Dozer

This really sucks Colin. I really hope you're able to recover all the data, and without severe difficulty.

Sorry to hear this Michael, I hope the laptop is returned to you.

I found this guide to recursion quite informative. It really is an iaiarea of programming where the programmer must tread carefully. http://www.bobhobbs.com/files/kr_lovecraft.html

Worked for me!

As someone who's attempted to learn to use Blender 2.49, I can heartily contest that statement

Thanks very much Tom, that was a very informative read. I was completely misinformed in many of the previous comments I've made regarding XA/.org relations! This should be required reading for all new X-Pilot members.

Then... how did they know Tramkp888 was you? Unless they realised there's probably not more than one Hong Kong-based Aerobridge developer. If they hate people saying bad things about them on the .org, they'll hate people saying bad things about them anywhere. Unfortunate, but not very surprising. Tom, it's interesting to hear the history of the .org/XA split. I'd never known how it came about. Was this just an independent community forum before the MU-2 went on sale?

Perhaps it would be sensible to use different usernames on the .org and here. That way a person's .org account won't be blocked on account of what they've said under their X-A alias. That is, unless Nicolas and Cameron are the same person (I've made that mistake before ) and can compare IP addresses.

I wonder who you've talking about I complained about abusive language on these forums; not out of affection for the .org (at that time, I had none) but because I thought it would improve this forum. I underestimated Cameron, my ideas were not new ideas to him, but ideas he's already considered and rejected. So I'll be keeping my suggestions to myself in future.

Great review, thanks for writing it! I can't run it because my system can't run XP10 (and I can't afford a new PC right now) so I will vicariously enjoy the aircraft through the reviews and comments from yourself and others. I have a few questions about the aircraft. What are the systems like? What proportion of the switches and dials do anything? Do you need to keep switching to the Flight Engineer's station to set fuel pumps etc to keep the aircraft flying? If you set things up wrongly, will stuff break or malfunction?

This cannot happen soon enough. Tear down the (garden) wall!

That's right, I know nothing of the XPJets livery set. I'm just surprised that the 'Complete Set For 727 Series' is not the complete set of liveries for the 727 series. It's a matter of opinion if the CIVA and 727 are the same 'package' or not. It's not 727-specific, it works equally well with any aircraft, so even if it was made for the FJS 727 I see it as a completely separate product. I don't care what page the .org sells it from, or how they distribute its sale revenue. Any heavy (or medium ) jet could promote the CIVA as a desirable but optional enhancement for those who like old, fiddly technology; the only special thing about the FJS 727 is it's the first one.

I don't know where you're getting the figure of $101.95 from? It's $32 for an individual type (-100, -200, -200F) or $62 for all three. $19.95 for the complete package of additional repaints. $10 for the CIVA, which should be considered a completely separate standalone product IMO. That's $81.95 for all the 727 bits, or $91.95 for the CIVA as well. I'm a bit perplexed by the association between the CIVA and the 727. As far as I know, 727s rarely had inertial-nav fitted. And, (as far as I know again) the FlyJSim 727 doesn't have any special integration of Philipp's CIVA. It is a popup 2d gauge which can steer the autopilot, and it works identically whether you're flying the FJS 727 or the default 172. Philipp's CIVA is less comprehensive than the MSFS Simufly CIVA at present - it is only a single unit while the Simufly one could be in duplex or triplex configuration. Also it has fewer of the more esoteric modes, I think. But the great strength of Philipp's CIVA is that it can be integrated into aircraft cockpits by using its commands and datarefs but not the art assets, which is definitely something I want to do to my own aircraft. Also it can be integrated with hardware. Much love to Philipp for creating it and I hope it will be popular and developed further!

The 727 isn't 'heavy' metal! It's medium-weight metal. I don't think I can run it, as I don't have a graphics card, but I'm eagerly awaiting the CIVA inertial navigation system Philipp made to accompany it. edit: The CIVA is also released! I think I'll buy myself a little Christmas present...

I just ignored the warning. Adblock protect me! edit: awww, an admin whose name I did not know has taken down the site to upgrade the software. Time to go to bed!

I like the brushes in the throttle and prop lever tracks. Very nice! What's the control just outboard of each VOR tuner on the glareshield? Is that the controller for each pilot's EFIS?

That's very generous of Tom/XSc/XA! Still, the scope of the improvements in v1.5 are, I think, worth paying for, and it's fantastic to get them for free.

I think Tom's intention was always that v1.5 is a free update, and could be followed by a paid v2.0 update (sold as a new aircraft) with a lot of new 3D work. Personally I think there's enough work in v1.5 that it is worth being sold as a paid update, but Tom/X-Scenery/X-Aviation/et al cannot do that now because they've been promising v1.5 as a free update for years (perhaps before realising how many hundreds of hours of work would eventually go into it... ) Certainly, if I ever work on a payware project, I'll be very sparing in the details. "Hey everyone, I've been working on an update to the HS.748, now when the aircraft experiences negative-G the chemical toilet will realistically spill blue liquid everywhere. Also simulated new 3d models of the tea urn with reflective textures. This will be a free update, and it will be released... yesterday. Enjoy!"

Battery volts drop, low voltage lights come on? Battery heats up, battery draws high recharging current for the next 30 minutes or so, and if the recharging current does anything except decrease after generators come online, there is a problem with the batteries and something urgent must be done. That's a lot of buses! They're not tied in that screenshot. The aircraft I'm working on has about twelve, but that's because for some reason there's 7 (or 8) separate AC buses at varying voltages, phases, and levels of essentialness. I have no idea what 'A phase' and 'C phase' AC power is, the manual takes it for granted the reader will know, there's no mention of a B phase. I'm assuming it's single-phase and 3-phase AC and hoping that textbook will explain.

Great, thanks for the update.

That's something I hadn't considered Tom! So you have these failure flags, but not hooked to anything yet, right? That is the situation I expected - I've been told before that failure simulation will come after v1.0. I have subjective and aesthetic reasons to like the idea of limited randomness. It helps disguise the fact I'm actually sat in front of a big box of numbers linked by hard logic, instead of in something absolutely ruled by fluid dynamics. The huge depth of systems in the i737 disguise this a lot, as Janov said elsewhere - the needles moving gradually, the lights fading dynamically, due to the interplay of systems, and without needing any randomness to fill in the gaps. Meanwhile I use srand() to modify the time it takes to close a generator field into the 2 to 4 second range in my own project. I could try and simulate the generator field relay control system, and include the various factors which might alter the length of time it takes to close the generator (for all I know it's just a timer relay - the Pilot's Notes don't go into THAT much detail) - but srand() is much simpler and gets nearly the same result, which is that the user realises they can't be completely certain how long it will take the generator to close, they'll have to keep holding that switch in until the light goes out. I could try to make a complete electromagnetic model of the Earth, with coastlines and powerlines and terrain topology and air-mass refraction and thunderstorms all bending radio waves in subtle ways, and end up with a VOR needle on my RMI which is only accurate to +/-2°. Or I could just use a noise generator to get an indistinguishable result in much less time. The important thing is, now my TACAN system has meaning, as it is accurate to +/-0.3°. (I'm making numbers up here, but I think the ratio of precision of VOR and TACAN is similar to those values.) Clearly this is not the same thing as simulating electrical systems, hydraulic systems, the flow of heat and air through the aircraft. These things are internal to the scope of the simulation. They are things which interact with each other, and they need a simulation made from interacting elements. But the stuff on the boundaries of the simulation's scope, the frontier between internal and external - VOR accuracy, generator relay control systems, and exactly how much air pressure/temperature is needed to start an APU - in these areas, controlled randomness I think can be useful. I think I'm starting to split hairs - it's extremely unlikely that anyone will notice or complain if the APU starts 100% of the time at 20,000ft but never at 20,001ft. This is the kind of problem that seems to matter when I'm writing a forum post, but not when I'm sat at a compiler or actually - gasp - flying the sim.

You're posting this message in different places, so I am going to reply in different places too I could see this developing to use a Role-Playing Game engine underneath: I'm kidding. But if there is an underlying element of luck (good and bad luck) when it comes to questions like "will the APU start first time at x altitude" it makes the choices you describe more interesting. It's about playing the probabilities instead of boolean logic. I expect someone will tell me that pilots never need to gamble in reality, but in extremely abnormal cases (for example, double generator failure) is this still the case?

I mean these images: http://fsxp.moonfruit.com/communities/8/004/011/318/228/images/4582227463_pre.jpg They've been enlarged, so they're blurry and pixellated. If you could get a sharper picture of your aircraft instead, it would look better.

I miss chemistry. It was a subject I enjoyed. With hindsight. At the time, trying to memorise pages upon pages of reaction mechanisms was very tedious. What happens when you heat an alkane under reflux in the presence of weak sulphuric acid? Haven't a clue. Electron orbits and van der Waal's forces, those were the good bits. On the subject of the website, could you use higher-resolution images of the aircraft? They're a bit blurry (on my browser through my rural internet connection).