FSX airplane developers...heads up..

[Guest weeniemcween]

It's called sarcasm, and you just proved my point.

[ramsa329 0]

Perhaps I am missing something here but........If I decide as first officer that I will set a pre flight altitude of 15000ft and I than select an IAS of say 310 than my 2nd officer should be able to see this and even to modify these conditions if I request it and in certain specific add-ons he/she is able to do so along with any other options that I would choose on the AP.and if I turn on the FD than I would expect from an add-on claiming to be FSX compatible that he/she would see that action or AP being activated or any one of many simple shared cockpit commands.If I input a flight plan into the GPS, switch to GPS and intend on flying that FP I expect that the 2nd officer when he/she opens the GPS will see that plan. What was raised here was that this is NOT HAPPENING with many many payware add-ons where even basic information is NOT being shared !!!!!In fact even worse are the cases where any attempt to share these common commands will cause uncontrollable flight behavior. It is one thing to discuss that certain levels of programming may be difficult or time consuming it is another to basically "dupe" people into believing that a product is something that it is not.No matter how anyone twists and turns in the wind or yells "hooray" "best thing since flush toilets" or "thankyou thankyou for your hard work" when a long awaited past "love of your life" is sold to you (or even given free in some cases)you and I, the consumers, are being cheated.Plain and simple.Michael Greenblattwww.fs-gs.com

[N400QW 205]

>It's called sarcasm, and you just proved my point.sarcasm n. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. Usually associated with egotistic folks who THINK they are being witty:-(Hope this helps:-)

[bcs112 0]

Hi,Like somebody else in this thread has indicated, the shared cockpit (SC) features included in FSX are very limited and rather secretive at this time.Up until SP1 no-one even knew which variables were being shared over the SC concept until they were disclosed in the updated SDK ! And even now we don't really know HOW these are being shared, why do we not know ? Because MS isn't telling us !If you look at the list in the SDK you will notice that only very basic stuff (throttles, lights, landing gear) are shared between connections and 90% of what happens in FSX is NOT. Add to that, that almost every advanced FS panel doesn't use most of the standard FSX stuff but rather "creates" it's own electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic, autopilot system etc... which isn't using standard FSX commands and variables at all or only partly. So basically this is the situation:- MS is not telling us how SC works- We have 1 list of variables that are shared over the SC system and this list is rather short- Many or most of the shared variables are NOT used by advanced panel builders or are used in a non-conventional way- Possibly SimConnect can be used to send data over a shared cockpit connection, apparently some people know how this works but most don't. Those who know will probably not share this with those who don't so they keep the competitive advantage (?)So while the user gets the impression that SC is a well developed standard feature in FS, in fact it isn't. It is a feature that only works with the basic aircraft and that has very limited capabilities. Just like basic FS aircraft don't have an FMC, a descent hydraulics system, any type of pneumatic system, a very very crappy fuel system, ....So what I guess most add-on builders did was try to get their panels to work in FSX (much of the gauge logic was broken from FS9 to FSX so even this "simple" step was a huge challenge) and forget about the SC stuff for now. Since probably only 1-5% of pilots are using SC at this time it doesn't make sense to postpone the release of an FSX update by several months while trying to figure out how SC works or while reinventing SC from the ground up. Once we know how SC works you will start to see the functionality being added, but I think this will take time.Bj

[boshar 6]

>>It's called sarcasm, and you just proved my point.>>sarcasm n. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. >>Usually associated with egotistic folks who THINK they are>being witty:-(>>Hope this helps:-)>So what dictonary did you use?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm[q]Sarcasm from Greek (sarkasmos), 'mockery, sarcasm' is sneering, jesting, or mocking at a person, situation or thing. It is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound[1]

[Guest alexitobites]

Hello Bj

[bcs112 0]

Alex,Yes the Maddog people took the difficult route and developed SC from scratch, it also works in FS9. From what I have heard they did a great job !Bj

[Guest alexitobites]

I have never seen the Maddog in action. I'm still waiting for the VC ;-) But I will get it, when they release the update. And I'm sure it will be worth the money ... only for the SC.Alex

[Guest fruitfly]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of informations. Check out Merriam Webster dictionary:http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sarcasmor:http://www.answers.com/topic/sarcasmor:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sarcasmor:http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/sarcasm.htmlI find its etymology VERY indicative!http://www.americanpatrol.com/_icons/BS_No.gif

[ramsa329 0]

I really do not want to come across as supporting one product over another since I don't see this forum as a place to do that.But in my opinion the main issue is still not being addressed.Accountability whether from ACES or some 3rd party developer is the issue here and it seems as though this factor is in very short supply when dealing with FSX.Every post which excuses accountability only adds to the confusion whether the post is technically based or not.Even here in this topic a user is now depressed about using SC in FSX due to a tech post thus missing out on a great experience and adding to the looooooooooong list of complaints about an excellent simulation while another thanks the poster which in fact only reiterates that "life is tough" and adds very little to the original topic.What difference does it make to the regular user that a developer has a hard time or not, does this than mean that we should excuse that developer or team from delivering a fully functional product.Why is it so hard to simply put an announcement on the purchase page that a product is not fully compatible and allow the consumer to make a choice.Here's a hint to ACES and others apologize first for obvious screw-ups than go on and explain what went wrong and why and do it in a language that everyone can understand.Michael Greenblattwww.fs-gs.com

[jmig 100]

I do not own any Eaglesoft products. However, I wish every developer had a Ron Hamilton type reading and posting in AVSIM. It is the best way to get problems aired, addressed and solved. I have seen members of Real Air and FSD post here as well as a bunch of Dreamfleet tags. However, I don

[Mace 1,929]

>>The personal gain I receive is pretty obvious: my being>satisfied in undercutting your go-eaglesoft prating and>exaggeration. Were you joking around here or were you serious?Thing is, I couldn't tell, and was just curious.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Mace 1,929]

>BTW Your postings over the last days left a negative>impression on me. I would have to overcome that impression>before I buy an Eaglesoft product so your postings might>generate a different effect then the one you seem to seek.Well, I hope he keeps posting exactly the way he's been posting.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[FlyingsCool 3]

I certainly would like to have shared cockpit work properly; but I don't feel cheated by any developers who's cockpit doesn't support SC even in a limited way. The ACES team said up front that it will be a while before it is working smoothly and for FSX it would only work for default cockpits for the time being till they get the kinks worked out and are ready to make it publicly accessible. I don't remember ever reading anywhere that shared cockpit would be supported for 3rd party aircraft.I think you are expecting an awful lot.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

[ramsa329 0]

I really didn't want to get into this however............and this should not be seen as an endorsement of any particular product !!!The following 3rd party aircraft support SC very well.Eaglesoft : CJ1, CitationII, SR20,SR22, LXL, Columbia 400OMWINGS: F-28 400Milton Shupe: Dash7, Beech18MAAM Sim: R4D, B25Alphasim: too numerous to mention + HelosShockwave: B-17KBT: PC3 Just Flight: Shwiezer 300Aerosoft: BeaverXThis is just a partial list and I apologize if I have inadvertently left anyone out or simply not been aware of some download.So apparently it is possible and it is not about my "expectations" in any case it's about the ACCOUNTIBILITY.As I've said before.and to add to this ACES says many things some of which should also be proceeded by the same accountibility.Michael Greenblattwww.fs-gs.com