Fabs

My best guess would be that the x64 variants of these files may be for future LM P3D V4 implementations. Perhaps this is an effort to minimise or control how FSX/P3D V1-3 aircraft are presently being successfully ported into P3D V4. We are possibly seeing a similar movement with regard to LM’s push for XML as opposed to CFG implementation files. The concept being to ensure developer AND user compliance to new standards in an effort to move away from legacy products. However, a cynic might interpret this as s drive towards costlier “Professional Series” only product management, if you see what I mean.

Yes, you are right, it will mask the extra area. Thanks, Fabio

I am wondering what the possibilities are of compiling a WXR gauge that is round? It would look nice in the DC8 and VC10, for instance. Fabio

I thought all (if not most) Carenado’s have had their P3D WXR restored?

Great news, thanks.

OK, thanks, sounds like there’s an issue with the update.

Hi, I am sorry, I should have been much clearer, and certainly didn’t mean to mislead. AS running with P3D V4 still propagates messages regarding available AS updates, so a natural inference is that the AS & ASCA updates are V4 & V4.1 compliant. I have your WXR installed in very many aircraft, and I haven’t upgraded P3D because of the potentIal issue of losing the WXR. I briefly browsed the AS forum but couldn’t see other “link” issues; did you create a post? Fabio

LOL! So am I!

I wonder whether the AS XGauge works under V4.1?

Hi, Thank you, that sounds like the best option. Fabio

Hi, Thank you - I find your 64-bit WXR gauge indispensable in my flightsim, and I use it on all aircraft that should have a WXR but don't. The P3D V4.1 update required an update from HiFi AS, but this seems to have broken the ROLASNRADAR gauge, as no link is detected. Is a gauge update needed? Thanks, Fabio

kyle and Chris; Apologies where due, rule breaking unintentional, corrections to signature complete. Discourse regarding products was not meant to incite or be disrespectful, just a narrative expressing an opinion. I'm leaving your airspace now, away from your overhead, my business is done. Good luck with your XP venture.

Thank you Tom. And with that, gentlemen, I'll bid you good-day.

Ahem, methinks SOH failure! Yes, very disappointed, I had hoped for the fabled Dash 8 port-over. I do enjoy flying radial engines aeroplanes, DC-2 and DC-3, though my JF DC-6 hasn't seen the light of day for ages. Don't misunderstand me, I have a plethora of aeroplanes in FS2004, FSX, P3D, and XPX. And before that, going back all the way to the mid-1980's with Hercules green on black monochrome. By now, I know what I like. And when I say disappointed, I'm not really, because it still amazes me what we can do on our PC's today, with scenery and aircraft fidelity that is overwhelmingly wonderful. Just in this instance, I'd have liked a different aeroplane from PMDG. Simples really.

Scandinavian, I'm just exercising my freedom of speech, please don't feel obliged to wade in to try to dictate what I can or cannot say, unless you feel that you must. It wouldn't be terribly constructive or a good use of our time. I simply do not believe that every little thing thing that PMDG does is excellent. Much is good, but not all. For instance, their products to date, sublime, their support, first class, but their P3D pricing and their choice of initial XP product I'm not so keen on. So to clarify, it is my opinion that their choice of aeroplane is misguided. Sure, it will be a thing of beauty, but perhaps not for all. Should the DC-6 not generate sufficient interest, PMDG may not invest further in the platform, and XP'ers may ultimately lose out. Scandinavian, what do you say, let's leave it there?