arno54

I can"t resist sharing this - I found it really hilarious. I received it through a french pilot's mailing-list.

Blend files can be created/edited/saved in 2.5 then reopened in 2.49 for *.py exportation. The scripts are not compatible with 2.5 simply because 2.5 requires python 3.0 whereas 2.49 requires python 2.4. There's no real advantage to model with 2.5 as the real progresss is about sculpt modeling and a better (faster) treatment for baking, but in the other hand, animations are far easier to set in 2.49 than in 2.5. 2.49, to date, is by far the best choice for xplane devs. 2.5 is to be considered first bt 2D specialists for textures creation (2D being much more difficult than 3D) As for the "Xpfr model", there is a misunderstanding here. There'd be a lot to say about this but basically, I'd like to stress on the fact that there are very few redundant skills : each one has a field of skills, flight model / texturing / obj animation / lightings / photographs etc... and the worst IMHO in a group of devs is to have competitors in a definite field of skills (e;g. everyone wants to deal with building structs)

@Steven I read this and I feel very frustrated, because either I don't respond (and one thinks there are flaws and nothing really new in the Trojan) or I speak ( and one thinks I fight to sell more). So, having thought of it, here is my deal, Steven Winslow : - Get the Trojan. Then you'll experience what really is a plane with custom sound engine (not custom sounds, but a whole custom sound engine). IF you have ONE good reason, only ONE (And I would not argue it in anyway) to claim this is not 100x best than defaut engine + custom tracks OR if you find any flaw in the flight model relative to official doc, OR if you find less than 10 never-seen before functions, then I'll give back money from my own paypal account in the following hour, including XA comission and Khamsin's part - I'll personnaly give 100% money back. And I even won't try to check you've deleted the fle - that'll be my gift. I take for granted that you're honest and will say "ok, that's really as good as it gets - no refund required". I'm quite confident this will not happen. How many devs would dare to offer so? None. Obviously, i'm gonna be hanged on by my colleagues for this.

If I dare have a word on this matter... (well... I dare), there is a common misunderstanding here I assume. First, the initial quality of the recording is the clue, not the freqs. I mean, if the sound is poor and cracking, playing it 88Khz will simply give us high-quality cracks. So, it's probably better to have well-recorded sounds played 11Khz than poor sounds played 44khz. Second, let's face a simple fact : I bet 99% of the users don't have a hardware that's able to restitute true high-freq sounds. Even if the sound is actually well-recorded and really 44khz, in the final headset of most users (not to speak of laptop speakers) these sounds won't play with the quality they are supposed to. Third and last, there is an obvious, huge difference between 8 and 11khz. This difference is very noticeable but less important between 11 and 22. It's not really significant between 22 and 44, simply because the difference would require high-quality harware to be properly restituted. Xplane is simply not intended for sound processing. We can do lots of things to improve the flight experience, but multiplying the weight of the sound files is probably not what comes first - even if I'm definitely convinced this is important (see T28 specs sheet).

In this case you will need a light PM tweak to mimic an extra bomb-bay-tank. And even though, it's a challenge. But it CAN be done. I did.

Actually I'm not because these sounds are already calibrated to match IRL freqs. If a working sound on one acf doesn't work on another, you have mistaken on paths, that's 100% certainty.

99% of non-working custom sounds are due to improper file format. Use STRICTLY (don't follow the official doc) stéréo, 11kz or 22kz, uncompressed pcm, 8/16b, wav. Any other format will likely not play .

I've done many crosses with multiprop of my own (imaginary or historical), old fashion way. Including one real-time West-East via the North Road with a MD312 (was achieved IRL, once), and several direct come-and-go with our B17 (that's is REALLY challenging because of fuel load) I could write a whole book on this subject - as long as we speak of piloting. If you are not a FMS-GPS maniac, that's really a great adventure. If you are, it's only a 10hours electricity bill over endless water, you set up your start during your morning coffe, and witness landing when you're bacj home after work. It has absolutely no interest at all with a modern plane. Times are exact (the xplane world is actually spherical) and orthodromy is definitely reliable. With a map, a ruler, a timer, and a lot of calculations, it's pure art of piloting.

Read the " how-to : Bombing"

What I flew this morning... actually what I tried to flew is indeed the T28, because now that it's ready I'd like to have fun too. Well... fun might not be the exact word !

SHE began.

The Trojan of course ! What else ? What scenery Not aware. Won't talk but if tortured. Won't talk before my lawyer is here. Won't talk except if I'm forced to listen to the whole Celine Dion collection until Death comes. (well, I may give up before half is played actually, but there are probably laws against this particular form of torture)

And here is a release I'm personnaly looking forward to :-) (ok, I MIGHT be partial) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3OiVqVWYgg

rename the folder of your last used plane and retry. This will enforce a startup mistake and the loading of a new file. if this doesn't work, rename your preferences folder to old_preference and retry.

Hi, I see you mention http://xpfr-aeroplanes.dtccorp.org/ Actually this URL is ... two years ... out of date. Since then, the current website is here : www.xpfr.org ;-)

I'm exploring this - it could be of "some" help ;D

Is it St Bart ? I doubt it...

FPS : 40. I wasn't too far on that one ;-) Considering your harware, I suppose we can assume the bird is REALLY optimized and suitable for everyone :-) Quite proud on this occasion, I have to admit 8)

Much more more complicated than it sounds, because event acfunload is called when you reload your own plane. So if the new plane you would load after yours uses gizmo to, the "unset-overrides function" would simply not kick-off. For it to work, it would be necessary to have a super-global function in gizmo's core that check if the plane uses gizmo or not, and if not, lauch a special script in the previous plane (kinda "un-init.lua"). I guess this is not gonna happen. Anyway, it's globally a good thing to get used to load the new plane, then restart xplane, then fly, because there are soooo many variables that keeps alive... And if you change your plane twice or three times in the game session, the end result of the last plane is very likely not to resemble what the author did work on!

Exactly. This was my primary option. A fake aircraft only intended to load a plugin that would reset Xplane in it's ideal state. But I gave up the idea for two main reasons : 1) Much too long a work for a side-effect of a flaw of the sim we're not responsible of, specially considering restarting xplane is a matter of minutes but testing each potentially unreseted dataref is a matter of weeks 2) doing it would induce the feeling that the "good" aircarft are not so good and need some kind of side-fix not to spoil the sim. I guess in this particular case, the cure is worse than the illness.

I'm affraid no : the plane goes with Gizmo and not SDK C+. The release of the ovverides is actually done when unloading Gizmo, it's just that Xplane ignores it. The same applies for lots of dr, sliced-drag, min/max thro, etc etc... It's to the point we make sure to load each airplane twice before any measurement, and preferably restarting xplane meanwhile.

Well, I guess there is a huge misunderstanding here. - Users don't want to pay twice, be it justify or not, be it childish or not, be it stupid or not, that's just the way it is. You can argue until the end of times, users are the ones who pay eventually, so they are right - denying this simply denying reality. - Users are too often stupid. Sorry to say so, non-polically correct, insensitive, but that's a fact as well. Whatever the size of the fonts, even the clearest warning will simply be ignored. Denying this is, too, denying reality. For instance, go on the org and lookf for the B17G download. Size32, Red, high-case warning, first of all, top of page : "doesn't work with engine running on load". "Needs RTFM, absolutely". 5000 downloads : a rough 500mails+PM+comments (I don't exagerate, that's the actual value) saying "That's buggy, when I want to formation-fly, it falls like a brick". Nobody is going to change users. Setting warnings gives the devs some sense of responsability, but eventually it will NOT change the feeling the users have BUT it will make sells drop. One can deny this, and endlessly argue about is a "fair approach", there's no avoiding that users pay, users want, users decide. And I'm pretty sure they will decide (have decided) it's the devs' problem to get rid off any nagware or whatever. So, want it or not, devs have to find a way to achieve this : mine was to go through XA for sells. Others will choose other ways. But explaining a user he's wrong to think what he thinks is just as useful as a safety belt in an jetliner. Specially when the user owns the jetliner.

Hey Nicolas. actually very few planes use the volumetric propeller that xplane offers (it's more usually the flat png disc) Unfortunately, to use it, we have to write a particular dataref, and this dr doesn't reset properly when you load a new plane... it's not the only one in this case, this is a known issue of xp. It often makes a plane carry variables from the previous ones > Not much we can do about it, except : load the plane you want to fly THEN restart xplane. it doesn't come neither from dash/trojan nor any other plane, that's a xp issue...

Quite certainely a side of effect of override_prop_disc writing, which I assume the dash is using too. I'm going with a process an hour from now on.