Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

84 Good

About markdf

  • Rank

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

1,148 profile views
  1. I'd certainly be interested in at least a potential conversation about it at some point - I'm a recently retired C/C++ dev (I'm assuming that's what it's been built in - if it's VB I'd unfortunately be lost). I spent most of my career in embedded systems development, but the last few before stopping working professionally involved Lua as a Train Simulator addon developer, even if nothing comes of it, it would be a shame if bug-fixing/maintenance ceased for such a useful tool. Obviously the important thing is this though: At the end of the day it's your code, and your decision what happens - and I respect that above all else.
  2. Thanks for the many years of support. Is there any scope for another developer picking up the maintenance in the future?
  3. Like I said, I appreciate your correction - I'm just a little too used to people nitpicking just for the sake of it, so apologies if my reply came off a little abrasive, I often come off a lot more blunt than I intend.:/
  4. Maybe provide more info so people have a chance of helping you. Also, insert obligatory notification that PMDG require you to sign your post with your full name
  5. Yep, beyond that your only option is to rebind your throttle to specifically "Throttle 1" or "Throttle 2" in the control settings. Otherwise, yes the only way to do it without changing your controls is probably to get a yoke/stick with a twin throttle
  6. Apologies for barging in on this - but BEX can also (sometimes) be caused if Data Execution Prevention is enabled globally and FSX/P3D isn't excluded from it, possibly worth a check too
  7. My bad, I doubled linear dimensions not pixel count, but the overall point remains unchanged that DSR and SSAA are both applying the same method to achieve a similar end goal - therefore the two compound the strain on the card and can thus lead to losing frames - so while I appreciate the math lesson, you are kind of splitting hairs without actually adding anything to the discussion or changing the point I made
  8. Thanks for the confirmation. Unrelated, but as someone who just lost their weekend to fixing an unexpected server failure I sincerely hope your one doesn't give you any more hassle
  9. Am I correct in understanding from that, that the plan for offline access has been moved to pre-1.0 then? Which if so is welcome news.
  10. If Chaseplane failing causes his sim to fail to start, then no. The end user should not have to play a game of "swap the config files" because of a single program's failure to have any form of graceful error handling when the servers go down.
  11. That may be, but your not noticing doesn't make it any stranger that other people have had issues or make those issues any less relevant or important. In fact, just flicking through myself has shown a few more server failures than I was initially aware of.
  12. I'm saying exactly what I said, most recently the servers were down today in fact, but I'm sure you're capable of reading through the forum so I won't summarise everybody's complaints here since just a quick flick through the topic listings can answer that. It fails any time anything along the route between the end user and the server fails, whether that's because of their servers, the ISP or anything in between.
  13. Not that strange except for the fact that you haven't been using it at the other times their servers have been down, and you've never used it on an unreliable internet/network connection. Pretty simple to explain really.
  14. Thank you for the kind words Jack, it's always appreciated to know that I'm making sense to someone other than myself :) The response I see to a lot of complaints about things like this (not just on this product but others as well) is that "It's still in beta...", or "after the beta", but personally I've always taken the view that if it's good enough to take non-refundable money then it should be dependable and stable. If you can't guarantee that (especially as I said previously - on a product that should be capable of running without the servers) then I believe money should be refundable up until the point that the product reaches a finished 1.0 stage, largely because whilst being charged to be used as testers customers have no other way to hold a developer to account for poor decisions. In contrast over the weekend while I was dealing with a server failure at work, I reinstalled a product where pricing starts at $1600. It phoned home once, verified it's license and now runs completely happily offline. Job done.
  15. This is exactly why always-online verification fails, and why products that use it should not be allowed to overwrite the configuration of the core sim on a permanent basis - especially when it's rapidly becoming clear that CP's backend is just not up to the job of supporting something that needs a connection 100% of the time. System's like this must have some tolerance for connection failures, there's no need for a $40 piece of software to fall over every time it can't phone home. Funny how only yesterday (and one page back) my point about needing to account for server failures needing to be accounted for was dismissed and I was told that failures along the connection path (including servers, ISP and home equipment) were below 1%, and yet we've already had multiple incidents just this year with CP alone. Things fail all the time and something like a camera plugin, where everything except the preset library/online backup system run on your local computer have no excuse for ceasing to function every time there's a glitch somewhere along the line.
  • Create New...