mbmorgan

On 3 June, I opened a ticket (33C-139B2E69-9BB0) in which I describe a JS41 reactivation problem. I don't recall the exact error but the gist of it was that activation is denied due to too many installations. The next day (4 June) Paul Gollnick replied to the effect that "The installer file explicitly outlines the limits of installing the product on Two Computers per license". He then went on to say that he had forwarded the matter to Robert who would likely review my installation history before deciding whether I'd ever be allowed to install again.I replied to Paul that I do not ... have never ... and will never ... install on more than one machine at a time. I then went on to explain that, when I first purchased the JS41 in December 2009, I installed it on an iMac which was dual-booting Windows XP specifically for FSX. The iMac died earlier this year and I built a new i5-750 based PC (Win 7 64-bit this time) onto which FSX and the JS41 was installed. The original FSX/JS41 installation on the iMac were wiped out so again, the JS41 was installed on only one machine. Since building the new i5-750 box, I've reconfigured it several times ... adding whole bunch of memory, new disks (notably a 600 GB WD Velociraptor for FSX), reallocating old disks (two 160 GB and one 750 GB Seagate Barracudas) in order to try various implementations of Linux and/or Win7-64. Recently, I pretty much got tired of experimenting, wiped everything but the 750GB storage disk, and reinstalled a pristine Win7-64 and FSX environment. All went well until something apparently tripped the "too many installations" alarm at PMDG and I opened the aforementioned ticket.Since then ... silence. No activity on the ticket ... no further response from Support ... and no response at all from Robert.So, Robert ... if you read this, would you either review my installation history and decide to allow me to install an otherwise excellent aircraft ... or at least authorize someone to handle it if you are too busy to do so yourself?Thanks,Mike

According to the AOM (8.5.22), engines may be started using only internal power (no GPU) ... assuming, of course, that the batteries are adequately charged and not already over heated. It appears, therefore, that you could disconnect GPU prior to pushback ... then pushback and start on battery power and not lose FMS programming.

Technically, the bevel in question is on the bezel ... where the face joins the frame (this is finally getting fun).

David,You did indeed bring up the possibility of little gaps in an earlier response ... and that is precisely what got me thinking about what I've been seeing and about the possibility of a faulty or missing underlying bit mask (or VC equivalent). My hope is that one of the VC developers just might have one of those Homer Simpson "Doh!" moments, then quietly and easily go correct the underlying mask to be opaque in all the right spots so that those little VC gaps show nothing at all.Mike

Folks,The problem that you are seeing is probably not aliasing. If it were then all straight lines on the panel should exhibit the same "staircase" effect whenever not perfectly vertical or horizontal. In fact, looking closely at the original images from the first post in this thread, what I see (with help from a little extra magnification) are perfectly straight lines with the "staircase" effect showing on tiny surfaces along the intersection between bezel faces and frames that are roughly 45 degrees to those faces and frames.I've noticed that, when I fly the JS41 (a fine aircraft, by the way ... thanks, PMDG), the same bezel edges that you are concerned about appear at least partially transparent ... so that I can see external objects "flickering" past through the bezel edges (and a few other edges as well) as though they are tiny little slit windows through the panel to the outside world.Now, I'm not a VC developer, but if a VC is anything like the old 2D panels, there is likely to be a bit mask (or layer) that controls whether an unpainted pixel is either transparent or opaque. I'd suggest that the JS41 panel bit mask that should be controling default transparent/opaque pixels just might be either missing ... or perhaps transparent everywhere so that any unpainted pixels in the VC ... like where bezel faces don't precisely join bezel frames (along those unfortunate "squiggly" edges) allow the outside world to show through. Regards,Mike