Search the Community

See the front page with Joshua's response to the question from AVSIM. We have followed up with others. We'll post an update when / if we receive one.

Hi peeps! I have installed the FSX SDK today, but I'm having a lot of issues. I first installed it not to the default location, then uninstalled it and again installed it, this time in the default location. I don't know if this can help, but for some reason when I click on ConfigSDK and write Yes it crashes and also I don't see any SDK box in the FSX bar during the flight. But let's get to the point: the sp1a update doesn't install: when I run it it says: "This service pack requires the original release of Flight Simulator X (FSX) SDK, which you can find on Disk 1 of FSX Deluxe Edition. Please install this by first running Setup.exe in the Disk 1 SDK directory, and then start SDK SP1A installation ..." What can I do? Please help me! :blush:

Hello everybody: Is the NGX going to become an SP2? It's pretty much perfect right now but some night lighting issues are still there and we don't have alternate gear extension. (Still flying afraid of a total hydraulic loss with gear up) :wacko: Is this going to be made or has PMDG decided not to develop the NGX further more? I also want to ask if the alternate gear extension is possible to be designed in some way. Regards, P. Daniel. P.S.: Don't get me wrong, this is not a reproach, I'm only curious about the future of the NGX. I'm very happy with your work and how the NGX Simulation is right now. ^_^

As LINDA users will be aware I have let the real world get in the way of LINDA development and support. This busy period should come to an end towards the end of Oct 15. Please use this thread to lodge any suggestions for improvements and to raise any issues users are experiencing with LINDA 2.6.3. Even you have been in touch with me please post a detailed description of the problem and how to reproduce it. I cannot promise that everything will be included but it will allow me to assess the workload. Note: LINDA 2.6.4 has been issued to fix a problem with odd characters on the VRI Combo 2 (Boeing) panel and may fix some Range Check error reports.

Self Explanatory but cannot figure out how to do it myself using the Toolkit. :( I've been experimenting with the Splash but it's replaced in the CoreContent1 File. I've designed a new splash but following the normal technique will only replace files found in CoreContent. The changes I wish to make will simply be replaced. Also talked to Stone about this and putting the files under "Core\<virtual path> will do the trick, but I don't entirely know what this means. Has anyone managed to override any of the files in CoreContent1? Thanks for the help, :lol:

I've tried the CustomLights and CustomPDKObjects examples but they don't seem to work. CustomPDKObjects is showing itself in the top menu bar though (where I could check 3 items, such as "Draw Flashlight") but still doesn't do anything in my scene. I've downloaded the newest SDK (5.2.22.27615), installed, opened "SDK Samples.sln" with VS2019, then built CustomLights and CustomPDKObjects (tried Release and Debug mode), and copied them to "Documents\Prepar3D v5 Add-ons" folder. At first start, the simulator asked if I wanted to enable it, so everything seems good so far. (I tried them one at a time, so some possible conflict is not an issue.) Therefore I think the solution is somewhere in the P3D settings but I can't figure it out. Thank you!

As some of you may know, I have developed an aircraft for X-Plane called Chase's MD-80. Well, I should say "am developing." I have decided to use this blog to help me communicate to the community my progress and my experiences. I don't have much free time, so I am not sure how this will go, but I will certainly try it out. Here goes. Everyday I seem to wake up and get my MD-80 Project on my mind. I think to myself, "Okay, I'll just go finish ____, and then I'll be done for the day; I can just go fly after that." Well, that hasn't really been happening recently. My routine has been more like: get up, drag myself to the shower, throw on some clothes, shuffle up the stairs, turn on my computer, launch blender, edit ONE thing in the 3D cockpit, launch X-Plane to see if it worked, go back to blender and repeat these steps. Each day I seem more inspired to follow this patter as I start to see the light at the end of the tunnel more and more clearly. Of course I then take a look around and see all that's miss from the plane that I still have to research, model, and texture. But that too is rather inspiring. I want to finish it so badly that I am making a real effort to do as much as I can everyday. I think I have made some serious leaps forward from my last release. That brings me to my next dilemma. I don't know how I should proceed to release this in the future. I mean, in the past I pretty much thought that as I fixed things or added things, I would pack it up and call it a 0.x release. I started off this way too. But as I got into some serious modeling, I reconsidered. I am leaning towards holding off the next release until it is "finished." By that I mean completely modeled and mostly functional. A 1.0 release if you will. It just doesn't seem to make sense to pack up an incomplete aircraft anymore. I am glad I did it originally though. I got lots of positive and helpful feedback from the community that way and also established myself as an MD-80 developer. Now I am stuck though. I have a 0.2 plane sitting in the downloads section of the X-Plane forums with something like 1600 downloads that is well out of date. The flight dynamics are primitive and certainly not characteristic of an MD-80. The fuselage is see-through. And the 3D cockpit is barely textured and almost completely unusable. It is nothing more than a preview. I could pack up what I have now for a release, but how do I clean it up without robbing these good people? I don't want to drop the 3D cockpit as it is the most improved area, yet still unfinished. Plus it would be one LESS thing than what the previous release had. That's no good. I really am struggling. I want to let them have a plane with the correct flight dynamics and such, but I don't think I am ready for that. Right now it looks like I am going to have to wait. I really think I am done with releasing things early as a preview. It makes a mess for me from a developmental standpoint. Now I understand the long wait times at PMDG Until next time, Chase PS: I'll try the picture posting thing now B)

Hello dev team, you did an awesome job so far, but not with latest build 5921... I have stable 51 fps before updating to 5921. I have 25 fps lost with thunderstorm, rain, fog and some clouds, never had fps drops before build 5921! On ground 51 fps with heavy weather, when looking at clouds in wingview or vc 25 fps loss, that can't be, seriously. No fps hit before update in same weather, scenery, addons whatever, I tested it. Some guys in fb groups also have the same fps drops aswell. So, I am NOT the only one having this Performance problem. So please check it and patch this issue. Thx a lot guys for your incredible work so far, but this issue has to be resolved. Kind regards, Tom Weigandt

Those who watch the flight sim world carefully will have noticed a growing trend in our world where products are concerned, namely the dispensing with any level of testing of products before they are released. I'm not going to debate whether this is good or bad for our community, just point out that is likely has become the norm for paying customers to perform work traditionally done by the developer, which means the customer are paying to become testers of the products themselves. As an experienced tester of flight sim products, I note today that a product was released that has so many discrepancies that it would have never been released by the developers I normally work with - problems that were so easy to find (they literally jump out at you) and correct that I could have resolved the 20 or so issues myself in less than an hour effort, which begs the question why did the develop not even check his own product before release? I would have been embarrassed to release a product with the number of easy to spot and resolve problems as this product has, and I'd have been embarrassed to say I was on the testing team (though I seriously doubt there was one). Now the flip side of this means that we'll get products faster, and if the developers act quickly to correct issues identified by customers will get error free software faster. Again, I'm not weighing in on whether this practice is good or bad for the community, it's really up to individuals to say for themselves. But what I will way is that given the number of products I'm seeing that had little or no testing (and I promise that the number of products is likely larger than most of our community knows), I do believe that developers should tell customers if the product has or has not been tested when it's released. I believe that's the fair, honest, and honorable thing to do. NOTE: Late last year FSFX released an Alpha version of Chase Plane to the community. They were upfront about the product being in Alpha, yet the product was so highly functional that most all users thoroughly loved it. I had the opportunity to become familiar with this product for a few months before it was released, and I personally voted for the release. The way FSFX released it was terrific, and I believe that FSFX established a model for how and when an Alpha or Beta should be released to paying customers. Now, I have to be honest (and I always will), Chase Plane was at the level that most tested payware is when it's released - the guys at FSFX are just so open and honest that in their eyes it was a Alpha. I've been in the flight sim community for well over 30 years, and I'm very happy to see our community growing like it's presently doing - everyone should be! But growth means changes, and not all of them will be good. We also have developers who are younger and younger, and while talented they lack a little experience and are quick to jump to decisions with their products. Without the presence of standards or a body to weigh in on important matters (which will likely never happen), it's up to the paying customers to decide what is, or isn't' acceptable. Okay, post now officially far too long. Thank you for listening.

anyone have an update on the B777-300 expansion? i read the forums and PMDG said they were a few weeks away and its in beta testing now.

^_^DoveTail updated their stance on the next simulator in their series. Just go to their "Our Products" page. They say they expect to have a release to market sometime in 2016. They allegedly are bringing in a Lead Artist to collaborate with their aviation team in producing the Simulator... exciting indeed ^_^^_^ ^_^ Some of you have probably seen this already, considering it was first posted on March 31, but the following, word for word, was posted on Facebook by DoveTail Games: """ Dovetail Games is currently recruiting for a Lead Artist to work as part of our Aviation team delivering the next generation of flight simulation. Find out more http://www.dovetailgames.com/vacancies/2014/sep/15/lead-artist The Aviation team are now ramping up to deliver the next generation of flight simulation in order to create an immersive experience for the PC flight hobbyist. dovetailgames.com """ Exciting, indeed. I have faith in DoveTail. I am aware that many of you don't actually expect much at all from DoveTail games, but I, in all honesty, am expecting something of satisfaction... even a little ^_^. I just want something new. I hope for something that utilizes modern systems much better. Perhaps we can even expect an improved graphics engine! I'd rather not spark controversy on speculation, so let's keep that minimal. But other than that, I think that this is really promising news! I am also very glad that they fixed the typo that was originally posted on their Products page. Everything seems to make sense now, and I'm glad they're starting to take and obvious, and serious, direction with the next Big Release in flight simulation!

For the most part, I'm really enjoying the great scenery in Alaska. Every now and then I come across some incomplete graphics, but this one is a beaut. The mighty Yukon river is blocked between Ruby and Galena (Pitka). After following it's underground track a few miles, it resurfaces again. I hope there still are some maintenance staff who can fix some these glitches. A side note: I created a flight plan to follow the complete Iditarod trail, from Anchorage to Nome, landing at all 30 checkpoints in my Cub. You really gain an understanding of what a huge undertaking this is with a sled dog team. Doing it with my Cub at 90 MPH is taking quite a while.

Hi, Been thinking lately of using up some free HD space to install P3D, a couple of questions regarding development. Since I like to putz with different areas of flight sim development I am wondering which way to go. 1. With the academic license is the SDK available? If so, do you get the same tools and services as the development licence? 2. If not, what does the developers license give you besides what is included in the add on SDK? Special tools? Forum help? etc.. TIA

Hello! I try to understand why the freewares that are around of Flight Simulator, as many exposes its source code, do not declare open source licenses. There are many scripts to run a same aircraft, and all the works, if were managed publicly in a version control system, Git repositories at GitHub, for example, it would be much better. Perhaps the fact of we are using Microsoft's closed APIs is a disincentive to look for a suitable license model. But I'm sure you can find it. There is the possibility of the Microsoft have interest in guide us about. Projects are already scattered around and she just needs to get more involved with them, taking the opportunity to make her open source marketing. What is my purpose with this topic? Do note that many individual development efforts exists and are being underused by the community. Failure to use licensing and of processes for efficient collaboration in coding are, in my view, the two main impediments. Sending codes in a forum is hugely disadvantageous if compared to having a open projects on GitHub. Projects for which I have looked when thinking these observations: LINDA, FSUIPC, SPAD and some Lua scripts for the aircraft Jetstream 41. Sorry my poor english. I speak portuguese natively. Alexandre Magno from Brazil