tkyler

Kieran. I myself don't know the issue on this one offhand....sorry! Perhaps ask over at the org in Sandy's forum?....and brace for some obscure answer

Hey Kieran...I can very much remember when I started and the biggest frustration was dealing with the compiler and the error messages. For any given x-code project, the project file itself will have a LOT of settings associated with it that tell the compiler what to compile, how to compile, what type of processor to compiler for, what libraries to use and of course, where to find headers, etc....probably a hundred or more options. Anyhow, one of the settings is for specifying paths to header files. Pointing xcode to the SDK headers, especially when dealing with other's projects or source code...it's a pretty common action. The good news is doing that will probably fix this issue, the bad news is I'm on a mac without xcode at the moment and can't show you some screenshots as to where to set those...I myself can't remember; however, with some exploration you might hunt it down. On the left side of the xcode window is a "navigation" pane that shows source files, external frameworks, etc. On one of those bad boys, you double/right click and you'll get the project options to pop up. It's a really long confusing list at first. Anyways, somewhere in that list is a "path to the headers" option. You'll want to point it to the SDK Cheaders folder and make sure the recursive options is on so it will traverse into that folder looking for headers. If you do not have the recursive option, you have to point xcode to each header folder individually (there's 3) ...at least best I can remember. There's some many headaches I've encountered in the past I can't remember them all, but that's the place to start. This is a simplification since there are many better ways to go about it, but if you're just beginning, then pointing xcode directly at the header folder is a good start to get a "feel" for how xcode does it's thing and you can save the "convenience" methods for when you get some more experience. If you still don't get it, I'll try and grab some screenshots of the setting at first opportunity. -Tom

I thought I'd add a few more "high level" thoughts to this topic and also try this new forum here. We all feel the frustration...even as a laminar developer we're all anxious to develop and get on with it. Simon's suggestion (or maybe Chip wrote it?) that we hire more people is a valid one....ASSUMING that is...that the market can bear or WILL bear that burden of cost, but as of yet it does not. We are still a very small segment of the flight sim market and the efforts going on now within laminar, IXEG, new stuff at the org and even here at x-pilot are a good indicator that things are not slowing down; however, as a market segment, we still have not reached "critical mass" where everybody is developing for x-plane. It is my opinion that after x-plane 10 ships...and not immediately thereafter, it'll take a bit of warming up to the new tech...but after x-plane 10 ships and Aerosoft comes over, more Carenado stuff comes up, the IXEG guys finish their work and folks see the ease of creating scenery for x-plane AND with the new ATC (which I have yet to experience), I think that will be the time everybody will take notice. Only after they take notice though will they say, "hey, this is a viable sim" and only THEN they will begin to develop after they're convinced. So it's not unreasonable to surmise that x-plane 10 needs to come out, folks need to see that it's good, more developers need to decide to develop and then actually develop, and this cycle might take a year or more after x-plane 10 comes out to get going. Remember MSFS is over 25 years old and didn't have a real competitor for well over 15 years. That is incredible momentum. I think x-plane is making great strides, but change doensn't happen overnight. As far as the guys dabbling in FSX, they're flight sim enthusiasts, they should go wherever they get enthused. Right now, x-plane is just downright "regular" I agree...but that will change soon. You have no idea how bad I want to get x-plane 10 out and get back to working on some custom stuff. I've put out enough 3D polygons for x-plane 10 to redo the MU2 10 times over, it's hard to sit by at watch that thing become a "has been". It's really no more complex than "good things take time", but the workforce is still small. If we had 8x the developers, each working slow and steady, we'd have 8x the output but everybody would still work the same as they do now. The goal is no different than the day we started here. "Change the market perception of x-plane quality and service and we'll grow the market". I'm still on that mission...just from a different place at the moment. Rest easy gents, x-plane 10 is pretty cool. REMEMBER...when it gets released as a beta, it'll be just that, a beta...and participants need to be ready to report, not complain.

For developers, talking about "what will be" or "what they WILL do" is bad business. You risk something coming up and not being able to deliver. In addition, we're never really sure when we'll deliver...but I can tell you that it is not likely that people have stopped developing because of XP10 development. The complexity of projects is increasing and the time required to develop is growing..and that is my guess as to what's going on.

You're absolutely right on this point, I apologize to you. The thing is...we at XA are in a major uphill battle. We had only one goal in the beginning...to improve the X-plane experience...in service, in products, presentation and marketing, etc. I've a LONG list of people that said, "I got xplane because of the MU2"....that's what we were after when we started. We've met resistance since day one form the org in ways you can't imagine. Our own community, cutting us off because we didn't sell at the org. We've had to fight and it's had it's "uncomfortable moments". Because the org is so big...everybody just thinks it's the greatest thing since sliced bread and can do no wrong. We, on the other hand, have seen behavior that just about anybody would agree is inappropriate by human standards, yet it goes "ignored"...or "unaddressed"...people "turn the other way" and don't address it for reasons I can't fathom....for example, the T-28 incident...what's your take on that? It's a part of the xplane community yet it and it's authors get banned from THE site for xplane information. Check this: This is what we're angry about. This guy controls OUR community for his gain...it should make you unhappy and you should say so. WILL: What you're listening to, the kinds of things you're talking about....all begin with someone doing a malicious selfish act at the expense of another. We are not keeping up the hate, we are fighting against it. I suppose the bobbies responding to the looters are all perpetuating hate for being so aggressive against the looters eh? Can't they just ask the looters to please stop looting? That doesn't work...to subdue the bad guy, you gotta pull out the billy club...and if it makes you queasy, you turn away.

Branden, you won't win this one. You stand on the sidewalk as a bystander licking an ice-cream cone, watching events and speculating...which is OK, as long as you keep licking instead of talking. right...but under specific conditions spelled out in the agreement! There are terms and conditions I know about because I have the contract, I sell at XA. Have you read XA's vendor contract? I doubt it....you know why? Because you're on the sidewalk and not in the conference room. If you have read the contract, I'll post a public apology here and now. We all have the same agreement, I know very well the nature of the agreement....maybe...as the very first vendor on XA, I helped write it eh? You don't know this though because you're on the sidewalk and not in the conference room..remember? I'm sure everybody looks shiny and clean behind the rose colored, plate-glass windows of the conference room.....you keep licking that ice cream and all will be well for you. EDIT: and +++1 to Goran's point on the T-28. They went somewhere else and were cut off at the org. Nicolas clean? What? you afraid of getting banned at the org for agreeing with us?

Your conclusion is unfounded in any of Cam's text. I'm not sure where you pulled it from...but let me clarify so your statement above doesn't go misunderstood. I know the circumstances of XA agreements.....I sell at XA. I know the circumstances of the CRJ's selling on the org. Cameron has acted in a professional manner by choosing to let the issue go and move on for the sake of the community. Javier and Philipp STILL violated the agreement and Nicolas is supporting it. The only professionalism here is by XA...as usual. That's the clarification.

It's that simple. There is no healing...no "coming together", only money.

We have always agreed that people will want to sell in other locations; however, proper competition dictates XA offer services that will encourage people to do business here. Selling at the org is not the issue....breaching the agreement and what it says about character...or lack of it rather, is the issue. I've spoken with Cam about this and we both agreed....all they had to do was abide by the terms properly, then they're welcome to sell wherever they like...but they didn't! Breaking an agreement is not my idea of wound healing Will. If Nicolas was competent, he would have inquired of the CRJ team about existing agreements. So either he's incompetent or deviant...hardly a recipe for healing.

A bit of "contract ignoring" I suspect. At first look, I am HIGHLY disappointed in this behavior. Facilities exist for vendors to sell their work at other stores, XA acknowledges that as woweezoee says... but there are terms, methods and a timeline to do so...outlined in a contract signed by all parties..... and this appears to be a "behind the back" move that ignored the terms of said signed contract. It sets a very precarious and negative precedent for marketing behavior within the x-plane community. I'll reserve final judgment till more facts are in though.

The shape of the aircraft is only one aspect of what is called "the flight model". There are many many other fixed parameters like weight, Center of gravity, balance, control sensitivity that can be adjusted to tweak the way the aircraft feels...in addition to the airfoils and angle of incidence etc. If any one of these are off, then they can be "felt" by the end user. Say the CG is off by a few inches, the plane my pitch up so that it always wants to climb. User's would know this was "not right" very quickly. Another big complaint is that aircraft feel "too twitchy". Because of the lack of any real muscle effort, the perception of "effort" doesn't really exist. so then, an author has to make adjustments that compensate for the fact that you're sitting at a computer. You can do this to "fool the brain" even though the numbers you input may be right. In addition, many of the numbers used by Austin are input into "approximations" as it is very difficult to be all things to all aircraft. If you don't understand his approximations or assumptions and blindly trust him, then you will probably get performance that is a little bit off. In general...if authors would simply input manual radii of gyration, tweak the CG, adjust the control falloff speeds as well as "control delay"..then a good 90% of bad models could be made to "feel good"; however, these are not parameters that most people think of when they think of aircraft design, hence they're missed very often.

Thanks guys. I really am dying to get back to making this on par with the best simulations anywhere. I have all sorts of cool new stuff I want to do for V10...but I just have to clear my plate first. It should be quite a year for x-plane during 2012. Of course we've been saying that for a while, but it's still true!

He was referring to a "similar marketing action". That is the using of an adjective to describe a line of products. It is a very valid observation that x-plane.org did this right after x-aviation did it, but you are also right in that it doesn't matter as far as DDen's 300 is concerned. If we want to discuss or debate such things, then please move those topics to another appropriate forum and keep this one about Dennis' 300.

Gentlemen, I regret to say that the probability of the MU-2 coming out in July has diminished. It looked good a few weeks ago but a few laminar emails later, things have changed. We are really stepping up our V10 work...lots of development and internal testing and at the end of the day, I just don't have the energy to work on the MU-2 right now. I also have summer vacation in 7 days (for 8 days), a 2nd daughter entering college this fall as well as other obligations. I need a good 3-4 days to wrap up the MU2 and that is seriously hard to find right now. It is very hectic in the xplane world for me. The MU-2 "todo" is sitting in my virtual inbox right on top pestering me and all I can say is, "I know know...gimme a minute will ya, I'm working as fast as I can, I'll get to you in a second". So that's where I am, hang in there, the update will be free and it'll be just as fun on the day you get it.

DPNY, Let me quote Albert and Salton: These statements are false and/or incorrect. They're not mostly incorrect......they're not incorrect when only used by Lufthansa staff, they're incorrect period! Albert and Salton gambled with their choice of words and got called on it, nothing more or less. I'd say their communication skills probably improved today. EDIT: I'm quite sure you're not ignorant Andrey, quite the opposite actually and I'm sure you have quite a bit of helpful knowledge given your experience. I tend to be a "stickler" for communication and choosing one word over another or not saying exactly what you mean can cause confusion.

I only gave this a quick cursory glance...something like this?

I doubt very seriously anybody here will know more about simulating the 737 than the ixeg team. Any "suggestions as to accuracy" or "unverified, see how smart I am" commentary is bound to exposure your ignorance. Avoid superlatives and you'll be fine.

Perhaps, I'll look. There are a lot of charts in the POH I have.

If "this month" means during the month of July..I'd say it stands a really good chance yes.

User did not expect a nag screen...reality provided him with one, he was disappointed. If Armchair had provided a suitable disclaimer, the expectation would have been instantiated....reality would have matched...no disappointment. This thread boils down to a user suggesting we understand enough of what goes through a customers mind..and then managing that information so he is not disappointed. Note the warning I came up with vs. the one Armchair uses. I want to make darn sure users aren't disappointed. Joe...bump up that warning man...too easy to miss. You know how people are! You have to spoon-feed em...and rightly so. I like to be spoon fed as a customer myself. It's your job to know me and show me. All they'll see is "$40.00 -> Buy Now"

That's a sidetrack to a resolved issue on this thread Dozer. Move programming how-to or gizmo defense to another thread. No need to lock this topic, but nothing here relates to the title anymore.

A bit too much defensiveness here is clouding some points. ED -Armchair aviation did not disclose their dependency on gizmo to their customers, the issue started with them, they made a bad move and are dealing with it. -Cameron sidetracked the topic a bit, you're complaint was and is valid...the topic of supporting gizmo is independent of your point. -xpilot is mostly free speech, you take responsibility for what you say and deal with the fallout. What you said was fine, you can't please everybody. -There IS a solution for developers and gizmo licensing...if devs don't investigate, negotiate or disclose, it's THEIR problem, they have to deal with it. -Leen de Jager, Jack & Joe, Ed, Cameron AND Ben are right. -YOU'RE right for being upset and voicing it here. -We all live and learn and make adjustments. I suspect that this situation, like anything, is a learning process during a growth period and Armchair will make adjustments accordingly to make for more satisfied customers. If anything ED, thank you for pushing the quality bar higher and demanding more.

Thank you sir...you know I love you?

I'd like more than a yes or no to this part of my post, but considering that yes or no is, at least, an answer to the question, I'll take that if you care to offer it up.

Well it's the natural progression of things Arno. We get something to work, confirm we understand the system and then when the time comes, we go back and optimize the system to make it work better after we know it works...and that's where I am. I've looked over your and Cam's examples and we're looking at different goals. Having a bit of C experience here with the SDK is my issue, in which case, I need Ben to help me translate my needs to gizmo. Ben, as you well know in the C api...you can have a flight loop callback where the return value dictates the frequency of the function. -1 = run every flight loop. 0 = stop running. number greater than zero = seconds till next call. The fact that gizmo timers have intervals implies to someone like me that these might be variations on flight loop callbacks....and I'm pretty sure by now, I'm trying to use them for something they weren't designed for. I was thinking that timer.stop might be the equivalent of returning a 0 from a flight loop callback...and timer.reset would be calling the function again and returning either a -1 to get the timer running again, or returning the currently set interval setting as opposed to setting a "timer" in the true sense to zero. I simply would like to be able to start and stop flight loop callbacks if possible...is there a mechanism to do so?