737freak

Also, have a look at Aerosim: http://www.aerosim.co.jp/eigo/page1_e.htm They created RJBB Kansai, RJFF Fukuoka and RJBE Kobe. Quite detailed, good coverage, animated Ctrl+J jetways, but way too expensive for non-Japanese customers. They offer downloads, but enfore quite extreme exhange rates ($50/€60 for RJFF for example). Personally, I would like to add RJFF to my collection but have not found a way to do so for a more 'normal' scenery price...

KLM recently started operating their 777-200 to Accra, Ghana, so that is an interesting destination to fly for the VA this weekend: More: http://imgur.com/a/iW0rw

Why do you feel the need to notify us of such a decision that only affect you personally? Would you like to show what a good & faithful flight simmer you are or just encourage people to feel guilty and follow your example? I am genuinely confused by this statement. Could you clarify your reasoning behind it a bit? Thank you in advance! ^_^

Sorry, but why bother with posting screenshots if you're not going to share the scenery anyways? That is just unnecessary cruelty...

Do you have a download link for your converted Swedflight version? It looks amazing!

I fly for Royal Dutch Virtual to simulate KLM's 777 operations. They have a very interesting network of 777 flights, with the 200ER & 300ER. My favorite destinations are Osaka-Kansai (RJBB), Xiamen (ZSAM), Lima (SPIM) & Dubai (OMDB). I am still waiting for scenery for Quito (SEQM), Johannesburg (FAOR) and Taipei (RCTP), so those destinations can be added to that list as well. I enjoy operating within the limits of an airline, so I get the most out of the excellent 777 experience. The same is true for the NGX & KLM. ^_^

Shadows are one of the few 'unique selling points' to persuade people into buying the P3D version, which means there is no incentive of bothering with shadows for the FSX version. Of course, this is based on the assumption that PMDG wants regular simmers to actually upgrade from FSX & buy the P3D version. The lack of this incentive is caused by creating a license tier for a more mainstream (non-professional in RSR's words) P3D market. My use of the word 'intentionally' may be a bit off here: 'consciously' would be a better fit if the work-around required to get the shadows to work in P3D would not be addressed & rolled back to the FSX version in the upcoming patch . I was under the impression that the context made it clear that 'the community' means the growing DX10 community. Apparently I am automatically a spokesperson if I simply relay my own thoughts that are backed by the increasing amount of chatter regarding the 'NGX VC shadows' matter. The response was a bit uncalled for, but I guess I deserved that: my apologies if I came across like a spokesperson. Thank you very much Kyle, I really appreciate that. I would agree with that last argument if it wasn't for the fact that the change is unavoidable in this case, as it has to be applied in order to offer a fully compatible P3D version. I hope Vin & Alex can manage to resolve the HGS' dependency on the shaded box geometry. ^_^

Kyle, Please correct me if I'm wrong: - The NGX has a white box around the entire, which is required to make the HGS work (based on several low-level 'hacks' of the FSX graphics engine & the fact that the shadows work on the JS41 & 777 which lack the HGS). - The material settings on this white box are set to cast a shadow, resulting in a shadow being thrown over the geometry inside the box. - The shadows are correctly calculated for the VC geometry in DX10+Fixer, but the white box surrounding it blocks the 'sunlight', which negates the shadows. - The material settings of the white box need to be changed to not cast a shadow, which can be done with a material flag in the model. This results in a transparent surface as far as 'light' & shadows go. I know PMDG doesn't support DX10, but intentionally blocking feature that works flawlessly now with the DX10 Scenery Fixer does not seem fair: especially because the FSX is still targeted towards the entertainment market, while the P3D version is mainly intended for professional or training use. Also, the 2 graphics engines handle shadows in essentially the same way in order to maintain legacy comparability with shadows surfaces compiled using the FSX SDK. The community kindly request PMDG to review this while an update for the NGX is being worked on and changes are being made. Based on my knowledge, the shadowing properties of the box geometry do not change the actual rendering of the material itself on the non-shadow side of things. I also cannot see how the shadowing proprieties impact the hacks required for the HGS, but I could be wrong. Would it be possible to discuss this with Vin (not supporting DX10 officially, but lifting the shadow limitation)? Thank you in advance!

Kyle, I appreciate the answer, but it doesn't contain an answer regarding the actual question. Will the fix that is responsible for the working shadows in the P3D version also be applied to the FSX version in the upcoming SP1d? I agree that both render engines are wildly different, that that doesn't impact the shadow flags of the white box model...

Will the fix that enables the cockpit shadows of the NGX in P3D be included in the FSX update as well? I would love to use the NGX in combination with the DX10 fixer. As far as I know, only the material setting of the white box needs to be changes but I could be wrong...

Al, thank you for your suggestion: that was the first thing I tried. In the mean time, I have found the cause: the AES scenery library entry. Enabled results in the square. Disabled and it shows up fine.

I have deleted by Shader cache and let FSX build a new one, no luck. I also tried creating my own flatten for the are, which didn't help I have also recorded a quick video that shows the loading process of the scenery from far away but zoomed it. This way everything with a specific LOD shows up one at a time, but the square still doesn't show: Can anybody assist me with ideas what to try next?

Dear all, After contacting the developer several times, he & I were all out of ideas regarding this issue. The developer did not get any similar reports of this issues. I would therefore like to ask here if somebody sees something we've missed or has some ideas to point me into the right direction. Missing Concrete layer in the ground polygon of A_A Sceneries Kuala Lumpur KLIA This square will always show up in the exact same location, it doesn't move or change appearance. All the other ground polygon elements show up, but the concrete layer does not. This results in the default AFCAD concrete bleed through. Some information: FSX SP2, standard DX9, no shadows, Windows 7 x64, mildly tweaked fsx.cfg using the Venetubo tool. What I've tried: - Disabled WMKK in Orbx FTX Vector AEC - Disabled FSGlobal 2010 mesh - Changed mesh settings to every possible combination (low & high) - Used a fresh FSX.cfg and Scenery.cfg - Disabled every other 3rd party scenery in the library (airports, NL2000 photo scenery, FTX Vector+OpenLC, etc.) - Installed the scenery on my laptop with a clean FSX installation >>> shows up fine without issues - Disabled the WMKK Landclass and WMKK tunnel Is there anything anybody of you can think of that might cause something like this? Thanks in advance!

I'm somewhat shocked that PMDG is shortening the lifespan of the NGX so quickly after the release of this milestone and defining product. With this method and the long development cycles, we will only have one product in the most current & up to date state and actively supported by the dev's. I think the WXR is too important for the majority of the community to be scratched due to practical reasons...

Will it be possible to port the WXR module of the 777 to the NGX with the help from the guys at HiFi? I think this is the only feature that is currently 'required' to bring it a lot closer to the 777...

Something like this should not occur on the internet these days, it's 2014. If you have to explain the above to users, it means there is something wrong...

It has to be the DC-6, especially after all the silence regarding this little bird. Also, it makes sense to try this new development method on a non-mainstream product for a smaller market to try everything out...

It should work out of the box, if you have it properly configured. Side note: You can even have this at EHAM, which is pretty cool I think: More info: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/83234-pmdg-777-300er-over-wing-jetway/

Thank you Bjoern!

I need some more help as I can't find the EvolveAI DC-10-40 basepack model anywhere. Does anybody know where I can find it? Thanks in advance!

Worked! Thank you so much!

Thanks again Charlie. I already have the DC-10-10 basepack for the Tanker 910. But I can't find the DC-10-30 basepack for Tanker 911.

Wow, thank you so much! I tried everything but I couldn't locate it. Is the DC-10-30 Basepack still available? I can only find the repaints...

I'm looking for the Tanker 910 paint made by Charles Dayhuff from AI Malcontent. The base model is still availble: http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004aia&DLID=144824%20%3Chttp://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004aia&DLID=144824%3E But when I try to download this repaint: http://www.ai-malcontent.com/DC10-10_4.html It doesn't exist any more in the Library (pre-hack?): http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004acrp&DLID=144858%20%3Chttp://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004acrp&DLID=144858%3E Does anybody have this very old repaint still on their computer? Or any other repaint for the AI Malcontent model so I can make my own repaint (right now, I only have the base model)? Thanks in advance! ^_^

The PMDG 777 for FLY II was way better....it had coffee. Jason...where is my coffee?