Speedbird 217

HiFi have been busy developing their XP weather engine. I'm sure they got some great things planned for us and, pardon the pun, this is just the calm before the storm. I've been extremely happy using ASP4 with ASCA and Envtex/Envshade for a while now. It does what it says on the tin, is stable and reliable and just works. I personally don't mind a "dated UI" that is structured and clear, rather than having a pretty looking modern one that has so many sliders, dials and options that I need to spend half a day just trying to understand what half of them do. REX on the other hand, in my opinion, keep pushing things out accompanied by a bunch of Marketing hyperbole and some buzzwords and then don't deliver on what's promised. To be fair, I don't even fully understand half of their products thanks to all the Marketing talk and convoluted product portfolio. I used to enjoy REX products back in the day, but for me they have somehow lost credibility and instead of focusing on one area and getting that right they try to cover it all, don't get it right and then brush over it with some pretty screenshots and empty marketing promises. Feel free to disagree, just my two cents.

Thanks again. Scanline works perfectly (incl. with the FSL) and my sim has never been smoother. I settled on x/2 -1060 and FPS locked to 60 in P3D though.

Thanks guys! I’ll try scanline and using the P3D Vsync options tonight and see what works best. Glad to read I’m not alone in having issues with fast sync and the FSL, seems they’re not compatible.

Thanks for this, very useful thread. Any chance you could outline what changes need to be made when using scanline instead of fast sync? I'm not quite clear on what needs to change in the Nvidia CP and in RTSS vs the fast option. I get issues with the FSL using fast as my screen randomly turns black and becomes unresponsive so would like to try the other option and see if that works. Thanks!!

If you’re talking about the FSL, did you install any airline packs? A lot of options are now stored in the .ini file of those packs and rewritten after each restart. You need to go into the specific airline folder of your FSL installation and change the settings directly in the .ini. Folder should be something like ...\FSLabs\SimObjects\Airplanes\FSLabs A32X\Airlines. Same for the 319 if you have it.

It’s all about having balanced settings. I have a 4790K with a 1080ti and I manage to maintain 25-30 FPS at all times (locked at 30). I fly exclusively out of LHR and LGW using PSX traffic, ASP4, ORBX OLC, AS Heathrow etc. It is hands down the most amazing add on I ever got for a sim. I also have the usual suspects (all the PMDGs, Majestic Q400, QW787) and I don’t think I’ve flown anything but the FSL since I got it. Had the Aerosoft Airbus before but got fed up with it, it’s like going from a beaten Fiat Punto to a new Rolls Royce Phantom.

Thanks for the response. I have all my airports in a handful of install locations, so I point PPG to the parent directories and only need to rerun it after I install a new airport. That way I don't need to add paths for every airport. I'm not quite following the logic to "force" a 35% default value in PPG that I have to manually edit in the xml. Every time I install a new airport it rewrites all parking files, so I have to edit my files not once but after each run of PPG. I really love your program, but to me the removal of a custom default value in PPG feels like a big step back and I personally don't see the reasoning behind it, unless I'm missing something? In my opinion it shouldn't be a problem to have a field for default value in PPG plus the custom value in PSXT. It wouldn't change how the logic works, it would only allow us to pick a default value other than 35% without having to manually edit xml files. Just my thoughts.

Is there a chance you can add back a default % in ParkPosGenerator? I personally don't use parked aircraft, but all files are default 35% and so I would either need to change all files manually each time I run the tool, or I need to change to 0 in PSXT, quit the program and then restart. I much preferred the old way before the update. Thanks.

Thanks for illustrating my point. Thou shalt not criticise the almighty addon developer. So I assume it’s my fault that my Airbus Pro isn’t able to do things I was able to do without a hitch in the previous Aerosoft Airbus? Or that I’m able to do without any problem in the FSLabs? Or the fact that it’s still lacking many features that were promised to follow shortly after when I bought it? I’ve been in this hobby for 20 years now, so I dare say I know what I’m doing. Funny it’s only specific addons causing me trouble, whereas others, often much more complex ones run absolutely perfectly. Definitely must be user error then... Here’s a thought: if a company isn’t able to deal with constructive and justified feedback and criticism maybe they are in the wrong business.

They’re desperately trying to argue away all the issues with their unfinished and buggy Airbus, like with this “but the real airbus sometimes does weird things” nonsense. The bugs are definitely not a “feature” and I can’t believe some people actually fall for that. My main frustration comes from them making false promises and then not delivering. I flew their “old” Airbus without many issues, then upgraded to the v4 version. We were promised an SP shortly after release which they have now come out and said ain’t gonna happen. The thing still has a ton of bugs and is missing promised features, some of them really basic stuff that shouldn’t be hard to fix. Like the radio panel getting stuck transmitting when selecting anything on the FO side. Or still not being able to independently operate the ND’s. Or still no connected flight deck. But hey, we have a cup of coffee appearing on our sliding table... After that last experimental update fiasco, where instead of allowing us to roll back to the previous stable version they told us to reinstall the whole thing, I had enough and bought the FSLabs. I haven’t looked back ever since. I’m not going to buy another one of their aircraft because they seem to be unable to keep their promises and instead deliver some unfinished product. When you start to question that in a constructive way they get all upset. There are enough developers out there who get it right, so I’ll happily support them instead. I feel that in general, FS users have become way to apologetic and accepting of some of the developers behaviour. This is a business. They are a company and we are the customers. They don’t develop products out of the goodness of their heart and so they are bound by certain professional standards. Addons seem to get more and more expensive. We exchange money for a product and if that doesn’t do what was promised we have a right to raise that and they have an obligation to fix it and deliver on what they promised. If not then that can be seen as false advertising and misleading the consumer. If you buy a TV that doesn’t work as advertised you’re gonna complain. If you are into model railways and buy a train that doesn’t work half the time you’re gonna complain. Or are you going to accept the manufacturer’s argument that it’s a “feature”, because hey, real trains do break down, right? So why take all of this when it comes to Flight Sim software?

Perfect, working now! Thanks Nico.

Hi Nico, the 3.2 archive I just downloaded still seems to contain the earlier version with the typo. The time stamp in the zip shows 12:44, which is the same as earlier (if I remember correctly).

Thanks Nico. I just re-downloaded, installed and ran it but it still spits out an error for invalid airline code for EGF?

Can you also please add EGF - American Eagle? Thanks!

Fantastic! Thanks Nico.

Hi Nico, Is there any chance you could please add the following airline codes? IAH - Air Incheon MYW - MyWay Airlines NAA - Norwegian Air Argentina WWW - EG&G (Janet Airlines) LVL - Level (this one is not technically an ICAO code, however with Level flights operated under the AOC of BOS, IBE and FOO it makes it easier to manage liveries and LVL is not taken by any other carrier) Thanks!

Thanks for adding the parking brake parameter in the latest version. Unfortunately I still can't get the jetways to move - if I find out what parameter is triggering this I will let you know.

Thanks for the response. I don't know much about this topic other than that default jetways (CTRL+J) and SODE jetways work with "regular" parked BGL AI traffic as long as exit points are defined for the model in the aircraft.cfg. That doesn't seem to work with PSXseecon but I have no idea why and what the difference in parameters is for BGL parked traffic and your parked traffic. Could it indeed be the setting of the parking brake and engines off? That's a wild guess...

Hi Nico, I have just recently started to experiment with jetways for AI. I can't seem to get them to attach to parked aircraft anywhere - is this a limitation of PSXSeecon or should it work? The aircraft in question are those that are definitely flagged as "parked" in the log and I also tested with static parked ones set through the ParkPos generator. Exits are correctly set in the aircraft.cfg. Thanks

Hi Nico, maybe I'm a bit thick but I can't find any option to attach a file here?

Hi Nico, I just tested with your 9.6 but still have the issue that the program stops and disappears. I had 3 crashes during a period of 30 minute testing. Where do I send the crashdump.dmp from the last one? Thanks

Please add BEG (Bulgarian Eagle) and FGG (flyGlobal). Thanks!

Thanks Nico! Hate to say - just found another one...HKC (Hong Kong Air Cargo).

Thanks for all the updates, it keeps getting better and better!! Just found another one - CXB (Comlux Aruba) is missing.

Hi Nico, can you please add VOC (Volaris Costa Rica) and NGT (Armenia Aircompany) for the next version. Thanks