jordanal

member
  • Content count

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

About jordanal

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Airwork
  1. PFPX and Lbs.

    I noticed this issue around the time 1.28 came out. You have to make flight "TYPE" set to 'General', then the weights will once again be honored and exported properly to TOPCAT. The devs messed-up the 'Scheduled' and 'Non-Scheduled' flight 'TYPES' respecting the weights set in the Options.
  2. Can't send data TOPCAT

    Yup, I am now getting this exact same problem using 1.26. That is the latest version as far as I know...
  3. I am a very experienced FS user and having much the same issues with EDDB v1.12 on P3Dv3. Heathrow Extended along and all other P3Dv3 compatible scenery from other developers is working as expected. I believe EDDB has AFCAD and/or configurator issues; when I manually disable the EDDB AFCAD in the Aerosoft\AFD directory, I finally get the new South Terminal, but still no AI; completely empty. The older (North) Terminal displays as expected with AI. The settings in the EDDB configurator are set correctly and the VFR Germany compatibility tool is set to disabled. To other EDDB users, if you have UTX-EUR, don't forget to go into the UTX-EUR setup tool and disable the "repositioned airport" for EDDB, otherwise you will have more serious AFCAD conflicts than described above.
  4. ICAO: KLGB NAME: Long Beach Airport (Daugherty Field) v4 TYPE: Freeware FS: FSX DESIGNER: SunskyJet - Shehryar (Shez) Ansari LINK: http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fsxscen&DLID=184359 Original Preview Discussion: http://www.sunskyjet.com/forum/index.php?topic=5044.0
  5. ICAO: KCLT NAME: Charlotte Intl 2013 v2 TYPE: Payware FS: FS9 & (FSX - Just Released) DESIGNER: ImagineSim LINK: http://www.imaginesim.com/kclt01.htm AES 2.31
  6. ICAO: TJSJ NAME: San Juan Luis Munoz Marin Airport, Puerto Rico SP1 Update TYPE: Payware FS: FSX DESIGNER: ImagineSim LINK: http://www.imaginesim.com/tjsjupdates01.htm
  7. ICAO: KCVG NAME: Cincinnati Northern Kentucky Intl SP1 Update TYPE: Payware FS: FSX DESIGNER: ImagineSim LINK: http://www.imaginesi...vgupdates01.htm
  8. ICAO: KSJC NAME: San Jose Intl SP1 Update TYPE: Payware FS: FSX DESIGNER: ImagineSim LINK: http://www.imaginesim.com/ksjcupdates01.htm AES 2.00, Update don't effect AES here
  9. ICAO: KCLT NAME: Charlotte Intl SP1 Update TYPE: Payware FS: FSX DESIGNER: ImagineSim LINK: http://www.imaginesim.com/kcltupdates01.htm AES 2.31
  10. ICAO: KIAD Name: Washington Dulles Intl v2 SP1 Type: Payware - Free SP1 Update, Including new AFCAD FS: FSX Designer: ImagineSim Link: http://www.imaginesim.com/kiadupdates01.htm AES 1.99, Update don't effect AES here
  11. ICAO: KATL NAME: Atlanta Heartsfield Intl 2012 v3 TYPE: Payware FS: FS9/FSX DESIGNER: ImagineSim Link: http://www.imaginesim.com/katl01.htm AES 2.26
  12. V2 of the Armi Project (VTBS) was just released. An AES upgrade from v1 to v2 for both FSX and FS9 would be great. ICAO: VTBS NAME: SUVARNABHUMI INTL TYPE: Payware - v2 is free upgrade from SimMarket. FS: FS9 & FSX DESIGNER: Armi Project LINK: http://secure.simmar...-intl-fsx.phtml AES 2.09, Version 2012 compatible to 2010 Version regarding AES
  13. Ah, that explains it - thanks oliver. I advised my fellow NGX drivers accordingly here: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/352278-aes-config-data-pmdg-737-ngx/page__view__findpost__p__2198804 I look forward to the selection enahancement as well.
  14. BUMP - Oliver, I just wondered if you read my post above. Thanks.
  15. Has the height that determins the type of cargo loader used been changed in AES 2.20? For my PMDG NGX aircraft, I had 1.7 for the front and 2.0 for rear cargo holds and both would use the belt-type loader. Since AES 2.20, the rear (2.0) has been using the skid-type cargo loader, which is super unrealistic for the 737. In comparison, the Level-D 763 cargo holds I have set 2.35 and I would still like to see belt-loaders even with the 763. Now my PMDG 747 has the cargo holds at 3.1 and the skid-loader might be appropriate on the Queen. Can you please change the height that determines when the skid-type cargo loader used to 2.5 or greater? Thanks!