Leaderboard

No it's not 'totally dumb' ... it's a manifestation of a perspective that doesn't match yours. I use the work-around that I proscribed and it works well for me. I'm also eminently grateful to Sandy Barbour for creating the plugin in the first place. My suggestion to you is that you either; Write your own plugin that suites your modus operandi, or Find a way to communicate with some sense of humility (i.e. lose your air of entitlement), with Sandy Barbour, or ... RTFM ... it's all in the manual, and you're exhibiting impatience and impetuosity ... both traits that can get a young pilot killed ... especially if they're thinking of a career in Army Aviation ... trust me I know.

Valentin, Kris is giving you some words of wisdom and you're becoming very defensive over it. He's not even being rude, but he is trying to let you know that your way of discussing this matter with people here is a lot of self-centered-like behavior. Anyways, Ben is right. This is a perfect use for something fun and quick in Gizmo. Because of this thread I just went and challenged myself to a have a little fun and wrote a little program that will automatically enable Sandy's Pilot View whenever in the cockpit, even if you come from exterior back to interior. It was also a good excuse to get my TrackIR off the shelf. All in all this took about 30 minutes to write after going through Sandy's docs, using dataref editor, writing, and testing. I bet you could have a lot of fun and enjoy the feeling of being rewarded visually with something that works if you just put your mind to it. Gizmo has freely available docs to accomplish what you need as well, so there's really no excuse unless you just don't want it that bad.

THis problem could be solved easily with some scripting or a plugin..... listen for the command: "activate 3d cockpit" fire the command: "enable track it" continue with the command: "activate 3d cockpit" probably 20 lines of Gizmo script would do it....

After some sleep ... some "final" notes Tom, I still have the feeling that you have some way ahead of you in understanding some basic things of computer graphics (the way they are in 2013). Especially when I see a comment like this on Bens blog: "I guess the bottleneck if one can see it like that is the 2D triangle mesh right now. It seems that prevents more details." ... its not a bottleneck ... its the way current graphics hardware understands what you want it to do ... (heck, every other flight sim works - effectively - this way at its core! And with tessellation, it will be even less a bottleneck ... but I have written about it so much here, maybe you should re-read) ... ... but I definitely applaud, that you are study "3D design and animation" ... this should lead you in the right direction. I see that you are a visionary guy, who has a lot of great ideas and indeed, those ideas can move a lot of things forward in the long run. But this way of thinking is sometimes a bit hindering when you need to do real work in an existing environment, with given set of possibilities. And with "give possibilities" I mean things like: how does 3D graphics work at its core, and what can you do with it in a meaningful (and well performing way)? What does a given platform - like X-Plane - provide you (with all of its pros and cons), what can you achieve with it, and what is outside of its scope ... Then one has to always evaluate: if I want to improve / change something, does it makes sense withing the constraints of the platform? Can I improve the platform itself? How much does it "cost" to make that improvement? Will that improvement work on current and future hardware? Is that change something which is "nice in my head" but something which is very hard to "tell" a computer (or a graphics card!) without killing it (and having 0.1 FPS as a result). These are all things, which a developer (especially Ben Supnik) needs to consider all the time .... otherwise his work would easily become "Art for art's sake" (aka ''l'art pour l'art'' ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_for_art%27s_sake) .... where you create something beautiful, but something that just doesn't works on anyones computer. BUT ... this doesn't mean that Ben and Austin don't innvoate in their engine. They do it all the time (and I am part of the team for quite a few years and could see this happen behind the doors) .... but they cant just innovate all the time in one area, and forget a lot of other things they need to do. So they (and me too, by the way !) always need to allocate their resource wisely ... which can easily lead to the impression, that "they are not doing anything about this or that" (from ones own perspective) .... while in reality they are working on other important things which please another 1000 users (but maybe a feature which is less important to you). So, I agree, that there is "nothing that cannot be done" ... BUT, in real life it always means much more than just coming up with fancy ideas (which we all have more than enough) ... its always about weighing pros and cons, (work) resource allocation, cost benefit calculations, feasibility studies (what makes sense at the moment) etc. etc. etc. ... --- And yes, if you have added your missing lakes in OSM ... then you will see them very likely. Because THIS is the only way (well or any other digital form) to tell a computer what is there in real life! Because you can argue as long as you want with X-Plane, telling it "hey, show me that lake ... its there in real life!!!" .... it won't understand you. The only language it understands is data, data manipulation, algorithms etc. (but not "human language" arguing) ... ---

Amen In theory yes (as its always possible to edit data structures), in practice no (and I really mean NO ).

Thanks Valentin. I've had it ages, but never got used to flying it. Dug it out and spent more time on it recently, and the JetRanger is rapidly becoming my favourite.

Fly? I can't get off the ground. Far too happy to just sit here and listen to this thing's fantastic engine and blade sounds.

Ok will follow your advices guys, Sorry for the bad reaction, Thanks

In KGEG Spokane.

Okay, after installing and trying to load the airplane with my Jetstream copy (v1.3, bought at X-Aviation), the plane does not load. It tells me an airfoil file (NACA 63_3_-418.afl) could not be found. I checked the airfoil files in the Jetstream folder, and it indeed is not there. But this is the case also for the unmodified Jetstream, which loads perfectly fine. The airfoils I have in the airfoil folder are NACA 16 (good propeller).afl NACA63A412.afl NACA63A418.afl Is your modified .acf file compatible with all versions of the Jetstream 32 by all vendors, or just with a specific one? Edit: I have opened both the unmodified and the modified .acf in a texteditor and found the place where the missing airfoil names are included: Now trying to simply correct the names so they match the original .acf. Because I guess your KLN modification should not change anything regarding the flightmodel. I'll report if it works. Edit 2: Okay, works after correcting the airfoil names! I had to correct it at 2 places in the .acf file (at P _wing/8 and P _wing/9).

Here you can try 3D KLN Update Pack for JS32. Please read included PDF. http://xsmart-plane.com/3d-kln90b/

Which brings us back to square one. My impression Valentin, is that you demand for things to happen and readily criticize the effort that other people have made ... e.g. Sandy Barbour in this particular thread. How do you think he would feel after he's shared his effort, to hear (or see) the opinion that his implementation is "totally dumb"? You then go on to propose what should be done to 'fix it' .. again without regard to the effort and toil of another person. This is not a case of being 'politically incorrect', it's a case of needing to understand some common sense and manners. If you can do .. then do. If you can't do but criticize those that do .. you lose all credibility, and that takes a bit of work to recover.

Thanks Cameron, I appreciate it! *************************************************** @ Hueyman, live and learn my young friend. Just remember ... everything you do or say has an outcome (there're always consequences). You can either help to shape it to your benefit ... or get caught up in the current and wonder why things happen. Everyone has exactly the same set of choices .

Props to you, Kris. Hueyman may not get it, but I say majority of all us others do. Thank you for your sensible posts time and time again!

Yes, we always notify by email.

Looks awesome! As an FMC fliyer, this will help me a lot

He's determined, I'll give him that.

Thanks, I will post here when we are done.

For me no problem. Always share that modification for free, to let all the users use it. Of course! No problem! Of course let know the users in a text file, that they must preserve the original files in case something goes wrong.

Feel free to do it. Its not my monitor.

My turn with the Saab

From My flight from KLFT to KATL You can watch the full flight in the link below. http://www.twitch.tv/atomicfrawg/c/3038837 I am having way to much fun with this airplane

Some instruments I've been working on recently...

Not really X-Plane, but the reason why I use it as a training material ;-) Alone in my lovely DR400-140B, cruising high at FL070, nice weather and amazing clouds ;-) ( JohnMAXX hint hint )

Something like this, I think it can be done. I`ll give it a thought :-) Leen

Leen De Jager, is the man, he paints many of th great planes. My hat is off to this great guy.

Just a little side note to the liveries. When you select a different livery within X-Plane, any livery that is prefaced with "LDJ" is a livery painted by Leen De Jager. He was generous enough to donate his time to create some fantastic looking repaints and he deserves some recognition for his work.

Here's a picture of a cabin i modeled a while back here's another photo showing it with no textures

A new way to customize and create plausible low poly cities from openstreetmaps.