Jump to content

zenit_swe

Members
  • Posts

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by zenit_swe

  1. zenit_swe

    T.O.D. 2

    Oh darn. Let's hope @Jonas S. comes back with an answer soon then, I'm really curious about this myself.
  2. zenit_swe

    T.O.D. 2

    Well, the last couple of flight I actually got the time and distance to TOD showing up. I think you have to clear all discontinues and vectors in the flight plan for it to work.
  3. I'm currently enroute to Krakow and was looking around when I noticed the EFB reflection in the cockpit window. I haven't thought about it before, but now when I look at it I can't help but thinking it looks quite strange. How can the entire screen reflect on a window that is behind it? Is the "light source" that results in the reflection placed somewhere else than where the screen is?
  4. Could this be the same issue? https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/166762-tod-data-not-appearing-when-fms-plan-contains-vectors/
  5. zenit_swe

    T.O.D. 2

    I'm having the same issue. When I do the tutorial flight I get the time/distance to TOD but I've never managed to get it in any other flight. It would be interesting to know under which circumstances this information is presented because from my perspective it seems like it's hard coded for just the arrival used in the tutorial.
  6. I haven't tried this for quite some time now so I can't guarantee that it's still working, but I made a little app that saves the state of almost all switches and knobs in the cockpit. When you load a new flight you can load it and have the cockpit exactly as you left it. https://flightsim.to/file/11268/persistentcrj
  7. Sorry, missed that. I just assumed this number was presented in the tables with all the other weights and limitations. My bad.
  8. Don't you have both Zero Fuel CG and current CG on the EFB? 🤔
  9. Looking at that page (or actually page 9) I can't find "Empty CG Position %MAC", but perhaps it can be calculated somehow based on those numbers?
  10. Man, I mean no disrespect but did you even read my post before replying to it? In the second half of the first section I explain that one seem to have to use the default profile. And the rest of the whole post is an explanation of why I use a slightly modified copy of the default profile.
  11. Well, I have issues with this as well. I'm using legacy mode but a right click doesn't do anything. If I want to press the button on a knob (e.g. HDG knob) I have to move the mouse cursors in from a position below and to the right of the knob with a certain speed and it usually takes like 10 tries before I get it. I haven't tried it, but someone mentioned that you need to use the default mouse profile. If you have a copy of that profile it doesn't work even though you haven't changed anything. I have a copy if the default mouse profile for two reasons. The first is that I got tired of constantly zooming in and out while turning knobs so I changed that assignment so that I need to press the right mouse button while scrolling in order to zoom. The second reason is that I have the PMDG DC-6 which have a custom mouse interaction style that requires users to map cockpit view lock to something other than the default binding. However, I don't think this is something Aerosoft can do anything about. Unfortunately 😕
  12. Dude, you must have had some seriously traumatic experiences. Do or did you by any chance work at a support help desk? 🙂
  13. I would also like to suggest a function to mark posts as "solved". With the current system of just closing a topic when a moderator consider something being resolved is a bit odd and I understand that people might have issues with it. This is the only forum that I know of that have that system. Marking a post as the solution for the OPs question has however become a de facto standard among forums today. With that I believe we would see a reduction of "re-posts" since it would make it a lot easier to find a solution for a problem.
  14. No I'm not, in fact it's the opposite. If you have a forum where you need to have pinned posts explaining in what section one should post and people still don't get it, even though the moderators try to explain it on a daily basis, it's in my opinion a sign that the forum could be better organized. I'm NOT asking for more or better instructions, I'm saying you shouldn't even need instructions like that if it was more clear where to post. Take my example about the auto pilot issue, where would you post that? In the "Systems" section or in the "Manual Flight, Autoflight and Flight Managemen" section? And how many people do you think would post a "The speed bug is off" in "General Discussion" if there where a section called "Bugs and Issues"? Probably some but not even close to what we see today. However, I really get your point! Why buy a complex and (relatively) expensive addon if you aren't interested in learning all the systems? I don't get that either, but neither of us will ever be able to change that unfortunately. My post wasn't about people posting about issues that are explained on page 1 in the manual, we will always have those. It's about the constant issues the moderators seem to have with people posting in the wrong sections and that should in my opinion be fairly easy to do something about if they just made some changes in the way the forum is organized. Or maybe not, I don't know. It's just a feeling I have.
  15. I have no intention to tell you guys how to do things, it's your forum and you set the rules. However, since I joined up I've noticed that there seems to be a constant battle between the forum members and the moderators. There are pinned posts about posting in the correct section and you always have to correct and move posts. Again, I don't mean to tell you guys how to do your job but this is in fact the only forum I visit where this is such an issue. I believe it's a bit like an application, if you need to explain how it works you should make a better UI. Especially if the users doesn't get it even though you explain it for them. I don't know how but maybe you should consider reorganizing the forum so that it becomes more obvious where to post? People constantly post support related questions in General Discussion despite you constantly telling them not to. But in a well organized forum that shouldn't be a problem, it should be obvious that those should be posted somewhere else. It could be that the forum titles are a bit confusing. For instance you have one called "Systems" and one called "Manual Flight, Autoflight and Flight Management". So if I have an issue with the auto pilot that may or may not have something to do with what I have entered in the FMS, where am I supposed to post that question? Perhaps you should consider having a section called Support under which you have sub-sections for different systems? I don't know. And what exactly do you mean with "Open discussion about the Aerosoft CRJ"? It may be obvious for you and some of the other members but apparently it's not for all the ones posting things you want them to post somewhere else. And do you really need a section for that? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe you need one section for open discussions about Aerosoft and one for the CRJ? I don't know. What I do know however is that if you constantly have to tell people how to do a simple task (such as posting in the correct section on a forum), you are most likely the one doing something wrong. I hope this doesn't comes out offensive in any way, I just wanted to share my thoughts.
  16. If you have FSUIPC you can map the trim there and get control of the sensitivity. The offset to map is x0BC0 (Offset SWord Increment/Decrement) and the parameter is 256/16383 for trim pitch up and 256/-16383 for trim pitch down. If you find that the trim is too sensitive you change 256 to 128, 64 or 32. Works like a charm and it let's you have different sensitivities for different aircraft.
  17. If you have FSUIPC you can map the trim there and get control of the sensitivity. The offset to map is x0BC0 and the parameter is 256/16383 for trim pitch up and 256/-16383 for trim pitch down. If you find that the trim is too sensitive you change 256 to 128, 64 or 32. Works like a charm and it let's you have different sensitivities for different aircraft.
  18. If you read the information in the Updater it says: *** A NEW INSTALLER IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS PRODUCT. *** *** PLEASE DOWNLOAD IT FROM YOUR SHOP ACCOUNT! ***
  19. Hej hej. Japp, det är jag som stått för den svenska översättningen av manualerna 🙂
  20. Goodness gracious and great balls of fire! Thank you so much, it worked!
  21. The CRJ has been working just fine after I did a "fast WASM compilation". That is until today. Now all of a sudden the HUD is deployed every time I start cold & dark (not if I start on the runway) and I can't disengage it.
  22. I was just wondering my self. I have a fuel flow of 1685 kg/hr and about 50 minutes to destination and fuel required is 4845 kg! Looking in the FMS manual the last part of the description is cut off, it says "Estimated required fuel for". I wonder if it's perhaps the required fuel to alternative destination plus some extra for hold?
  23. Nope, but that's a feature that shouldn't be too hard to implement. I'll put it in the backlog so stay tuned 🙂
  24. If you look at the file lvars.ini there's a section called [Randomize] with a list of the controls that are to be randomized. You can comment away those you don't want included by putting a ; at the beginning of the line.
×
×
  • Create New...