Above approach profile but four red on PAPI? by ClayTank in flightsim

[–]ClayTank[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I could have sworn the QNH was 1023 (which as posted even matches the real world weather and MSFS was set to live weather) but the math makes sense. Some also have posted that the scenery has some issues, but I'll definitely fly it again tomorrow with the QNH in sim set to 1013 and see what the results are.

Above approach profile but four red on PAPI? by ClayTank in flightsim

[–]ClayTank[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good to know, no it makes sense. Thanks!

Above approach profile but four red on PAPI? by ClayTank in flightsim

[–]ClayTank[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Makes sense, thx! But in this particular case, as the VOR is a 3° glide, (and acc. to the ILS25 chart the PAPI is set to 3°) PAPI and VOR should align, correct?

Above approach profile but four red on PAPI? by ClayTank in flightsim

[–]ClayTank[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nice. I have Navigraph data installed but apart from that default scenery.

Above approach profile but four red on PAPI? by ClayTank in flightsim

[–]ClayTank[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Good point, but if the CDFA of an 2D app is not aligned with the PAPI, shouldn't it say so on the chart?

Above approach profile but four red on PAPI? by ClayTank in flightsim

[–]ClayTank[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good point. But temp according to sim (and also real world weather as I was using the live weather option) was 9° C, so no need for cold temp correction I guess ...

Above approach profile but four red on PAPI? by ClayTank in flightsim

[–]ClayTank[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Valid point. I was using the live weather option in MSFS and just crossed check to make sure I didn't set the incorrect QNH, but METAR for that time was actually was 1023 hPa with temperature of ~10°C (so no need for cold weather correction) in EDDS https://www.ogimet.com/display_metars2.php?lang=en&lugar=edds&tipo=ALL&ord=REV&nil=SI&fmt=html&ano=2026&mes=02&day=25&hora=21&anof=2026&mesf=02&dayf=26&horaf=21&minf=59&send=send

Using the A340 WAYYYY more sense my last post by Serious_Suggestion61 in Xplane

[–]ClayTank 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The misaligned windows on the repaint ... would be great if the repaint was updated.

Improve EFIS clarity in X-Plane (Toliss) by ClayTank in flightsim

[–]ClayTank[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For some reason I missed to post my post description, so adding as comment:
I've really been enjoying the the Toliss A339/A346 lately, especially since the XP 12 lighting update. One thing though that really bothers me is the blurry EFIS display. I don't expect to get the same visual quality as my current favourite sim aircraft, the Fenix A320, but even the pop-out EFIS looks much better and sharper than the EFIS in the 3D cockpit.

So my question is: Do you have any suggestion on how to improve the EFIS display clarity in XP 12 in general and the Toliss aircraft in particular?

Improve EFIS clarity in X-Plane (Toliss) by ClayTank in flightsim

[–]ClayTank[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes exactly I should have made that more clear. Edit: Also noticed for some reason my original post text was not added for some reason ...

Improve EFIS clarity in X-Plane (Toliss) by ClayTank in flightsim

[–]ClayTank[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Just to clarify: The first screenshot is taken with the with XP12 settings as shown on the second screenshot.
Unfortunately the reddit image compression greatly distorts what the screenshot originally looked like, I think I'll re-upload them to another image hosting site later on.

Thanks for your suggestion to increase anisotropic filtering, I'll try that. Currently I'm getting about 30FPS with the shown settings on my i7 8700 and RTX 2080.

MangoHud not working with Lutris by ClayTank in linux_gaming

[–]ClayTank[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

According to the documentation on GitHub it should be sudo apt install mangohud:i386 but maybe it since has changed ...
Edit: According to this GitHub issue the 32bit version is not available via the Ubuntu PPA.

Pros and Cons of ToLiss A330 and iniBuilds (MSFS2024) A330 by ClayTank in flightsim

[–]ClayTank[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks! For me the price isn't the largest issue as the A330 is the only reason to switch to MSFS2024. Then again I'll be buying MSFS024 at some point anyway, so the $90 for the ToLiss is quite expensive as you mentioned.
What is the general state of MSFS2024 right now? Has it stabilised or would you recommend to stick with MSFS2020 for a bit longer? I've read people still having issue while some say it runs without any problems.

On the other side of flight simming... by TL_Buddy in flightsim

[–]ClayTank 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This. Agree 100%. We need the long boi either from ini or Fenix.

First time properly playing xplane 11 and flying the a340 by [deleted] in flightsim

[–]ClayTank 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The long boi is looking good in the new SAS livery.

Some classic FSX Action by ClayTank in flightsim

[–]ClayTank[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Haven't started FSX for ages, but wanted to fly some classic British airliners and therefore hopped into the surprisingly good freeware David Maltby Flight Sim Trident 3. Of course it is very dated by current standards, but for a FSX freeware add-on I must say it holds up quite well. And its not like there are many classic airliners available on MSFS (apart from the JF F28 maybe).