Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/21/2019 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    Hi, Was watching some of Q8Pilot's video's on youtube, one of which featured the mighty Saab.. Gave me a bit of inspiration so gave tutorial video making a go. Have to admit, it's nothing flash, just a one clip take of start, takeoff and an ILS for beginners. Any comments or suggestions for other videos appreciated. Think I may have waffled on a bit, hope my voice isn't too annoying
  2. 2 points
    Please close this thread, have since figured it out. Vrconfig.txt has to have the same naming style as the .acf file. Works now.
  3. 2 points
    Hello mmerelles, Thank you so so much for the help and really detailed information. I have tried your suggestion today, and it works, I could export the simbrief´s flight plan and it was recognized, after I created the coroutes folder as you said. Besides, yes, I use Navigraph, and the AIRACs in simbrief and the plane were was current one, 1907. Thanks a lot again Javier
  4. 2 points
    Been working on some shorter sequences instead of the initial marathon. Introduction to vertical profiles and visual circuit.
  5. 2 points
    Hello again. I'd like to give another update. During our investigation into updating our NavData to the XP1100 format, it became apparent that this must be the way to go for long-term future compatibility and more reliable route calculations, including holds, but would require a significant rewrite of the FMS base architecture to do so. So over the last 4 weeks, we have done exactly that. We now have the beginnings of a 2nd FMS running in parallel with... but independently of.... our original FMS. We are running 'newFMS' on CDU1 and 'oldFMS' on CDU2. We will NOT be simulating dual FMCs though. This old/new arrangement only exists so we can compare the new with the old while developing the new. It is much like building a new bridge alongside an old bridge...and when the new one is ready, we will remove the old. Much of the challenges we have faced with regards to drawing routes / vnav have been related to the limited nature of the navData format we have used since we began the project. Moving to a format which have been designed expressly for "navigation processing" will go a long way towards easing our algorithm development. The image below shows the two CDUs, both on the "IDENT" page, but clearly displaying differing data as they use differing algorithms/databases....and for those curious, the pilot CDU displays 'odd' formatting simply because we were testing our new display drawing code. We are very excited moving to this new XP1100 format. We have, in 4 weeks, accomplished what took us over 24 months to accomplish originally. Of course we have the benefit of experience, but the elegance and efficiency of the new navData format and architecture allow us to focus on the FMS functionality by orders of magnitude more than before. With the new infrastructure complete, we will begin working on the route editing. The current navData set only supports about 8 different waypoint types. Arcs are not supported, as is common in today's RNAV procedures, but the new format contains all path/terminator types typical in today's procedures. As usual, we thank you for any patience you have managed to muster as we work to improve the IXEG 733. P.S. Jan and myself will be at Flight Sim Expo in Orlando, FL/USA in a few weeks if anyone wants to talk shop. -Tom Kyler
  6. 1 point
    Happy to report rolling back to v11.34 and a TBM re-install seems to have fixed my issues here
  7. 1 point
    Hey Gordon, for your first issue try to go into the airframe manager and uncheck "simulate control stiffening at high speed". I also get that little dampening issue if this is checked. Hope it works for you.
  8. 1 point
    Thank you very much (again!) mmerelles! Jan
  9. 1 point
    Gotcha! Hopefully we'll see 'em eventually! Thank you though for being one of the few developers that actually respond to questions
  10. 1 point
    Hi I found my problem. I had setup Xsquawkbox and used an (a) to talk online. I have removed the a from the preferences and now the (a) has come back. Many thanks for looking at this
  11. 1 point
    FSGRW will always provide much better cloud representation when necessary compared to ASXP if SkyMaxx Pro is in use. This is because of a cooperation between the developers to add more features when the RWC+SMP+FSGRW combo is used.
  12. 1 point
    Most definitely shed a LOT more light on the subject and I thank you for that easy to understand example. As far performance goes, I'm getting decent frame rates (~50fps) using ASXP, SMP w/RWC in the AFL C172 over custom ortho. If I switched to FSGRW that allows for more cloud types, will that impact the frames any more than what I get? What about "pop-in" weather, as far as the change from one metar to the next, does this "killer combo" reduce that effect or is it about the same? For the record, I'm out to find the best combination that can accurately depict the weather, so I am open to options. Thanks again Cameron!
  13. 1 point
    RWC acts as the glue to SMP that tells SMP where to place clouds in a scene based on real world METAR data. Let's use the following example to explain it: We are going to assume RWC is NOT installed in the following example. 1. San Francisco, CA is reporting clear skies 2. Oakland, CA across the bay is reporting overcast 3. San Jose, CA on the south side of the bay is reporting scattered clouds Let's say we fly from SFO-OAK-SJC for purposes of demonstration. As we taxi and take off from SFO, there are no clouds reported in the METAR information, so SkyMaxx will draw no clouds anywhere as far as the eye can see (and OAK/SJC are within eye range). We take off from SFO and head towards OAK. X-Plane now tells SMP we are closest to OAK, so we get the METAR data from OAK showing overcast. Now the ENTIRE region as far as the eye can see is overcast...including SFO where we just took off! It's an abrupt change. We continue flying to SJC, and as we get closer, again X-Plane tells SMP to look at SJC as the nearest station for weather. All of a sudden we get an abrupt change to scattered clouds, including looking back at the OAK and SFO areas where it was overcast and clear respectively. In other words, whatever METAR station is closest will dictate what SMP draws for the ENTIRE region! Now, if we had RWC installed, it would analyze all the METAR stations and tell SMP to draw the clouds differently in those three airport areas. Clear over SFO, overcast at OAK, and scattered clouds over SJC. You could get up in the air, look around and see each area reflecting that information accurately. RWC is key to interpreting METARs and telling SkyMaxx where to place different weather fronts rather than drawing the same type for the entire scene. There are no abrupt weather changes as you move from one METAR station to the next. The answer is a mix of 'Yes and no'. RWC is capable of downloading real weather METAR data from the same NOAA source as X-Plane gets its default weather. ASXP claims to have better weather station reporting, so the theory is that ASXP is providing more accurate weather information to X-Plane (and thereby RWC/SMP). Whether it actually does that is up for debate. I do know it has a better wind/turbulence model than default X-Plane can do. You will want to run RWC in the External Injector mode for use with ASXP. Our recommendation is FSGRW+RWC+SMP. This is a killer combo that will provide the most accurate and best weather across any other option. The reason for this is because FSGRW has been created to add in extra cloud types that SMP can handle and display, meaning you will get a much more accurate picture than you will with any other weather injector. Ultimately it's going to come down to your own personal preference, but I hope this sheds a bit more light on the situation for you!
  14. 1 point
    Thanks a lot for you kind words! The engine problem is know for sometime know, due to changes in X-Plane's engine simulation. Avanti's PT-6s are very similar to Austin Meyer's, which have gone a lot of improvements over the last iterations of X-Plane, which I didn't have enough time to follow. I think that I might be able to do a small research in the next couple weeks, and might be able to adjust it a bit better. I wish there was someone with Planemaker knowledge to help. THIS IS AN OPEN INVITATION to anyone who would like to contribute into this project, in terms of Flight Model and 3D graphics! For now, this phenomenon is happening when you go above M.62. Try to remain around M.60 to M.61 and would be OK. This is a small compromise needed for now, until fix the problem. Regards
  15. 1 point
    We will review options for the reflections when we are working on v2.0.
  16. 1 point
    Cloud shadows do work, but they can be subtle in many conditions. Turning up the cloud shadow setting, or flying over water, can make them easier to see. But yes, I can confirm they do seem to be the source of the translucent cockpit in VR. In VR there is no distinction between the ground and the cockpit when we are doing our drawing, so getting cloud shadows to work in VR without that side effect may be tricky. But I'll try to get it working for our next release.
  17. 1 point
    My video uplaod has finished and I can now show you how the thunderstorm situation seen on my screenshots looks in motion. This possibly also helps on judging if performance is good enough for some users but I think those flying at locked 30 fps on pretty modern computers don't need to fear anything (and even if then SMP is worth the tweaking for compensation). :-) My specs: i7 2600k, 4200 MHz 32 GB DDR3 @ 1333 MHz RAM (with 16 GB @ 2133 I get about 5 more FPS) GeForce GTX 1070 (8 GB VRAM)
  18. 1 point
    Hey guys, v2.2.0.VR is now available! CHANGELOG - VR compatible in collaboration with SimVRLabs. - New outside mapping. Incuded 1 basic (white) texture and the XB-KSW. - Includes previous fixes. - Initial Avitab implementation on MFD (3rd page). No "touch" controls yet. - New manipulators, due to compatibility with VR. - Manipulators for Flaps, Condition Levers, and Throttles with detends. Here you are: http://forums.x-pilot.com/files/file/1081-p180-avanti-ii/
  19. 1 point
    Definitely the whole flight model needs some work to be modernized to XP11.30 standards, which, unfortunately, is something that I do not have. Hopefully in the near future be able to tackle this.
  20. 1 point
    Turn off the option "show vortices" - it is not compatible with 11.30 anymore... Cheers, Jan
  21. 1 point
    Since I had a bit more time, I added a couple more features! Avionics start up from cold and dark, and the load manager in action. Enjoy!
  22. 1 point
    I have added another feature in the upcoming update. An option menu, where you can set the passengers on board, adjust fuel, and set some (one at this point!) options. You will be able to access it ever from the Plugins menu, or via custom command you can bind to a keyboard shortcut.
  23. 1 point
  24. 1 point
    Working on the next (2.1.1) update. This update will included: 1. PFD - Revamped PFD with accurate placement of each element. - REFS menu to set various values (take off or landing speeds, minimum altitudes) or settings (FD cues, baro system, metric altitude, etc). - New airspeed tape that includes markers for all various speeds (VR, VRef, VT, flaps, etc). 2. MFD - Pressing FORMAT button goes to 2nd page with indications (electrical system, flaps, anti-ice, etc). - When FMS is your nav source, a "progress page" will be displayed above the the map. Currently the calculation are based on instanced values, but in the future (next version probably) will be based on a standard flight profile. 3. FMS - I've built a new font to match as best as possible the actual Rockwell/Collins FMS 3000. - Added a couple new pages (STATUS, POS INIT). For the actual navigation you will return/use the default XP11 FMS. FMS will be implemented slowly, always having a fully working solution, while adding FMS 3000 specific features/layouts. ETA for 2.1.1: I will probably wrap up what I have done so far and make it available "as soon as possible". Main concern at this point is to be a stable release, so you can enjoy it with no fuss! Here are some samples:
  25. 1 point