Jump to content

KAPTEJNLN

Members
  • Posts

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KAPTEJNLN

  1. Good work mate, keep up the good work
  2. Nice that we got it painted before they leave, as sadly they might soon bee the past as JetTime takes was it 4 out of the 6 ones they got by 737-300 out of service November this year and 2 next year, due to financial problems they try to get a smaller fleet..
  3. well I got problems when I wan´t to do a flight from EKCH to EKBI or other locations. I fly a Sid and the route but when I get to the last waypoint of the route in this case RIDSI, the plane stop flying to the transition (GE2 to ILS RWY 09) as there are no star for the airport.. As the video show the plane fly to RIDSI and then turn right to a given heading and never get you to the waypoint GE according the FMS if I then do like in the video by re enter the GE the plane would do a nearly 360 degree turn, as the line was drawn. (seen about 1 min in to the video) PS. the video is for demonstration only!
  4. well there is a option I guess but not sure how good it might be but there is this tool http://secure.simmarket.com/toper-calculator-tool_b737-classics.phtml as alternative to the Takeoff Performance Calculation
  5. Yes that is correct but the main problem is how big an problem is it going to be worldwide. As some places it might not be as important as other places.. I also know Navigraph uses different names sometimes and when you got the chart you might figure it out.. But I still say yes the real world might not be perfect but when your way points have different names and altitudes are not correct it starts building problems.. And what I have seen... And I am nearly 100% sure the reason there is this edit in the navdata is because the Level D data is re-done to work by another newer add-on out there that also is based on the Level D navdata but need that edit for some reason I don´t know.. as I dont think it is just somebody that edit it for fun.. I guess if you want the best result you better talk to the navdata providers to get your own data base if it then should be based on the XML format go for that.. I could keep talking as I have analysed the data years back and know how they edit those data for given add-ons and why we got all those different databases.. But the best of cause would be if we for once only had 1 database for any add-on on the market, it would cost less edit time of all those data, and no cut corner would be done..
  6. Okay let me clean up an error I made late yesterday by the data from Navigraph data for Aerosoft airbus database, as I used Linux you know low and small letters matters and mixed 1406 and 1603.. I say OM26 show 1930ft that was incorrect that was for "1406" then if I go to "1603" it is 3000ft just like tkyler say it was by NavDataPro.. So that shows something has changed since last year in the main data for the Airbus data as it seems to have been correct in the past.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sadly I don´t have old data for the 767 Level-D aircraft to check that for changes, but can see in the latest data provided by Navigraph this OM26 point does not seem to exist even I try a search for the altitude it is not there.. That said it can be there is a way point (a custom name, that is not part of the chart I can see a FF26 point at 3000ft but if it might be the same I cant say) I mean I have seen that in the past for some add-ons by the databases, but I have no option to check this out and cross check as I don´t run the 767 Level-D.. or your plane to see what it might tell me on the display by the data provided..
  7. Well you are looking at the data from the Airbus and a given procedure I can´t tell you right now as I don´t have all the charts for this airport. I can just tell that the numbers after Final identify what procedure and runway you got.. and is not the same I used or the developer as the point you got is 30DME (that´s the name it might use).. But anyway you are not allowed to show those parts of the codes anyway I guess..
  8. Looks nice.. About the incorrect data of OM26 show 3000 ft what nav database do you use ? I tested it by Navigraph data for Aerosoft airbus database that some other developers are using and the data seems to be there. I know you use NavDataPro.. But it is odd if the data is missing from the Lido data.. But also know depending on database some modifications might have been done depending the end add-on.. That´s also why we have so many data bases for FSX that contain the same data more or less as developers have filtered stuff away for a database for there plane, in order to work best by there add-on.. But can´t say in this case as I don´t know the database you use or the data that is provided in the files from NavDataPro for that database. I can only read the Navigraph data files as that´s what I got and it has another value of (1930ft) that is the same as the chart..
  9. well a few weeks back I saw this funny picture as I was tracking a flight.. I don´t know when Sao Paulo moved to Billund in Denmark and that Lufthansa had long haul flights in a 737.. Frankfurt to Sao Paulo.. A bit wired tracking sometimes
  10. Okay fine that is good news for the new device but I still say go to FlyWithLua support forum and talk about it there.. there might be someone that can help.. as yes I know 0 to 1 is a bit pain full as it is a small range.. but hardware output is 1 thing and another is the simulator (0 <-> 1)
  11. hmm I don´t know if it might be that simple, because for years back I also had a GoFlight Throttle Quadrant and know it was not plug and play as you say.. Windows only see the device but windows can´t communicate whit the hardware to calibrate it´s axis.. and If it is still that way you cant assign the axis inside x-plane directly like other plug and play devices.. only by there software that runs like a plug-in.. Then you have to know if the driver from GoFlight uses the default axis or direct input by dataref for the commands it sends out to the simulator.. this can cause a problem if it sends direct dataref input to flaps and such.. Because if this plane make use of custom codes for those things we have to know them instead to make it work but then you can only use this code for this specific aircraft and not create a general file that can be used by other values for other aircraft’s if that might be handy.. But also what input range does it use for the axis is it from -16084 to 16084 or is it like x-plane default from 0 to 1.. Not that I think you cant do it as I think you can but you have to know quite some things about it.. and sadly I don´t have my device so I could try create something that you could use.. But we are off topic here and think you might start a chat about it over at the FlyWithLua support forum.. Not that I don´t want to talk about it!
  12. Well I guess you know the answer.. No one really knows that.. Yes developers have a internal time frame when testing is started (already said in this form as well) but is only a estimate.. I know as both tester and developer of given things, how that can changes and gets updated as it´s important for you as tester to know some kind of time frame as you might work for other developers as well.. But it is a estimate that is subject to changes, the best example is (CRJ700 / 900) where things have not followed the plan as the publisher wants, and keep updating stuff to get it to the latest standards.. else you might end by a Fokker project by a new VC and the old product from 2008 just to take a ex. I know it would be the other way around in that case.. but that was a side step to get a complete understanding about the many complex things you have to take in to consideration. But you have to understand the final part is hard work and where the smallest thing can be a show stopper until corrected and sometimes that’s by going far back and re do things, sometimes as close as to the start, I have tried that and it is so frustrating. Another factor is depending on the company size and such things, you would know 1 delay cause problems further down the line. We sometimes have seen when testing is good and nearly done and ready, they need a installer but since the person that should do that does not have time as he works by other projects.. If you start count all those things, that you do not have much control about. You would realise how difficult it is to estimate to the public, as you do not know the facts about what would happen you can try but you never know what´s behind the next corner. How is it in the gaming industry do they always keep promise ? NO.. What does it cause? More negativity and bad reputation around the world.. That´s why some developers do no show what they work on, and just out of a sudden a new product ends in the store. But a EST of beta or release is never easy or a good way in the public, as it often cause more negativity when it is not going to happen, then when you get to the store and find it´s out.. Not only does it lower the pressure of the developers but also the system that should handle forum and shop in the final end.. That was a long one, I just feel it does not make any sense to keep asking as its like some just try push on to get information, but it has the opposite effect.. Would you give info if some one keeps asking the same thing ? as when they give a release date another might start arguing that it takes long time and there we go again.. We have seen it so often sadly..
  13. I don´t see the point a FMC is what was build in to the plane back in the days and they cross the Atlantic fine, even it is not the most common flight for a 737-300 other then the delivery flight. But a special kind of humour I guess..
  14. hmm not sure as PFPX is not for X-plane as far as I know, but it is not that difficult to manually create a file as tkyler shows in the video you could also just get the data from PFPX and generate it by the small tool I did last year as a alternative: LN_FPL_Export_Tool
  15. well I don´t think you have to test it online for what you want to test at all.. As that Is just some basic things you can test offline, and I am sure you find no better than Jan to assure you if it works according the real deal, the online flying would be more to test if radios would work and such. But the important thing you have to keep in mind, and that´s where I sometimes get a bit irritated as a tester when costumers start blame testers in general, after a release. The thing you have to keep in mind, is that you only get 1 side of the story. (That you find something that does not do as you want / like the real plane if you know how the real would do) You have to keep in mind at what level the given add-on was aimed at.. Because sometimes we find stuff and all we can do is report it to the developers and talk about it but they have the final word.. and that can have many reasons.. But we see many use the text at the promotion tested by real world pilots and that can be true but again remember the developers decide where it ends as I feel many use that marketing argument. As that psychologically gets your brain to think this might be the real deal and a sales trick.. But I may also strongly say I don´t feel that here as Jan does a good job at showing the plane as he has all the passion for flying as well as this aircraft.. just like me. But he is a real world pilot and the first time we have seen someone that is our instructor and adviser for the development, and have an active role.. try go to some of the planes that claim they used real world pilots, they are often not that much in the public as Jan is.. And sorry for going a bit off topic here, I just want to tell the story from a tester even I cant go in to details of projects and such as it might give a better picture by some aspects.. we can just say testers and developers can agree or disagree about stuff and the costumer never know what there is behind, and that´s why I say this as you only get one side of the story but this team has been clear, about what it is and what it is not in version 1.0 and I take my hat of for that..
  16. Sounds grate but also bear in mind this last part is the most tough and unpredictable part from my experience as a tester.. So I still keep my breath a bit
  17. well I would say I also like mouse wheel in FSX but in X-plane I haven´t seen a good solution in my opinion.. But in x-plane some developers have done it nice so it is not required to have the mouse wheel support. But in fact I dont think it might be that difficult if laminar just introduced a assigned button for the mouse to turn on and off the zoom or you have to hold middle mouse button and scrool to zoom.. There is options enough for laminar to sellect between if they realy wanted, but they have stated why some time back, as far as I remember.. well yes you could say the developer here could also use the option to bind the hold of the middle mouse button and scrool I guess or in other combinations. But again if laminar then wants to edit it later you know the storry.. extra work again..
  18. A delivery flight from Seattle seems to be realistic option. we cant fly a plane that did not get delivered
  19. well that was also what I expected.. But my concern was the video show the altitude was set 30020 and that indicated the normal x-plane behavior, of not selecting the whole hundred of feet.. but I know it´s work in progress and as a tester know things might change..
  20. I have to say it looks grate.. I just hope that at some stage the autopilot would only accept whole hundreds of feet, as it is a bit unrealistic by those 10ft numbers for an airliners.. But in the first place I don´t understand why Laminar let the default AP do so other than it is because of the fact that some airplanes does not have a altitude window and just need that option to read a given number when you press altitude hold in a small general aviation plane.. I guess that might be the best explanation why they did it.. but it does not explain why there is no by pass for planes that have a altitude select window of the autopilot.. Any way just another small X-Plane thing, but in fact there are quite some things to work around in the sim it self sadly..
  21. well I know about the basic push-back truck that there would not be a way to set distance and such, and it can be good by most airports I guess.. as you say there is no easy way to make it look/move "realistic" (without knowing where buildings etc. are).. I would say that´s right to some degree, as I know of some plug-ins that we have seen in the past. where the wind could blow the aircraft out of it´s push back path. But again I don´t know how that would be for your plane, and how it is coded.. and yes there is no perfect way of doing it.. But I would say I just released a simple push back plug-in by 2 versions and not that I want to advertise for it, as it is not the intention more a developer share and suggestion that you may consider implementing or not.. As in fact the user could just use this insted but I guess it is beter to offer the solution to the developers and get it implemented as that way more can enjoy it, as they dont have to get the files I created. I can´t say what version would be best. But you could do it 1 of the ways I did it.. As I se you got 3 buttons the easy version might be a good option as insted of left or right you could control the push back force, if that turns out to be a good solution as it depends on the wind, and the push back button does what it says when ever you want to do it like I did let the user push the button to work as it can be smart during turns or just a way to start and stop it as you can use brakes to slow it down / pause the push. then there is the pro version that uses a profile for the given plane in my case but can´t be adjusted by the user, for the best 0.xx value. it how ever only make use of the push button or how you want it to work, even by the pro you could still do 3 things as I have seen in your build from april last year. it could be as shown below or any other way just a suggestion of cause: 1) start and stop push back.. 2) by holding the button you could do the pushback 3) reverse the force so you get the option to pull the plane forward That might be a solution that would work in any airport. The good and the bad about the coding is as follows: The very good thing in my opinion is that the user can control the planes nose if the plane is set up to provide nose / rudder. This way no mater how the airport might look you can manually get on the centerline for taxi.. The less good thing is you can but not safely start the plane while push back as I think that is a bit difficult to both have a start up flow and control the push back. But also the difference in force created by engine idling when only 1 is running and the wind factor might give you a harder way of controlling the plane in strong wind. I say you can either start before or after but again depends on what option you might choose as if you use the pro you cant adjust the force and what might work best by engines are at idle might be to strong when they are off.. That can be adjusted by the easy if you have the option to increase and decrease the force as required, for the given situation. it could also be you have another solution, this was just to show case it, when ever it might be worth considering.. ​I dont know why I sometimes cant insert codes, so the link to the project is here: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=29983 Best regards Lars
  22. Well the CWS mode is no problem as it is CMD that should cut the input from the hardware. Just like the default autopilot of X-plane it has a 3 way switch for autopilot. (OFF = 0) - (FD = 1) - (AP =2) so my basic code: Code Removed due to answer from JanAs you can see when the value is below 2, the controls are active again in case of default x-plane, if Flight director is ON or OFF. That´s based on the default x-plane engine, but I guess could be coded as you like in to any plane, by the default or custom values for given things. Yes you have a problem by the yoke, even you use the hardware yoke, it might give inputs to the simulator but is ignored by the codes above. As far as I know, X-plane does not have a code or any way to get over this problem, and why we have not seen it corrected, as it would be quite a job(reason follow below). Yes I have been in contact with Laminar a few years back about some things and was told they would look into it but never sen a correction or way to get it better. The only way I guess we might get the hardware yoke to force the autopilot to switch from CMD to CWS mode, is by custom coded controls and that´s a hell of a work, but gives you the freedom to program as you like.. But I don´t know the development of that side and if there might be other options, or it is programed so it´s not a problem. This plane seems to use many custom values to get around the problems of X-plane, just like they have done in FSX for years, yes also x-plane but you still find many planes that uses far more default stuff, then custom for given importand areas.. But if there is no other option, I rather se it a bit unrealistic and have to use my hand only to switch from CMD to CWS as I still can do that manual by the way... or if the AP is turned OFF by a button on the yoke or the AP it self the controls are unlocked. So if we can´t get around that force reading of the hardware yoke, I think it is a bit better than having a hardware device that fight against the autopilot all the time.. Because that is the fact of X-plane and it would be best if Laminar fixed it but as said it does not seem like it, so there is only 2 options left.. Do it yourself or let it be that strange way.. and that´s why I asked in the first place.. Sorry that was a long one, even longer then I expected. :-)
  23. Well I did not wan´t to start a new post as it´s related to controls.. I wonder if the hardware controls are forced to be ignored ? like data ref: "override_joystick_roll" When the autopilot is in use, when ever you can calibrate the hardware inside or outside of x-plane.. Anyway unrealistic that the hardware have a effect on the autopilot. I did a fix for for current planes I have by a lua file, but it is always better when build in to the autopilot, as it has to turn the controls back at the right time.
  24. well Jet Time A/S would be a real life operator that does not seem to skip the 733 right now at least in EU. But the main topic was not for livery requests, by the way so lest not continue in that direction, to keep it clean and informative.
×
×
  • Create New...