Jump to content

kkbelos

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    62

  • Donations

    $0.00 

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by kkbelos

  1. Posted

    23 minutes ago, Reset XPDR said:

    You must have a really early test version of 0.3.6!

    You can manually remove it as follows:

    • Delete the folder C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming\DynamicLOD and all its contents.
    • Delete any icon for it on your desktop if it exists.
    • Edit your Exe.xml file, found in your MSFS root user directory (MS Store Version: "C:\Users\YOUR_USERNAME\AppData\Local\Packages\Microsoft. FlightSimulator_8wekyb3d8bbwe\LocalCache\ or Steam Version: "C:\Users\YOUR_USERNAME\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft Flight Simulator", and remove the section like this if it exists: 
    
  <Launch.Addon>
    <Disabled>False</Disabled>
    <ManualLoad>False</ManualLoad>
    <Name>DynamicLOD</Name>
    <Path>C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming\DynamicLOD\bin\DynamicLOD.exe</Path>
  </Launch.Addon>

    That should get rid of it entirely.

     

    Edit: I just realised that Fragtality's DynamicLOD installer should remove it as it went in the same directory. Try running this first. 

     

    Thanks! I ran Fragtality´s installer and that did the trick. 

    • Like 1

  2. Posted

    10 minutes ago, Reset XPDR said:

    0.3.6-test was a ResetEdition version, the first actually, so any recent ResetEdition installer can remove it.

    Unfortunately it doesn´t work in my computer. The most recent installer removed 0.3.8 from my system, but is not giving me the option to remove 0.3.6 test. 

    1q3yBcI.png

    wtlowA6.png

     

  3. Posted

    Many thanks to ResetXPDR for his continuous dedication to this hobby... for me, this has been the biggest game changer since the launch of MSFS. Finally, no need to continuously tweak, optimize, reconfigure... even if I will continue doing it, because it became part of the game for me😁

     

    Quick question. What is the consensus now about using AutoLOD or DynamicLOD for tubeliners? Some versions ago it was mentioned that probably DynamicLOD was better suited to the predictable flight profiles of the bit passenger aircraft. But I see now some new features in AutoLOD catering to that market too, and everybody seem to be using AutoLOD for IFR flights too. 

    And question for ResetXPDR: how can I uninstall an old version of DynamicLOD (0.3.6 test)? The current DynamicLOD installer allows to remove the "reset edition", but not the older versions. 

     

     

     

    • Like 3

  4. Posted

    18 hours ago, Flyfaster_MTN002 said:

    its in the readme

    I checked it several times. It says that I have to run the installer to uninstall the app. But the only available installer is the one for the reset edition, and I no longer have the installer for the non-reset edition. This is the one I want to remove from my system. 

  5. Posted

    Sorry but can´t find the answer in the thread. I have installed now DynamicLOD_ResetEdition. How can I remove the old DynamicLOD app? I don´t have the installer anymore, and if I run the DynamicLOD_ResetEdition installer, I can only remove the new version (Reset) but not the old one...

  8. Posted

    18 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

    I'll weigh in on this, after several flights in the Comanche (and as someone who greatly enjoys the 310).

    First, the flight model.  A2A has, basically, created a new simulator here.  Sure, much of the flight regime in MSFS feels quite good - better than we've had before in a sim - but there are problem areas.  Take crosswind effects, for example: in all other MSFS aircraft, a 10 knot crosswind component feels like about 25kts.  You can land in a sideslip with the longitudinal axis aligned with centerline, upwind wing low to prevent drift etc... You can do this perfectly, and on touchdown weird things still happen in every plane I've previously used in MSFS.  The plane lurches or slides sideways, the nose yaws around, there's an extreme tendency to not only weathervane but drift INTO the crosswind etc.

    The Comanche does none of this.  10kts of crosswind feels like 10kts, and if you touch down straight with no drift, nothing weird happens.  You simply touch down on upwind main, downwind main, and nose gear, rolling straight all the while, and weathervaning is easily controllable with aileron into the wind as it should be.

    It's like you're NOT flying MSFS; the quirks aren't there.  In THIS simulator, the plane behaves like it should!

    Of course every other aspect of the flight model is great too.  Stall / spin physics are phenomenal, and the fact that they spent time on something that the airplane isn't even certified to do speaks volumes about attention to detail.

    And then there's the engine and systems modeling.  Previously, when using sim aircraft that had implemented versions of engine or systems management ("do it this way or there will be this consequence") I always found myself getting annoyed at it.  It just felt... hokey.  The comparison that comes to mind is the "uncanny valley" effect; that disproportionate negative reaction most people have to seeing a humanoid representation (CGI etc.) that is close to human but not right.  That's how other attempts at engine or systems management in the sim felt to me - I would find myself getting really annoyed at it because I could see what they were going for, but it wasn't RIGHT.  It was too scripted or too binary or there was too obvious of a step between "condition A" and "condition B" etc... I'd have preferred that the dev didn't try to implement it at all because it was just jarring, more "immersion breaking" to use the buzzword than if this kind of thing just hadn't been modeled at all.  Basically, it was a constant reminder that the thing you were operating didn't really feel like an airplane.

    A2A has broken through the "uncanny valley" of systems and engine management.  Their rendition feels natural.  I find myself reflexively doing the things I'd do to manage a big bore Continental engine in reality, and the sim responds appropriately and NATURALLY.  As an example, I've done a lot of intentionally fouling spark plugs so I can do a lean runup to clean them off and see how it works.  Fouling occurs a little differently, to a different magnitude, every time.  The lean runup works but takes a little different time every time, and importantly: the fouling isn't just an on/off flag, "now you have fouled plugs / now you don't".  It actually WORKS.

    Those are just a couple examples but the whole plane is like that.  Oh, the instruments!  Hand flying instrument approaches is an absolute pleasure; the needles are 100% smooth, there's no ticking at ALL.  That seems like it should be simpler, but other devs seem to struggle with it...

    Ultimately, I'm coming to the conclusion that this plane, in this sim, represents nothing less than a new level of GA sim experience.  Given that no true high-fidelity GA simulation devices exist (there are no level C or D Comanche boxes out there), I actually think the claim can be made that this is the most accurate, natural simulation of a general aviation aircraft that has ever been created. On any platform, not just limited to a desktop sim.

    I get that this may sound fan-boyish but I'm objectively serious.  It's an entirely new level.

    And for "casual" simmers?  I mean we're all here for fun so I'm not sure what the difference might be, but I think this plane is for everyone.  I mean, it's not hard to learn to fly a Comanche, and everyone will enjoy the flight dynamics from the get go.  Interfacing with aircraft options is extremely simple via their tablet. There's nothing to be intimidated about.

    I mean, it's really that good.  I don't understand what they've done.  They should just build their own sim.  😁

     

    Thanks for taking the time to write a thorough answer, I think I understand now where all the buzz is coming from!

    • Like 1

  10. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

    Pilot 2 ATC needs to come with more than 2 controller voices. 

    By playing with the register a bit you can unlock several additional English voices in Windows, and use them in Pilot2ATC. I have like 7 or 8, more than enough for flight. It´s not a 1-click procedure but if I managed to do it, it can´t be so complex

     

    • Like 1

  12. Posted

    Hi

    I am using latest version 2.6.4.2 Beta 5W. I don't use the speech recognition as English is not my native language and with my accent, it doesn't work well. But with the SayIt+ option, I can manage quite well.

    Somehow, the request to transit class B airpsace with Sayit+ is not working, I never get an answer. I have tried VFR with and without flight following, tower or approach or center, near the Bravo Airspace border, at the border, inside, using the different sentences, giving a bearing/distance, not giving it... no success.

    Any advice?

  13. Posted

    On 2/21/2023 at 1:12 AM, Lotharen said:

    When you have the program up and running you will see a 'PTT' button at the bottom, middle. Next to it is a button with '?+', Click that and a new window will open. If you are on the correct frequency you select one of the 3 options on the dropdown, and then click on the larger widow next to it to see a listing of what you can ask, request, ect. Then click load once you have filled out anything and press, 'Say it' 

    Once that window opens up you should get an idea of what to do and after a little playing you will be going in no time.

    Thanks, I was wondering how to actually start the program without having a microphone connected. At least on my computer, it doesn´t even let you start the app without it. But I think the workaround has been shared in the message just before yours. 

  14. Posted

    On 10/31/2022 at 5:49 AM, Fallen_One said:

    So here is my experiences with Pilot2ATC, FSHud, and ProATC/SR:

    Pilot2ATC:

    PROS:

    Never had a vectoring issue for ILS.

    Free 10 day trial.

    Drew a taxi line on the map for you to follow.

    Does not need a microphone. There is a way around that and it works just the same.

    Could you please share the workaround to make P2ATC work without microphone? I have looked for it but couldn´t find anything

  18. Posted

    On 10/29/2022 at 4:01 PM, Dave-Pilot2ATC said:

    I tried it and there is an issue with vectors when there is no IFR flight plan filed.

    I'll work on it for the next update.

    Dave

    Hi Dave,

    Thanks for your quick support. I saw that there was a new public beta and I downloaded 2.6.3.2 Public Beta 8P 10/30/2022

    The problem is partially solved. Now I get vectors when requested, even showing on the map. Unfortunately, at some point ATC stops giving vectors and does not get me to intercept the approach lines on the map. I had some cases where I even overflew the airport without any reaction from ATC. 

  19. Posted

    1 hour ago, Dave-Pilot2ATC said:

    Contact tower at the airport you want the approach at and say:

    <CallSign> request radar vectors for the ILS to Runway One Two",

    assuming that's a valid runway and approach at that airport.

    Hi Dave,

    Thanks for the quick reply. Unfortunately, it´s not working on my side.

    https://imgur.com/a/NlLtuE4

    I tried with visual straight in and with ILS, and I never get vectored. At best, I get cleared for the approach, sometimes I get no answer. Please note that in that flight I had not a squawk assigned in advance. But even when I get one, the result is the same. 

     

  20. Posted

    Currently in 2.6.3.2 Public Beta 8K 10/20/2022

    While flying in VFR, I try to get radar vectors for ILS or visual straight in. I don´t get any vector, and very often, not even an answer. Sometimes I get the clearance for the approach, but no vectors. I have tried 

    - Contacting app, twr, and center

    - With or without flight plan

    - With or without flight following and/or flight advisories

    Normally I try to request it when close to the airport, let´s say less than 20 NM, using the ?+ feature and trying with several sentences to request vectors. Any clue or tip?

  21. Posted

    19 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

    * Reworked the ordering of model matching - 100% FSLTL real livery first, followed by any other groups real livery, followed by any blank or generic model (depending on your no generic / no blank setting). Within each of those levels it will randomly pick a livery that works if there is more than one available which is quite often the case for AIG and sometimes for FSLTL

    Does it mean that we can have both FSLT and AIG in the community folder and the FSLTL injector will pick AI aircraft from both?

  22. Posted

    1 hour ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

    Can anyone tell Me using FSLTL

    1.) why when I use default online traffic, with FSLTL liveries, does atc not use proper call signs, ie speedbird for BA etc..

    2.) fixed

    3.) fixed

    4.) why does atc not operate for AI if I use the injector, rather than msfs real-time online traffic?

     

    thanks!! 

    What did you do to fix those 2 points?

  23. Posted

    It works really well, as soon as it starts the aircraft begin to move, and it spawns traffic at the correct altitude (not the case for AIG). Nevertheless the impact in FPS, even with reduced ammount of traffic, is quite big for me. CPU time gets hammered in busy airports. Curious to see why some people report better performance than with AIG. Really looking forward to some optimization, it would become my only AI traffic solution then.

    • Like 1

  24. Posted

    1 hour ago, Paul K said:

    I wonder what projects WT are considering for the future ?

    I think in the past Matt Nischan mentioned here in Avsim that ATC and/or AI Traffic was one of the possibilities? Or maybe I dreamt it?

    Crossing fingers for that. There is no good integrated solution for it outside the sim, and WT have for sure the right background in real life aviation + flight sims to approach the problem correctly.

     

     

    • Like 1

  25. Posted

    I think that the best news here for MSFS is not so much who has been hired or for what, but the fact that Microsoft continues to invest and push the platform, and not necessarily in the areas making it more approachable or tempting for the casual gamer, Xbox, etc. but in the areas which make up the basis of an accurate sim. This is in stark contrast to the people arguing that they want to "gamify" it, that it is built around the Xbox and the PC is an afterthought, etc. Not just the hiring of Petrovich, but the onboarding of Inibuilds, WT hiring, and the plenty of open positions related to MSFS in ASOBO. 

     

    It will take time to get there, yes, but clearly they have the means and the willingness, so it´s just a matter of "when". 

     

    On the other hand, not sure why some people see the growth of MSFS as a threat to XP. Personally, I was an XP11 user and just used P3D for a brief time, but right now I am convinced that MSFS is "my" future. Nevertheless, XP was always the underdog in this business, even before MSFS, their market share was below that of P3D, and before XP11 even less. It was always used by a reduced amount of people (compared to FS or P3D) who liked some features only available in XP, or did not like some other characteristics of the other sims. And these people will continue with Xplane, as well as the Mac users, Linux users, people who have invested big bucks in XP addons... anyway, apparently XP Mobile was already a big income source for LR so they can take a hit in the desktop market.

     

    Maybe Austin has to sell the Ferrari or has to fly the Lancair few less hours per year? But I see no big issue for XP at the end. 

     

     

    • Like 6
×
×
  • Create New...