lukehall

Members
  • Content Count

    114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About lukehall

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://lukehall.design

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    UK

Flight Sim Profile

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

About Me

  • About Me
    Flight simming since my ZX Spectrum!
    Commercial Pilot, Flight Examiner & Instructor, Aviation Manager, Display pilot, Web designer, musician, Dad & Husband.
  1. lukehall

    Hot corners

    @Keven Menard If I may make a simple suggestion for a future release? I love the Hot Corners feature. It's a fresh new way of doing things. In fact, I have found Chaseplane (with hot corners) to be such a slick solution, that I haven't even bothered using my beloved track IR for the last few flights. However careful I am though, I am constantly getting accidental view changes with HC enabled. Sometimes you just can't help going near the edges and hitting the trigger spots. This gets irritating quickly! Why not simply add the option to require a single mouse click in addition to the cursor being on a hot spot? To be honest, I sometimes find myself clicking on the screen edges to change view just out of habit. It seems like a very intuitive solution which will eliminate accidental view changes.
  2. lukehall

    Hot Corners

    Always full screen Keven. I just tap the WIN key if i need to tab to another app.
  3. lukehall

    Hot Corners

    Absolutely love this feature. Can't get the bottom central location to work though. Anyone else?
  4. lukehall

    FSlabs 320 Replay Crashes

    I'm managing to use it with the FSL A320 without problems. The only things missing are flaps, throttle, spoilers, etc. None of these are captured in the replay even though they appear on the replay timeline. Really loving the window corners though, except... I can't get the lower central one to work.
  5. Cheers Matt. Good to know I'm not going to burn in Hell. Well, not for this anyway!
  6. Great work. Cheers Kevan.
  7. Here it is: Your P3D version is not supported yet. ChasePlane hasen't been updated for P3D v4.1.7.22841 yet. We are working around the clock to make it compatible. Until then, Smooth Zoom and Static Cameras are disabled. Thank you for your patience.
  8. I just updated to V4.1 and ran the current version of PTA without thinking. It asked me about deleting old shaders etc and i said yes. The log then presented a load of red errors about non-compatibility etc and now it won't let me restore, apply or anything. have I broken my sim or should i just leave it alone and apply the PTA update when it appears? Thanks!
  9. Hi, Just installed P3D client update to version 4.1. On loading, Chaseplane updated itself to Beta 0.3.68. The update information said it was to provide compatibility for P3D v4.1 But... When I run P3D, Chaseplane says that my version is not yet supported and has disabled static cameras and smooth zooming. Am I missing something? Thanks.
  10. C'mon FSFX! I run around 20 websites for clients and ensuring that site's SSL certificates are up to date is basic stuff. The fact that it has also crippled your product's functionality is inexcusable.
  11. lukehall

    Misleading marketing of sim products

    My respect to AVSIM and Jim for reopening this topic. To be very clear, the purpose of my OP was not to spark an inflammatory debate or to single out any developers/publishers in particular. It should be read as a call out to all parties to reign in these increasingly glossy productions as a sole representation of their products, however brilliant they are to watch. I love watching them but I do so with a growing feeling of unease knowing that it's probably not going to be what I actually get after parting with my money, particularly as we are usually told at the point of payment that there can be no refunds whatsoever if it doesn't meet our expectations. Like most of you, I have spend thousands of pounds on these addons and hardware over the last 30 years and I don't begrudge a penny of it, particularly as I appreciate the time and effort required to produce them. We live in a golden age of hobby simulation, the likes of which would have dismissed as pure fantasy a number of years ago. I am massively encouraged by the huge numbers of people that are becoming hooked because an expanding market will surely support the development of even better products. We also live in an age where online marketing and media advancements have made it easier and cheaper than ever before for suppliers to market their products to a wider audience. With that though comes an opportunity to get carried away, so my call out is this: Keep making the cool videos because we love them. Keep bringing us the cool pictures too, because we also love them. Please though give us the whole picture and not just the glossy stuff so that we can make a properly informed decision whether to buy or not.
  12. Dear Avsim, I am becoming increasingly concerned by the misrepresentation of 3rd party add-ons through the use of post production effects in videos and screenshots. A growing number of developers and publishers are releasing media which in many cases, utilise more and more complex post production and lighting effects such as desaturation, motion, shading, sound and edge enhancements to effectively represent their products in a far more visually appealing way than is possible using the base platform. Whether that is P3D, X-Plane, FSX or any other core simulator, I find this practice to be highly misleading at best, or plain dishonest at worst. If you consider that the majority of add-on products are by definition aimed at visually enhancing your simulator platform, this constitutes a fundamental misrepresentation of the product for sale. This is particularly true when, as is most often the case, the media in question is not offered with any explanation or declaration of the effects used, nor do they offer un-doctored equivalents for comparison. I suppose that they might argue that the effects used are in some cases commercially available simulator enhancements, and therefore it is valid that they be used to depict their products. However, in the absence of any disclosure explaining exactly what they have used and how they have altered the media, I don't believe that this is a valid justification. For example, when presenting media of an enhanced scenery area, it seems fair that the media be presented exactly as it was rendered in the base platform for which it is being marketed, on a hardware platform which meets the average specifications published by the developer. If post production or integrated effects are to be used to enhance the marketing, these images or videos should be offered as additional media, whilst clearly stating what third party integrated or post production effects have been used. To not offer any "clean" media in effect makes the altered images and video irrelevant in terms of honest marketing. I'm sure that the majority of enthusiasts enjoy watching highly produced videos of these add-ons and I am not advocating that these should not be published. I am asking that publishers and developers present a more complete and honest depiction of what a prospective user can expect to achieve with an average minimum spec platform. To do otherwise is simply false advertising and marketing. Luke Hall
  13. Perhaps the FO could challenge you to a kind of "pop quiz" every now and then. Or, bore you to death with tales of their down route conquests and drinking victories, or even about how tired they are because of their new baby? That's what real FOs do during the cruise. I knew a female cabin crew staff member a while back who used to enter the cockpit and start giggling for no apparent reason, then leave. To this day I still don't know why and she would never tell us, even when drunk. I suspect she was mental and eventually, we had to ask her to refrain from entering the flight deck unless we called her.
  14. Really enjoying this latest addition and I'd like to make a couple of suggestions... I refer to the female FO because that's who I'm using right now. Setting flaps after engine start: If, for any reason you neglect to call for "Flaps 10" or "Flaps 20" immediately following the after start actions and BEFORE the after start checklist, that's it! She (or he) simply won't respond to a flap deployment request thereafter. Though this may be because of a failure to follow the exact SOP, I can't any real life situation where the FO would completely ignore the Captain's requests for flaps, even if that request is a little late and out of the SOP's sequence. I have asked for the "after start checklist" a few times having forgotten to request flaps prior and the FO just ignores me. This is not the way to treat a Captain! Also, another user here suggested that the female FO sounded a "bit flirty"... I agree but would go further and say that she sounds completely "yeehar" - like she's been spending too long at Cross-fit, or with a life coach. In fact, I'll go as far as to say she sounds a little deranged or been overdoing the amphetamines. To some extent the same goes for the UK FO too. All of this "cool" slang business is a bit grating to be honest and not the way a humble FO conducts him or herself. I know it's just a simulation but there are many of us who strive for as much authenticity as possible. It's difficult enough without having Tigger acting as your FO. Perhaps you could change the dialogue or ask the actor(s) to tone it down a little in future? Best wishes, Luke