DeepestRed

The thing I keep coming back to is the people upset because "How DARE they work on a new sim when there are still things wrong with the current one?!" There has never, in the history of flight simulation, ever, ever been a sim that was 100% feature complete and bug-free before the next iteration came out. Never. I'd go so far as to say it's likely that never in the history of software has the developer of a complex application obtained 100% bug-free feature completion before working on a new version. It's just not practical. Or even possible. And, as some of the folks posting development history here have already shown, 2020 to 2024, for the history of the flight sim franchise, will actually be a longer than usual iteration, in the grand scheme of things. To see people stomping their little feeties about that here is choice, it makes them look pretty irrational and foolish. Angry children throwing their toys out of the pram, to borrow a phrase from our British friends. ... so more of the usual for a good chunk of "serious" simmers, basically. 😆

Yes, it's well known that line training captains put a lot of emphasis on full motion simulators' ability to properly capture the subtleties of operating the cabin doors.

Sky Dolly also lets you export your recorded flights in a number of different formats. One of them is KML, which means you can view your entire flight history in Google Earth.

It does, but there are very few reasons a user would need to mess with it -- the game mostly manages itself based on the load order rules for the VFS. One notable exception is Navigraph, which needs to disable the stock navdata to avoid duplicate entries, so it modifies content.xml in the installer. (This is why if you just remove the Navigraph package from your community folder without using the installer you get no navdata).

And not a moment too soon.

https://bitwarden.com/ I don't actually know most of my passwords. They're 20-character line noise, unique to every website, which would be almost impenetrable to modern cracking tools, and I let my password manager handle them for me. These days it's something everyone should do, IMO.

Indeed, but I think the basic point is that the way it's over-used in flight sim marketing reduces it to an absurd, meaningless term that's more useful for elitist gate keeping ("I only bother with STUDY LEVEL planes!") than actually describing capabilities. If you can log actual training time with it, it's study level. If you can't it's not, and calling it such is silly.

The PMDG 737 doesn't even have an operable lavatory. LITERALLY unflyable! /s

For anyone who manages a lot of applications, the enhancements to window snapping, and snap groups in particular, are worth the upgrade to Win 11 all on their own. I've been running it for months, even on the beta ring, without trouble.

Fantastic! I somehow missed this up until now and it looks very much like my kind of thing. Looking forward to flying these routes, and to the new stuff. Thank you!

There's an existing thread on the first page that may have more info for you:

Happy to help! In case it helps in the future, I couldn't figure out where it was at first, either. I ended up firing up procmon, one of my favorite Windows utilities for things like this, attaching it to the NeoFly process, and configuring it to display the process's file system activity. Then I just looked for the files it read from when starting up and exiting and it was pretty easy to pin down. procmon can be a little bit awkward to use but is really powerful once you get the hang of it for all sorts of "just what is this program doing?!" questions.

The "hangar" table ties them together via "hangar.liveryId" and "hangar.ownerId".

That's for NF3. For NF4, unless it's changed in the latest update which I haven't installed yet, it's now "std.bin", and (at least on my system) it's in %LOCALAPPDATA%/Programs/NeoFly. v4 adds a "liveries" table which identifies every livery installed for a given plane, and all marketplace and hangar information is now keyed by livery ID. So you need to add the aircraft to the aircrafts table, then add liveries to the liveries table with the aircraft ID. You do need to match both the aircraft name and the livery name, IIRC. If I have some time later today I can try to put together an example for you if you get stuck.

There is. I just posted this in another thread about NeoFly, but it's still an SQLite database, it's just been renamed to "std.bin". Seems like he might be trying to obfuscate that for some reason. I've opened it in DB Browser and added my own starting planes in this version with no problem just as in the last one. Frankly, this is an aspect of the game that I like, and I hope Neolord doesn't move away from it. I've not been on their discord recently, but if what's being said here is correct and he's telling folks the DB can't be edited -- rather than, perhaps, it shouldn't be edited, which could be fair -- it seems a bit disingenuous. I haven't been party to those discussions though, so I gotta withhold judgement there.

NF3 had a sandbox mode that gave you all the licenses and a bunch of cash. It's not in NF4 yet but he's planning on adding it. If you want that experience you can try 3, or wait for it to come to four, orrrrr..... This. NF just uses a standard SQLite database as its backend, although it's slightly obfuscated in NF4 because it's just called "std.bin". But you can load that file in any SQLite-compatible client, like DB Browser, and change the "players" table to give yourself all the cash and licenses you want. This is how you give yourself $10,000,000 and every qualification. EDIT: Of course, it should go without saying but I'll say it anyway, that this is completely unsupported by the game, could easily break with future updates, and if anything goes wrong you definitely shouldn't bug the developer with your problems. You void the warranty by breaking the seal, basically. 😄

Putting aside the fact that there are changes listed for those planes in most updates, the point is that if development is in-house and they make a change that requires modifying one of those planes, doing so is entirely in their control. If they just bung in something from an uncontracted (or minimally contracted) third party who then disappears and a change needs to be made it can disproportionately increase the workload on them as they figure out what they need to do. It's a different situation from the kind of thing they have with, say, Working Title.

Language derail aside, as for a "new version"... there are a lot of games under long-term development that don't work that way any more. Things can go on for years, being constantly iterated on, improved, and evolved, without ever seeing a name change. It's just accepted that changes come and go as part of a general process. For one extreme example, look at Minecraft, which has changed massively since its first release 13 years ago, but at no point has there been "Minecraft 20XX". That's not to say there aren't counter-examples. They exist, and they're particularly notable in sports games. But even those often come with some degree of mockery: there's rarely much difference between FIFA 2X and FIFA 2X+1 other than a roster update. Or, to take a more extreme and commonly derided example, for years Dovetail's Train Simulator released a "new" version every year which wasn't really new -- it was the same game, with a few small changes, published with a different mix of tracks and running stock than the year before. Both are valid paths. If anything, the "perpetual" version feels a lot more modern to me, and maybe many people. I have no idea which way MSFS will go long term, but I think saying that we need a new version, in light of all the changes we see on a nearly monthly basis, is missing the forest for the trees.

"This part in our maker or Poet must be heedyly looked vnto, that it be naturall, pure, and the most vsuall of all his countrey: and for the same purpose rather that which is spoken in the kings Court, or in the good townes and Cities within the land, then in the marches and frontiers, or in port townes, where straungers haunt for traffike sake, or yet in Vniuersities where Schollers vse much peeuish affectation of words out of the primatiue languages, or finally, in any vplandish village or corner of a Realme, where is no resort but of poore rusticall or vnciuill people: neither shall he follow the speach of a craftes man or carter, or other of the inferiour sort, though he be inhabitant or bred in the best towne and Citie in this Realme, for such persons doe abuse good speaches by strange accents or illshapen soundes, and false ortographie. But he shall follow generally the better brought vp sort, such as the Greekes call men ciuill and graciously behauoured and bred. Our maker therefore at these dayes shall not follow Piers plowman nor Gower nor Lydgate nor yet Chaucer, for their language is now out of vfe with vs: neither shall he take the termes of Northern-men, such as they vse in dayly talke, whether they be noble men or gentlemen, or of their best clarkes all is a matter: nor in effect any speach vsed beyond the riuer of Trent, though no man can deny but that theirs is the purer English Saxon at this day, yet it is not so Courtly nor so currant as our Southerne English is, no more is the far Westerne mans speach: ye shall therfore take the vsuall speach of the Court, and that of London and the shires lying about London within lx. myles, and not much aboue." Is that hard to read? It's from The Arte of English Poesie, published by literary critic George Puttenham in 1589, and in short it's the same kind of fretting and stressing and nose-upturning ("no resort but of poor rustic and uncivil people... neither shall he follow the speech of a craftsman or carter or other of the inferior sort") that some are participating in here. And if it's hard to read now, it's because one of the few constants of language is that it changes. Puttenham would likely find the language we speak now to be crude and broken, and in turn his own fretting tongue would have seemed corrupt and degenerate to someone who lived not too long before him, and so on, ad infinitum. Unfortuantely, one of the other constants of language is that people will complain about this change, and this often comes with some heavy element of punching down at "lesser" classes or peoples as you see from Puttenham above. One needs to be careful when eulogizing the decline of the language to bear in mind two key things: 1) Just because different generations or cultures speak differently doesn't mean they speak incorrectly. 2) A failure to adapt to changing times, and changing language, often represents a flaw in the individual, not in the larger society. (I say this as one who still cringes every single time someone uses "it begs the question" to mean "it makes you ask" rather than referring to the formal logical fallacy... but I've accepted that usage is changing and I need to change with it rather than seem hopelessly out-of-date and intransigent to the changing world. As long as the meaning is clear, that is the matter of key import in any communication.)

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. Hello from another old Slashdot user, from back before they introduced user accounts, even. 😄

If you look in the #avionics-framework channel there, one of the WT devs said, "The update on the MP is a stripped-down release that just redirects the AS1000 html pages to the WTG1000 ones, so it uses what ships with the sim." and confirmed it would be irrelevant for a third-party plane that was using the NXi directly. It's only for planes using the original ("AS1000") G1000. I don't think we fundamentally disagree on the end result, I'm just pointing out commentary from the Working Title folks that if you have a plane that's already using the NXi, either Asobo or third-party, the MP add-on doesn't matter. Which is kind of the opposite of what you said. 🙂 Either way, folks who care about the NXi are going to want to have the MP update installed.

According to the folks on the WT discord, the Marketplace add-on is meant to serve as a bridge for third-party planes that have not updated to point to the NXi -- which realistically won't happen for any commercial planes until it's shipped in a full release -- by redirecting the original G1000 to the new NXi. Basically, by installing it, you cover all the bases: 1) Stock planes use the NXi directly. 2) Third party planes which have been configured to use the NXi directly will do so regardless of the MP package. 3) Third party planes which have not been configured to use the NXi will be redirected to it by the MP package.

That is the perfect phrase! I'm a long-time Linux user, and many X-Plane "advocates" remind me very much of the worst kind of Linux "advocates" I've run across over the years. Using a minority platform becomes a point of pride, and people lose touch of the practical reasons why their chosen platform may be better -- and lose all sense of reality about where theirs falls short. That sort of mindset falls so readily into holy wars, it's a pattern I've seen over and over, and it's really to the detriment of the "holy warriors" because it makes them and their platform look to others like a bunch of tools. I'm a flight simulation fan, not just a Flight Simulator fan. (Although, obviously, I'm that, too, since I'm posting here). I have all three major consumer sims currently installed on my machine, and though MSFS gets the most use by far these days I have many hours in each and will happily tell you that each has strong points and weak points, advantages and disadvantages. Fans of other sims aren't immune to the holy war mindset, but it comes so much more from minority platforms, and it's immediately obvious any time you engage with some of the more... fervent... members of the XP forum. (And, increasingly, members of the P3D forum, as their chosen sim starts sliding more and more into commercial irrelevance.) Competition drives improvement, and most things are rarely as good or as bad as those with the strongest feelings about them would have you believe.

Surely I'm not the only person who clicked play on the video and wondered at first why the guy was talking about Ross Perot?

1.0.1 is the in-sim version. You should remove the older version, which I think is 0.12.2.