If there's any problem in my mind, it's that they almost make FSX seem subordinate to them instead of the other way around. I have both and have no beef with either. To be fair - Plan-G and FSC do much more and do most things very well. I won't buy it as it is but haven't given up hope that it's a work in progress and that it may yet become what it's predecessor was for FS9. I hope I'm wrong but I think it's possible he's there in name only. I was hopeful when I saw FST mentioned here, but after looking at it, I get the feel that Herege's hand is not in it.
FSNAVIGATOR FS2004 FREE PC
I've squirreled away a copy of the download on CD along with a copy of the purchase e-mail with the unlock code, which still works - I installed it on a new PC earlier in the year. I speak of it in the past tense but I still have FS9 and FSN loaded, though admittedly don't use it much any more. The map was on the rudimentary side but very fast - in fact, everything it did was very fast. Occasionally it would say that there were too many entries to display following entry of a search term, but the desired one was always right there at the top of the list. Navaid lookups were a piece of cake and I still use it for that sometimes. It allowed VORs, DMEs, NDBs, airports, and intersections to be set as waypoints as well as easily defined user waypoints. It could create, load, save and edit FS9 flight plans and did that with ease - in my use of it, that was the centerpiece function. As I recall there was one unfinished thing that had some promise, incorporating SIDs and STARs into flight plans.
There were no frills, it just did three things really well - flight planning, a moving map disply and an autopilot function for AC that didn't have one. I considered FSN to be one of the few examples of that programmers touchstone - elegant. I never used the older version mentioned nor do I fly in multiplayer. This was all mentioned already and my intention is not to put down something that I'm not sure of, just need some more information on why I would need this program. It looks cool, nice map and such, but what is it that I do not see here? I agree that the name was a poor choice but wouldn't want to hold that against them.
Not sure what "Autopilot frontend" means or "Automatically flies flight planned routes and holdings." Isn't that what my AP already does. Except for being able to readily move about the sandbox while still in freeflight, a few extra clicks and FSX does the same thing. I can understand why folks would want it and is convenient looking to have in a small window(Integrated Module) while flying but without an included flight planner, from what I see on their site, it is useless to me for that price. I only use a moving map(PlanG) once in a while and rely on my flight plan(PlanG) and navaids to fly. It actually looks like something that used to be freeware at some point. Thanks for your reply.I looked this over and can't see a reason to spend that much money on it. These are the conclusions that I have come to and may not be correct but it is pointing to a problem like I have described. I believe at some point in FSNavigator you have to take over manually for the last several thousand feet in order to reach the top of your climb, then you can get to your original speed setting. If you do a direct climb from takeoff to lets say 33,000 at a climb rate of 1500 FPM, you find that around 27,000 feet or so you will have a drop in airspeed from 300 MPH and steadily decreasing unless you drop the rate of climb. I have found that most commercial aircraft have to reduce their climb rate above 25,000 feet or so. It appears that as you approach these altitudes and have to climb higher you have to decide on the climb rate, weight and speed, any of which can cause problems. At altitudes above 25,000 feet you have to be careful of many things such as those that you mention. I believe the FSNavigator is trying to get to the max altitude at a rate that is not achievealbe such as climb rates of 3500 feet per minute in some spots. I have been doing some tests on various aircraft and notice that as you go up in altitude, aircraft have a difficult time in getting to the top of the climb at 33,000 feet.
0 kommentar(er)
