Philipp Ringler CFI

There are actually several bugs like this. I have a comprehensive fix that I just need to sneak past management to get released... For the time being, either use real time sync or set the time through datarefs rather than the menu. More hilarity will ensue on October 26 when DST ends. Well, that will fix Portugal but then stuff gets weird in New Zealand when their DST starts.

10.30 is still beta. Only stable versions are distributed over Steam.

TrackIR3/4/5 support is native on Windows, where X-Plane can use the native TrackIR driver. For Mac and Linux there exist "unofficial" solutions using the third-party plugins "linuxtrack" and "PilotView".

I added the ability to extract the IAFs from the transitions for Beta3. It will work only with Navigraph data, though. I've reported the missing IAF flags to Aerosoft a few months ago.

Of course your way is the correct way to do it. But we live in a world where there are two providers now, each with their own quirks... And the number of würgarounds seems to grow with O(n!)...

And here we go again.... The never ending fun of "there's always one more way to do it": You (navigraph) mark the IAFs in the transitions. But Aerosoft doesn't. In fact, there's not a single point marked as IAF in the whole database from Aerosoft. So if I filter the IAFs out of the transitions, it still won't work with the Aerosoft data. As I said, the fun never ends...

Personally, I don't use the FMS data manager as it's not very intuitive to use on Mac. Here's what you can do: Download the navdata for FlightFactor 757/777 in "native" format from the navigraph website. Unzip it and find the folder that contains the Airports.txt. Navaids.txt etc... Copy that stuff into X-Plane/Resources/GNS430/navdata/ overwriting the Airports.txt, Navaids.txt, etc.. already there. Done. To bail out and go back to what is shipped with X-Plane, run the X-Plane updater, and when it asks to overwrite a file that you modified, say "Yes to all".

Upgrading a plane to the new GPS requires setting one checkbox in PlaneMaker. But we can't do it automatically on all planes because some authors intentionally misplaced the G430 screen texture to model other types of GPS. Think of the old G430 texture misplaced so the left part is cut off. Then you get the GPS part only, which some authors used to create a hand-held GPS receiver. Problem is, the old G430 is both way too small and not proportionally correct in screen layout. So if we were to just exchange the screen texture with the new, both bigger and different and layout, screen texture, panels using such "hacks" would all be broken. Therefore, we leave it to the authors to decide whether they want the new screen or not, rather than risking breaking existing planes. And if you don't have the patience to wait for the aircraft author to change it, you open the aircraft in Plane Maker, go to the aircraft system screen, check one check-box, save, and done. We'll have two dedicated articles on authoring planes and panels specifically for the new GPS features posted once we go public.

More on the case - a film team was visiting Austin last week: http://vimeo.com/93143166 http://vimeo.com/93143918 http://vimeo.com/93144399

More information, yes, but no release within 24hrs. The wish was father to the thought for the opening poster.

I agree with most of what was posted in this thread. We are a very small team, and given the team size, we are currently working on A LOT of new products. X-Plane 10.30 being one of them of course. Being a small team does have its benefits, though. We have absolutely minimal management overhead, and no Dilbert-style marathon meetings keeping us from doing what we actually need to do. X-Plane 10.30 is already very heavily being tested by selected people using most of the current add-ons to make sure there are no regressions before it goes into public beta. And no, messaging or e-mailing me won't get you in the private beta testing, so don't bother. We are also in contact with many third-party developers to make sure they can make ever-better add-ons with 10.30. The list of additions and bugfixes in 10.30 is currently more than two pages on Austin's monitor. And Austin runs at 3840x2160 resolution, so that should give you an idea how long a page is. Ben has a blog post coming up talking about all the major features of 10.30. Philipp

Sorry Mario, but you are wrong here. Adding a waypoint to a flightplan assumes there is only one type of waypoint. Which is correct for enroute, but not for DP+STAR+IAP+Transitions. Here "a waypoint" is actually one out of 23 different leg types. Historically, the X-Plane GPS and flightplan only knew about 1. The new 430 knows about all 23. And that's what makes all the difference.

I don't think PMDG can ignore 50% of X-Plane's user base, meaning 50% potential customers. However, this might be a time-consuming process. I think I summed this up before *dig dig dig in old posts* : http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2157629Quoting myself: "There is the programming of all the systems. Also this cannot be converted (automatically). Sure, the logic can be re-used, and if PMDG did a good job in software design and have a good separation of concerns in their code, they can re-use some of their sourcecode, but at least all the data-access (converting from simconnect to X-Plane datarefs) and all the display rendering (converting from GDI+ to openGL) code has to be rewritten from scratch.And, moreover, right now they programmed on Windows, and used a Windows toolchain. For X-Plane, they have to be Mac compatible. This means a switch to another toolchain (from visual studio to gcc or clang). If they use a lot of windows-proprietary stuff in their code, this will also have to be rewritten."

Guys, I was there and listened to the original announcement that was made there: Mr. Diekmann, CEO of Aerosoft, who are responsible for the distribution of X-Plane 10 in Europe, said "PMDG have received a copy of X-Plane 10 beta, so they can consider converting their 737 or 747 for X-Plane".Someone heard "Beta, PMDG, 737, XPlane" and concluded that PMDG had a beta of the 737 running in X-Plane. That is NOT what they said.PMDG got a copy of X-Plane 10 beta 7. It's not sure they even asked for it. Aerosoft send them one as a compliment.It is not even sure that PMDG will even look into it. Well, they would be foolish if they didn't, so I think they will.Then they must decide whether they want take up the process of converting.Converting the 3d exterior is the easiest part. There exist export plugins for Autodesk 3ds max to X-Plane. Aerosoft has them. Also, the 3d interior shouldn't be a big problem, also the textures.The problem starts when they want to convert the flight model. There is no converter. This is not an easy process, and not a process that can be automated. It takes a lot of time of manual tuning.The IXEG folks spent half a year of tuning their 737-400 flightmodel for X-Plane. With a considerable amount of hours in a real D-Level 737 sim at Lufthansa. And those are the best experts for X-Plane, having worked on X-Plane for years already. If it takes them half a year, it will take PMDG without X-Plane experience a year to reach the same result.Then there is the programming of all the systems. Also this cannot be converted. Sure, the logic can be re-used, and if PMDG did a good job in software design and have a good separation of concerns in their code, they can re-use some of their sourcecode, but at least all the data-access (converting from simconnect to X-Plane datarefs) and all the display rendering (converting from GDI+ to openGL) code has to be rewritten from scratch.And, moreover, right now they programmed on Windows, and used a Windows toolchain. For X-Plane, they have to be Mac compatible. This means a switch to another toolchain (from visual studio to gcc or clang). If they use a lot of windows-proprietary stuff in their code, this will also have to be rewritten.All things considered, I would be extremely surprised if we see a 737NGX for X-Plane any sooner than Christmas 2013.Philipp

Did you read my OP?And I tried the english version also. It fails right awy because it correctly tells me that it cannot update this version of Fs9. Of course, it's the wrong localization.And no, the crashing update doesn't leave a BACKUP folder behind, but instead some .dlls updated to 9.1 and other still 9.0 - what a mess.

Hey, i got a little but further. I set the access rights manually to "Read and Write" for "everybody". Now the update doesn't crash anymore, but instead stops with "Error 25". Okay, this is what I got via google: http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb%3Ben...amp;x=4&y=8So my download is presumably corrupted. Well, there is this invention called md5-hash with which you can verify file integrity quickly. But what do they say?? "After you have finished downloading the update file, you must verify the file size of the update file." ROTFLMAOPIMP, are they serious?? Hey guys, md5sum was invented about 20 years ago and you honestly believe you can detect download corruption by the comparison of file sizes.Honestly, thats like verifying your UPS-delivery is intact by weighing the packet you received, without looking into it. This is ridiculus.Well, I have downloaded the file about twenty times from different PCs now. If you have any other suggestion, post it here and attached to a car bomb placed in front of the MS headquarters, in that order.Philipp

Hi folks.Just upgraded to a new PC with Win7 Professional/32bit.I installed Fs 2004 from the CDs, started it up once, then ran the fs91updDEU.exe (DEU means for German FS version).It runs, does the bgl files, but when it comes to the file scenery\Generic\texture\lbelt_ln.bmp it quits with a very uninformational error message "Flight Simulator Module has stopped working". When I start Fs9 it still says version 9.0.0 instead of 9.1 as it should.Of course I ran the update as "Administrator" (right click -> Run as Administrator). And of course I ran the fs91updDEU.exe from inside the FS9 folder as suggested. And the Fs9 folder is NOT inside the "Program Files" folder where Windows' virtual directory could hit me.Anybody else with this problem?PhilippEDIT: This is the generated crash report:QuelleMicrosoft Flight Simulator ModuleZusammenfassungNicht mehr funktionsf

Did that, I can confirm that it removed the default AI aircraft. Strangely, I noticed that the AI of one cargo airline package I installed show up correctly, but not the others?I took TTools to look into the bgls, all seem to contain a reasonable set of flightplans.I did a reinstall of some packages and now everything seems alright again.Must have scrambled up something in my FS in the last weeks. :(

Hi folks,I have quite some woai packages installed in my fs9 with many major european airlines. I am used to my airports being very stuffed with all kinds of AI airplanes.Today, I started up FS9 and positioned myself at my regular home base (EDDF, a major german intl. airport) and expected (as always) a lot of traffic.But nothing, nada. All that is there are 4 or 5 "world travel" or "landmark" default ai planes.Huh?My AI-traffic slider is maxed out at 100%, the traffic.bgls (with woai and the airline name in the file name) are there in scenery/world/scenery, the planes are there, but nothing but the default traffic shows up.How can I locate the problem?Regards,Phil

Okay, this sounds almost as bad as i expected :(As you said, the "standard" is quite different between two interpretations. But WHY is it, that the MS "interpretation" is ALWAYS different from ALL OTHERS ??? The same is for your example with web-browsers - done that stuff a few years ago. Again the one that didn't work as the standard describes was - you guessed it - MSIE.And now the same sh*t - different day!Why the f*ck is all the world getting along with 32bit unsigned integers, and only microsoft uses their queer DWORDs? By the way, a DWORD on XP 64 is actually a half word, not a double one. Consistency???And what about all these LPCWSTRWTFSNAFUBAR*@%$!^^#? What the heck do these MS p***** think we've got a standard library for ? Okay, all agression blown off now. Let's see how we get this thing to work.Your solution sounds reasonable. Code with Qt-Creator, let qmake create a vs-project and compile there. @Tim:Yes, i can build a hello world on windows :). From a qmake created makefile, compile with minGWs g++. Links. Runs.I found the problem starts, when i include strsafe.h. It is not shipped with MinGW, so i have to edit the include path. The problem then is, i have yet to find out how to trick the makefile creator to not use the standard minGW include-paths. What actually happens is, when i type #include <windows.h> it includes c:\Mingw\include\windows.h instead of C:\Programme\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v6.0A\Include\windows.h- Even worse, if i trick him to use the latter, it tries to include sdkdkver.h, stralign.h, etc from minGW again and fails. I have still to figure out how to setup the include path lookup order right. If i write the makefiles myself, this works, but writing makefiles in larger projects becomes a real pain, so i use qmake everwhere.And for the platform thing - what i'm writing is something that should compile everywhere, and the makefile-creator should see "Ah, we're on windows, so compile the Simconnect part of it too". Works great with qmake, apart from the include-path issues.EDIT:And speaking of DWORDs, why is it, when they are in fact unsigned 32bit integers, that the simconnect.h reads static const DWORD INITPOSITION_AIRSPEED_CRUISE = -1; // aircraft's cruise airspeedWhat part of the unsigned did i not understand??And for another thingTHERE IS NO SUCH THING as a "static enum" period.another EDIT:Strangely enough, i can build an FSUIPC application (that also uses windows.h and DWORDs) with minGW without further ado. So what's the big mystery with SimConnect?And speaking of mysteries, why do we have to bother with SimConnect at all? As for as i understand the SDK all it does is communicate with FSX using IPv6 packets. Then why don't they just publish how to contruct and decontruct this packets and let us do the communication job ourselves? Is FlightSim Data so critical for the homeland security that it has to be encrypted on the way to Active Sky, FSMap or whatever?

Hi folks,i'm wondering if it is possible to build a simconnect application on anything else then Microsoft Visual Studio. I'm not confident in using this IDE and prefer to do most of the things myself.So normally, if you develop for an off-the-shelf library, all you have to do is specify the right include path, configure the linker to link against the lib and there you go. If i try to build a simconnect app using a QT-defined makefile and compiling with gcc i get a lot of errors: In file included from c:/Programme/Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0/VC/include/excpt.h:22,from c:/Programme/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v6.0A/Include/windows.h:151,from ThrottleControl.cpp:11:c:/Programme/Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0/VC/include/crtdefs.h:530: error: redeclaration of C++ built-in type `short'c:/Programme/Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0/VC/include/crtdefs.h:574: error: `__int64' does not name a typec:/Programme/Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0/VC/include/crtdefs.h:582: error: `__time64_t' does not name a typeIn file included from c:/Programme/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v6.0A/Include/winnt.h:105,from c:/Programme/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v6.0A/Include/windef.h:177,from c:/Programme/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v6.0A/Include/windows.h:155,from ThrottleControl.cpp:11:c:/Programme/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v6.0A/Include/basetsd.h:79: error: `__int64' does not name a typec:/Programme/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v6.0A/Include/basetsd.h:83: error: `__int64' does not name a typec:/Programme/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v6.0A/Include/basetsd.h: In function `void* PtrToPtr64(const void*)':c:/Programme/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v6.0A/Include/basetsd.h:361: error: expected primary-expression before "void" and so on. Includes are#include <windows.h>#include <tchar.h>#include <stdio.h>#include <strsafe.h>#include "SimConnect.h"I configured the include paths to:"C:\Programme\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v6.0A\Include" and "C:\Programme\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\VC\include"so what is missing here? Apparently some windows-specific typedefines are missing, because some include failed. Has anyone tried doing this yet?

Hello,first i have to apologize, it is a long time since i developed something for or in a windows environment.Trying to get SimConnect to work, i installed a copy of fsx, installed Sp1 and then SP2, then the SDK from the FSX DVD, then FSD SDK1a, then finally ESP SDK 2, and then ran the ConfigSDK script.Then i installed Visual C++ 2008 Express and dugg myself into the samples.I started with "Throttle Control" and selected the project. VC++ asked me if i wanted to convert to 2008 and a said yes. I assured the include and linker paths point to the right directories. Then i fired up the compiler and started the application, then started FSX.The Console output reads:Connected to FlightSimulatorReceived: 2Received: 8and then the whole thing hangs. I don't even get the message with the current throttle setting. A and Z keys also have no effect, other than a changes the view perspectives in FSX.When i close FSX, it vanishes and after a few seconds i get a window reading "Fatal error occured, FSX needs to close", with the option to send a report to MS.I tried another example, the "menu item" and this works.But i can't seem to get any data out of the sim.Does anyone know what i'm missing here?EDIT: There must be some corollary of Murphy's Law stating that the first example i try is always the one with a bug.http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...hrottle+control

Hey, thanks for your answer!So now how to fix this? How to remove this line from all potential aircraft.cfgs? I'm not really willing to open/search/edit about 400 files now... Also, i'm not experienced in such things under windows. On unix, i'd write a shell script to do that... How to under windows?EDIT:This handy little tool does the trick: http://www.inforapid.de/html/srdownload.htm

Hi simmers,I have a very annoying problem I tracked down to be caused by AI-Traffic by WoAI, but since their forums are at least "quiet", i decided to post it here, since there are experts around here who should know how to sort this out.I experience a bug that causes the electric busses of MY Plane to be always available and powered, even with the battery master off.I tried this: place my self on the tarmac, cut the mixture, switch off master and avionics power, but still all instruments were powered and the ADF pointer showing and the DME working and so on.At first, i thought it was a third party addOn plane problem, but it also happens in the stock 172. Then i thought of it as an FSUIPC problem, but it also happens with FSUIPC absent. Then i tried several locations and sceneries, and found out that this behaviour occurs in the morning at some places, while around noon everything is all right (no power when master is off)...I then had the idea to turn off all AI Traffic and voila, the bug is not present any more.I then removed all of my WoAI packages and tried again with the ms stock ai traffic. Still, no strange electrical behavior. But as soon as i added the Alitalia package from WoAI, it is there again. I asked some WoAI users, but no one knows this problem, and they have tons of woai installed. So it also might be some issue not with the traffic.bgls, but rather with some DLLs in my flightsim.so who knows what .dlls, .cfgs, bgls and so on are affecting AI traffic and can tell me the signature of those when fresh from an fs installation. I assume i have something f*cked up there.Anyone know this problem?

Hello developers,in all models of the 737 the two pointers of the cabin pressure gauge seem to indicate just the value that the other pointer should.e.g. flying at FL380 the Cabin altitude is 20.000 (poor passengers) while the diff. Press. is 3 psi (should be much more).Looking at the gauge, it seems that the short pointer indicating the cabin alt on the inner scale shows the value of the diff. pres., which has to be read on the outer scale and vice versa.It's not a big issue, but looks rather strange though.Greetings from Germany,Philipphttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/800driver.jpg