We did not code the Garmin stuff. That comes straight from FSX. If it looks like that, it's because it looks like that in FSX. THe T-38A doesn't use any electronic devices like the GPS or Garmins.

In case you missed my two previous posts, can you tell me which default FSX aircraft uses this gauge and its gauge file name?

Ok sir.. Sorry to disagree with a master like you, but then I will have to reprase.

OKAY!Let's set the record straight...1. I was agreeing that the GNS430 normally looks like the ones you linked to. I never said that the one in the T-38A was correct.2. I programmed the GNS530, GNS430 and the KAP140 myself. I have allowed MilViz to use them in the T-38A as Colin stated as a "free crutch" for those who (like myself) occasionally like to be able to "see" where they're going, and perhaps even use the AP for those times I have to take a potty break.

• As it happens, I also coded the entire T-38A's 3d instruments and systems, and rigged all of the model's animations and lighting.

3. Looking just a moment ago in the GNS430's script, I found that I had not modified the display condition to work with the T-38A's avionics bus. That is now fixed, and I thank you for pointing that omission out so I could fix it. As it happens, there are no bitmaps at all. It is pure vector drawing code.4. I trust it now has the official "bliksimpie Seal of Approval."5. What Colin meant is that these are based on the default Garmin 500 XML script, not that it was the default FSX anything.6. I think you owe everyone here at AVSIM an apology for your completely over the top and incredibly rude behavior.

I too deplore the aggressive approach adopted by bliksimpie which is puerile and totally uneccessary.To help resolve this, can some one tell me which default FSX aircraft uses the GNS430 and what the gauge file is called?

See my previous reply for details. FSX does not have a GNS530, much less a GNS430. It has only a GNS500 and GNS295 (portable).

Hi Bill,I posted this and then created an account at Milviz which I should have just done to begin with. Sorry for the double post.RegardsBob

See my previous reply for details. FSX does not have a GNS530, much less a GNS430. It has only a GNS500 and GNS295 (portable).

I assume you meant you couldn't care less. If you meant could care less implies that you actually could care less about it. Sorry, pet peeve of mine. :(

ZOMG are you my wife posting in disguise?!?!!? Grammar police out and about! :(

So, is this plane really good ? Any info/pics/vids appreciated.thxVic

5. What Colin meant is that these are based on the default Garmin 500 XML script, not that it was the default FSX anything.

First, apologies for getting the type number wrong in a post.Whatever may have been meant , what was actually written was:

We did not code the Garmin stuff. That comes straight from FSX. If it looks like that, it's because it looks like that in FSX.

Promptly correcting that, and accepting that there was a background missing would have avoided a lot of the subsequent unpleasantness. there were plenty of opportunities to do so.

Vic, they've made the POH of the rocket available here. http://www.milviz.co...wforum.php?f=38You'll also find some more impressions there and one user even posted a video.Further Impressions? There should be some more coming up. :(

Vic, they've made the POH of the rocket available here. http://www.milviz.co...wforum.php?f=38You'll also find some more impressions there and one user even posted a video.Further Impressions? There should be some more coming up. :(

Went there,looked at what people had to say on the forums, downloaded the POH and watched the vid. I'm tempted.

Given that it's got a 30 day money back guarantee... (when purchased on our site), it's gotta be a bit more than tempting!

So, is this plane really good ? Any info/pics/vids appreciated.

It's fantastic. Since I made the switch from FS9 to FSX some time back, the one plane that I've missed more than any other is the Project Sierra Hotel T-37. Everything about it was absolutely first rate: flight modeling, systems modeling, VC, textures, and FPS. A real work of art. Well... this T-38 has done for FSX what the T-37 did for FS9 (in all respects, including FPS).A couple of pics:

Promptly correcting that, and accepting that there was a background missing would have avoided a lot of the subsequent unpleasantness. there were plenty of opportunities to do so.

Gerry, that "unpleasantness" took place after I had gone to sleep. I didn't see any of it until I next visited AVSIM's forums, by which time a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation had been posted.Strangely enough, despite what some might think, I don't spend my entire day forum diving.No background was missing. There were however four lines of vector drawing commands that had their visibility flags set incorrectly. Nonetheless, that very minor issue did not warrant the torrent of abusive, hateful, and poisonous invective foisted off by one individual who doesn't even own the product.

It's fantastic. Since I made the switch from FS9 to FSX some time back, the one plane that I've missed more than any other is the Project Sierra Hotel T-37. Everything about it was absolutely first rate: flight modeling, systems modeling, VC, textures, and FPS. A real work of art. Well... this T-38 has done for FSX what the T-37 did for FS9 (in all respects, including FPS).

Thanks a bunch srburger ! Would you mind posting more screenshots ? like wings views, vc and all that ?

Gerry, that "unpleasantness" took place after I had gone to sleep. I didn't see any of it until I next visited AVSIM's forums, by which time a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation had been posted.Strangely enough, despite what some might think, I don't spend my entire day forum diving.No background was missing. There were however four lines of vector drawing commands that had their visibility flags set incorrectly. Nonetheless, that very minor issue did not warrant the torrent of abusive, hateful, and poisonous invective foisted off by one individual who doesn't even own the product.

I wasn't suggesting this uneccesary unpleasantness had anything to do with you. It was Milviz who made the original statement and it was Milviz who failed to correct it in response to the initial questions. Had he explained as you did this matter would hve been defused at once.

Thanks a bunch srburger ! Would you mind posting more screenshots ? like wings views, vc and all that ?

No problem! I'll put some together tonight when I get home to my FSX machine. (BTW, that is the VC in the two shots I posted above. The lights are turned off. Looks great, doesn't it?)Before I took off, I downloaded the USAF flight training manual for the real airplane. (It's freely available on the web.) After checking the takeoff and landing procedures, I took it up and... everything happened exactly as described in the manual. When that happens and it also "feels right", you know you've got a winner.Best,Ken