-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
SSW PA-200 "Tornado" is ready for the sky.
- Thread starter PLUTO16
- Start date
cortomalteseit
Charter Member
Stunning shots, YoYo!!!
YoYo
SOH-CM-2023
Finally I installed again JF model with SP3 for comparison at the weekend, turned off all gauges + I took this lower textures (the last test I did with SP2). It was on my PC only 5 minutes :\ (sorry JF!). In the same situation in model of SSW I have +20 fps more (in JF low flying +400 kts = 19-25 fps in SSW model 42-55fps) so for me the winner is the one. According me JF has a little better external model (more detailed) but the performance isn't acceptable for me. Ciao!
Stunning shots, YoYo!!!
Thx!
StormILM
Charter Member
Picked mine up today and between this one (and the other offering's demo version), my preference is on this one hands down. I can easily see the room for improvement (which I know is planned in full) but overall, the performance, flight handling, visual graphics/animations, and sounds are excellent
cortomalteseit
Charter Member
Happy Birthday, Pluto16!
Enjoy your day and keep us informed about the release of the P3D 3.x version!
Enjoy your day and keep us informed about the release of the P3D 3.x version!
YoYo
SOH-CM-2023
airattackimages
Charter Member
Anyone care to make a fictional GR4 Royal Air Force 41RTES paint for this thing? I'm going to be buying it shortly... and the 41RTES Tonkas are the only ones I've had the pleasure of seeing in front of my camera here in the US.
PLUTO16
Charter Member
Thanks Daniele!! I'm getting closer to the age "too old for rock and roll,but too youg to die" (Jethro Tull..
)Sure we will. We are now making some test for 2.5 release,meanwhile I'm preparing the paintkit and some other liveries.
By the way,is a little off-topic here,but I know many people are waiting with interest this subject....And so,this is the look in a quick p3d 3.1 test.
Ciao,
/Ale
DaveWG
Charter Member
StormILM
Charter Member
Yesterday I finally ran my first route using the NAV system along with the Moving Map and TFR from RAF Marham into Wales and back. I have to admit, I committed some minor errors getting used to the system and sequencing the waypoints but I very quickly figured out how to get it all to work right. I had to disengage the TFR a couple of times to help affect steering on waypoint heading changes while mitigating dangerous terrain but it was no big deal and hand flying the model at low level is a blast. I can say this, the accuracy of the route waypoints was spot on. When I arrived back at Marham, I was perfectly centered over the field, maintaining very low level not once having early visual on the field. I'm impressed!
One other thing of note, I reported to SSW that I had some issues with VAS/OOM errors on my flying in northern Italy. I first thought it was an issue with some scenery but I discovered that the VAS/OOM issue only occurred when I kept referencing the FSX Map in the pull-down menu. I have a suspicion that somehow utilizing the FSX Map accelerates VAS usage well beyond normal. When I flew the same routes without accessing the FSX Map, not a single VAS related OOM error occurred.
One other thing of note, I reported to SSW that I had some issues with VAS/OOM errors on my flying in northern Italy. I first thought it was an issue with some scenery but I discovered that the VAS/OOM issue only occurred when I kept referencing the FSX Map in the pull-down menu. I have a suspicion that somehow utilizing the FSX Map accelerates VAS usage well beyond normal. When I flew the same routes without accessing the FSX Map, not a single VAS related OOM error occurred.
That's correct. Recently it's even discussed on the Avsim forum's. Look here: http://www.avsim.com/topic/440194-default-flight-planner-takes-400-mb-vas/
Stefano Zibell
Charter Member
I've never had out of memory errors (in fsx, in dcs it's rather frequent), but the other day while browsing the diablo 3 forums, I came across an interesting piece of software that claims to allow 32 bit programs to address more than the usual memory space. I've never heard anything about this in flight sim communities, so, sorry if it's old news. I'll leave a link here for someone with OOM errors to test drive it and then if it works maybe we can put out a new thread to make more people aware.
Here it goes: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/large-address-aware.112556/
Chris Sykes
Charter Member
Just got a vew questions as I'm tempted to purchase just to have a weapons enabled Tonka but only when the P3d V2 version comes available...
Noticed in the Icons that there is a CBLS launcher on one of the models, is this implemented and working Via Tacpack at all?
Are the cannon/s implemented?
Are there plans to implement the LGBs?
Also will a GR4 version be considered?
Noticed in the Icons that there is a CBLS launcher on one of the models, is this implemented and working Via Tacpack at all?
Are the cannon/s implemented?
Are there plans to implement the LGBs?
Also will a GR4 version be considered?
YoYo
SOH-CM-2023
Here it is
but I didn't test yet with TP so dont know it works or not.
Ad.2 Yes but it will work after the 1th Service Pack, see this: http://www.vaafse.org/simskunkworks/pa200tablet/index.php/missing-functionalities .
Ad.3 It will be nice... but as I read Gr.1 had a problem with this (no systems dedicated for LGB), at the Gulf War Buccaneers illuminated targets for Tornado's LGB (Laser designation)
Ad.4 will be nice, GR.1 hasnt NVG but in my opinion Gr.1 is more beauty that Gr.4 (short nose)
.
Last edited:
Yoyo, yo, the longer nosed variant was the F3 not the gr4. The gr4 is the same as the gr1 just about apart from a huge improvement on the avionics etc..
Ad.4 will be nice, GR.1 hasnt NVG but in my opinion Gr.1 is more beauty that Gr.4 (short nose)
StormILM
Charter Member
I really have serious doubts if that program would work to increase the VAS being available for FSX due to many of the security features of the program and addons. I would be very worried that utilizing it might actually risk damaging the program & addons. In most cases, I never have OOM's as well but with any higher end addons (aircraft and scenery), the possibility of VAS related OOM's are high. In the case of the Tornado, it's quite high end on graphics, textures, and systems and along with scenery, the VAS footprint is pretty big. Using the FSX Flight Planner and/or opening the FSX Map from the pulldown menu eats up a lot of VAS and thus makes an OOM error almost inevitable.
YoYo
SOH-CM-2023
Chris Sykes
Charter Member
Here it is
Ad.2 Yes but it will work after the 1th Service Pack, see this: http://www.vaafse.org/simskunkworks/pa200tablet/index.php/missing-functionalities .
Ad.3 It will be nice... but as I read Gr.1 had a problem with this (no systems dedicated for LGB), at the Gulf War Buccaneers illuminated targets for Tornado's LGB (Laser designation)
Ad.4 will be nice, GR.1 hasnt NVG but in my opinion Gr.1 is more beauty that Gr.4 (short nose)
Thanks Yoyo,
Regarding LGB you are correct at the time of GW1 but the GR1's after GW1 had the TIALD implemented "In 1991, the RAF introduced TIALD, allowing Tornado GR1s to laser-designate their own targets.[SUP][71][/SUP]"