Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

989 profile views
  1. Ok, got it. So, indeed PMDG would have to update its radios. I really thought this had already been done :O. My mistake. Well, let's see if this is something PMDG can bring to be laid under the Christmas tree :).
  2. Thank you Simon. This is already helpful. The frequencies ending with "5" indeed can be tuned by just cutting off the "5" when tuning with the VHF radio in the plane. However, and that is strange, the two other frequencies I mentioned above ending with .710 and .730 respectively can't be tuned at all although based on what you wrote above it should just take the two digits after the decimal point "71" and "73" without any issue? But it just doesn't. And in theory, because the -8 ACP has pushbuttons rather than the old style dial knobs I can enter any frequency I want in the ACP VHF radio, however, it will return "ERR" when trying to tune to .710 or .730. Cheers, Jan
  3. Good morning, there are more and more frequencies with 8.33 kHz spacing being used in RL and on IVAO. However, I don't seem to be able to use them with the -8 (or -400). As an example neither DEL nor GND in EDDM can be tuned (121.710 and 121.730). Also, every frequency ending with a "5" digit needs to be tuned with a "0" instead of the "5". Is there any solution to this or does this need to be included in a fix? IVAO basically says the add-on needs to support it, but there might be some interdependencies between IvAP and the aircraft as well... Hope you can help. Thanks, Jan P3D v4.4 | Win 10
  4. Disregard, saw the other thread too late that you guys are still working on it and we should use CLDDRK or DEFAULT for the moment and create our own panel state. Can you please confirm that the issue should not appear when using the new (updated) LONG panel state? I am using the "744 LONG" state as the default when loading the plane. And I still get the master caution issue. That said, the LONG state and the SHORT state seem to be the panel states that have been updated on Oct. 26. So in theory I shouldn't see the issue if the new panel states are correct? Yet I am. What can I have possibly done wrong? Thanks, Jan
  5. Phew, if you read my initial comment you would see that my initial point is a completely different one. I said that IF T2G's support and maintenance of existing sceneries (that are now upgraded to v4) would be on par with "premium" developers like 29Palms, Flightbeam et al., then I'd be willing to pay an extra fee for the upgrade (which Flightbeam and 29Palms are not charging). This whole thread is testament that T2G doesn't seem to be considering customer support important by a long shot. That's the problem I have. Complete ignorance of user issues and support requests, but on the other hand very quick at charging an extra fee for upgrades. I don't know what is not to be understood about that.
  6. The latest OC update solved it indeed. Thanks for the quick resolution.
  7. IMHO I wouldn't touch the liveries or the OC until a fix has been published :). Not worth messing with your installation for there is obviously a bug introduced in the latest OC. It will be fixed, I'm sure. We only need a bit of patience. If you leave the OC alone for the moment and don't install any new liveries everything is working perfectly normal in the sim. No reason to panic :).
  8. No Migration tool used whatsoever. And to add to the installation / uninstall procedure question asked earlier: I did a clean uninstall / new install with all new installers yesterday for the 737/800/900 + 600/700, 777/200 +300 and 747 v3 (uninstalled expansion packs first, re-installed last). No issue whatsoever with the liveries after that until the OC update this morning. It clearly has something to do with the OC code, not the actual installers of the airplanes IMHO. Jan
  9. Same here after the latest OC update this morning. Error message: "Livery not found in aircraft.cfg after it should have been added" Jan
  10. 1. I already said twice that I won't purchase the 5€ upgrade if it is not providing more than mere v4 compatibility. That's my choice as you said. I don't have any other. 2. by mentioning Majestic in the context of discussing the rationale for upgrade prices for T2G sceneries you did compare it with sceneries 3. FS2Crew is also relying on dlls, so is FSUIPC and I don't mind paying for these, because it means re-programming at least some code and recompilation 4. No, I don't know how much effort it is for T2G specifically to make their sceneries work in P3D, but I take them up on their own statements which says they added Dynamic Lighting: Taxi2gate: "I already say up here, we change the apron lights to dinamyc, also we add the option to not to use the dinamyc lights and use the lighting used before, we make corrections on settings for p3d v4." Again, I think we violently agree that it is up to the customer if he wants to support this strategy by purchasing the upgrade or not. It wouldn't prevent me voicing my opinion about it though.
  11. You are comparing apples with oranges. Making an aircraft 64 bit compatible requires re-programming or at least re-compiling all your dlls. In the case of Majestic which relies heavily on an external flight model this is quite some work. And BTW PMDG and Flightsimlabs and A2A are not charging for their v4 upgrades. This is not the case for an airport. So it's much less effort. Again, if T2G would have taken the opportunity (or will take it with their other sceneries that will be updated) to fix all other outstanding issues with these sceneries, then I'm even willing to pay 5€ for the update. But not for a mere inclusion of Dynamic Lighting. Which BTW is almost a necessity, because if it's not you indeed have to live with fps drops if the scenery doesn't support it.
  12. I don't mind either if it were for a scenery that is top notch and stands out among others (who don't charge 5€). T2G sceneries are far from that. VHHH is in a state that doesn't resemble the current airport by a long shot. It took T2G a considerable time and numerous patches to get EDDM working correctly. Their support forum on iflysim is down. Their "new" forum is not usable because they don't activate your account so you can actually post anything. They don't answer to emails. If I pay north of 30€ for a scenery it should be top notch - T2G sceneries are good sceneries, but not on par with the likes of Flightbeam or Flytampa or 29Palms. If these sceneries then don't receive meaningful support during their lifetime, let alone updates to their current state in the real world, and I then get charged yet another 5€ for mere v4 compatibility, I do mind paying 5€. It is simply not competitive.
  13. Yep, with that they are (as far as I can tell) the only ones besides JustSim who charge an upgrade price for v4 compatibility. It seems the scenery developers with the worst reputation and support are the ones charging for upgrades, while the premium developers like Flightbeam or 29Palms don't. Interesting pattern. I'll see what will happen to VHHH and EDDM and their v4 upgrade. If it's a mere adding of dynamic lighting (as with LFPG which I don't own) and they don't fix all the rest of the issues / update to the current status of the airport(s) then at least for me there is no more T2G scenery that I will ever buy. Their underwhelming support / lack thereof and their pricing strategy is not to be supported. My 2 cents.
  14. Thanks Carlo. Seems I need to subscribe to their FB page :D.
  15. Have you guys had any luck with the T2G support? In their new forum the account needs to be approved before you can post anything - which they hadn't done in two weeks, they don't respond to emails and the iflysim forum seems to be down. Can we assume Taxi2Gate is closed for good?
  • Create New...