Moller M400 Skycar addon released !

[rcbarend 37]

Hi all,In close co

[teeps 0]

Looks fun, thanks Rob!

[Guest belga1]

Hi,Thank you very much.Downloaded it yesterday .. and tested today.Procedures in the readme are crystal clear.But .. nevertheless I have a problem ....When in the virtual panel view no one button or commands answer to my mouse cliks..How this is possible ?What mystake I make during the installation ? (I followed the easy instructions .. and this install procedure is not special .. it's just a common procedure as for many aircrafts)Thank's for answer if any.Cheers.

[rcbarend 37]

Hi,I really wouldn't know.We had various people testing it, but I never heard of this problem.But if you see the gauges, I doubt it's an installation problem.Question:- Are you using XP or Vista ?- Do you use FS9.1 or just the original version without the ServicePack ?- Was this after you have change the zoom, as suggested ?- And if so, what happens if you don't change the zoom ?(so: use a default FS9 flight, and load the Sycar from the Aircraft menu)- If you go over e.g the lightswitches with your mouse, does the cursor change into a hand symbol (and you see the tooltip) ?Regards, Rob*EDIT*I just realised: After loading the Skycar, have you moved the "pilot" back with the "Eyepoint (Move Back)" command ???If so, than that's the problem.I guess that's a structural thing in FS. That is, I have the same "problem" on my PC: if I move the Eyepoint too far back, the clickspot goes away (no more Hand cursor visible as well). NOt just with the Skycar, but with ALL Aircraft (including default); both in FS9 AND FSX.

[Guest belga1]

Hi,WinXP SP2 FS9.1I use F1 view ... so I change my POV when in virtual .. with my mouse and the roller for zoom in/out.My cursor is visible.If I use some keyboard shortcuts commands when in the virtual panel the commands execute nicelyMy default flight is the Cessna 172 at Seattle .. engine running.When I am in the 2D view I have the minipanels and the special gauge is functionnal by mouse clicks :)First time I have this problem (more of 200 planes and textures addon's paywares and freewares in my config of 90 GB (some folders compressed :) )So no a big complain for a "plane" whit a virtual panel who not act exactly for me :)Thank's anyways for answered.Cheers.

[Guest belga1]

Hi,I just realised: After loading the Skycar, have you moved the "pilot" back with the "Eyepoint (Move Back)" command ???That's the solution ! thank's for advice.But I tried this before already (and those position commands are mapped on my joystick .. I use those very usefull commands often!) and it's was no results...Why?Cause I don't go far low away... :)For have the buttons clikable in the virtual view .. I must point my eyes very low to the ground.In a normall plane .. with this head positon I don't see more the sky but only the runway surface :) (still able to correct anyway with F1 view :) )Anyway with the Moller model .. I still able to see the sky.So .. all good so far :)Cheers.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

The thread is interesting, one reason--it's great to see people still creating work for FS9. But having used to live only an hour's drive from Davis, I have seen Moller on the local media there promising the moon for decades now--since I was in my teens.If you read his site, the first units won't be able to go ten feet off the ground, and will be two-place, I believe at $100000+ a shot. What purpose will people have to buy something like that save for static displays?And will those even get off the ground? Who knows--but I think Moller is going to have to change his business model in order to produce something that comes close to his goals before someone else does--if that is indeed possible. What I do feel is if this has a chance of "flying" so to speed other than in tethered hover tests, more will have to get excited about the product and Moller will need to establish a deadline, and mean it. I like seeing unique projects, I helped release an MSFS Eclipse a couple of years before it was certified and tested. Now I believe there's a hundred+ flying and I recall some told me I was wasting my time simulating a project that would never be viable. On a side note, I was flying a trike at Double Eagle in Albuquerque last weekend and saw the L-39 Eclipse uses for "upset" training. I had no clue why there was an L-39 with the Eclipse logo on the tail and had to "Google it" when I got back to the hotel.Regards,John

[rcbarend 37]

Hi John,Although I probably have a bit more in-side information on the current status of development then you, I don't think it's my place to comment on your remarks about their release dates and business model. So I won't :-)I'm a technical person myself, very interrested in aviation, and with the knowledge I now have of it, I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be technically feasable to produce/fly it.But EVEN in the event that a commercial release would be still far away, or it would not even be commercially viable in the end, I don't think I've wasted my time on this sim.Me and Stephen had a heck of a time developping it, and you must admit it's a lot different than the usual FS addon.If only for the VTOL part, and the way it drives on the ground (which was the reason I also started to make groundvehicle FDE's based on that same principle).Anyway, I hope people will enjoy flying this sim; and if it contributes even in the slightest way in growing interrest and success of this unique project, so much the better.Best regards, Rob

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"But EVEN in the event that a commercial release would be still far away, or it would not even be commercially viable in the end, I don't think I've wasted my time on this sim."My feeling exactly... I can't wait to try it out for the reasons you mention. It's really quite different and the new version of the M400 with the wing looks rather spectacular to me. TTYL and again thanks for the release!Regards,John

[Guest nigelb]

Rob,Thanks for a truly outsanding release! Your contributions to the FS world are very much appreciated, be me and I am sure many others. It is good to have something new and unique for FS. I do have one question - I noticed in the aircraft.cfg file the line:atc_type=FS9 SKYCAR // DO NOT CHANGE (tested by XML code for MSFS version)and was wondering what that was all about. ATC did not recognize the type and I wonder what the XML code reference is for.

[rcbarend 37]

>Rob,>>Thanks for a truly outsanding release! Your contributions to>the FS world are very much appreciated, be me and I am sure>many others. It is good to have something new and unique for>FS. >>I do have one question - I noticed in the aircraft.cfg file>the line:>>atc_type=FS9 SKYCAR // DO NOT CHANGE (tested by>XML code for MSFS version)>>and was wondering what that was all about. ATC did not>recognize the type and I wonder what the XML code reference is>for.>>>>Hi,First of all, thanks for the compliments. Much appreciated. !About your question: this is a type of aircraft that will, almost by nature, avoids area's under ATC control. So I used this parameter to distinguish between the FS9 and FSX versions, because (for maintenance reasons) I want the panel.cfg and gauge-code to work for both FS9 and FSX.Unfortunately, there is no direct way in XML to read the FS version; hence I used this "trick".But is this really a problem or were you just wondering why ?? (I hardly ever use ATC myself in FS). Because I can easily can change that later, and use another way to check for FS version. In a maintenance release for FS9, and/or in the FSX version of the package.Cheers, Rob

[Guest nigelb]

No, not a problem really, I was just wondering what would happen if that line were changed because I usually do use ATC. That said, your comment about this type of aircraft avoiding areas under ATC control certainly makes sense. I'll give the ATC girls and boys a rest when I fly the Skycar.

[Guest nigelb]

Ah, just had a peek at the xml code in the VSTOLControllerIPC_Function gauge and now I know why that line is there in the aircraft.cfg file!I suppose you also could have used the atc_model field for the check and that would make the atc_type filed available for ATC to call the Skycar "experimental"

[rcbarend 37]

>Ah, just had a peek at the xml code in the>VSTOLControllerIPC_Function gauge and now I know why that line>is there in the aircraft.cfg file!>>I suppose you also could have used the atc_model field for the>check and that would make the atc_type filed available for ATC>to call the Skycar "experimental" As discussed via EMail ...:-)Cheers, Rob

[Guest majormajor42]

Thank you Rob and Steve. I've been having fun with both the FSX and FS2004 versions now.got a question.I think this only happens with the FS2004 version (forget what happens with FSX), but when I shut down the engines, it seems to take either a very longer time for them to Ctrl-E start up again or they don't start at all. I was on the runway at (flytampa) TNCM a couple nights ago and accidentally shut the engines down. I hit ctrl-e multiple times, each time I hear the engines start up but then they shut down again. While this is happening, the nacrelles will rotate a little.now that I think about it , I was using FSX and did an engine shutdown and was able to restart them midflight over Jamaica Bay on the way into a 13L landing at KJFK. I think I heard multiple engine starts when it happened. So either the problem is only with FS2004 or it only occurs in certain situations.great model! thanks again.