Steve Halpern

As becoming regular fare, new pics have been posted in each section.Check the night lighting!http://www.leveldsim.com

It will have a load manager. But since there are so many seats, it will not be like the ATR where you can set each seat. You will have 3 different loadout options (as it appears now), with one that will allow you some flexibility.

The Level-D base site is now activated with some good previews.Do note that the site is still being developed. But it lays the foundation for things to come.http://www.leveldsim.comHope you all enjoy it!Steve

We hope to get many more pics shortly! I think they will be realy nice. So check back often. Next set maybe by Monday or sooner.

These were sent to me this morning.They are on the exterior shots, page 3...http://www.leveldsim.com/sevensix_ss_exterior.asp?extpage=3

Yes, Mike is correct. Sometimes when you are up late working, with those red eyes, a pretty shot comes before the technical shot:).That is why we have it as a start. More will be coming!

Tabs,The problem is that Richard could not resell the data. It is not like you can pay $500 per month for Jepp data and then extract it and resell it to simmers.Remember, there are many other sources relying on the DAFIF data also... web sites, etc... So this will likely heat up over the coming months.It is possible that with an excellent community effort, a database could be maintained. With admins to validate submissions, etc... Maybe an extention on what Richard does now.Flight Simulator, X-Plane, other sims, other aviation sites, etc, could all participate. There would be a submission form for:New EntriesUpdated EntriesEntries to RemoveErrorsEtc...With this there is no advantage, no commercial interests from any one entity, etc.We will see what lies ahead...

Here is a little pre-announcement for you all...Go to http://www.leveldsim.com. It will be a new product home base for the Level-D team.Be checking the site often as things ramp up for their very exciting product.

Nick will be addressing this. It is because of the FS 9.1 update. Stand by for more info...

Danny, as stated, if you deal with us respectfully, you are more likely to not have a deleted thread.To clarify your post, we use tons of sounds recorded from the real ATR in Toulouse. We did not create a separate sound "engine" for the engine sounds. So sounds are new, and they are processed using the FS sound engine.Some may not have been aware of the difference when mentioning engine, compared to the actual sounds.

I do not understand about the light switches (go to the Flight1 forum for that), but we believe the night lighting is absolutely proper for this product (plane, audience, reusability, etc). Sorry you disagree. Are you sure the VC lighting is working correct for you? This is how it looks on my system.Cessna 172R Virtual Cockpit Lighting...http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/94541.jpgAnyway, everyone has stated their thoughts on this. I do not know if much more needs to be said.

Hi,Here is an example of the lighting...http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/94509.jpgIf we painted any other lighting pattern on the main panel, if anyone altered it with their own modification, they would have to repaint the main panel graphic. Plus, they would have to modify the virtual cockpit graphics. All this is no easy task.Using backlit gauges allows for people to customize things. If we decidided to use another lighting pattern, I can imagine the complaints we would get when they could not add a simple gauge.The backlit gauges are what was used on the real plane, and done this way on purpose also because of the above.

As Jim stated in the Flight1 forum, the 172R that was modeled did not have post lighting like the picture you show. That may be an OLDER Cessna, which used a different lighting system.This may shed some "light" on the subject.

No problem on this end at all. Absolutely smooth and straight.Maybe balance your load to both seats (FS seems to handle weight distribution a little strange sometimes), and make sure you have equal fuel in both tanks.

Don,Just go to the Flight1.com customer service site and you can be back up and running. We NEVER tell people to repurchase a title if they lose their key.Check the site.

Neil,Where did we ever imply this was your "ignorance".I am sure Jim and team will listen (in fact I know he is) to what the public wants. I think just as Michael J. states, the team will come through with what will make most happy.This is the entertainment market, and there are 100's, if not 1000's, of users that ultimately make input into products we release. It has just been over 24 hours since the release! So once things settle down, Jim and team can we can see where needs are, and they can be addressed if it is so required.Really, I have trust in Jim and the development staff, so I hope you will. It is not like we did not go through a lengthy beta test with multiple people (and some pilots). It becomes a slightly different game when everything is thrust upon the so varied systems out there. We are not going to simply say "a pilot tested it and said it was ok" and leave it at that. We are involved!Jim's direct response to you in our forum was...>>Hi Neil,Situations like this are so hard to pinpoint when all users have different hardware. settings, etc... But rest assured, we take in all comments and look for any patterns etc. and address if its needed.Regards,Jim Rhoads<

This 172 is not too far off from the "training" 172. In fact it is pretty close. It is not like we said "hey, lets take this stuff out of the aircraft and release it for $24.95". I think it should be clarified what we are talking about when we mention "training".The key differences are the supporting applications that are geared for the flight instructor/student relationship, as well as the tools that offer the proper setup, debriefing, configuration, scenarios, and more.I hope this clarifies some differences.

Hi Evan>>A workaround has been found, by placing the trim to neutral, but that is not really the best solution.<>If this is going to be part of a training comercial release, the trim issue must be fixed.<

If you are missing that file, you can get it from http://www.flight1software.com/files/VB6Common.exe

I believe it does, and it you can toggle it via the interface.

FYI... I thought some would be interested in actually seeing some differences in default and new...http://www.flight1software.com/showcase/fswaterThis product has 220 new texture tiles for FS2004. We will not tell you that every texture is better than something you can find for free on the net. But that this is is an expandable all-in-one solution that offers quite a difference in what you see. The user interface is also expandable as a water manager, where you can easily manage different water sets, or new water sets, that you may want to import.I do not understand why this is such a heated topic. Peter I am sure worked very hard to get these 220 textures, and the interface was done by us. As always ANYONE that purchases from us can get their money back in 30 days if they do not like it. That is like having the full version as a demo.We respect the customer, and are placing this product out there at face value. You will know what you are getting in advance. We will expand on the Showcase pages because this there is a lot to show.

Interesting comment about how USA Roads can actually improve framerates in some cases. This is because of less autogen scenery.I made note of this before, and it is interesting someone else thought of it also.The slow framerate likely has little to do with USA Roads, so is probably a conflict elsewhere. USA Roads has been remarkably framerate friendly.

Hi,Some of you all may not know this, but we fully understand the 172 angle. In fact, it was the training route we decided to go with the 172 we are working on.As you know, Flight One Software has released many titles that deal with the needs of the "Entertainment" audience. There are many features that are very important to that crowd. What we are doing is taking the "what is important for training" approach on the 172. That is the first priority.It is the training side which caused us to launch a specific corporation that deals with the training approach only: Flight1 Aviation Technologies, Inc..You can see more of this at http://www.flight1tech.com (there are a few 172 photos scatterd about there).In fact, for the first time we are going to Oshkosh not as Flight One Software, but as Flight1 Aviation Technologies, Inc. in building "B" booths 2098 - 2099.We will be showing the 172 there if you happen to be at Oshkosh.Regarding releasing it as an entertainment title, we are considering it, but without the training tools. That release would be through the Flight One Software side.But this is the first product we developed with the training approach as the top design goal.Hope this gives you some interesting info! It seemed to fit in well in this thread.

I do want to point out that some companies have full time staff on payroll. If a year's worth of man hours of this staff goes into a product, you can imagine the cost.I wanted to raise this scenario because there are many cases where money could actually be lost, rather than money not being realized because a developer worked on this in spare time that has no "cost" to it.

Here is the second image. Hope this helps.http://www.simforums.com/USA-Roads-Asheville.jpg