Jump to content

ahuimanu

members
  • Content Count

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

26 Excellent

About ahuimanu

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Solo

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thank you Joan, This line: (A:SIM ON GROUND, bool) 1 ==  Wouldn't be working on its own because it is not conditional to the if statement without the && operator (& & because it is an XML file)
  2. Writing about a 320 CFM kit as well please.
  3. Joan, Replacing line 7: (L:ABrkactiv, number) 0 == is an operand in the compound condition from this original portion of the file: (L:ABrkactiv, number) 0 == ((L:ABrkactivlst, number) 2 != && Did you mean to replace those operands with your statements? (A:SIM ON GROUND, bool) 1 == (A:BRAKE INDICATOR,position) 0.6 > && I am so eager to have autobrakes again and I wonder if by replacing the original you are breaking something else? Would you be willing to attach the whole file or at least screen shot this part?
  4. Back to partially answer my own question, A:BRAKE INDICATOR is a built-in simulation variable: http://www.prepar3d.com/SDKv4/sdk/references/variables/simulation_variables.html#Aircraft Controls Variables No matter what deadzone I put in for these MFG pedals, they do not return to zero on the toe brake axes and I think this is making the logic in this gauge disconnect the AB. Aerosoft, help?
  5. I am writing to both thank and follow up with Joan Alonso. Joan, in the original thread you discuss updating the ABRK.xml file with these lines: Replace the 7th line of the file: (L:ABrkactiv, number) 0 == by this two lines: (A:SIM ON GROUND, bool) 1 == (A:BRAKE INDICATOR,position) 0.6 > I understand the first variable and expression, but want to discuss the 2nd. I have better behavior with your solution but it is not yet perfect because I think the sophistication of the original approach, in terms of whether one's hardware is perfectly calibrated, is a confounding issue. Specifically, does this line (A:BRAKE INDICATOR,position) 0.6 > test to see if the brake indicator's position is above 60% deflection? Would that mean that I've applied more than 60% of the travel available in the controller axis I'm using for toe brakes? With your adjustments, I see that the decel light stays open longer but I still have the autobrake disconnect. Although I have adjusted deadzones with these pedals (MFG crosswind) to ensure good autobraking with PMDG aircraft, I still seem to cause the Aerosoft airbus to disconnect. Is the 0.6 value from 0 to 1? Aerosoft, as an aside, it seems to only add to difficulty to close these threads prematurely when it is possible that any of these issues can arise again. Making "subject heading version x" headings seems inefficient.
  6. I have this same issue: any fix where I don't have to edit source files? I would have preferred to keep that original discussion going.
  7. I made a quick test based on what Captain Tim says here and he's right, all of the fields from the OFP manual work when you create a file for crew info. Not sure how useful this is right now because I can't figure out how to get this into a briefing package.
  8. I encountered the problem in this thread too. How can I fix this myself?
  9. Splendid news on all counts. The daily value I derive from PFPX is almost immeasurable. I do have a question about the VA feature as it isn't clear how it can be used. Thank you.
  10. Vand8B, It has to do with FSEconomy putting all fuel into aft first instead of evenly distributing it. I have to have fuller tanks in order for the plane to work with FSEconomy. The alternative is to fuel it yourself and hit the weight/volume prescribed for the flight.
  11. Same issue. I'm unable to get it to work with Active Sky because I can't set it fast enough.
  12. Thank you for the reply. This is highly disappointing as it amounts to full price for some of your professional line and not full price for others. That there does not seem to be a consistent upgrade path makes for the "professional" branding to be confusing. Moreover, the application of discount is not uniform across this pathways to this professional line. What are the odds now that we continue to pay full price every time there is a platform progression? Please reserve different language for the things you do produce and those that you are a broker for. Using unified branding (the "Professional" line) is now a bit of a mess as a result. Please let your German Airports developers know how displeasing this is to their customers.
  13. Hello Oliver, Does the product manager or the developer have some feedback? I am happy to pay an upgrade price in keeping with the rest of the professional line. However, as customers of the previous package, I hope to not have to pay full price again for every P3D4-converted Germany Airports Scenery please. Thank you.
  14. Thank you Oliver. I await the outcome.
  15. Hello, I followed this discussion and the outcome regarding upgrades to Hamburg: I reopen this inquiry as my Download shop account says this: German Airports 3 X and under the downloads this appears (attached file has an image). It shows that I do own qualifying products for the upgrade. Why am I not being offered the upgrade when I enter the serial for this product? Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...