barrel_owl

Pete, I remember I had a similar problem and I solved it with an additional file they released days after the official release based on my feedback. Are you sure you have all these files in your "LIRQ Florence Peretola FSX\data\scenery" folder (especially the five highlighted)?

It's a savvy decision, Martin.

Really impressive shots, Bernd!

+1

Well, the crash by definition takes your sim down. The good news is that with 1.8.0.5 you can restart it even one day later and complete your flight. It saves a file in Pro-ATC/X itself and three files in your sim called LastProATCX.

Gregg, there is simply no way to completely avoid crashes when so many addons communicate through SimConnect. It's the price to pay. For the records, I had my first crash when using Pro-ATC/X 1.8.0.5 yesterday, which does not mean it was necessarily caused by Pro-ATC/X. I loaded the Saved situation today and completed the flight. Hope this helps.

If you happen to have an old standard.xml file from your FSX classic installation, where you are sure that all your keyboard and joystick settings are properly written, you can easily paste it and overwrite the existing one. Anyway, you may want to investigate this issue, because it is not normal. Do you have FSX boxed still installed in parallel? Anyway, once you have fsx.cfg and standard.xml properly set, I strongly recommend you to regularly backup the folder in order to avoid these issues in the future.

Wrong assumption. We are a minority niche. How many copies do you think have been sold so far? It's our developers' servers who are often inadequate to support the predictable load on day 1. Do this in a bigger gamer community and you'll see.

Everything works exactly the same as in FSX, except for performance. That's very strange. Try this. Go to C:\Users\[username]\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\FSX\Controls (assuming you have W7), copy the standard.xml file and paste it somewhere, for example on your Desktop. Then, open the sim and change your assignments as required. When you're done, save as usual. Now try to compare the new standard.xml file with the one you have previously pasted on the Desktop. This is just to make sure your assignments are saved correctly into the standard.xml file.

Hi Michael, I feel honored for the time you've taken to reply to my concerns. I read it in your product page: https://fsfxpackages.com/en/ChasePlane/ Yes, I had supposed that that was the meaning of your note, i.e. the internal command window, which you call "In Sim View Selector". I have no problems to believe that ChasePlane works in FSX also in fullscreen, yet I should switch to windowed mode to call the "In Sim View Selector" and the functions I need during the flight. This is one of the most annoying limitations in Ezdok and I really hope you will make this feature available also for FSX users soon. I understand that you may have different priorities at the moment. Probably only a small number of simmers use those aircraft or feel the need to see this gap filled, while other things have currently top priority (for example, TrackIR). As I said to Keven, I will keep an open eye to this page and your developments. I am completely open to purchase ChasePlane, however, please understand that, as long as those two features will not be implemented, it makes little sense to me to make this step. Anyway, judging by the number ofs threads and posts on AVSIM, it appears that your addon was a major success. I wish you the best.

Right. I wonder how we will survive without a magazine article before February. Thanks God, there is a nice entertainment next week... Savvy words, unfortunately wasted words.

Hi Josh, how are you? I hope you're fine. Yes, I heard the same from other P3D users. I can't confirm nor dismiss, as I do not have P3D. I can only state that Ezdok World cameras work nice in FSX Steam and FSX in general. Except for some crashes from time to time (which is more or less inevitable with all addons using SimConnect, until someone will prove the contrary), I have no big complaints about Ezdok. Indeed, it seems that ChasePlane is more focused on P3D users. It is not compatible with FSX in fullscreen mode, only in windowed mode. In addition, it is offering no solution yet to a known problem in Ezdok, such as camera bank angle (Z-axis management) with certain aircraft like taildraggers and similar. I specifically asked this question to Keven in another thread and he stated that they may consider this in the future. To be honest, I am not very positive they ever will, as this feature appears to be of little interest for most users. Anyway, I am just a click away from reconsidering my decision if and when ChasePlane will offer anything that I will see as a real step forward. In general, my appetite for new addons running on the same old 32-bit platforms is currently much much lower than in the past. 2017 will bring us several news, with DTG Flight Simulator, X-Plane 11 and even Lockheed Martin rumoured to bring their P3D v4 on the market, not to mention Aerofly FS2 and its amazing potential. Like it or not, the 32-bit era is coming to an end and no amount of wishful thinking by part of our community is going to stop this process. I see no point in wasting 40 dollars now for a replacement tool like ChasePlane or a similar amount of money for 6GB of 4096 textures to randomly fill up default airports and put a higher load on our VAS. The 32-bit market is clearly saturated. Addons launched today will struggle for a small slice of the same limited VAS pie. In my view, it is time for our community to reconsider its consensus in the long term and change investments accordingly. However, I am not sure this is going to happen very soon.

Hi Keven, as an owner of two OldProp Solutions products, I guess I will probably qualify for a $35.10 purchase price. However, this changes very little my view at the moment. As I explained at post #69 and in other posts in this thread, Ezdok is working fine for me. There are two features, however, that I am missing there: 1. support for full screen in FSX Steam 2. control of Z-axis for camera bank angle in taildraggers and older GA aircraft leke Cessna C310R, B55 and alike. Neither 1. nor 2. are currently supported by ChasePlane. I don't use TrackIR, so I can survive until Q1 2017 without it, but honestly I see no point in purchasing this addon as long as those two basic features are supported, if they ever will. Moreover, the fact that the final release will be marketed at a higher price is far from being encouraging. I will keep an eye open on this thread and your future developments and I will be happy to reconsider my decision if and when something that I consider really new will be added to your feature list. As it is, it's a complete no-go for me, sorry.

Thank you very much, Rich. I will try that way.

Hi Rich, thank you very much for your input. Yes, that's definitely the only way to go. I managed to do more or less the same in the past trying to correct my skewed external lateral views for Milviz Cessna C310R under recommendation of a recognized Ezdok guru on another forum. Problem is, such changes only affect FSX views, not Ezdok views. Creating views in FSX by correcting the coordinate system relative to the aircraft with Z axis, as you brilliantly described above, is always possible, yet is much more time consuming (ultimately this is the reason why most of us use Ezdok or, in the future, ChasePlane). What I am asking to Keven is if their product will be able to correct this issue, which was apparently insurmountable in Ezdok. In general, I do not use FSX views at all. I only use my custom Ezdok view set for the aircraft in use, except for F11 which I mapped to Locked spot.

Quite the contrary. Your post is right to the point. There are so many events announced as "revolutions" nowadays that if only 1 out of 10 were real, we would probably live in a Golden Age. The real problem is that words are free.

It would help, of course. But I guess it must be relatively easy to create new views and new view sets from scratch with your product as well. Not my biggest concern, honestly. I have another question, though, provided you are comfortable to answer it publicly, given the early stage of your product. What about airplanes like taildraggers or aircraft like Cessna C310R or Baron B55 (among the others), whose horizontal profile is not exactly parallel to the ground and the horizon. As a result, the POV in my lateral views for these aircraft appears skewed (horizontal lines are tilted and asymmetrical to the ground, unlike Locked Spot and Spot views in FSX, where the POV appears correctly centered and symmetrical). Apparently this has to do with the Camera bank angle parameter in FSX. Will your product offer a solution to this problem? Feel free to PM me, in case you are more comfortable doing so.

Thank you for your time, Keven. I am one of those who invested a significant time on Ezdok (for example, creating dozens of camera sets, world cameras and adjusments). While I may need some good reason to discard it, I am also one who can't live without a cam manager. So be assured that I am part of your potential buyers and I will surely keep an eye open to your developments.

Honestly, I can't see any point in criticizing the cloud concept nowadays. Like it or not, this is what our era is made of. Not that I do not have concerns. Quite the contrary. Problem is, we should have probably thought twice a decade ago before accepting this model. I am afraid it is a bit too late now. And, frankly, Old Prop Solutions having my personal data or requiring an access to Internet is the last of my concerns, when my whole life is basically available to governments. That being said, I would be much more interested to discover which is real innovation in this product. I watched the AirDailyX presentation after watching a couple of teasers and, with all due respect, I still can't see anything that I can't do already with Ezdok, expect for a nice user interface which is supposed to make the simmer's life easier. I confess I am always disturbed by fanfare and wishful thinking that create high expectations (wouldn't be the first case here), but maybe it is me who is too dumb to see the difference. Since the developer appears to be monitoring this thread, I would be very glad if he could enlighten me and provide some examples to convince me to buy it. For the records, I am an happy user of PrecipitFX and Lear 35A Immersion, so no sarcasm or bashing should be seen in my words. Only a simple request of information. Thanks in advance.

Jim, the Flight1 GTN750 is always separated from the default nav system. Meaning, you have to create and save your flight plans there separately. A nice addition in GTN 1.17 is the ability to import flight plans from outside the GTN and Trainer environment, however please be advised that this requires to convert them with a specific syntax. It is not automatic, in other words. That being said, I am using Pro-ATC/X exclusively with GA aircraft and, unlike the former version (1.7.2.0), with the new one (1.8.5.0) you can now choose even small airports as destination and target. If the airport has no SIDs and STARS, as it is mostly the case with small airports, the ATC will assign you vector points until your first waypoint. Finally, having a different cycle in Pro-ATC/X than in the GTN is more or less usual for all of us. In most cases, this will have no impact to your flight, as waypoints and procedures will often remain identical.

Yes, but technically it is only at the Clearance that Pro-ATC/X transfers its own flight plan, including SID and/or vectors until the first waypoint, into the sim flight plan. I can show visually how the flight plan changes on the map of your default navigation system once (precisely after) you're cleared. For example: if you have a sim flight plan loaded, the map will show that flight plan when you switch on avionics. But after you are cleared, you will be shown the flight plan from Pro-ATC/X with SIDs and vectors. In other words, the flight plan from Pro-ATC/X overrides the sim flight plan at the Clearance. Obviously you can load SIDs and STARS yourself at any time, if you are more comfortable doing so.

Creating a flight plan in Pro-ATC/X is a one-minute issue. No matter where and how I get the flight plan from (Skyvector, PFPX, SimLauncherX, flightaware, flightradar24, whatever), all I have to do is manually copying it into the Edit flight plan field, adjust as required (which occasionally may include adding "DCT" between two waypoints not connected by an airway) and go. That's all. I never add SIDs and STARs to the flight plan and let the ATC decide based on weather, as I find this more realistic and challenging. The flight plan is saved and I can retrieve it as many times as I want. I often fly the same flight plan and I receive different departure runways and different STARs and approaches as expected. Also, as I have been repeating for some days, Pro-ATC/X now automatically exports the flight plan, including SIDs, STARs and vectors, into the simulator flight plan or into the liner's FMC at the Clearance. This is a major step forward, in my view. All in all, Pro-ATC/X is not perfect, but I am mostly satisfied and can recommend the product.

As a previous owner of v1.7.2.0, honestly I was not very satisfied with the product nor was I very confident about the latest release. However, I must admit that with the new release they brought Pro-ATC/X to another level. If someone asks me today whether I would recommend it or not, my answer would be definitely Yes, though I understand that it is a hard investment. Also, it is unfortunate that thge do not offer a demo, as this would surely help many of those who are still sitting on the fence. It is not perfect and I guess no ATC addon will ever be, but it definitely turns the flight simulator experience into something much closer to the real thing. The only thing I am really missing is some non-English chatter, especially when I fly in Southern Europe and South America. However, I am afraid there is no easy solution for that, as there is no LiveATC.net coverage in most EU countries due to national restrictions.

They did. Same flight plan, different version. Anyway, some small airports did work with 1.7.2.0 as well, other didn't. With the new version all small airports I tested so far work with Pro-ATC/X 1.8.5.0.

Not always, Bob. I am now (1.8.5.0) able to make flights from and to small uncontrolled airports that I was unable to fly with 1.7.2.0 (an error message in German appeared). Granted.