Sign in to follow this  
Geofa

Fix for Taxi Lights?

Recommended Posts

Okay we know there's a bug in the taxi lights. Is there not a way to go into the aircraft itself to fix this problem? Can no aircraft have taxi lights, even newer ones?Aces seems to be suggesting no SP2 will be coming so are we really going to go until 2009 or 2010 without taxi lights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

How did no taxi lights get by the beta team?Did Microsoft ever mention "technically speaking", why the taxi lights were deleted from the aircraft?There must have been a good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I'm reading all over, there's a major change in how lights are done with new aircraft and the current default ones are hybrids of FS9 aircraft that were only partially fixed up for FSX, thus the issues.It's a bit distracting to fly around with landing lights on all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why wasn't this problem fixed with SP1?What was Microsoft thinking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've run into all sorts of little things that shouldn't be there.For example, I can load a flight plan, set a gate and then end up on the active runway even though you see the Gate in the flightplan before choosing Fly Now.I've also found the CRJ (and I've read about the others) can do things in it's CTRL-E start-up procedure that you cannot match doing it by hand. Even though I prefer cold and dark starts I now give up that bit of enjoyment and just take the cheap way out so that everything works right.Then there's the whole time issue. How many versions of FS do we have to have before MS simply reads the system clock and applies that (optionally if needed) to the flight at hand???If I live in Philly and it's noon and I choose to fly in Philly it should be noon, not some made up time based on what time it is in the default FSX flight. If I choose to fly in Seattle, it should be 9am in Seattle. If I jump back to Philly it should be noon. If I want to change that I can but having to do it for every flight out of the default zone is silly. But hey, we have extremely accurate migrating elephants for the 3 people who fly there and the couple (is it even more than one?) missions that take place there.Phil, forgive me, but I love what FS represents. It's just getting old now with the basic things that keep getting overlooked. It reminds me of when TiVo forgot what the #### put them on the map and spent 2 years lost providing streaming features than only their forum users wanted and no one else did.People wanted FS9 faster, more stable and with some nice added touches. What I see so far is a mid-life beta (after SP1) that has a LOT of politics tied to it with DX10 and Vista that has nothing to do with customer satisfaction and everything to do with internal agendas. To then read that SP1 is pretty much it until FS11 is just .... crushing to the positive hope you keep for this project as a consumer.Are we really supposed to go without taxi lights for 2-3 more years? When EA pulls that sort of stunt at least you know it's only, at most, another year until the next version of the product comes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Okay we know there's a bug in the taxi lights.>Is there not a way to go into the aircraft itself to fix this >problem? Can no aircraft have taxi lights, even newer ones?>Aces seems to be suggesting no SP2 will be coming so are we really >going to go until 2009 or 2010 without taxi lights?>Are we really supposed to go without taxi lights for 2-3 more>years? When EA pulls that sort of stunt at least you know it's>only, at most, another year until the next version of the>product comes out.Both "taxi" and "landing" lights for FS9 compiled a/c were "broken" in the FSX RTM version.SP1 fixed them. They do work now.FSX compiled models (including the default a/c) do not have "taxi lights" for the simple reason ACES didn't add the XML script to the modeldef.xml file in the SDK.I've created and posted new XML script blobs for all the "missing lights" in dozens of places across the World-Wide-Wasteland. Modelers who wish to find those XML script blobs need only use http://google.com to find them. ;)That doesn't "fix" the default models of course, because the source code for them isn't available to be fixed and recompiled, but......there's absolutely no reason new models can't have all the lights operational!As for "no SP2," that is what the DX10 update is planned to be...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, I'm a little confused by what you said. But first, let me touch on the other issue. I've seen posts from Phil Taylor specifically stating that the DX10 update is NOT an SP2 update. He's said there's a SMALL chance that they MAY be able to get to SOME other items in it but that anything else that crops up aside from getting DX10 working will have to wait until FS11. If you have different information on that, great. However, when I see a key Aces guy say the opposite in public, that's going to carry some pretty good weight with me (and, I suspect, others).On the confusion, are you saying that "news models" relate to all payware and freeware models from this point forward? That's how I read that.What I also read is that the aircraft included in FSX and those produced before FSX and not updated to FSX will not have their taxi lights work unless specific effort is made to fix them. In the case of say, the CRJ that I want to use, that means MS would have to re-compile them.Is that the way you meant that?If so, I don't see anything wrong with the griping above. Why should the myriad of otherwise wonderful aircraft that were used as a carrot to help sell people on the game, especially the deluxe version, remain defective until FS11 (assuming Phil's comments are right and nothing happens)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until we discuss the plan for this falls' web download, I suggest the community not get hung up over the name. If I change the name to SP2, but dont tell you what is in it, does that make a difference? I suggest not. It is true that, by and large, anything we do end up fixing in addition to adding D3D10 interface support is likely to be "code only". Yes, the bug fix in SP1 for lighting means all models can be fixed to render properly in FSX-SP1. I think its a bit strong to call ithe default models "defective" because of that 1 issue, but YMMV.I do think some of the comments in the thread were unwarranted given SP1 fixed the issue that existed in RTM, in that no aircraft would render the night lighting correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil, actually that would make a difference. Calling it SP2 gives a very different message than calling it DX10. We've all been around software long enough to understand (most of us) that details often have to wait for many valid reasons.My problem was a couple of posts you made where you were pretty emphatic that no SP2-like solution would be forthcoming and all such requests/fixes would have to be put on the list for FS11. To suggest that there is no difference in user perception and expectations between these two naming conventions doesn't seem at all accurate to me.Plus as I've noted, it's not just the one issue. There are switches that are missing. There's the start-up procedure via CTRL-E that can't be matched by a manual process. As far as unwarranted comments, we're glad to know that future aircraft can have night lighting but that's sort of like saying it's unfair to point out all the fruit on the store shelves has a bite out of them when you can just wait for the next shipment to get better fruit. We already bought this basket and that these apples were whole. If the current planes have non-functional lights that were intended to work then come on, you're playing semantics here. No QA person out there would see that as anything but a defect. We bought THESE planes. Unless MS is going to give us all new ones to replace these then again, it's like saying that it's unfair to complain that your car doesn't have working lights when all you have to do is go buy (or happen upon) another car later that can have working lights.Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to slam you here. I'm just playing my part as the consumer. We want everything to be perfect for free forever. heheheh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I think I said "we are investigating" and "stay tuned" wrt to what could be done for DX9/XP users in the DX10 timeframe. So I think it would be wise to do just that.Names are just that, a name. Until you get details, I think saying there is a real difference is precisely perception and not reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich,Bill is correct in his statement regarding FSX LL and TL situation."SP1 fixed them. They do work now.I've created and posted new XML script blobs for all the "missing lights" in dozens of places across the World-Wide-Wasteland. Modelers who wish to find those XML script blobs need only use http://google.com to find them." "That doesn't "fix" the default models of course, because the source code for them isn't available to be fixed and recompiled, but...there's absolutely no reason new models can't have all the lights operational!"Let me add that it is up to the developer of FSX aircraft to include the correct code and configuration for them to work well in FSX:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't we cover this already Ron? I understand what Bill's saying but fixing the problem for future planes doesn't do anything about all the great planes Microsoft provided as incentive to buy the product and that currently don't work properly. Without help from Microsoft all of their planes would spend their eternity in FSX in a state not intended by Microsoft and not desired by the consumer.As I said, it's nice to know future aircraft will benefit but people didn't my FSX thinking they'd get hampered planes that will require them to move outside the product to experience core basic functionality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just clarifying the point since you asked earlier in the thread...At any rate, Eaglesoft has LL and TL lights working in our FSX product line. My point is that the responsibility for FSX lights working correctly belongs to whomever developed the aircraft.It would seem that it is the responsibilty of MS/Aces on the lighting for their products and if they don't offer a solution then there is little you can do until they do offer a solution in either the DX10 patch or some other avenue:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this