saprintz

Dan, I think I understand what you're trying to do (but am not positive). Unfortunately, there are no settings in the gauge or the panel.cfg that would move that point; it is set within the model. If you're just trying to get more of the front panel in the default viewpoint, you can try adjusting VIEW_FORWARD_DIR in the panel.cfg, but the default "collimation point" is fixed.

Already fixed in latest files. (It's because there's no DME, that's all.)

Hi. Sounds like you are in PLAN mode? In that case, the flightplan is fixed, the aircraft symbol is what moves, and the present waypoint is what is centered on. Also, as you fly the flightplan legs, the older ones are deleted. I'm not sure of what you're seeing, but it does sound like PLAN mode. Also, I'd check that you have not simply flown "around" an earlier waypoint, instead of through it. (The plan would not have properly cycled unless you went through).

There are a few reasons you may not be seeing a TOC or TOD marker on the ND. -- no TOC symbol if there are too many waypoints between the depart airport and the TOC. (Keep it to 5 waypoints or less.) -- no TOC symbol if you're loading a saved flight which does not start from the beginning... i.e., the first flightplan waypoint must be the current waypoint as soon as you start the flight. (You do not have to save flight / start from the depart runway, but you do need to start somewhere within the flightplan's first leg.) -- no TOD symbol if there are too many waypoints between the TOD and the arrival airport. (Keep this to 5 waypoints or less, also.) -- no TOD symbol if TOD is currently more than 20 waypoints away. It's most likely one of those reasons. Please let us know.

Do you ever look at a bunch of A320 cockpit photos and notice that they very often have the old black-and-white, *paper* procedures and maps and airport diagrams laying around? (I suspect they're still *required* to keep them handy.) Because there it is, all the info you need to fly, in black and white -- no chance that a wrong button was pressed or that you've just stumbled onto a new computer glitch. It's "permanent"... ink right in front of your eyes. And it does not lie. (No more than a computer database, since it all comes from the same sources.) And that's why a lot of pilots still pin them to their yoke or whatever, even if not required to. Let me be clear: this is not a "bad excuse" not to include SID / STAR options. And who knows what you may get in the future? I'm just trying to add a little perspective. Really, truly, try to consider the relative importance of this feature vs. all the other features Aerosoft would like to include in this product, given their repeatedly-stated goal of pleasing as much of the *target audience* as possible.

No one online can fly into Frankfurt unless they have electronic SIDS/STARS and a "yellow brick road" displayed on a glass ND? Serious question.

Hi vibraman. Yes, I do get your point, and the heart of it is simply that features you want are not included, and those features are fundamental to your enjoyment, so you're frustrated.... You say Aerosoft "could" do the aircraft you want, but "refuses to do it perfect." How can you so easily forget that features mean consequences... as to schedule, cost, price, and so on? Seems a little naive and almost insulting to say Aerosoft just "refuses," as if there's a sadistic motive. Nope. Probably just your inner "I want" part manifesting... and everyone knows that's worst when it's for something otherwise so close to what you want. The thing is, many people have their own "I want" lists (even the developers). The sum of all you've said is: any feature that is 1) widely enough wanted, 2) not plainly a mere secondary aircraft function, and that 3) has been done before is vulnerable to nearly a demand. And "You've done it before" means what exactly? That it necessarily takes a lot less time 2nd time through, and will cost very little? Neither. It's economically naive to assume. These are not modular aircraft where parts of systems can be easily exchanged, as if Legos. You admit you fly in one way, and others in other ways. Great! Which should mean... things "fundamental" to other peoples' style of flying are just as valid as those fundamental to *your* style, right? If Aerosoft tried to make the A32X model everything that's not secondary, wanted by enough people, and has been done before, imagine... it would soon have a VERY complex and costly (and probably unprofitable) project on its hands. Here's the bothersome thing: you continue to speak as if *no* MCDU capabilities beyond default flight-planning are even included. Haven't you kept up? That is FAR from the truth. It's not implemented how you want it, no, it will take more time, but you can still get the result you want. Not ideal, but apparently the "balance" point of this product. No product can please everyone, and it seems you may be on that fringe. That's too bad. This is all just a hobby that's supposed to provide fun, after all.

Emphasizing pilot duties is a lot different than modeling *only* pilot duties. Read the thread's 1st post. The outside-the-aircraft features you so casually dismiss are important to a lot of the audience. *** This gets lost in all the SIDS/STARS stuff: No Aerosoft A32X pilot *has to* program a single waypoint into the MCDU. Default flight-plans are the main idea. Or don't even bother w/ that if you don't want.... Yet if you *want* to add the SID/STAR waypoints, you can do that. The functionality to do that (manually) is there; and it was only later added to the feature list. Added several months in, not so many ago. And it was a significant undertaking. Read the older forums. So is there any way to see this *at all* in a more positive light? I understand that to keep hearing an answer you don't like must be frustrating. (It must frustrate others to keep reading the same comments too, given your mark-downs.) But this SID/STAR thing has been beaten to death. Really. Is it *that* big of a deal, given the realities that have been mentioned? (That the route / procedures are often programmed manually, and that they're frequently abandoned because of ATC and the inherently dynamic flight environments?) How often do you think an Airbus touches down at the time its loaded flightplan says it will? So let's stop acting as if MCDU SID's/STAR's capabilities were the aircraft's main automation advances, some fundamental-to-flying feature you're being denied. No, the main automation advances were the protections, flight control laws, limits, etc... (Just TRY to stall it. Good luck!) But we are all still *piloting* an aircraft after all, right? Not just managing, as if it's a Windows7 upgrade. Many, many pilots feel strongly about automation over-dependence, and yes, even some Airbus pilots who use a lot of it. (I live w/in 15 miles of AOPA HQ. Highly varied crowd over there.) The sentiment is that if a pilot is *that* dependent upon strict procedure, it's a little dangerous, because the ability to adapt may become rusty. Thankfully, in reality, it's not all as strictly adhered to as some in these forums may say. Consider... if you've got an Airbus waiting in line 20 miles from KDCA, with some Boeings up there too, does the controller give the Airbus priority just because it's more automated and has flightplan procedures, fuel-economy, etc., strictly punched in? No way. They must all ultimately *fly*. Please, just remember... you the customer may *still choose* to fly the aircraft as strictly or as loosely as you want. A wide range of people will be pleased. No, not everyone. But perhaps a little perspective is in order with this SID/STAR issue?

Hi. The switch that controls which Nav source the steering data is linked to is on the HUD Control Panel, on the lower right side. It's a group of 8 aligned buttons. The steering source switch is on the very right, IIRC, and is labeled "DEPR RET." Just click all the switches and see what happens to the HUD symbology -- you will not break anything. ;-) You can tell which nav source you're linked to by the text on the bottom left of the HUD, below the airspeed info. It will say "NAV1" or "NAV2" or "GPS." Scott

Must it be DirectX callouts you use for that? Because there are "open" aircraft model variables linked to the MFD buttons, obviously, and they're listed in the gauges themselves... which you can see, as they're in XML. (And if I recall correctly, those var's are even repeated on the gauge face itself, as clickable mouse areas. At one point in beta they were, at least. Forget if i left them there, and can't check on this computer. Sorry.) But you can find those gauges in the LMFD.xml and RMFD.xml files - open 'em up with notepad even, and the var's are in there. At the top of each section of navaid type and so on, in its main <Visibility> tag. And they amay be listed in mouse areas at the very bottom also. I'm not necessarily assuming you wouldn't know any of that, by the way, but just in case it's helpful... because I honestly know *nothing* about the operation of that hardware you're using. But I like it very much. ;-) Scott

No, there's no kind of overall system hurdle that we've encountered. It's much more like small things that go across systems, things just interconnected within the whole mass of logic in more ways than predicted. This aircraft is incredibly "integrated," more so than most anything that I've seen in FS addons. It is almost as if there aren't separate systems at all, but instead just one big brain with several windows into it. (That's true of any airliner, of course, but I'm talking a matter of degree here.) A change in our autopilot code, for example, may require complementary changes in the flight model... okay, not surprising... but then all of a sudden you realize you've now gotta change something that you *thought* was finished in the PFD. And once you do that, then the Nav Display's gotta be modified too, since those two displays are so connected... and then since the MCDU is so highly integrated with the ND, IT must now change (again) too, and so on. I think you see what I mean. It's very rewarding when we get the different parts properly sync'd up and 'parallel', but it does take time. And I think it is ultimately to the benefit of the simmer. We all (the developers) would LOVE to just keep going deeper and deeper (trust me!), and we have in fact gone deeper than 1st planned. But, for every one layer of depth added, there are two or more layers of complexity that demand to come along too. It's a disproportionate kind of thing, with a delicate balance. (I recently made the TCAS a little more complex, for example... and it took much more time than the basic logic of the changes would imply. Maddening almost.) So, no, there are no major system hurdles. Not at all. There are just more small loose ends than a company like Aerosoft would ever consider putting "out there" for the public to test. I know people are anxious, and now disappointed. But I'm sure they'll love the product, too, and then this all won't matter. Once flying this plane, the kind of system interconnection and entanglement I'm talking about will be obvious... and in a good way!! And the delays will probably make a lot more sense then, too. For now... just try to hang in there if you can.

Do you mean the SIDs and STARs issue? I think most people will be happy with what's provided. It's a shame that many seem willing to let this perceived shortcoming dampen their enthusiasm before even flying the product. Especially when that absence can be gotten around pretty easily... and not at all unrealistically(!!), as has been said several times before. Delve into the product with an eye towards what it *does* offer, and I think it'll be quite a bit of fun for almost everyone.(But yes, I am a little biased.;-)

I'm afraid not, at least not for the initial release. Actually I'd prefer not to even give the impression that they're definitely in for an addon, either. Just depends on a lot. The curved flight-path lines... they are much harder and time-consuming to do than most might imagine. (I see a few others have done them. Frankly, it looks like it has taken them years to do it. Literally, years.) In theory I can see how it's done -- just a combination of arcs and lines and some not-so-overwhelming trigonometry, plus some clever masking -- but in practice it looks good only if done *perfectly*. The intersections of arc and line literally cannot even be a pixel off even for half a second, or it looks just plain ugly. A constant reminder of their discontinuity and composed nature. So... who knows. But that single feature would definitely eat up a lot of time, time that could be spent on many other details that are probably much more relevant to most simmers. We'd all like it, of course, but it's just one more cost-benefit kind of feature.

******************************* Frank, as to your first question, it has been answered a few times before, but I suppose it's not reasonable to lambast someone for not having read 34 pages of a thread. The answer is a few pages back, however, so that probably explains why some people have voted your post down. But I'm happy to answer it again, in case it alarms anyone. The answer is that the FMA's you see in the pics are not the "real" ones, the ones being worked on. What you see in the screen-shots are simple place-holder annunciations, there just so that there's *something* up there and it doesn't look so barren... (well, most of the time). It just turns out that the FMA's are much easier to work on and test in their own separate popup panel, and that is indeed what is being done. So no need to worry. They're being done, and will be done well. We do in fact know the differences between the autopilot modes. ;-) I cannot answer your 2nd question. I'm sorry, but another developer or the project lead will have to answer that one. Scott

Hi Simon. I would not worry about the FMA's being too overwhelming. There are plenty of messages on it, true, but you could pretty much ignore them and be fine, because they're intended to be *informative*, and not instructions for the pilot. They basically just tell you the plane's current situation: autopilot modes, states, armed vs. engaged, things like that. The aircraft is telling you, "this is what I'm doing".... not "here's a nice long task list for you." Heheh. It's not Hal 9000. ;-) Really, don't worry. A flight can be quite simple - create a flightplan and go. Or... forget doing a flightplan and go. There may be one or two things you should set, but the complexity of that is on about the same level as getting to and adjusting the radio frequencies... no big deal. So you *can* fly simple. And others who want to go more deep have that option too. The hardcore, PMDG types of simmers, that "elite" top 20 percent or whatever, will not be totally satisfied, I'm positive. But again, that's not who Aerosoft was aiming to build for. (The development costs for those PMDG planes must be HUGE. Guess that's why you don't see many w/ that level of depth. I honestly have no idea how they cover their dev costs, unless it's charity (really), or that sales are much higher than even my highest guess.)