand why they do it, but I am worried they will push their products by spamming me, I hope that won't be the case. I also had to lie about my phone number, I simply cannot see a valid reason for them needing it.
See their promotional video... (BTW, the default livery is British airway).
British airways and Virgin ordered a few of those, so I guess they will start been common sight in the coming months.
), but I never liked the 'feel' of those games.
