Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

1,728 profile views

BaBene's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. I understand. Just out of curiosity if I would manage to get the Gizmo64 version which did support Linux would I be allowed to use it?
  2. Hi there, I know you hate this topic and I don't want to discuss it. I know Linux support within Gizmo has been abandoned and that X-Aviation never supported Linux for their payware products. That's fine, I don't request or demand support for Linux. However, there has been a version of Gizmo that actually did run under Linux, but I can't find it anymore. I had it running on my Linux installation a couple of months back, but I did switch the distribution and didn't make a backup of my X-Plane installation. It seems as if every trace that led to this particular versions has been removed from the internet I just want to know if this version is still available somewhere? If not, could you send it to me or put it back online? Again, I know it's not supported (and I won't ask for support), that its an old version etc. I just want to enjoy some X-Aviation products (especially the IXEG), since I have now switched to Linux for all my flight sim activities. The funny thing is that the IXEG actually ships with a Gizmo64 plugin that has a lin.xpl which is however not a valid ELF file. Best regards Bene
  3. Studying your script I was wondering if the MTBF actually makes sense there. As far as I can tell you never save the time on the airframe (If I understand it correctly Cycles will always be set to 0 on each new script startup). So if I only do let's say short haul 1h flights, it would be highly unlikely that a failure occurs. That's not what I would expect. Could you clarify this for me? I may just have got it completely wrong, I'm by no means a LUA expert Regards, Bene
  4. Yes I did notice that the X-Plane 11 default failure system does not work. Tried your script and works flawlessly, great work!
  5. Hey, haven't tried your script yet but thanks in advance for your work. I was just wondering why such a script is necessary. Doesn't the default failure system of X-Plane work with the IXEG B733? I never tried it, but it also has the same features I guess. In any case your script seems to be a plug and play solution which is nice, but I'm a fan of utilizing available options as much as possible Best regards, Bene
  6. I am totally relaxed and don't really understand your reaction to my comment, as I tried to be polite and calm. Of course I am focused on the visuals. I am not involved in the development of the product so why should I care much about the technical aspects? After all the outcome of your efforts will be a visual representation of the weather. This will solely be judged by it's visuals and performance, and not by the algorithms used. I'm neither debating nor arguing about stuff that I don't even have yet. I just put your published numbers into a different perspective and gave you my opinion that 86nm cloud draw distance isn't exactly what I would call "increase to an insane degree". If you don't agree than that is fine. The comment in the latter half of my post was based on my experience with SMP v3, a product which I do have for quite some time now. And as I said I do appreciate the previews you gave us. Don't you appreciate constructive and questioning user/customer feedback? As a customer I just wanted to make clear what problems I'm facing with SMP v3, since you are not going into much detail in your announcements whether these problems will be fixed I just kindly asked for a video.
  7. To be quite honest here, I wouldn't go that far and call an increase of the cloud draw distance by ~40%, resulting in 120km or 86nm from the cockpits perspective an increase to an insane degree. I asked for that before, I really would like to see a mid-haul flight video (going to high altitudes), any chances for that? There are some great weather transitions right now happening in central europe, e.g. flying from northern Germany to Austria or Switzerland. My biggest issue with SMP v3 at the moment are the bad weather transitions. They became especially noticeable in my recent flights to Salzburg and Geneva. Those two airports had some really bad IMC conditions, but the transition e.g. from Munich to Salzburg wasn't immersive at all. I was almost able to view Salzburg a couple nm outbound Munich, when all of a sudden the visibility changed to a couple hundred meteres in a matter of seconds with no clouds visible at all (there should have been some clouds according to the METAR). And yes I do use RWC. Pictures won't give me an impression whether that issue is resolved or not, so a video would be really appreciated. However, I do appreciate that you posted some high altitude screenshots here, though I'd love to know the METAR reports of the nearest station and the actual altitude of that shots. I for one am not able to judge the correct altitude simply by looking at a 2D picture. It is my believe that only videos are able to tell the true story, or at least give you a correct impression, of a weather addon. You are not developing a static scenery, it is supposed to be a dynamic simulation of the weather, with transitions and such. Although your screenshots do look nice most of the time, even freeware cloud textures can do so on screenshots taken at the right moment from the right angle. Best regards, BaBene
  8. I believe you mean a square area with an edge length of 320km. You might want to consider changing your advertisement images then, it is somehow misleading. Putting the word "double" and the edge length (instead of the area what you actually mean) there might confuse some people. Some customers might believe that they get double the cloud draw distance from their aircraft, while they actually are getting 41% more. My biggest point of criticism with SMP v3 is the cloud draw distance, especially noticeable when flying on high altitudes. A good setting for me while still maintaining an acceptable frame rate is 10,000 km², thus I can expect ~40km "more" draw distance with SMP v4? /EDIT Any chance of getting a time lapse video of a mid haul airliner flight of SMP v4 before you release it? This would be more than awesome, and i think I'm not the only one that is curious to see how SMP v4 performs on a "real" flight
  9. I'd love to see some screenshots above FL400 using RWC, just to get an impression of how much the cloud draw distance has improved.
  10. Out of curiosity, what exactly do you mean with "allow clouds to be drawn across an area of up to 320 km."? Did you mean km² (I hope not ;)), in a radius/diameter of up to 320 km around the plane or in a square of 320 km x 320 km? The major issue I have with SMP v3 at the moment is the cloud draw distance. Looking forward to SMP v4 improvements on that front!
  11. I don't want to throw this thread sideways, so this will be my last comment on this one That is exactly what I mean. You know John enough, we don't. How on earth should we've known that there was humor in his answer? Putting a smiley after that statement would've helped a lot. That's what i mean with "think before you post". We argued about this one before. I think you falsely assume that people asking for linux support, and especially the way they are asking for support, do represent the majority of linux users. After all none (or a majority? not sure on this one) of your addons support linux at the moment, so there are not much "casual" linux users hanging around here. You will never see a "normal" linux user thanking you for not supporting linux. The ones that do post here are passionate linux users that desperately want your addons to support linux. Try create an awesome X-Plane addon for linux only and watch how the windows user are going to react or demand support. Give them the cold shoulder, post a polite and respectful template and everyone will be happy in the end. It's not so much what you do, it's the way you do it. I can't imagine how awful it is to deal with such annoying customers from your perspective. I can only tell you what impression i get from some of the statements. Best regards and my final words on that in this thread (I promise), BaBene
  12. OK, considering your name and your user group Maxx-XP I suppose you are a developer for SMP. Why is it that some developers publishing for or within X-Aviation tend to give defiant answers? Customers will assume that you are just arrogant, which I believe (or atleast hope) isn't true. I kept quiet when Ben announced to discard his plans for releasing on linux because of a lonely troll, but this time I gotta speak up. Yes there are customers who are trolls, yes there are customers who ask the same annoying question over and over again, and yes there are ****heads, but you know what? Who cares? After all you want to sell your products, so be polite and treat your paying customers with respect, no matter how annoyed you are. Think before you post! When there are people asking the same question over and over again just create a polite and respectful template snippet that you can throw at them. As a customer I feel quite offended by statements like the one from JohnMAXX and it leaves a bad taste. Just be professional, I know this might be hard sometimes, but it's worth it. The comment of Cameron is perfectly fine, polite and respectful, why not go with such answers? Best regards, BaBene
  13. Hi, I know you all hate this topic, but I don't want to get into a discussion here. I'm just a little bit confused if you are actually working on a linux port. I saw a post on your blog (~Feb. 2015) http://blog.x-plugins.com/2015/02/gizmo64-v1412310008-beta.html where you supplied (not available anymore?!) a beta version of gizmo64 with linux support. The latest topic in this forum (~Dec. 2015) however states that you dropped linux support due to lack of interest. But your last post regarding linux support (~May 2016) actually lead me to believe that you are in fact working on a linux port. A clarification would be appreciated If you are working on a port is there a rough ETA? Best regards, BaBene
  14. @byte512 Thank you for supplying the Image, I guess I should've done that in the first place
  15. Hi, I've been playing around with the FMC lately and noticed two small thins that seem to be wrong from my point of view PERF INIT -> ISA DEV: 1.) When entering an ISA DEV of 0°C the FMC reads 32°F 0°C. Well 0°C is 32°F but what matters here is the deviation and shouldn't the deviation be 0°F as well? 2.) When entering a deviation =! 0°C the T/C OAT gets adjusted correctly, but when deleting the deviation with the DEL key the T/C OAT stays the same (i.e. does not revert to ISA OAT) TAKEOFF REF -> INTERSECT First of all I'm struggling to find a good explanation of what INTERSECT actually means and how to enter the data correctly. From my understanding it's used for intersection take offs (as the name suggests ;)) But then I don't really understand the format ---/-----. Could someone clarify this for me? 1.) Basically the INTERSECT field just takes almost everything you throw at it. For example: Just press delete and click on intersect, it reads DEL/----- then. Or you might want to attempt to enter something after the "/" by entering "/200" for example, it then reads "/20/------". Hope this helps! Best regards, BaBene
  • Create New...