2 minutes ago, ark said:

I can certainly understand the need for piracy protection, and I like your middle ground idea of at least making the cfg files accessible.  I would think Asobo might even appreciate the help, like your work on the CJ4.

If some of the planes in the Deluxe or Premium are marked as works in progress, then MS had an obligation to let simmers know up front that's what they were paying extra for!  

Al

It turns out, they had nothing to worry about. Their piracy protection is that the planes are so bad nobody would want them. I kid. But not really.

I'm anxiously awaiting their response and decision about whether to let the A320NX team have the model files to clean up some things in the cockpit. If they do, that will signal an interest in partnering with the community on these planes.

In the meantime, as I mentioned also in the CJ4 thread, we can't really do better without more SDK documentation. The new parameters, for example new ones dictating fuel flow, don't respond the way one might think they should and at the same time seem to have rendered our old friends relating to fuel flow useless, so it can't be improved to the level it should be without more documentation. For now we basically have hatchet jobs, but they'll have to do for now...

Can anyone point to where the anti-ice controls are or if they are modeled? 

A quote from their brochure, "The ice detection system automatically detects icing conditions and informs the crew when the ice protection systems must be activated."

I've looked around in the cockpit but don't see anything, I'll try mapping "toggle anti ice" to a switch or button and see if that works?

8 minutes ago, Blaze said:

Can anyone point to where the anti-ice controls are or if they are modeled? 

A quote from their brochure, "The ice detection system automatically detects icing conditions and informs the crew when the ice protection systems must be activated."

I've looked around in the cockpit but don't see anything, I'll try mapping "toggle anti ice" to a switch or button and see if that works?

It's on the copilot's lower panel (below his PFD).  You can see them looking over from the pilot's seat.

8 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

Nope. At least I haven't gotten one vector in any of the ILS flights I've been doing. No idea, why. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. 

I am getting clearance to follow the STAR, or at least something to the effect of "Cleared for the ILS05 approach via the ABCDE trsansition."  I have also been getting clearance to the altitude for the IAF pretty much every time.  For example, I did a flight to Glasgow and was cleared for my chosen approach in the flight plan at 3000 ft (the initial altitude for entering the approach), and then I was cleared for 2400ft which was where the approach plate said I needed to be for the IAF and to intercept the localizer.

I actually appreciate that the ATC is kind-of sort-of trying to use the STARs and approaches and not just Vectors-to-Final that typically vector way out of the way (which is the only way you get an approach in P3D, for example). It is definitely bugged on occasion, but I can't 100% say that it is not functioning at all just because I might be used to the way FSX/P3D always does it.

27 minutes ago, Dillon said:

It's on the copilot's lower panel (below his PFD).  You can see them looking over from the pilot's seat.

Thanks.

Slaps forehead, I looked right at it more than once and just missed it.

2 hours ago, cwburnett said:

To keep me from zipping up the premium plane folders and sending them to everyone that only bought the basic version.

Ahhh.  Thanks.

15 hours ago, Chock said:

Stalls depend only on angle of attack, not airspeed. It's a misnomer to suppose an aeroplane has a 'stall speed'; what it really has, is a critical angle of attack.

This can be reached as you pitch higher and higher to counter flying slower but still maintain lift. But if you pitch up too much, regardless of speed you can still reach the critical angle of attack. This phenomenon is exactly what makes snap rolls possible; they are effectively high speed autorotations caused by deliberately stalling one wing as you pitch up steep and kick on rudder.

It's worth being aware that in a descent for landing, the downward path of the aeroplane means the oncoming air is coming at the aeroplane from below, and this increases the AoA. This is what causes all those stall spin accidents in GA aeroplanes when people nudge the rudder around in the circuit on the turn for finals. Even skilled pilots can make this mistake if they forget this. That's how James McCudden was killed when his engine quit on take off in his SE5a, and he was one of the highest-scoring and most experienced pilots in WW1, having been an instructor.

Not saying the Cessna in the sim has nothing wrong with it, but if you were in a somewhat flat descent at 160 knots, you could quite easily be getting near the critical AoA, and this will trigger the stall warning.

Ok bro....it's prettty well borked up...lol...even you can see that.  You gotta call this one like they are.  It's a Atlas rocket...pure and simple.

2 minutes ago, Jeff Nielsen said:

Ok bro....it's prettty well borked up...lol...even you can see that.  You gotta call this one like they are.  It's a Atlas rocket...pure and simple.

Never said otherwise.

5 hours ago, cwburnett said:

Surely there's no deep IP there - it's not like they did a good job with it. I've submitted a ticket to this effect.

Haha well said!

The point, then, is quite simple: if your favorite planes are in the deluxe premium version and those are, according to our armchair aviators and flight engineers, "broken", "more like Hasbro and Mattel", then you really have only a choice: don't fly them and cry yourself to sleep

every night over lost oppoortunities or do what I do: which is work around the limitations. 

Or you could wait for an addon developer to step up to the plate. But most develop at a snail's pace, so you'll be waiting a long long long time.

9 hours ago, cwburnett said:

The entire sim runs in a virtual file system, so all scenery, simobjects, gauges, panels, etc etc are loaded into a virtual file system. This is what enables mods to be deployed that amend an aircraft via the community folder. The sim reads the manifest.json and layout.json files from each add-on package in the Community folder, reads any dependencies, then replaces files in the virtual system that were loaded in from the Official folder with those from the Community folder.

The virtual file system also has DRM and encryption capabilities, and these capabilities are used to un-encrypt and load into the virtual file system the encrypted files for the premium content aircraft. So for the base package aircraft, the entire simobject folder is in the open on the hard drive in the Official folder, we can make copies of these files that we want to modify, create a new package for the modifications including only those files we modified and deploy that in the Community folder. However, for the deluxe and premium content, those simobject folders DO NOT contain all of the files that make up that sim object; only a subset of them. Key components that Asobo/MSFT have decided are to be protected, like the models and flight model .cfg files are included in separate files at the top of the package that are encrypted and can only be read by the virtual file system. These are locked with a key tied to my Microsoft account. This prevents me from zipping up those aircraft packages and emailing them to you to install in your non-premium installation.

This is why I was able to amend the CJ4 engines.cfg and panel.xml files and publish those for others to be placed into their Community folder, while (despite the many requests) I can't do the same for the Longitude. This is why the amazing group that's working on the A320NX project can't do the same for the 787.

While this is mildly irritating to me, I understand the need to protect their premium content from pirates. We've already seen pirated materials make their way into the new sim with people posting modified versions of FSX planes, etc. It's a big bad world out there and software companies are going to protect their assets. And I much prefer this preventative approach to some other approaches that have been taken in the past.

All that said, I wish they'd just lock up the 3D model. Why lock up the cfg files? Surely there's no deep IP there - it's not like they did a good job with it. I've submitted a ticket to this effect.

I think this is a very important post. It explains very well the difference between the standard planes and the ones that are locked behind upgrade packages in regards to modability. If the planes can be modded, then it's not really such a big deal that Asobo left out a lot to  be desired, because our community geniuses will fix that with mods over time. As a person who bought the premium deluxe, I would prefer them to open up these planes to be modded just the same as the standard planes. It might get pirated, but that is peanuts in the big picture. Opening the premium and premium deluxe planes for modding is much more healthier for the sim community and platform than thinking short term and locking them down. They are much more valuable unlocked than locked. They will earn MS more money being unlocked because of all the increadible things you can do with them once they are unlocked. 

Edited August 30, 20205 yr by Andreas Stangenes

They wouldn't have needed to lock them if they had sold a single version with everything for $79.99.

On 8/29/2020 at 6:48 PM, cwburnett said:

It turns out, they had nothing to worry about. Their piracy protection is that the planes are so bad nobody would want them. I kid. But not really.

 

I suspect the .fsarchive files have more to do with showing developers there is a way in sim to protect their products. Its current implementation is really bad in that you cannot build liveries, or modify anything. Sounds like just the thing our favorite devs will be all over as yet another money making scheme forcing you to purchase only approved liveries with the main package. Oh you want the Delta, United, and American liveries then that will cost you an additional $34.99 for the North American pack for the Boeing Ultrabus Airliner.

DRM is one thing and I believe people have the right to protect their IP. But, this fsarchive variation of locking down the add-on so you are basically stuck with what the author designed is a terrible implementation. 

Why

2 hours ago, KenG said:

I suspect the .fsarchive files have more to do with showing developers there is a way in sim to protect their products. Its current implementation is really bad in that you cannot build liveries, or modify anything. Sounds like just the thing our favorite devs will be all over as yet another money making scheme forcing you to purchase only approved liveries with the main package. Oh you want the Delta, United, and American liveries then that will cost you an additional $34.99 for the North American pack for the Boeing Ultrabus Airliner.

DRM is one thing and I believe people have the right to protect their IP. But, this fsarchive variation of locking down the add-on so you are basically stuck with what the author designed is a terrible implementation. 

Why dont they just lock the gauges are some part of them like most developers do.

2 minutes ago, Denwagg said:

Why

Why dont they just lock the gauges are some part of them like most developers do.

The more people that submit a ticket about unlocking the CFG files, the more likely we are to get control of performance. So, write your congressman zendesk. Tell Asobo you want to be able to modify the CFG files and add liveries, but they should feel free to lock up the model files nice and tight if they wish. 😉