sddjd

Gary, FYI I applied this tweak and just had another one of the 330's infamous rocket climb/dive behaviors after 9.5 hours over the Atlantic into LEMD. That doesn't mean it won't work for you, but it didn't resolve the issue on my end. Oh, btw, the tweak is a Prepar3d advanced setting mod from LM; there's some limited reading here: Advanced Settings Everything on my system is current, clean new install of P3d and the 'bus.... same old Aerosoft behavior. Lost track of how many months it's been since purchasing this add-on that remains half baked, and am honestly tired of the "our plane is perfect, you shouldn't expect to fly with scenery and AI" attitude on their support forums. I'm off to fly my QW/PMDG aircraft into heavy scenery, weather, and busy airports without needing to experience CFIT.

Looks like it's going live- LVR's Ft Lauderdale announcement noted the FSSI sloped runway tool is included (see FSElite).

Anyone using BDO's Phuket lately? Just purchased and have spent three hours trying to get it working. Annoyingly it requires multiple apx file replacements that seem to wipe out Krabi. That's one thing, but P3d just hangs as soon as Phuket is added to the scenery library. ps- no, their website doesn't offer support (without providing real name, phone number, and address - yeah right), and email support is poor....

Further to this, the 330 currently has a characteristic (stated by Aerosoft) wherein if the frame rate drops below 15 at any time the sim will fault/fail. The symptom of this is that your aircraft will suddenly dive with protection modes active, or climb straight up at TOGA, etc. Aerosoft has acknowledged this, pointing to it being a problem in users' pc's rather than a bug/fault/failing in their product or design methodology. I've experienced this in situations where I was FAR away from airports or spawning AI and frame rates were in the high 30-50 range. Regardless, the 330 is a nice add-on, but it's frustrating to be on approach to a busy airport and suddenly lose the flight because your sim had a microsecond stutter when loading or refreshing the AI located at your destination. You'll likely be happy with either plane, as long as these traits are known at the start.

Dev was on FB page EOY stating target for Simmarket was last week of Jan 20. Yes date was missed, but that's pretty close to the finish line so I'd guess it's past the point of cancellation....

Had a similar experience last night ex-VHHH over mainland China. At cruise altitude, no AI within many miles. Plane decides to go max throttle and make a run for orbit (near vertical). This weekend same thing happened several times, most of which were away from the departure airports so it's not tied to AI spawning. Something is definitely amiss, and I agree it's a deflection to simply say that a drop in frame rates for a split second will cause their aircraft to cease functioning. As has been said, other very "heavy" addons continue to operate with no issues in low fps environments. My recent occurrences were all at very high fps conditions. If a minimum rate is required it should absolutely be HIGH in the product requirements, but there is more to this issue. I'm disappointed, and having long days and two small kids it's frustrating to have my few chances to fly interrupted in such a way. Oddly, I don't recall having these issues with the original release; perhaps there's hope that this will be addressed.

It's ironic to me that there is an argument about numbers in service/age of airframe. The 77LR/F has somewhere just over 200 in service, combined yet no one questions the validity of the PMDG offering's existence (I'm a fan). Meanwhile the 763 fleet worldwide currently is in the 6-700 mark, with new frames being manufactured (albeit at 2-3 per month). Regardless, a developer must have both the passion for the work (massive) and at least expect a market to justify their efforts. While we fans of the 76x see it as a given, the lack of an uptake on such a project may sadly indicate otherwise....

Thanks, at least I can narrow it down to my system then and not with the product 😎

Anyone with EIDW having issues with GSX not recognizing the airport gates? I've installed/updated and reinstalled the product but only see two small gates through GSX. It's correctly aiming at the MKStudios' afcad file, so not sure what's wrong. The 1.02 update announcement referenced a custom GSX configuration, but I am finding nothing on my system to back this up....?

Have the same issue- came to Avsim looking for a reason the $%&^ spoilers on the a321 won't retract. Handle is down/locked, axis is calibrated, etc. No matter what the speed brakes pop up to about 15 degrees in flight. I also noticed my elevators are deflected down about 10 degrees, also with no apparent effect on flight behavior. Aerosoft's attitude in their forum is essentially "we can't reproduce it so it's not our problem" in response to several similar posts. The fact that every other aircraft in my hangar is able to correctly use my key bindings and axis assignments is irrelevant, and I'm done recreating my p3d config file (done that too many times to count to no avail).

Thanks, at least I'm not crazy (or at least not for this reason). I'll just plan on disabling the thunderstorm modeling when descending / on approach. Was definitely one of my more wild approaches into TBPB 😎

After a long haul into Grantley Adams AS for v4 (fully updated) reports thunderstorms with winds of 14kts up through 12k AGL. However, all the way down to sea level the simulator is giving me air speeds of over 300kts in wild gusts. Windshear (20%),turbulence (20), and max surface winds (38) are set way down in the depiction settings. It's as if AS is exponentially inflating the local winds, making flight near impossible. Anyone finding similar depiction problems and solved them?

Thanks HT- that's a bit different then. I do have the same erroneous EFOB calc at arrival, but on long flights I'm literally running dry 1000+nm short of the destination (with no pax or cargo). I've confirmed the latest version is installed, but may just go back and remove/reinstall in entirety; for some reason I needed to reapply the client and content to get those strobes visible, even though I'd had no new products installed since the latest p3d update/hotfix. Still, no regrets- I know these little issues will be addressed eventually, and am enjoying the plane more each time I fly it.

HT- by this do you mean that the system will show negative fuel and at some point show zero FOB but the engines will keep turning? Just curious as I'd hate to come to the end of a multi hour flight before "testing" this. I am in the mid-5k's for fuel burn as others have noted. Thx.

So, just ran dry 1200nm short of FMEE with an empty load (no pass, no cargo) and TO with 168klbs of fuel. Clearly burning fuel at a prodigous rate not consistent with reality. For ref, the route is in the neighborhood of 9350km. 333 range should be 11k+, especially with no paylod 😂

Hmm, strange as I'm having similar range issues on long flights (ie LFPO-FMEE). Multiple planners correctly show it within the fuel load/capability of the 333 (Corsair's old weekly flight). Even with a maximum fuel load and zero cargo, zero passengers, the fuel prediction is several thousand pounds in the negative on arrival. Something seems afoot.... I'm also having the strobe light visibility issue; unfortunately to the MULTIPLE posts in the support forum on this same the answer is already "oh, you must be using shaders (Not), or some other add-on must have changed the defaults, not our problem". Disappointing considering EVERY other add-on aircraft in my stable is able to work just fine with strobes 🤐 Other than that Mrs. Lincoln.... I'm pleasantly surprised and enjoying the 330 so far.

It's in reference to test.exe, a DRM measure installed as part of the FSL Airbus package. Some users' AV flagged it, in response to which FSL advised disabling AV during the install. As is evident it was a hugely polarizing issue, said component being a username & password harvester (independently verified several times) that activated if a user attempted to activate using a stolen serial number. Legitimate users were unaffected. One position is "no stolen software, no problem". The other position is concerned with a file that would publish users' sensitive data in a very low encryption format to an unprotected server at FSL. I'm in the latter camp, considering how all software works perfectly and mistakes never happen 😶. I wondered how FSL would fare legally if someone were able to demonstrate losses resulting from this practice (ie their financial info was stolen and used from the info uploaded to FSL's servers- use of a stolen serial wouldn't indemnify FSL in a scenario such as that). IMO an idea with the right intent was executed incorrectly but, seemingly, no tangible damage was done. Regardless, in their response to the community's concerns FSL removed the applications from their installation packages. Combating theft of your products is a double edged sword at the best of times; this one went sideways for all involved, for a time at least.

I had a couple similar occurrences in the past with their 777. One solution was to reinstall the product (for some reason I had a functioning but broken install). The other was related to FSUIPC make sure it's not syncing the sim time with the system time- I was seeing refreshes when the add-on did that as it was akin to changing the date/time via the menu. Your specificity to the NGXu might be worth a repair/reinstall try tho....

LunarCow- Even though the pure -200's are fast disappearing RSR confirmed in the PMDG forums that the -ER will come eventually, but was very clear that timing is not something he'll estimate. In terms of the product lines the 777 is still rather young and, while still considered important, the -ER expansion falls well below some other projects currently in place (for comparison the NG is over 15 years old in terms of original version). So, unfortunately for us -ER fans it's still alive but not something we can expect "soon".

I used the Rift for some time but finally gave it up due to the resolution (low) issues, though I really enjoyed the experience. Natural head movement truly added to the realism, allowing a level of awareness inside and out not achievable via monitor. Even when using the mouse to operate switches, being able to "navigate" the entire cockpit via head movement was a huge boost. I just moved to the Index and was truly amazed at the resolution increase- no more screen door effect, text was readable at greater distances, and the hardware was a pleasant surprise. Performance was a non-issue, something that concerned me on my ageing i7 and 1080ti. The interface with the cockpit and keyboard is the weak link, but for me the experience with VR was worthwhile despite its bumps.

This is purely a shot in the dark, but I had a similar problem at an airport where the .bgl file that belonged in the world/scenery folder did not properly install. The airport scenery and afcad all looked correct in the addon/scenery folder, but no AI on the ground and no AI would complete approaches. Once I corrected the issue I immediately saw traffic. Is it possible to verify the installed files?

Thanks both for the input. Dave, I'm seeing exactly what you describe in that UT2 seems to be spawning aircraft at numbers exceeding the total fleet. In my example of Alaska at SEA, at one point Traffic Toolbox listed approx 250 aircraft for that airline. The total active fleet today is less than that, not including whatever Alaska aircraft were traveling elsewhere in the sim (theoretically). Moving to the AIG/UTT plans has eliminated this issue for me. Christopher, like you I've used the Power Pack for years with great success. I agree with you in that I suspect UT2 applies PPack database airlines differently. The traffic slider didn't seem to make any difference, and it clearly was spawning the add-on Alaska pack before the _Weekly traffic because AS would appear first, filling ALL the gates and blocking out all other airlines. If I disabled AS the others would appear normally. Lastly, if I pushed back as soon as I was clear of the gate another AS plane would appear parked there as part of UT2's effort to show all AS traffic. I'm wondering if somehow I have an internal error in UT2's SQL databases and/or flight options. The huge number of planes appearing for AS suggests that it is displaying both the built-in and the add-on traffic even though they are checked/unchecked correctly. Unfortunately the Flight1 forums have long since been abandoned by all actual support staff (tho still a good user-to-user resource). I'd reinstall UT2, but as a long time user I'm not terribly interested in reassigning the thousands of native aircraft I've installed. No great loss, UT2 served me well for a LONG time, and the AIG/UTT packages have many obvious benefits, not least of which being current 😎

Have a related question on traffic/flight plans. I use UT2 for much of my world traffic (updated schedules and native AI). Recently I've started migrating away for my larger carriers, using either AIG or UTT flight plan packages and creating bgl's after randomizing the traffic for control in P3d. To make a long story longer, I first decided to start leaving UT2 based on Alaska's presence at KSEA when using UTT's flight plans via UT2 (power pack import, etc). It seems that UT2 was spawning an outrageous amount of Alaska aircraft there, enough that every parking spot was filled and blocking out other airlines. UT2 didn't/doesn't seem to respect activity levels in the flight plans as the slider had no fine effect. I found that even when Alaska was set to random btw 1-99% in the flightplans.txt file, UT would either display all (at 46%) or none (at 45%). When I compiled the very same flight plans from UTT using AIFP the result was immediate, with the traffic levels looking much more like what I see when transiting KSEA in reality. I understand they won't be flying actual routes, but for me this is the lesser evil vs the ridiculous overcrowding I was seeing. Since adding other majors I realize how over the top UT2 could be at large airports in terms or AI present. My question is what differences in-sim result from using AIG vs UTT flight plans (if any beside the subtle ones in authorship)? The UTT plans appear to have a unique AC# for each aircraft in the fleet along with a corresponding plan. AIG seems to use fewer AC#'s, but does this have any effect in the sim in terms of aircraft spawns, gate sits, etc, or is it just a different method?

Any chance of screen shots of FSJ's NTAA airport? It's concerning to me that the product page stays far away from the airport itself in its previews. I've always been surprised at how inaccurate past renditions of Faa'a have been in terms of the buildings and terminal.

Lol, yes it's alive but generally with users like me posting questions to the development team that go unanswered. It's a good place for peer-to-peer help, but issues such as powerpack errors and the heart of the program itself having issues never elicit a response from the team. It's an old program, so I'd be fine with them announcing an end to support (considering the developer moved on and they're mostly unable to do so anyway), but IMO if they're going to keep selling UT2 they need to actually support it.