roesti

Thanks, that's exactly how I feel sometimes. I like SI and will continue using it when I fly with ATC, but yes - there are times, where it feels like you report bugs, even those who were resolved before and now made it's way back. And it's a bit frustrating, because it feels like to pay for being a tester. Yes, no software will be always be perfect and most of the time, it works. But often bugs were excused with "it's realistic, the reality isn't always perfect" which is a bit odd. One example is runway operations (SI sometimes uses questionable runway operations with live weather, differing from RL operations) - yes, you can lock runways to your SimBrief plan, but this eliminates flexibility when the weather changes during the flight. So with the flexibility of AI, I think "Hey, it's okay - software has bugs, but I just can request another approach" and explain why - which get's denied. This doesn't make sense, it only would if the software had no bugs. And even if you can "convince" the controller to change your approach and ATC acknowledges it, it forgets about it 5 minutes later and clears you for the old / "wrong" approach. To be fair, they now introduced an option, that they will accept your requests, but they explained "it's unrealistic" - it would be, if the software wouldn't make mistakes in advance, so this can be frustrating sometimes.

To be honest, I think this is a very concerning and weird reaction from SI if it happened like you described it. So if I voice an opinion, I now have to fear somebody else forwards it to the CEO of SI (which is one thing), and this CEO actually reacts to something like that and can close my entire account? I‘m a long term customer of SI and like it in general - but it‘s far from perfect and there are several areas where it could be improved. It‘s fair that you got your money back, but still this behaviour is not very professional. I doubt it‘s a good decision to go after unsatisfied customers, because they will always exist. I think it‘s better to focus on the product instead of wasting time and energy on something like this. And it also concerns me, that (if this is true) SI just ignores privacy and make connections between user accounts here and their database. That‘s a shame, as I think SI has potential, this is unneccessary. Flight simulation is such a cool hobby with many smart people, so much to learn - Too bad theres also this part of unneccessary drama. And it's not only users, also developers sometimes.

.0919 is the old beta 2 build, nothing new.

Isn‘t the WX pulled by these planes coming from SimBrief / OFP weather forecast? Maybe it helps to adjust the times / WX source in the SimBrief flightplan.

If you move backwards and don't zoom (so don't scroll - just go to Spot View for example and press Alt+Down Arrow (should be the default bind and can be changed)), nothing stretches. If something stretches, zoom in a bit (decrease FoV). That's a feature //42 even advertised when ChasePlane released first for 2020. The "Zoom"-Function does exactly what you said. It changes FoV and that's why you get the stretched objects / fisheye effect. You can of course combine both the default zoom (FoV change) with translating back, but you don't have to. But translating back ("zooming" without FoV change) can come with it's own downsides and that's probably the reason it isn't implemented by default. You recognize it when you go out to far and it's a probably specific to MSFS, the terrain / LOD starts to decrease. So ground / distant objects can become blurry if you move "too far away from your plane", a problem which doesn't exist in X-Plane. When using the zoom function, you don't move away, but it just increases the FoV like a wide angle camera. But there's really no other way to show more / less information on the same screen space. Either increase / decrase FoV (default zoom) or move away / closer to the object. EDIT: Example pictures, both 3440x1440 like you, same situation, both in Spot View. First picture = zooming out with the scroll wheel, second picture is moving the camera backwards. Goal was to have the 747 in sight on the left, the stretching is obvious and exaggerated in the first picture, while "going away" from the plane keeps the field of view more natural (2nd pic). https://ibb.co/v6r0Gx4p https://ibb.co/ns1ZsZz6

FoV in MSFS changes when you zoom (use the scrollwheel). If you want to move out / zoom without changing FoV, translate backwards. Aren‘t you using ChasePlane? When you are in the outside view, instead of zooming, try to press Alt+Up/Down arrow. This doesn’t work with MSFS default, only ChasePlane. I don‘t know any way to directly alter the numerical values for changing FoV, only zooming exists. But there is a table which shows you the degree of FoV per zoom level percent.

@Anthony25368 I recently switched to 2024 after using 2020 and got some occasional stutters from time to time when flying along which did not occur in the older sim. I remembered that 2024 is streaming all of it's content and although my connection is quite good, I thought it may be the culprit. So I went ahead and downloaded all "streamable" content which was approx. 300GB worth of data. Disk space is no issue for me and it was the same with 2020. After I did that, the sims smoothness is now quite similar to 2020. When researching about this topic online, I found that this solution worked for several people but not for all. So I can't say it's a definite fix for your problem, but if your internet isn't too slow to download the content and you have the disk space, it's worth a try.

Same. And if I then see that the negative review is based on "the user didn't read the manual or his negative review is based on a user error" (many 1-star reviews on big vendors are like that btw.), then I know I can ignore it. That's not true, ChasePlane is far from perfect and it has bugs. Perfection is almost impossible. Some issues an be fixed by //42, some are limitations due to the lack of API access we already discussed. But that doesn't make the product "bloatware". It's not all black or white. Maybe it's your language you use, but that's my impression. Experienced user or not, you certainly got things wrong. And when corrected, you jumped to the next item you don't like. And this gives the impression you need to talk it down instead of just saying "Okay, I got this wrong - I think it still isn't for me, but my point was obviously invalid". But I think we won't reach this point of a normal discussion, so I head out again. Cheers, happy landings and merry X-Mas everybody 🎄

The thread is evidence enough that you are not an experienced user of ChasePlane and you made wrong claims based on assumptions like "I need to redo all my keybinds again" which are not correct. You did not read the manual or didn't ask for help on their Discord / here on AVSIM to get your problems solved but instead pointed out flaws that only exist on your side. I tried to show you the import function, but after this problem was solved, you jumped back to your original point of missing tower or fly-by views in the default system. So here we are again: "The default system is perfect and ChasePlane not neccessary, but..." which is still a great contradiction. Absolutely not true and another misinformation. Recent experience: I got ChasePlane 2024 for free as an existing customer, did not pay a penny for it. I started MSFS2024 (which I rarely used over the last year because it wasn't ready for my use case), installed ChasePlane. And every single view and keybind was there without any work. The only plane where I had to press the "Import" Button was the A350, as iniBuilds renamed the plane into "A350 (no cabin)" and "A350 (default cabin)" which wasn't the case for 2020. But it was one button click to tell ChasePlane "Hey, this A350 is the correct one, please import" and everything was back. Setup time was maybe a minute. Altogether for all my planes. How long did it take to setup everything by default you said? But anyway, I have one question: Is it possible for you to just not use the software you don't like, don't use polemics (call it "bloatware")? Or is there a particular reason you need to be vocal about a thing you don't like and don't use? I hope it's not the case for everything you don't like on this planet, because then your day must be very long.

I use them, converted them to force feedback and am happy with it. They are amongst the pedals with the biggest throw on the market, which may an advantage for some and a disadvantage for others (bit it's adjustable). But quality wise, I'd say MFG crosswinds are still ahead (they have similar / same pricing). Not saying the WinWings are bad, they are solid. I love mine - but be aware there's maintenance to be done, some screws may come loose etc. and the original damper (which I do not use anymore) had a damaged bearing.

This was dedicated to the generalization "it is not needed" from one person here in this thread instead of saying "I don't need it" and the rest was a simple misunderstanding. I was an early access customer of CP for 2020 and used it with past sims, like I said. I don't know how long this option is in there, but I'm quite sure it's been quite some time. And yes, the "10 configured views" are your set views. The default views should be the preset-views by some developers that come with the aircraft. That's my confusion: These issues you describe with unassigning / reassigning stuff is something I never encountered. It's a one-time setup and they made it as easy is as possible from my point of view. The reasons you say why you don't use this software (which you still don't have to) are for me like saying "I don't play MSFS, because I don't like the installation process".

Yes, I bound it to the pinky button of my flight stick 🙂 But like you said, it's not the default drone but CPs own version.

Which proves my point, that ChasePlane is either "ALL on" or "ALL off". They can't use the default drone, they had to create their own. Because the camera system is completely separate from default. But what you quoted, in case you misunderstood: The existance of 3rd party software like ChasePlane doesn't take anything away from anybody. Don't need it? Don't buy or use it. But don't say "it shouldn't exist, because I don't need it" - other people appreciate having it. It's like saying I don't need whatever brand of your car you drive, so nobody else needs it and it shouldn't exist. (It just doesn't make sense to be against it) But one question: What do you miss from the default drone what ChasePlane in your opinion can't replicate? Huh? Older sims offered more possibilties regarding the camera even without ChasePlane. One thing ChasePlane can't even recreate nowadays but older sims could: Attach to AI / multiplayer traffic.

Nope. I try to explain it better, in case of it's not clear what an API is. It's an interface for 3rd party developers to interact with the sim. In this example, the camera. If such an API exists, I just can "piggybick" on it and can access all ingame cameras like you as a user and can manipulate it. But this API does not exist in MSFS. So //42 used tricks to manipulate the camera in MSFS without relying on Asobo, Microsoft or a software interface to MSFS. Yes, ChasePlane can disable itself. But like you said, its "ALL off" or "ALL on". You can't just disable it "partly", that's now how these things work. It will only work if Asobo implements this interface for developers, and if they do: Chances are high many other tools pop up, creating exactly the things you want (maybe even as freeware on .to) or like you said, //42 improves ChasePlane to work in conjunction with the default. But that's not how it is right now. This import box? It exists for quite some time🙂

Obviously, people need features that ChasePlane brings, even users who don't want to use ChasePlane, as shown on this thread. So a bit contradicting. Asobo should be "enough" to develop everything neccessary, yet they just did not. But the frustration is now dedicated towards ChasePlane or it's developers instead of Asobo. This doesn't make much sense, sorry. 3rd party software like ChasePlane don't take anything away, they just add stuff (for people who buy on a voluntary basis) so I certainly don't get the attitude "I don't need it, so nobody else should".

Okay, I understand your wish for something like ChasePlane Light with a few simple views. I try to explain, why this is (in my opinion, because I don't work at //42) not as easy as you might think. What I told you above the camera API is the core issue here. Asobo doesn't expose this Interface to 3rd party developers, while every other simulator (even the older iterations like P3D, FSX and older) is doing it. This is a basic feature, but I remember threads years ago, before ChasePlane even released or it wasn't clear to if it's possible to create for MSFS, there were many people shouting): "We don't need ChasePlane, please less 3rd party software, it should be all part of the core sim!". In my opinion, this is a very unrealistic view. Without any blame, one company alone, let it be Asobo, Microsoft or whoever can't develop every single aspect of a simulator. It's like that you can't expect Asobo to make default planes as detailed like Fenix, JustSim or any developer you like. So it's important to open up the APIs. Some users insisted that's not neccessary, because "Asobo should just do it instead". And here we are, years later and obviously: Asobo didn't, and probably never will do. The request for opening up the API was highly upvoted, so there was apparently quite some demand from both users and developers. Asobo acknowledged this feature request, but never implemented it and at the same time never said, why they didn't open up the API. So chances are high there is a reason, like the weather API (Meteoblue / contract issues). //42 then found a way to do ChasePlane without an official API, and this is the crucial point here: To make this work, they have to recreate the camera system from scratch, essentially replacing the default system from MSFS. So I'm quite certain that the wish for a "simple fly-by" or other views is just not possible while maintaining the original camera system. It's either: //42 can do everything you want with cameras, but you have to use their system - or live with default (but don't expect improvements from Asobo anytime soon), because I doubt //42 can just "piggyback" on Asobos default system. If it were possible, I'm sure they had done it, but I doubt it's that easy. That's also the reason I explained, why no other developer popped up to create something similar. Even if you don't use ChasePlane, be happy it's there: It gives back long missing features to users who want it, and if not: Maybe some day Asobo will realize there is a demand to improve on the camera system. And the demand for these tools exist, otherwise ChasePlane wouldn't exist, let alone the upcoming 2024 version. Dedicate your whishes at Asobo to finally open up the camera API after 5+ years and your dreams may come true - or continue hoping //42 is developing a tool they probably can't.

Okay, interesting. I never did undo anything. It's clear that the keybinds need to be removed, because you don't want double bindings between the Sim and ChasePlane which is quite logical. But I never even did that, because ChasePlane offered to me to do it automatically (which it did without issues) and also created a backup of my original configuration. The views itself could be imported via the "+ Import" button (There's also an "Import from Community" button, which I'd guess contains enough views for several planes. I never removed any default views and would not even know how, and I never encountered any issues. That's how I understand "assignments" -> it's about the keybinds, but you don't have to do it yourself, because the software takes care of it in the initial setup you just have to follow. Yeah, and that's an important point. For you, 10 views or less are enough, for me or others, it's not. For me it's just confusing disregarding a software just because it doesn't work exactly like the default system when initially setting up views. And if I think about it, this process takes maybe 1% of the time, while 99% is just using the camera and flying (and using / switching views behaves exactly like original or better imho). I don't think anybody sets up their views on every start of the sim session. It's like a said a "Do it once and forget" thing and then just fly. Don't get me wrong, you don't have to use or like the software. But it's the same as if I go to the Fenix thread and say it's an "unneccessary and irrelevant" product, because I only fly Boeing. Why chime in on a thread of a software you don't use and bring out your frustration about lacking tower or fly-by views towards //42, when your target should be Asobo for not opening up the API (btw. a feature request which was highly upvoted on the Zendesk tracker years ago, yet ignored by Asobo) to make simple tools to allow for that (and therefore basically agreeing with me, the default system is just lacking and can't be easly improved due to lack of easy access for 3rd parties)?

That sounds actually a bit confusing to me. Using ChasePlane, I never had to "undo" any previous set default views, ChasePlane even offers to import your default MSFS views if you don't want to start from scratch. So I'm not sure if I understand your problem here. I get that ChasePlane does not offer enough "value" for you, that's okay. But I've never encountered these "undo / redo" problems you describe. You can also switch back to default / disable ChasePlane if you want within CP itself (and it should make backups of what you had before). But you also mentioned another advantage of ChasePlane: The amount of views available. You can only bind 10 with default, there's no limit with ChasePlane (only the amount of buttons available limited by your hardware). 9 is certainly not enough for me 😄

Absolutely, I also see some advantages of the new system. 2020 was not that much better, but easier. From the default control binding systems of all sims, X-Planes wins for me. I press a button, it shows me, which button I pressed and I can select an action for it and it has an easy search function. And I can control almost everything the sim exposes with an dataref, just via the default control menu. For MSFS, this is not possible without FSUIPC and Co. Maybe it's similar with ChasePlane - first time it's confusing but when you make yourself familiar with it, it clicks. I think //42 has a clear philosophy when it comes to user experience, this is also shows with Flow (the toolbar replacement) which I also prefer. But people are different. I think they would still be fine. The main problem isn't in my opinion that //42 isn't developing ChasePlane versions or light editions pleasing everybody, but more that Asobo isn't willing to open up several APIs like the camera API. These APIs were accessible in older sims and made tools like CP or EzDok possible. And people just prefer different things, I guess there are hundreds of topics with people arguing whether EzDok or ChasePlane is / was better. But without an API, developers have to be extremely creative to get things like custom cameras working, including "memory hacks". That's why it took so long for //42 to develop ChasePlane for 2020 and now 2024 (which changed things again). If Asobo just opened up the API, then more developers could develop these simple tools like a simple fly-by view or other things. But for now, it seems like a very hard task to manipulate the camera system, which is probably why //42 is currently the only developer doing it. If Asobo decides to reconsider, it would also benefit //42, because they could then do even more - and people who don't need chaseplane get their small tools and be happy with default. The same goes for the weather API. Also an API, which existed in the past, but Asobo did not open up (they gave reasons for it, but that doesn't help us simmers). In my opinion, it's a shame that we (or developers) have now less options than in the past. And that's why it's important to appreciate these tools (even if you don't plan to use it), because more options are better than less. A dedicated API would benefit way more users, even those who don't plan to use a tool like ChasePlane.

😄 I'm completely with you regarding the controls setup in 2024 - for me, it's super messy and not good - the complete opposite of a good user experience. So that's the reason why I use SPAD.next (there's also FSUIPC / Axis and Ohs etc. for people who prefer that) for my controls to be independant from the simulator. With a "growing collection" of peripherals, setting them all up for different planes / simulators is a big pain. Especially when a developer decides (like in the case of 2024) to completely revamp the system and "try something new" (but not neccessarily better). Using an external tool for this, I couldn't care less what Asobo decides to change with the controls, because an external tool (set up once) handles it for me. That is the exact same reason why I use ChasePlane: To have a more powerful tool that works exactly how I expect with no sudden changes of a paradigm which was fine. There's no reason to re-invent the wheel: But I'm with you that //42 should just find a way to implement the "quick view save" function of the default interfaces for users like you who just prefer it. But besides this simple thing, ChasePlane is a very powerful tool which can't be compared to the possibilities (or lack of) of the default system.

I'm with you that the approach of moving just the camera and pressing a button to save it is a way simpler approach. Especially for people who are new, it just works. But for me, it never really did. All what Asobo did is copy this "style of control" from X-Plane, which was good. But they stopped there and called it a day. I also like the X-Plane camera system, as it allows it many things, eventhough the workflow is completely different to FSX/EZdok/ChasePlane. But Asobo just never bothered to do more than the basics and this is from my point of view just not enough for a proper simulation, especially if you are not using VR or just have a fixed view like in a cockpit replica. While the default system seems simple (and the principle certainly is), the reality is, it's not: You can't move in small increments like Rimshot said, so you are constantly moving left/right or up/down until you got to your point. I can do the same in ChasePlane, but I also can open the dialog you mentioned and just enter simple values and are done. If I have a plane with camera collision and I want to set up a wing view, I have to close the sim, edit a .cfg to adjust the default viewpoint, then start the sim again, save my now accessible view, close the sim again, revert the .cfg and start the sim again. With chaseplane, I just move the camera. Next thing: Even if planes are almost identical, like the 737-700 and 737-800 - I have to set up the view for the other variant completely from scratch again. With ChasePlane, I just say "import profile", it then even automatically detects the most similar type, I press one button and are done. For all my views, they are just back (maybe some minor adjustments), with all my keybinds. It seems like the "simplicity" of the default system saves time, when in reality - it just doesn't, because Asobo doesn't (or at least didn't in the past) care about the camera system. I saved way more time setting up views using ChasePlane than using the default system over all this time it exists just by using the import feature (and maybe minimal adjustments afterwards). Tower Views, World Views, Fly-By, Cinematics etc. are just a bonus on top. To be fair: I already used Ezdok in the past and switched to ChasePlane when it first occured and was still under the "OldProp"-brand before //42-days. So I'm accustomed to it and know it by heart. For a new user, it may seem "weird" at first because it's different. That's cool, but sounds more complicated than just using ChasePlane - and you also have to open a dialog 😉 Yes! ChasePlane for 2020 already does it. You can zoom like default (changing FoV -> resulting in the "fish eye" effect you describe) but you can also just translate the external camera backwards, which moves you away from the plane without distorting the view. This was one of the main features announced before the initial version of ChasePlane even released. P.S.: Most important thing, because we talk about setting up views.. after the views are set, it behaves the same like the default system. I'm using my numpad for most of my views (+ switches on my flightstick), so after the set-up, there's no difference in the user experience, except offering more options.

ChasePlane completely replaces the default MSFS camera system (so you set up your views and everything else related to it within ChasePlane), and yes, it includes head movements / camera shakes which are adjustable. Chaseplane does a way better job here than FSRealistic, but the latter brings other stuff like additional sounds, which ChasePlane doesn't. I heard there is FSRealistic+ in the works, which is marketed to work together with ChasePlane to enhance it. I still use FSRealistic, but disabled every effect that interferes with the camera.

Interesting take, I'm the complete opposite. For me, ChasePlane is a bless after having to use the (in my opinion) very bad default camera system. You even give examples why the default camera is bad in your post. Default views like tower or Fly-By where default in the past like in P3D or FSX (or even older iterations), yet Asobo decided to remove it from MSFS and MSFS2024 and at the same time, don't offer a working camera API for developers which older sims did. So it's a complete regression to what we already had and ChasePlane finally brought back the camera experience which already worked very well in the past. You are happy about the default Ctrl+Numpad binding, which is the only "good" thing they copied from X-Plane default, but then stopped at this point. For me, setting up cameras should be an easy, "do it once" action, which ChasePlane absolutely delivers. Take a wing view for a example, how many planes require you to edit .cfg files, to overcome camera collision and other annoyances, just to set up a view? It's not fun at all, and if you don't backup your %AppData% folders, have fun to do it all again after re-installing the sim or switching computers. With ChasePlane, you don't have to worry about anything of this. It's just in the cloud. When I decide to switch over to MSFS2024 (most likely when the 24 version of CP drops, hopefully soon), my views from MSFS will be there and I don't have to start over again. I saved way more time by using CPs method to set up views (which can be tuned on a pixel perfect level) instead of using the default method. But at the same time, how often do you set up views? Once per "new" aircraft, and this works like it should with CP. And even if you decide to edit an already existing view, it's way easier with ChasePlane for sure. I get the point being accustomed to the default behaviour of setting up views, but I think it would be easier to talk to //42 devs asking to implement the "default keybind behaviour" as an option for ChasePlane instead of hoping for Asobo to fix the camera system or open up the API, which they never did in over 5+ years And from my experience, this works very well: I did request a feature in the past in fact, and it got implemented in the next beta version. For me, the user experience is incredible and I'm very happy it exists. Maybe if MSFS is the first simming experience, I can understand that one is okay with it. But personally, I don't like giving up a majority of features which existed in the past and make it super hard for 3rd party developers to improve it (which is probably the reason no "simple tool" exists, because it is not simple to overcome Asobos restrictions).

There is no official news. But there is a cryptic advent calendar on p42s website. The first symbol looked like Flow and this was indeed released yesterday. The 19th is clearly ChasePlane (the cinematic view button in the current version), but no clue if they will release the 2024 update or just an update for 2020 at this time. If ChasePlane 24 really releases, then I will finally get into FS2024. I‘m not expecting anything, but would be pleasantly surprised if it really comes.

I was using a simple joystick + throttle / HOTAS combo without rudder pedals for a long time (many, many years) and it served me well. It had a twist axis which I used for the rudder and it was okay, but fine control was almost impossible and don't even think about cross-control or something like that. Bigger planes also have yaw dampers, so it worked. Then, I don't know anymore the exact situation.. But there was a day I purchased another plane addon (simmers like to collect, don't we?) and was frustrated about bugs, paying for early access and so on. Many of us know that situation. I thought: Over this long time, I invested so much into my simulator, buying scenery and planes. It's a hobby I spend quite some time on and sometimes I even regret buying certain stuff. Why not cutting the virtual fleet down a bit and invest in hardware from that point? Why do I complain about a certain plane being unrealistic, but flying with unrealistic controls? So what I saved from not buying every new piece of software was now invested in hardware. And it was the biggest game changer, especially the pedals. Currently, I own the WinWing pedals and they are very sturdy. I even converted them to force feedback which was one of the biggest game changers (my whole setup is now FFB incl. stick) ever. Why? Because now, the flying experience is just so much more fun. I can fly VFR and forget the time, which I rarely did before. I even digged into helicopters which I never thought I will do - because it's possible now. Removing the "spring" is just one click and now I even feel the change in transitional lift in my feet, it's insane. Of course you don't need force feedback for this, there exist proper sticks and pedals where you can just remove the physical springs - and I recommend investing in something like this. TL;DR: For me investing in hardware changed everything. I enjoy basic and complex aircraft, I'm happy with what I have and having proper controls, stuff like visuals etc. become secondary (still nice to have). My advice: Get pedals, without it, you never really feel in control of the airplane. MFG Crosswinds are excellent, but so are Virpil or WinWing. For Non-FFB pedals, I recommend a adjustable damper if you can get one. It makes the controls feel "heavier", less "springy" and more realistic. These are my pedals (WinWing Orion pimped with a DIY VPForce motor kit):