c912039

I'm moving to Kiribati for the launch day 🙂

It’s a module for your Notepad++ app that you are using to edit the config file.

It will be released about 24 hrs after SU13 update FINALLY completes all its decompressing 🙂 (some time next year)

Another Captain Sim "ASO" (Aircraft Shaped Object) 😞

Hi Mike, New update of REX went and deleted my entire Community folder (I had selected the custom Community folder option when installing). I entered by REX Axis details for registration, and the app seemed to accept this and I was able to go through settings. I opted to download one of the extra sets during this session, but then though better of it and clicked the option to remove the extra set. Given the app probably didnt think the authentication was correct (but failed to advise me on this first run) its likely the delete/removal action for the extra scenery set actually deleted the entire community folder.I'm guessing its a bug as the app was probably in an inconsistent state.

I came across this problem quite a while ago. When I posted a question about this, I was told that I had to raise my trust level, and that is based on how many posts you make in the forum. So I set about asking new questions, posting responses to existing threads to boost my trust level up enough so I could vote without restriction.

I use a 3DConnexion SpaceMouse (Wireless or Compact version) which provides so many useful axis that are just perfect for controlling camera views. The only downside is that they arent cheap.

Thats really bad jibe to make! I was an early adopter of Xplane, and back in the day with either XP5 or XP6, there were some major bugs, that went untouched for at least 6 or 9 months, and Austin was missing in action. Why? Because he had just obtained data for the surface of Mars and thought it was way cooler to build a Mars surface to fly around in XPlane instead of fixing some really annoying bugs. It was at this point that I decided to ditch Xplane, because it was evident that bug fixes/improvements etc were the sole discretion of one guy and what peaked his interest at that time. It wasnt until many years later when more people eventually got involved with assisting Austin, that I gained interest again.

I often use this resource for my flightplans: https://edi-gla.co.uk/

YMML is now available for purchase 🙂

I would like to see Asobo use AI to monitor all real world controlled airports, the metar weather and the traffic patterns of real aircraft (from the source they use to inject 'real traffic' into the sim) and start to build up some 'smart' rules for each controlled airport as to which runway is used based on weather conditions, and for airports such as EGLL, learn when they switch landing/takeoff runways at certain hours . Using those learnt rules (which can be enhanced and added to as more observations are made without requiring new sim updates) , have MSFS sim query the back-end servers to know which direction the in-sim ATC and AI should be directing traffic and which duty runways should be used.

Apparently Elgato (who make StreamDeck equipment) will be releasing a new update for the software based StreamDeck iPhone/iPad software at the end of this month. This means that you would be able to set up a 64 button software based Streamdeck on your ipad, instead of having to buy the hardware based Streamdeck units. And with the June release they will also be selling a lifetime license for this software, as a different option to the existing monthly subscription pricing. Given that there are many prebuild Streamdeck profiles on flightsim.to, the iPhone/iPad software version of Streamdeck hardware might be something to look at. NOTE: The streamdeck aircraft profiles on flightsim.to will require some sort of additional plugin (like AxisAndOohs) but at least with this combination, someone will have done the hard yards detecting all the lVars and designing the button interface for SD for you.

I have 2 StreamDeck XLs and a SD mini, and I'm seriously considering adding more (XL and maybe a SD+)! Up until recently, I was using a bank of GoFlight pushbutton (GF-P8's), GoFlight toggle (GF-T8's) and GoFlight button/rotary (GF-RP48's) hardware devices to interface to my sims. Whilst the GF modules have been useful up until now, the fact that I would have to manually change the magnetic labels on the front of each GF module, when changing aircraft, was a pain. The great thing about the SD devices is that the button function AND the label change when you load in a new config.

"If you could have any rudder pedals..."i would buy the Brunner CLS-E MK II RUDDER with Toe Brakes. I currently use the VirtualFly Ruddo pedals.

I'm using the GF MCP-PRO & EFIS with GIT with the FBW A320. Obviously, there are differences between the Boeing and Airbus FCU, and you will have to remember which buttons actions on the MCP-PRO you allocate to the different functions with the Airbus FCU. Secondly, it will need some serious custom programming to try to map Boeing to Airbus functionality to get it to work. It CAN be done, just don't expect it to be easy. Out of the 2 devices, the EFIS is easier to program/configure , so you might want to make a start with that module to gain experience in customizing GIT.

I used to program a lot of if/next/else nextskip routines in GIT until Steve added the commands switch/case/case/endswitch which makes programming so much easier and simpler, and is perfect for 'TOGGLE' actions. So, to rewrite your function using switch/case it would look like: switch SALTY_FPV_ON case 0 SALTY_FPV_ON = 1 case 1 SALTY_FPV_ON = 0 endswitch You can add multiple lines of code after each case test, as many as you need for that condition, and you dont have to use goto and labels which makes it much easier to read. The switch statement examines the contents of the LVAR. Each case statement checks for a match of the LVAR against the value for each case, and only executes the commands under that case UNTIL the next case check command or endswitch is found. Regards David

Automation Is there any chance you could add a flag when called by command line, something like "-autoquit" perhaps, so that when called via scheduler, for example, Accuseason will load, download the data, and then automatically quit? Currently, when called via scheduler, it automatically downloads latest data, but then remains open, so I have to click OK and then exit.

The Buttkicker cable only has 2 wires. The minimum XLR plug and inline socket combo has support for 3 pins. So I just used the 2 outside pins in the 3 pin XLR. The other thing about the XLR plug is that the pins are shrouded by a cover so you will never have problems of a pin breaking off in future.

I replaced the plug and socket on my cables with XLR inline plug/sockets. These are heavy duty 3 pin plugs/sockets usually used for audio purposes. Most XLR inline plugs/sockets have a hard metal shell. To reduce the weight of the plug/socket combo, I chose plastic shell XLR components. You will need to cut and strip both ends of your existing cables, and solder the 4 wires onto the pins of the XLR's. The pins in XLR are protected, and the plugs and sockets are robust.

Hi Bruce, I'm on NBN HFC (Hybrid Fibre Copper - the old payTv/Foxtel cable network) and I upgraded from 100 down to 1000(or whatever HFC can provide depending on area network load). Ive managed to get a max of 150 Mb download speed when installing MSFS (Ive had to do that far too many times 😞 ) but apart from faster install times, I havent really noticed any improvements with PG over 100. Lorby Si has created an exerimental utility that monitors MSFS network speed and usage lorbymsfsnetworkmonitor.zip You could download and run that whilst you are on your current plan to see if and how often MSFS comes close to your existing max speed. Regards David

(APOLOGIES if anyone is 'triggered' by any negative comments Ive expressed below for your favorite ATC program) ProATC/X SR in my opinion, probably has the better 'ATC' functionality, compared to the rest of the options for MSFS. I agree that support for PATC has been lackluster at best, terrible at worst, but, I'm not experiencing any major showstoppers yet whilst using ProATC/X. For the record, I own ProATC/X SR, P2ATC, FSHUD and Ive tried RC4 (in P3D) and looked at PF3. I use ProATC/X on a daily basis as my preferred ATC add-on. First and foremost in an ATC package, I look for 'full' ATC interaction: If the product doesnt know of, load and manage departures and arrivals with SID/STARs, then its a no-go for me. I should NOT have to manually add SIDs and STARs for a given airport - it should be read from NAV sources. I should NOT have to tell ATC 'how to do their job'. If I have to manually add which departure runway, which SID, which STAR and arrival runway I will end up using, then I might as well save my money and guide myself. ATC should decide, based on weather factors 'at the correct point in time' which runway, SID & STAR I should use, and tell me so. It should NOT lock in STAR and arrival runway at the time I file my plan, because, especially on long haul, the weather might/will change by the time I get close to my destination. ATC SHOULD be able to advise when to start a descent, based on its planned STAR and runway, and based on the aircraft type and decent profile. It SHOULD be aware of constraints and anticipate when I need to safely start a descent, matching constraints and not force me into a steep descent because of poor planning. Likewise ATC program should be aware of constraints on departure and manage my climb appropriately. At the very least, the ATC program should offer quick/easy text based interaction as a base line, and voice recognition is an added bonus. Not everyone can use voice recognition, and the text based interface should not an afterthought with little thought as to how quick/easy this interaction should be. ATC add-ons really should concentrate on making the ATC control and interactivity THE PRIME focus of the program, and once this is rock solid, THEN add in 'fluff' pieces such as AI interaction, Autopilot control (WHY??? this is an ATC program, not another flight control panel), Radio panel control (again, WHY?????), Flight Plan Builder (Simbrief and other free programs are designed/built for this, having in an ATC program just duplicates effort). ProATC/X Pros/Cons PROs (things that ProATC/X does best/better than the rest) Saved profiles for given flights (very useful for VA flights), recording A/C type, Flight number, Gate options, Callsign A/C profiles where cruise,climb,descent profiles are stored and used by ProATC/X Proper managed runway allocations, SID,STAR and most of the time constraints based on weather conditions at the appropriate points in time Text menu operation is by far THE BEST out of all programs, as its aware of the current 'phase' and limits menu options to those that may be required at that point in time Voices are 'OK', if you load in extra pre-recorded voice packs. They can sound better that T2S voices, but lack of vendor support has limited additional packs being made by others Detection of proximity to runway hold points was spot on, leading to correct time to advise to switch to tower freq Handling of correct gate (either set in the saved flight profile, or set to random based on airline, or totally random) for each airport is very good, with user able to edit/override these lookups Taxi routing actually quite good (MSFS scenery BGL coding can make this very difficult for any ATC program to get right. CONs Vendor support and interaction is NON EXISTENT and at times, response by support team in the forum is off-putting Voice packs are no longer being created by users, probably because of lack of support and visibility by the vendor Constraint and descent profiles are miscalculated, and 'below' constraints are treated as 'not below' constraints Step climbs trigger early descent (although there was a form entry detailing the cause and how to eliminate this, I'm yet to try that out) Lack of ability to add in better taxiing rules for each airport (such as preferred runways base don time, parallel taxiway directions etc) Stored flight plans/configs are great but an adhoc option without having to store the plans/config would be useful too My thoughts on other ATC programs: RC4/PF3 - no support for SIDs/STARs from NAV data means they are a no-go for me. FSHUD - Its been a while since I used this last, but at the time I was forced to add SID/STAR and runway details when planning my flight - I should not have to do ATC's work for them. I felt there was more attention to dealing with AI interaction at the expense of getting ATC processes spot on. I had issues with descent profile (maybe because there wasnt a table where the a/c perf could be looked up/edited to make the climb/descent rates valid. Text based interaction was OK, perhaps not as quick and tailored as PATC/X but certainly light years ahead of P2ATC. I cant recall it auto-handling the correct gates at the destination (based on airline). Crossing runway handling was good, but Im not sure about having to constantly switch between ground and tower for that. Detection to proximity to runway hold points for advice to change frequency was no where near as accurate as ProATC/X. It seems to me that FSHUD author spent a long time on the flight plan interface and therefore did not want to hear any suggestions as to dropping part of the FP requirements forcing me to have to enter STAR and runway when building the FP. P2ATC - Oh dear 😞 (from a text interface user point of view). I acknowledge that the author does put in a lot of time in enhancements and interacting with users, however there are a few fundamental issues that seem to have been overlooked at the expense of time spent on panels that dont seem relevant to 'ATC control' such as Comms panel control, Autopilot control etc, The Voice recognition functionality might be the best of the crop (I cant say, as I dont use this feature in any of the products), but the alternative text-based interaction is by far THE WORST of all the products and it seems to me like an afterthought or a 'quick hack' to try to simulate the voice interaction, which seems to me what the core product is built on. The text interface does not seem to switch context between different modes during the flight. For example, if I have clearance deliv freq set, the menu option should ONLY show appropriate selections. Once I have scrolled up and down the dropdown list for my request on this channel, I then have to click on that selection, and then I have to click on the SayIt button to actually get it to do anything. That's WAY too much mouse/keyboard operations that in ProATC/X is done by one click or one keyboard action. There is no pre-saved flights, where I can store airline, aircraft, callsign, gate options etc. This has to be changed in Config every time. Adding Random Voices seems to have a bug where after saving a new voice, it doesnt appear without shutting down and restarting the app. And whilst Random voice for ATC is great there should be an option to turn on a lock so that whatever voice is used as Co-Pilot, is NEVER used for any of the ATC positions (this can be done manually if you are careful, but ProATC/X does this for you automatically if you tell it to) For the record, Ive used flight sims since 1982, owned almost all types of flight sim platforms, involved in setting up SATCO (and later VATSIM), and have a PPL. I have used ATC programs for many years, and Ive worked out what works and doesnt work well from a sim pilot's point of view. I am prepared to spend lots of time with any of the ATC authors to facilitate better interaction and functionality within their ATC programs. This will NEVER happen with ProATC/X as the author seems AWOL (which is a great pity as its probably closest to true ATC control). P2ATC would be my next choice to work with, but I'm worried that as the product seems to have been built around voice interaction and so entrenched' as the core interaction that text menu interaction is just a 'hack' to input what the voice recog functions expect, and that really doesnt work for text based interface. Id love to help/assist with designing a better text interaction, but I doubt that will happen. Until FSHUD drops the requirement to have to add/supply STAR and destination runway details into the FP, I'm not sure any other suggestions for improvement would be useful.

+1 - disappointed 😞

I've got a total of 5 monitors connected directly to my MSFS PC. Having said that, only 2 (4K 50" and a small integrated screen as part of my RealSimGear GNS530) have any MSFS windows on them (the more windows you break out of MSFS main window, the slower performance gets 😞 . I have one 1080p touchscreen (which I used to use with P3D for breakout MCDU/FMC) but touchscreens and MSFS dont seem to work nicely (compared to P3D), so this screen is unused until Asobo fix multiscreen interactivity. The other screens are used for AirManager instruments and a separate screen for system monitoring tools/volanta/LNM etc One problem with using many monitors is that I had to add a second GPU into my system to have enough HDMI/DP ports to connect up all the monitors. The downside of that (due to the limited number of PCI channels available) is that instead of 1 GPU running at 16x, having 2 GPUs means each only run at 8x.

I think it might be a vPilot issue. vPilot would be detecting any vertical movement of the sim aircraft (raising the nose by the tug would be seen the same as if you were to feed in up elevator whilst you are flying) and would be transmitting the change in pitch to the vatsim servers. Now to try to make taxiing and flying movements smoother, vpilot receives data from the vatsim servers, and continues the aircraft on that trajectory, until it receives the next sim position packet from the server. So if an aircraft next to you is being lifted by the tug, its vPilot agent would detect the change in pitch, and send that to the servers. Your vPilot client would receive an update that the aircraft next to you has increased its pitch, and your vPilot client will show that aircraft constantly increasing its pitch angle until it receives the next update. Given that the changes in pitch are so small during tug raise/lower, that vPilot is misinterpreting these changes from other aircraft and exaggerating them.

mSparks gave an excellent answer, in a manner that negated any flare-up or 'ammunition' against XPlane. It was a mature response, well handled, without the need to inflame the topic, or rile up the Avsim user posing the question.