Vantskruv

Note that the CRJ200 has some type of memory problem. I.e. if flying for a long time, memory consumption will increase. One time I had about 20Gb allocated memory for X-Plane, and this only happens with the CRJ200 (and also, the allocated memory is still there even if you close X-Plane, so I either need to logout or reboot). Though X-Plane do not crash, but only sometimes when exiting it when you have loaded the CRJ200. A theory is that the memory problem may interfere with the Skymaxx Plugin. I also had crashes and extreme hiccups with Skymaxx, so I did uninstall it. No more hiccups or crashes, but at this time I'm not sure if the cause was the CRJ200, and I don't have the time to pinpoint the problem of mine.

I agree. You need to redo the cockpit. Because of this, release will probaly be postponed, but it is worth it! Cannot wait to see the new cockpit screenshots with the sextant in the roof!

When you fly oversea, and Mr. Kyler:s FMC fails, this should be used instead: http://www.dh-aircraft.co.uk/news/files/fa209f26b0321f2de7499e6f2c846588-101.html (Periscopic Sextant) Hereby I state that I refuse to buy this airplane if above function is not implemented. Mr. Kyler should scrap the FMC and release the airplane with this tool. Those who agree, please vote by agreeing in this thread. The other people who do not understand the magnitude of importance for this, state the reason why you not concede. Mr Kyler, I demand you to release the airplane now without the FMC.

That is very sad. I understand that the original blender files made by the authors should be protected and to not be redistributed for bad purposes. And, I guess as explained by you, it seems only be possible to add manipulators if a modder have these files. This tells us it is impossible, in the case of manipulators, to add manipulative objects, if not the author do it himself, or the author trusts the modder to not redistribute the original files if they are given. It would be very nice if X-Plane would support manipulators for external objects...which would solve this problem without the extra help of the author.

Hello! I'm in period of creativity, and my plan is to add the KLN90B to the Saab 340. So far I've been able to add and place the KLN90 with animated buttons which responds to datarefs to the aircraft. The problem now is to add manipulators for the 3D object. In the time of problem solving and learning, I've understood the manipulators is only possible to add in the main 3d cockpit object file (in this case the 'LES_Saab_340A_cockpit.obj' file in the aircraft root folder). First, I hoped to be able to just manually edit the cockpit object file, but it seems impossible without editing and exporting the file. So my plan now is to add untextured/hidden manipulative objects in the main 3d cockpit object file. So, starting up Blender 2.49b, and importing this object file, I'm getting an error 'Cannot read cockpit panel texture' and ATTR_manip is undefined. Also the import script does not load any 3D objects. So I tried to use AC3D with the latest plugin, it does load 3D objects, but it seems to be very erroneous as of some lines and vertices spreads out long far out from the cockpit. So, I've come to a dead end. If it would be possible to add manipulators for external objects, everything would be fine, but it seems it is not the case. And rather not want to modify the 3d cockpit file, but it seems I have to (or is it?). Any tips/hacks to add manipulators for an existing aircraft, or help to correctly importing the 3d cockpit file?

Only if tkyler could write code as fast as he typing in the forums. I.e., it would be interesting to compare the number of lines/letters of code with the amount typed in the forums! Keep up the good work, and I really looking forward for a release next week! And please can someone slap me in the face stopping me to be sarcastic? PS. I know the hard work behind coding, I've been working on splines mathematically (calculating radius, distance, and direction at point T, aswell as cutting them in two parts and so on) and then connecting them in a user editor. Damn, in mind it was very easy, but coding it, it was heck of a job and it took long time to get it right. And I only finished per mille of my vision. Next step seems to be worse... .DS

How did you solve the problem?

Wonder if it would be best to do bulklanding then? How did it go?

I can you send you ONE MILLION Zimbabwean dollars, no problems here. PM!

Thanks for the clarification, though I want flag that the X-Plane GNS430 do not have any RNAV implemented yet of this time (you are not able to select STAR/SID RNAV procedures). Anyway, that is not a problem, as I'lI then will fly this machine with only VOR/NDB navigation, which is greatly fun and educational.

After googling oxymoron, I really understand what you not mean.

Ok, this may not be hardly linked to IXEG, but may give some ideas for the developers to earn some more money, make the community happier, relieving development of other developers, and finally increasing the quality for the major number of aircrafts for X-Plane. I guess this has already crossed IXEG:s mind, but I want to create a discussion of this. I recently scanned through the aircraft development section in this forum, and it came to my mind, as there are so many developers fighting to get their aircrafts released, and users are complaining about bad FMS systems and not able to flying RNAV approaches and so on. Why reinvent the wheel? Why not create a FMS module, which other developers may buy (or give shares for every sold aircraft), and which they can slightly modify to represent a more realistic FMS for their current aircraft? This would speed up the development considerably, and make the developers concentrate on other important parts of their aircraft, even if they would loose some part of the income every copy they sell (though this may be compensated by a higher prize, which I would gladly pay for to get a good simulation of my current aircraft). If IXEG:s FMS system is not too much integrated in the 737-300 they are making now, and it is more of a module-type build, would it possible to maybe sell this technology to other aircraft developers? Would it be hard to customize this module for their type aircraft?

This looks like a really great aircraft, another one to look forward for! Though, as usual, many aircraft developers are "lazy" (or maybe rather have lack of resources or time) to develop user-friendly realistic versions of navigation equipment. Actually, before you misunderstand, what I mean here is the use of the X-plane inbuilt GNS430/530, which I really hate as it is not fully implemented. And for the other case it is very unintuitive when flying simulators with (i.e. controlling it with mouse and scrollwheel is very awkward, a 3d keypad is much more user friendly computerwise when setting waypoints and fixes). Though, I'm not sure if this aircraft has this equipment (GNS430/530) installed as standard (or lately added) in the realistic aircraft. If it is, yeah what can you do, usually I just turn off the screen and fly via VOR/NDB (i.e. as with the Saab 340A, the GNS430 is just so irritating, so I turn it off even if it could use its help sometimes). Also this how I mainly navigation with the FJS732, which do not have any navigation computer equipment onboard (except for the CIVA which is available as a payed plugin, though not able for RNAV navigation). Now when IXEG is developing the 737 and are nearly done, maybe they would sell/give some of the technology of their FMS, which may be slightly modified to enhance other realistic FMS equipment for certain aircraft. Though, I'm not sure if this is possible, depending how module-based that development is, but it would clearly make some type of relief for other developers not inventing the wheel again. Note this is just speculation, ideas and thoughts I have.

Blindfolded?

I think it is because people just don't have enough span to booking up a time to fly together, especially if people don't know each other. Maybe many people in this hobby do not have any close social contacts sharing the same interest, and they don't want to sacrifice the other social side with unknown "digital" people. That is the case with me, I prefer to fly with someone I closely know, and don't want to book me up and feeling responsible for another ones needs. With a close friend, you can disrupt when you want! Sadly as it is...

I would personally say I do not like the 737 MAX cockpit, as well as the 757 and 767. To much computers, that is why. I would rather IXEG concentrated on more old-school aircrafts without too much advanced systems (though FMS is preferably to have in the aircraft). I.e: MD-80 - though already a version is released by a developer, and there is another one on its way, so even if I would prefer it, it is not realistic to concentrate on this aircraft. BAE ATP - as they been flying locally in Sweden, and I don't think this aircraft is too hard to simulate. At this time is that what I want, though the needs may change in the future discovering other aircrafts.

I need to fill in a little. I think this discussion is overblown and overreacted (as humankind does naturally and subconsciously). From where the discussion blew up like a balloon filled with fart, a user stated that he felt the simulation may not comfort his requirements for a fully blown replica of the systems. His statement should be respected as for his personal requirements, and text on a screen may not fully mirror exactly what is meant; rant, personal statement or discrepancy from thought to text; this may be differently absorbed by different people, hence as wavelengths may not be aligned which each other just because they both start at wrong points, but the wavelengths are still the same. There is no need, or rather, it is not possible to judge, only preconceive (which is a bad nature of human kind). As for IXEG, they may want to make a simulation they dream about and give with the exchange of cheese to other people. They may decide to keep it for them selfes, but they don't. Also, making a fully 100% blown simulation, is not very easy. If we require something that is 100%, we either get something like that if we are lucky, or not. I guess IXEG try their best to deliver as close of 100% with their resources, but as stated in the first post, this is not possible because of time and funds. Either they cancel everything, or they release it to i.e. 95%. If we want to have fully blown 100% simulation of this aircraft, either we look elsewhere (good luck with that), or we buy IXEG:s 95% simulation, and with this action of ours, IXEG may continue and be able to create a 99% simulation, or if we are very lucky, 100%. To conclude: Either: - No simulation 737-300 at all Or: - 95% simulation of 737-300, and later on maybe 99.5% simulation (if IXEG is supported well enough). NOTE: the percent values given in the above text is just examples, so please no preconceptions here.

Notice, before setting the ILS frequency, set the automatic radio tuning to manual in the FMC, otherwise there is a risk the FMC will turn back to any frequency of a VOR/DME beacon.

Big thanks from here too! I really like the Saab 340A, and I think this is the best aircraft currently for X-Plane (til IXEG:s 737 comes out ). BAE ATP seems to be an interesting aircraft aswell.

Devs, will this solve the issues? http://developer.x-plane.com/2016/01/how-to-apply-the-torque-fix-to-your-aircraft/

ESVA to ESSD

I think it may be shit behind the wheels, though I found some discontinuity with the X-Plane default pitch trim dataref and the aircraft (see last bread text). This is what happens. I.e. while climbing in climb mode to a set altitude i.e. FL150. Reaching the altitude the EADI will show ALTS. In this mode it is not possible to engage V/S or ALT modes. I think I remembered it incorrectly I was not able to activate approach mode, as I wrote in the first post, sorry for that. Though when in ALTS, I need to rotate the altitude select wheel to get the V/S end CLIMB modes enabled. So that problem solved (if it is not a bug). The problem with the approach mode was that it did not follow G/S. I guess, even if you have G/S established, you need to engage APP mode when below G/S. If APP mode is engaged when slightly above G/S, AP will not follow it. The other thing which did confuse all of this. I've assigned the X-Plane default pitch trim to my joystick. If you are pressing the pitch trim levers with the mouse on the radio panel, AP is disengaged. Though when trimming with the assigned buttons on the joystick, AP will not be disengaged. Instead, if in ALTS mode, the green ALTS text on the EADI will disappear and a smaller font of white ALTS text below the previous text will begin to flash. I think the programming code algorithms gets confused when using the X-Plane pitch trim dataref. Is their any custom datarefs for pitchtrim for this aircraft?

45,000$!!! That's cheap! What school is that, do they take international students? This would clearly ease up things for me!

I think it would be more fun flying smaller turboprops or jets for i.e. cargo-transports. Right now I've a very good job with a good salary, but I've learned almost everything and I want new challenges. Of course the costs of education does limit things right now, total costs for 2 year education may be about 115'000$. And if you don't get any job after that, I can continue my old work. Sitting and weighing right now, if the risk is worth spending for, but you only have one life...it would be fun though. I think I'll make a medical test for the first step.

I mean not to be, I mean to be. What do you think is the oldest you can be to start education for a commerical license, if you don't have any real life experience at all? I'm 36 years at this time, always wanted to be a pilot, but restrained myself about the costs and and my bad nearsight (which is fixed for now). Should you do the education at homeland, or any other tips for educations almost guaranteeing you a job?