atco

Also be aware that the 100 and ACJ is now going to be a paid product and not a free update as has been promised through the whole development. Ini has gone back and edited its April 2025 development update to reflect this change, and is now included on Synaptic's FAQ page. According to Ini the Synaptic devs dropped this on them today. Have to admit I find this somewhat of a bait and switch the day before release after very publicly proclaiming for years it would be a free update, and then not even having the courage to make a proper announcement to let people know but sliding it into an FAQ section and then going back to edit already posted information. Not great behaviour in my humble opinion.

I hate to add to the pile on here but I can only agree with every word everyone else has posted. Quite simply the most disappointing addon aircraft I have ever purchased and I've been simming since the days of FS5 when AVSIM was an online magazine. It's in dreadful shape. This is an aircraft that originally released in January of 2023, so it started development back in 2022, so it's been over 4 years now. Every update brings hope that it might actually function like a payware addon aircraft that we've all come to expect and every time I get left with burning disappointment that it is still full of bugs and is basically in an alpha state. It genuinely doesn't seem to have progressed any closer to a finished product in the last year. Yes, they've added a bunch of new things to it, but most of them are broken and every update brings new bugs, new problems and generally leaves you wanting to uninstall the thing because of all the issues. 2 steps forward, 3 steps back if you will. The devs hide behind the fact its "Experimental" so there's no support, despite the fact that the last "stable" release was in January 2025, so 18 months ago!! So there's no support, no official way to report bugs and every 5-6 months they throw yet another bug riddled "Experimental" version at you then scream 'but its experimental" at you if you dare to question anything or seek support. This was a payware aircraft that has been 4 years in development and apparently only in the last month did they decide to code a custom autopilot for it. I mean, not sure about you guys but one of my most basic expectations of a payware airliner is it will have a custom coded autopilot not the default Asobo version. Apparently though for these guys they just had that epiphany last month. Everything they said at Expo was "inaccurate". There was supposed to be a new "Experimental"version within a week of Expo - It just released a few days ago and is in really poor shape. The V1 they said is just around the corner, well........ This thing is nowhere near release ready. Frankly I'd have more faith that if Inibuilds decided to start the Ejets family tomorrow from scratch they would have a full, release ready version before FSS do. At this point I don't honestly believe FSS have the competence to deliver this product at the level they promised ever. I have already written off my purchase. I am just incredibly sad and frustrated that because of FSS we will likely not see another version of this fantastic family of jets from another dev and we will be left with this drivel hoping for a version that is probably never going to come.

Brilliant, thank you! Yes there was a link back to the D:\MSFS2024 folder inside the Community folder. I have absolutely no idea where that came from. I've been using Addons Linker for 6 years now since 2020 was first released without any problems so I'm very puzzled how this link ended up in my Community folder. Thank you for the rapid resolution of my problem, most appreciated.

My airports scan is getting stuck in a never ending loop and won't complete. It keeps adding Community folder searches on top of identical paths. For example I have these entries in my scan log for Atelic Madeira (PSXT is doing this for every single airport, not just this one): Fac: D:\MSFS2024\Community\atelic-airport-lpma-madeira\scenery\atelic\atelic-airport-lpma-madeira.bgl airport has code 'LPMA' in BGL path publisher: Atelic thirdparty airport LPMA linked to archive/thirdparty/Atelic/LPMA110.enc Fac: D:\MSFS2024\Community\MSFS2024\Community\atelic-airport-lpma-madeira\scenery\atelic\atelic-airport-lpma-madeira.bgl airport has code 'LPMA' in BGL path publisher: Atelic thirdparty airport LPMA linked to archive/thirdparty/Atelic/LPMA110.enc Fac: D:\MSFS2024\Community\MSFS2024\Community\MSFS2024\Community\atelic-airport-lpma-madeira\scenery\atelic\atelic-airport-lpma-madeira.bgl airport has code 'LPMA' in BGL path publisher: Atelic thirdparty airport LPMA linked to archive/thirdparty/Atelic/LPMA110.enc Fac: D:\MSFS2024\Community\MSFS2024\Community\MSFS2024\Community\MSFS2024\Community\atelic-airport-lpma-madeira\scenery\atelic\atelic-airport-lpma-madeira.bgl airport has code 'LPMA' in BGL path publisher: Atelic thirdparty airport LPMA linked to archive/thirdparty/Atelic/LPMA110.enc I always have to kill PSXT because the scan never finishes it just keeps adding D:\MSFS2024\Community\ paths over and over for some reason. To be clear my only Community folder paths are: D:\MSFS2024\Community D:\MSFS2024\Community2024 There's no other community folders so I have no idea why it keeps duplicating these paths. This is the PSXT log: 13587 ICAO airports that are support by RealTrafic read from input\wktraffic.enc 1146 publishers SimConnect: user aircraft title: iFly 737-MAX8 Southwest Airlines 'Liberty One' N model raw: ATCCOM.AC_MODEL B738.0.text SimConnect: User aircraft model: B738, half wing span: 17.8 meter, category: Large The scan will search 3 folders Scan: D:\MSFS2024\StreamedPackages Scan: D:\MSFS2024\Community2024 Scan: D:\MSFS2024\Community output\info\AirportsScanLog.txt written [zip] Target file: C:\PSXT\tblo\tblo.zip [zip] Source dir : C:\PSXT\tblo [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\CAB4.xml -> CAB4.xml (1165 bytes) [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\CTP9.xml -> CTP9.xml (905 bytes) [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\CYAZ.xml -> CYAZ.xml (3357 bytes) [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\CYHY.xml -> CYHY.xml (1984 bytes) [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\CYMU.xml -> CYMU.xml (903 bytes) [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\CYQA.xml -> CYQA.xml (3520 bytes) [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\CYRQ.xml -> CYRQ.xml (3091 bytes) [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\CYTH.xml -> CYTH.xml (2968 bytes) [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\CYUY.xml -> CYUY.xml (3370 bytes) [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\CYVO.xml -> CYVO.xml (3089 bytes) [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\CYVP.xml -> CYVP.xml (2606 bytes) [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\CYWK.xml -> CYWK.xml (2834 bytes) [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\CYXX.xml -> CYXX.xml (13218 bytes) [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\CYYQ.xml -> CYYQ.xml (2566 bytes) [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\EDDT.xml -> EDDT.xml (7067 bytes) [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\EFKT.xml -> EFKT.xml (2901 bytes) [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\EGLC.xml -> EGLC.xml (3506 bytes) [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\ENHD.xml -> ENHD.xml (2027 bytes) [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\KWYS.xml -> KWYS.xml (4502 bytes) [zip] Adding (data) C:\PSXT\tblo\VHHH.xml -> VHHH.xml (46227 bytes) [zip] Added 20 files, ok_close=false, exists=true, size=21097 bytes ==> Zippen TBLO folder failed SimConnect closed ok SimConnect (PARKING_DATA_RDR) closed -------------------------- airports scan ends ------------------------------- 16:13:41 Exiting: USER CLOSED SIM SimConnect closed ok

Released. Orbx only at the moment. Marketplace to come later this week https://orbxdirect.com/product/skyward-citation-msfs2024

And just like that Orbx have now confirmed in discord they will not be moving forward with this DRM. The community has spoken loudly and forced change.

I flat out asked Aerosoft and they have confirmed it is not the same, and there is no kernel level DRM used in the A340-600

I posted it in the Orbx forum verbatim. I'm not a member of the Orbx discord. If anyone else is feel free to post it there.

Recent example of kernel level anti cheat software being exploited........... https://www.pcgamer.com/ransomware-abuses-genshin-impacts-kernel-mode-anti-cheat-to-bypass-antivirus-protection/ "Security skeptics and advocates have worried for some time now that exploits able to take advantage of anti-cheat kernel-mode drivers could wreak serious havoc on PC security. Now it seems to have happened: The anti-cheat driver used by Genshin Impact, the popular free-to-play RPG, has been abused by a ransomware actor to stop antivirus processes and enable the mass deployment of their ransomware." The fact that blue chip AAA companies even struggle with this and the potential dangers leaves me pretty stunned that FS developers would allow a college drop out with 5 semesters of experience and who used AI to code his app to have this level of access to anyone's PC. Honestly I'm struggling to find this believable. I really think as a community we need to take a stand on this and say no. I 100% believe devs should be able to protect their work and their livelihood, but this is not the answer.

On the Orbx forum a user posted this apparently information from the developer of this DRM module, and I'll post it here. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether this is someone you want to give kernel level system access to on your PC.............. "I did what you'd call "AI Assisted" coding. No "vibe coding". Formal training: I've studied computer science for 5 semester, but haven't finished because I changed jobs and had to move to another city, making continuing impractical. It included several security-specific modules. I'm part-time employing another developer who as a computer-science degree and he has reviewed the application. No personal data is being stored. The SimGuard client transmit only the activation key you enter and a unique device-id (from which no information about the users pc can be deferred, SHA256 hash to be exact). Optionally, automated error-logging via sentry.io is enabled, but you can opt-out anytime to that)"

Well one reason is it starts to become cumulative. There is a growing body of evidence that WASM crashes are heavily linked to the number of running addons, apps and programs you have running connecting to the sim. PMDG have an extensive thread and volume of research that shows a significant link. This is just adding yet another program on top of the mix. As others have said here already the concern will be this will keep spreading, and we will be forced to run more and more of these things. For example if you want to fly the PMDG 737 into KATL you will be running the PMDG program in the background, maybe the Boris sound pack, 3rd party livery, maybe you have the Fenix, Ifly and TDS programs running from your EXE.xml, probably GSX Couatl as well, most people run some kind of flight tracker like Volanta, lots of people have a VATSIM client or BATC/SI running and now a scenery DRM that has to be running as well. Before you know it you've got a dozen programs running away in the background leaving yourself more prone to a lovely set of orange screens. It would not surprise me if Orbx KATL becomes a bit of a WASM fest. Was going to be a day 1 purchase for me but now for the first time ever I am going to choose the Marketplace over a developers own store. History is littered with companies who impose overbearing DRM on their customers and it never ends well - Sony anyone? I guess it continues to be true that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Exactly the same for me, only started happening a few days ago, but the forums are essentially unusable for me now on Android. The workarounds mentioned above don't really work for more than a couple of minutes at a time. Cleared all cookies, site data, browsing data, then 5 mins later problem is back. It's clearly not on our end, the site doesn't currently work with Chrome on Android. It really shouldn't be up to us to jump through hoops to make our devices work with the site, it should be up to the site to fix the issue. I'm not faffing around with other browsers just to visit one site, I'll just stop visiting here instead simple as that.

Ah thank you, yes so it does.

I'm using PSXT 12.6.0. I cannot select the checkbox to scan addon airports. I press the box repeatedly and nothing happens, it never gets checked, the scan never runs. I've changed the airports in my community folder so I need to rescan them and I am not able to do so. Scan for liveries checkbox works fine. Any ideas?

Download for missing textures: https://www.alpha-india.net/forums/index.php?topic=46574.msg433063#msg433063

Like you I'm a busy family man, and have a full time job in aviation, I don't have time to spend 8-10 hours at my PC, and having it fly overnight while I'm asleep or jump ahead features hold zero appeal for me either - I'm busy enough in the mornings with the family or work as it is. I am really happy to report that the A340 on my hardware at least is flawless at 8x sim rate. I do have a beefy system (9800X3D, 64GB DDR5 6000 RAM and a 4090) so YMMV but I've just completed a trans-atlantic flight and it performed amazingly. Both laterally and vertically it tracked to perfection, just as good as the PMDG 777s. In every other Airbus (INI A330, A321LR, A350, FBW A380) to use 8x I have to pull the VS and set 0 to avoid the wild pitch oscillations, lateral tracking is always fine, but in the A340 I can leave it in ALT CRZ with no problems and it holds altitude perfectly. I'm well impressed. Fuel only burns at 4x, however once I reached the point at TOD where I wanted to go back to 1x sim rate, I just set the fuel in the EFB to what Simbrief had planned at TOD and it set the fuel with no fuss and I had a wonderful descent, approach and landing at realistic landing weight. Anyway just passing along if you have the hardware that can cope you can run the Ini A340 at 8x with no problems at all (except for the fuel burn, which can be worked around).

No I have not had the App installed since I moved to my new PC in February. I only have 2x FG selected and I use DLSS swapper to put the most up to date DLSS files in sim. I have since found I can get smoother performance with NVIDIA DLSS FG using the FrameRateLimiter setting in the Usercfg.opt

Thanks for the tip. I only run a single monitor and no head tracking, but gave it a try. My monitor is 144Hz native. Tried at 120 and 60 and no real noticeable change. Perhaps marginally better at 120Hz when resetting the cockpit view.

I'm finding some interesting things as I tinker around trying to reclaim my smooth performance from pre-SU1. I'm almost there again. Before SU2 I used MSI Afterburner and RTSS to stay locked at 60FPS with FG (so 30 native, with x2 FG). I had perfectly smooth performance everywhere, even when panning and switching views. Was beautiful. Running a 9800X3D OC to 5.4GHz, 64GB DDR5 6000MHz RAM and a 4090 with MSFS24 on a dedicated PCIE4 M.2 drive. Used DLSS Quality, and DLSS Frame Gen. With SU2 and no settings changed I was having terrible stuttering even when in a default aircraft at a default airport, no traffic just sitting there doing nothing. FPS would be steady and then suddenly start dropping and stuttering before going back to smooth again, before it would happen again and rinse and repeat. My DLSS and FG dll files are the latest, also installed the latest FSR dll. All shader caches cleared, and rolling cache deleted and rebuilt. Tried the latest NVIDIA driver and also rolled back to my previous one, and no difference so not a driver issue. Reinstalled the latest one again. I found that by switching Frame Gen to AMD FSR that I removed that stuttering I was getting with DLSS Frame Gen, and sitting there stationary I had my old smooth 60FPS back and it would stay there. I did still get some stuttering when changing views, ie inside to external or when resetting my view after looking at the overhead or pedestal. Also some occasional stutters while panning around, but certainly miles better than I was getting with the NVIDIA DLSS Frame Gen, where I would see FPS drops down to 35 and heavy stutters. Today I tried the Frame Limiter setting in the Usercfg.opt. I set it to 30 so that would give me my 60 with x2 Frame Gen. No real change with AMD FSR, was largely smooth except in the circumstances I mentioned previously. What surprised me though was when I changed to NVIDIA DLSS Frame Gen the horrible stuttering and performance I had yesterday was gone. It was back to being just as smooth if not slightly better than the AMD FSR. So I shut the sim down, reset the Limiter to 0 in the cfg and tried again. Sure enough the stuttery poor performance was back. Just to make sure, set the Limiter back to 30 again and fired up the sim and sure enough nice smooth performance like I was getting in SU1. With the view steady its exactly like it used to be, smooth, steady 60FPS with constant frame times. Again changing views and panning isn't as good as it was in SU1, still get some minor stuttering, but at least I have almost got back to where I was. Just posting my findings in case it might help someone else that is struggling with stuttery performance in SU2.

Yes they were changed but I had already replaced them with the current versions with DLSS swapper. I rolled back to my older driver. Little to no change. The biggest factor for me us the Frame Gen setting. If I use NVIDIA DLSS FG I get a stuttering mess with constant spikes and FPS all over the place. Using AMD FSR FG I am back to almost constant smooth performance. Only some stutters on changing view and with some panning. I have no idea why this is suddenly a thing, although someone did reply to me in the official forums that this happened in the beta as well and I wasn't the first to report that changing to AMD FSR solved a bunch of performance issues. I'm running in 4K with a 4090 with Frame Gen. I'd strongly suggest anyone else having similar issues give changing the FG setting to AMD FSR and see if it helps. The difference for me was massive.

Well interestingly I've found changing my Frame Gen setting from NVIDIA DLSS to AMD FSR has made things much smoother. Not at the same level I was at pre-SU2 as panning still isn't great, but its miles better than I'm getting on the NVIDIA DLSS setting.

Well for me this update has been a disaster. Was not in the beta so previously on SU1. Had glorious, smooth performance everywhere, locked at 60FPS with FG on. Was really enjoying the sim. Updated to SU2, deleted my rolling cache, deleted my NVIDIA cache and updated to the latest NVIDIA driver. Now I just get a horrible stuttering mess. Massive FPS drops, huge frametime spikes and all around horrible performance. Tried several reboots and still the same. Did not even bother trying to fly, the stuttering and fps drops have completely ruined things for me. Very unhappy.

A few more observations as I've just taken her out for a couple of Astral cargo flights around Africa.................... 1: Performance is quite poor for a relatively basic aircraft in avionics terms. Lots of little hitches and micro stutters even in cruise. In this part of the World even the Ini A350 is smooth as silk. I think the model might be poorly optimised. Certainly no reason for it to be as stuttery as it is. 2: Ground handling isn't great. Very squirrely on the runway, and it taxies like its on ice. 3: Its a handful on approach. I suspect the flaps might be too draggy. I know these older jets were not very efficient, but at flaps 40 in the -30 (not even full 50 flap) you need an awful lot of thrust to maintain the glideslope. 4: So far I've found it pretty difficult to trim nicely on approach. Once you get below 200kts IAS I've found the altitude hold doesn't work very well, it will just keep descending even though the VS is set to 0, and even applying positive VS to climb does not arrest the descent 5: Landing is an adventure, it is very, very pitch sensitive. I have -25 set on my sensitivity but I think it needs even more So again, its getting there but there's still a way to go. I'm happy enough with it, fills a need for me but if this is the final version I'll be very unhappy. It needs more refinement, but certainly leaps and bounds better than the wreck it was on release. Hope this helps. My advice, if you want a top of the line, polished DC-9 then this isn't it yet. If you want a decent DC-9 that still has some quirks and issues to work out and will give you a decent enough simulation of a DC-9 then this will scratch that itch.

Honestly its not bad - Its by no means great or "study level" and price wise its a little high for what you get. I do find the system depth pretty decent. Systems all seem to work as they should and you can definitely fly it according to the book. If you are familiar with the MD-80 you will find the DC-9 very similar and in a lot of places identical. Autopilot also worked well for me, held headings, altitudes and tracked NAV with zero issues. I was able to use VS and IAS hold in climb and descent without trouble. HDG and NAV mode worked fine, tracked VOR and ILS no problem. GS tracking was a bit up and down but I suspect that might have been a thing in the real plane. Sounds are not great, but I use the FTSim+ sound pack which is much better. Model was good, possibly not to the highest standards of today and texturing is a bit of a mixed bag. In the cockpit I find it perfectly fine. Flying wise, using the figures from the loadsheet it flew fine. Rotation was at the correct speed based on the set trim value, have not experienced the plane rotating on its own. Hand flying was good, although at linear sensitivity its a bit pitchy. A nice adjustment to the pitch curve though has it hand flying nicely. The -30 seems to be a little overpowered Overall I like it. Biggest real drawback is that right now it can only be flown using VOR/NDB and there are so few of those navaids left around now. I love flying old school, but its tricky to find routes, especially in N America now where you can fly any realistic route VOR-VOR. Some kind of GPS function would be really nice to open up more routes now that we are in the era of RNAV. I'm glad I got it, the update was certainly significant and I enjoy it. It's fair to say that its night and day difference from the videos I saw of the release version. To their credit they've obviously done a lot of (needed) work on this update, and this is probably the version that should have been the initial release. I'll definitely be flying it a lot, and its likely the only DC-9 we are going to get for a long time. I feel overall they've done justice to the great airplane and I have no regret about picking it up. My view may also be biased because aircraft like the 727 and DC-9 (737-200, 1-11 etc) were the aircraft I grew up with as a child so I have an innate love for jets of this era.

First video review here: To be honest I think I'm going to take a punt and pick it up. It looks like its in a pretty reasonable state now, miles ahead of where it was at release, certainly looks very flyable and can be operated by the book.