Jump to content

bert.laverman

Members
  • Content Count

    85
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About bert.laverman

  • Rank
    Bert
  • Birthday 02/27/1964

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Almere, the Netherlands

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

1,427 profile views
  1. Hi, I am working on an open source C# alternative to the Managed SimConnect DLL. As a part of the testing app and tools around this, I would like to be able to scan for airports and gates. LittleNavMap appears to have this scanning built-in, for all the nice annotating of the map. Would you mind if I translate that to C# and make it into a separate tool? Makerways.exe does this scanning also, but requires you to run in in the main directory of the simulator, where it will create a bunch of files. Unfortunately, most of those files I will not use, and I do not want them created in my sim home directory. A second scanner will scan for all aircraft in the sim. Both lists together will help with creating AI aircraft. Cheers, Bert Laverman
  2. Yes, I did use the register button. I installed to C:\FS\FSUIPC, and the key file is there. The FSUIPC dialog box acknowledges that this FSUIPC is registered to me. Bert PS Out of principle I never install to Documents, as that is not the correct place for DLLs and EXE files. I know many people think this is a good idea or even required, but that misconception follows from the Prepar3D Add-ons folder being there. If you do, you'll get executables that become part of a user's profile, or are even synced to their Cloud storage. That however thoroughly messes up registrations in applications and Windows that don't get copied over to other PCs or laptops.
  3. LINDA version 3.2.6.1111 Aircraft module "MS FSX Default aircrafts", v1.0, 10 Jun 2011 Prepar3D 4.5.13.32097 (SimConnect: 4.5.0.0) Alabeo Cessna 404 Titan After running into trouble with my new Honeycomb Bravo vs FSUIPC v5, I bought and installed FSUIPC v6, and re-installed a clean LINDA 3.2.6 with it. Now starting with a clean installation, my first attempt was a "simple twin-engine", to rebuild my mappings. LINDA took a _very_ long time starting up, showing a "Restarting LINDA" message in Prepar3D for more than 15 seconds. This is a big change from my previous install, where I never saw that message at all. Mapping the controller axes with FSUIPC went without problems, and LINDA recognized my devices also. Just mapping e.g. the "BCN" switch on my Alpha to "FSX Default" -> "Lights / signs" -> "Lights BEACON on" went fine, but when I used the switch, nothing happened in Prepar3D. Using another button for FSX Control "FSX:PREV_SUB_VIEW:0" had the same effect; LINDA highlights the button when used, but in Prepar3D nothing happens. Idem for e.g. "Keys: S". Logs show the keypress is detected, but I see nothing indicating it is actually sending anything to Prepar3D or a failure when trying to do so. The only error in the log shown is: 167781 *** LUA Error: C:\FS\FSUIPC\linda/system/init.lua:147: module 'linda/libs/lib-user.lua' not found: no field package.preload['linda/libs/lib-user.lua']linda/libs/lib-user.lua no file 'C:\FS\FSUIPC\linda/libs/lib-user\lua.lua' no file 'C:\FS\FSUIPC\linda/libs/lib-user\lua\init.lua' no file 'C:\FS\FSUIPC\lua\linda/libs/lib-user\lua.lua' no file 'C:\FS\FSUIPC\lua\linda/libs/lib-user\lua\init.lua' no file 'C:\FS\FSUIPC\lua\linda/libs/lib-user\lua.dll' no file 'C:\FS\FSUIPC\lua\loadall.dll' no file 'C:\FS\FSUIPC\lua\linda/libs/lib-user.dll' no file 'C:\FS\FSUIPC\lua\loadall.dll' This is weird, because there is a file named "C:\FS\FSUIPC\linda\libs\lib-user.lua". Those DLLs it also complains about are nowhere to be found, also not in the previous 3.1.x installation. BTW After quitting Prepar3D, LINDA also takes a long time to shut down. Bert Laverman PS The entire "C:\FS" tree is excluded from Windows Defender.
  4. No, I am not asking for an intelligent, self-flying version, but rather a (light) exterior version that won't load the model (or at least as little of it as possible) or any DLLs, and so can't interfere with the user's aircraft. I don't want to go into any battles to put blame somewhere, but the simple fact is that we're flying multi-player with a group, and we cannot use Carenado or Alabeo aircraft because there is some kind of interference that sets the mixture or throttle axis to zero when a player flying with a Carenado aircraft joins the session. Due to lost connections and reconnects, this happens quite often, and is a major annoyance. As a result we currently have been forced to put a blanket ban on Carenado aircraft, and that hurts. If we had "AI" versions of especially the Beechcraft C-90, which is admittedly our most favorite at the moment, we can use substitution lists and that should solve the problem, without getting aircraft that don't match in height or size. If there is a simple way to achieve this given an existing installation, that would be fine also. Cheers, Bert Laverman PS Some of us have versions marked as "Light", while other have the same aircraft without any "Light" versions. I assume this is due to when the aircraft was bought and the light versions have been removed from new installers for some particular reason. PPS I am willing to discuss the problems we are experiencing, but do not wish that discussion to detract from my request. Especially since it is one that tends to make developers want to search for the root-cause, then to point at "the other addons" for blame, without ever going into helping solve the effect.
  5. I wonder, anyone suggested the Woodpigeon route already? A totally new line: GA!
  6. Just in case anybody missed it: This is new "Standard" behavour. The intent was to allow people to just shutdown their PC, and continue where they were after the next start. For some applications (like (flight) simulators and games) that's just weerd, but there you are: "Works as designed."
  7. If this is "Boxed" FSX, then a possible crash when you end a flight is (unfortunately) a fact of life. There are nowadays so many addons which are 20 years younger than FSX, written with a different generation of development tools and for a different generation of hardware, combined with numerous known-but-never-fixed-because-MS-dumped-FSX bugs, that we are stretching the poor thing way beyond its design limits. Windows 10 is also 5 versions beyond FSX's intended platform. Dovetail did fix a number of the most serious bugs with FSX-SE, but not all. Prepar3D v3, being targeted at the professional market, is way more stable and makes better use of modern graphics hardware. The new Dovetail FlightSimWorld and Lockheed Prepar3D v4 finally address many of the the hardware advancements we've seen since FSX came out, most notably the larger address space (the famous "64-bit" thing) and up-to-date graphics support. With FSX and FSX-SE I tend to be happy if I can complete a flight, and completely ignore how I get back to the desktop. Having to manually kill off Saitek Instrument Panel drivers and Linda have become a second nature. When I build a new PC I'll go for Prepar3D v4 and then I'll start to be picky... Cheers, Bert PS If you still feel this is a PMDG 737 NGX specific thing, please do not hesitate to open a support ticket at the precisionmanuals.com site. They will try to help you as well as they can. They cannot fix FSX for you though...
  8. Eh... this is a pinned thread, started by rsr himself. Doesn't that count as an "official topic from PMDG"?
  9. Sorry, I don't read every day. What I did was twofold: make sure the switches that are hard to match on the big airliners are aircraft-specific, and (sigh) start each flight with 'twiddling' a button just to make sure the initial synchronisation has been done. Actually I use Linda for my buttons, but the Saitek Drivers do some things with key-mappings even if you don't use their dumb 'Smart Software'.
  10. Just a wild hunch, but are you using a Saitek button pannel and did you just raise the gear? I had that happen to me once and it turned out that was the first thing I did with the panel that flight... The panel's driver only then woke up and started setting all FSX switches to match the physical ones, which happened to be on off mostly.
  11. How about this all concerns something physical rather than a new virtual plane? Apart from that, everybody flocks over to this thread and all usual chatter about the impending release has reduced considerably. Well played, Kyle...
  12. This has been discussed to death. Problem is FSX, not the addon. These effects are possible, but form an absolute performance killer.
  13. AFAIK this is specific for the RR engines also, so standard ops rather than risky. I remember reading about this somewhere way back.
  14. Are you using e.g. the NL-2000 scenery for EHAM? That one has extreme detailed textures and gives me OOMs with the NGX, guaranteed.
×
×
  • Create New...