Seal

To go back to the original topic for a minute, I use 10 mile markers for a few reasons which make sense to me at least. Ten miles is ten miles on the map, always, where ten minutes is always ten minutes but it´s representation on the map varies constantly even during a flight. That means I can draw tracks and distance markers well before the flight and know that they will be relevant when I fly. I even have the chance to study the maps and look for key landmarks in the areas where I might plan speed and heading checks. If using time marks, then I can´t do any of that and I have an annoying series of calculations to do to put the markers on the map when I probably should be thinking about other things. I suppose I could put markers based on airspeed but I know these will be wrong and will give me a cumulative series of errors to balance during the flight When the day comes and I´m zipping along I can use the distance marks, clock and whizz wheel to do GS checks, and I do see that the minute markers would do this directly but only provided the weather guessers were spot on. In the sort of aeroplanes many people fly the groundspeed errors can be a large proportion of the calculated value and my feeling is that time markers rapidly decrease in value as the difference between marks and reality becomes larger. How do I use them, keep some running correction in my head? When my GS is not as predicted my mile markers are still miles, I can use them as the basis for GS calculations. If I have time marks, what to do? Go back and remeasure the map to get my distance? Just seems more awkward to me. Now to the interesting part, GPS use. Ahh the full colour moving map, where, when, how fast, more information than you can poke a stick at. Wondrous modern technology or evil seductress luring real men away from the true path of navigation? I think they are wonderful things but I don´t trust the installations to keep working all the time which means I need a backup method. My backup method of choice is the map, watch and whiz wheel. If I am going to use that then I need to keep in practice because unless I´m in practice the workload is just too high. To keep in practice use steam driven navigation as my primary tool and the GPS for cross check when I´m going somewhere I have to navigate. The ¨use the GPS and if that fails I´ll whip out the map¨ school of thought seems popular and I have a couple of cautions for its adherents. The first is that if you don´t have a good grounding in navigating from a map the additional workload and unfamiliar procedures are enough to make other aspects of your airmanship deteriorate. The second is don´t underestimate the difficulty of orienting yourself to a map. If you are in the wide flat country it can be just about impossible and if you are dancing with control steps then the time taken and the distraction from other things can be critical. At the very least keep a map out and keep yourself located on it. Other people use a second (3rd, 4th) GPS and that´s probably OK provided you keep all the map packs up to date, after all you are going to be relying on it for that too, make sure they have independent power etc etc. I choose steam driven navigation because it is not hard to do and I find a certain satisfaction in having things turn up over the nose at the appointed time using such simple tools. Cheers, Selwyn

Ah Hah. But which Bob is the real Bob??

For my money, I wouldn´t. You are likely to get a different result with a clean install with the hardware present than you will get with an add on install. Theoretically, as long as the OS is updated and the programs are likewise then things should all work OK. No difference is again theoretically true but not necessarily the same. The ¨make use of¨ is not strictly true. The 32 bit address space is 4.2*10**9 (4.2 times 10 to the 9 or 4.2 Gb) Sorry for the hieroglyphics but perhaps the next set of numbers will show why. The 64 bit address space is 1.8*10**19. Thatś not quite all the RAM you can get but it is a LOT. :) If the program is written around 64 bit and you have the 64 bit drivers for all your hardware then go for it. What cores are used and how the load is apportioned should be under the control of the BIOS (chipset), not the program. For a program to bypass the BIOS it has to work at a very low level (low as in specific hardware) and is not very portable. Unlikely for a widely distributed program such as FS. Probably both true. But it has been around for a while (weeks at least, which for some of us is right now but for these systems is eons). Google it and see. If there are major disasters it will be apparent already. Neither do I. Or, if you can´t now, wait until next week or next month or whatever And good luck to you my son! I would really like to see three screens powered by that sort of grunt. Fantastic. The only sad part about it is that, probably five minutes before you switch it on, there will be something just that little bit faster. Bummer! Cheers. Selwyn.

I agree, if you have a program that needs or can use 64 bit then go for that. OTOH, 64 bit OS won´t do anything for a 32 bit program. Drivers can be a problem with 64 bit OS but if you have all those that you need then you should be right.

Whoa back a bit here chaps! AFAIK flight sim is a 32 bit program so a 64 bit operating system won´t do much for you at all. You have a dual channel M/B so you can run it as 2Gb dual channel which will give you top performance whilst staying within the 32 bit address space. The video ram sharing issue depends on the system. Video ram sharing is generally a low end and laptop issue. With this combination you won´t have the video card sharing the system RAM. With a setup like that who needs an aeroplane. :big_grin:

I´m curious as to how you got on with this? My prime suspect would be the ¨Live one" as it is capable of blocking access to all sorts of resources. I am not all that familiar with it so I can´t point you at the relevant menu but have a good look at all its settings and options. Cheers, Selwyn

True, the reputation of the previous operator may make some people less keen on the whole idea but the critical question is yet to be answered. Bilby may have bought the assets of a flying school, some equipment, perhaps an aeroplane, maybe even some goodwill but, unless he is a CFI or has employed one, all he has are some things that might be nice to look at. He sure does not have a flying school and nobody can give him the authority to operate one. Sad but true.

Care to elaborate? For example: What type of flight regime? Up relative to what? Are we talking planes controllable by people or things that need one or more black boxes to make them behave?

I don´t know that making a hole would be a big problem as I imagine it would be quite difficult to arrive upside down without smashing the canopy. Escape would then depend on the rollover structure maintaining enough clearance to burrow out under the cockpit sills. If anyone wants hints on how to make a canopy jettisonable have a look around a gliding field. This capability is required on sailplanes to facilitate parachute escape from a disabled craft and designers have solved the problem for just about any conceivable hinging pattern.

Hmmm, a taildragger would be interesting. Lets see, touchdown with the rudder in 40 kt wind and the wheels doing 80 kt on the ¨ground¨??? Better keep it straight or there could be a really really quick groundloop.

Rocko has provided a great treatise on eyeglass lenses and options and I agree with others that it should be published in RAA mag or somewhere similar. I just wanted to add some personal observations in case they may be of interest to anyone considering this issue. I have the general solidifying of lenses which seems to come with age and need both reading and distance correction. My solution is a set of clear bifocals with a set of brown or amber tinted clip ons of the type which will flip up if not required. After a fair amount of trial and error these suit me. First the lenses. I used multifocals for several years and there is no doubt that they are more convenient then bifocals because of the range of correction available with a tilt of the head. Even after a lot of fiddling, the bifocals always have a small range just outside reading range where things are a little blurry until the distance correction distance is reached. It is important that this does not coincide with your panel distance. The issue I had with multifocals is that the inherent distortion in the outer lower quadrants of the lenses had a real effect on my peripheral vision to the extent that after a year or so the visual processors were basically ignoring this area. I found this to be a problem when driving and in flying particularly with landing when direct forward vision is restricted. When I went to the bifocals, where the whole lens is basically distortion free, it took several months for my perceived visual field to expand again. The importance of this will depend on what you fly and how you scan, whether you are an eyeball turner or a head turner. As for the clip ons, they look a bit daggy but I find them a good solution. If you don´t need the tint for a short time you can just flip them up, look inside, then flip them down again, if you go indoors and the flip up does not suit the image you can clip them under your cap peak out of the way rather than peering through darkened lenses and, if you want to experiment with colours and polarisation, its relatively cheap. Mine are polarised and I have not had problems with canopy transparencies or with any significant LCD displays. If the occasional one gives trouble the flip technique is the go. Otherwise I find the reduction in glare and the increase in contrast a big plus. The fact that they can stay attached to the glasses is useful, my wife has a set of convertibles and frequently ends up with the glasses in one place and the shades in another. :)

Gotta watch those commas ;)