Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

83 Excellent

About lonewulf47

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Well, for whatever reason I delete the Liveries should not be of your concern. If there is this option, I expect it to work faultlessly. Or are you trying to tell me that whenever I use an option in an official tool, I do it ony my own resposability and should try first, what the outcome will be, before I use it? Definitely a funny point of view, isn't it? If an option is available, it must work faultlessly ! If it deletes files that it shouldn't then you are trying to tell me that this is my own fault. Simply wrong! the correct answer would have been: "We are looking into the issue and will see if there are files deleted, which are necessary for a faultless operation." This would sound more like a responsible answer than simply trying to get rid of an user reporting a bug. Regards Oskar
  2. I encountered a strange issue when deleting liveries. I normally delete all liveries that I do not use and for that purpose the new Livery Manager comes in handy. Ater having deleted all but two liveries, the A330 would not start anymore, even more so loading the A330 resulted in a CTD if P3DV5. I tried to analyze the situation and therefore made a brand new install of P3DV5 HF1 on my Office Computer, to make sure no "gremlins" had crawled up my system during the previous work. After installing The A330 and deleting all unnecessary liveries the situation was unchanged. Loading the A330 ended in a CTD again. Loading a default A/C and then loading the A330 did not change anything. Finally I decided to redo the whole thing again and then use the A330 in its "native" install with all its liveries in place. And - whoaa - it loaded normally ! So the conclusion is that when using the Livery Manager this could have an unhealthy impact on the A330. I haven't done any more analyzing work as I do not have neither the patience nor the motivation to undergo again all those steps. IMHO the Liverys Manager does something "unhealthy" to the aircraft.cfg. Maybe someone else has made a similar experience? Oskar
  3. +1 I ask myself how many updates are required until you get this right. The grass RWY was closed already when your first version of LSGG was issued. A quick look to AIP Switzerland (yes, indeed, it DOES exist ) will prove that.
  4. My dear Refsmmat69 Let me put one thing straight: nobody is bashing Aerosoft being the worst company on earth. Talking about a product having 1000 features, I would like to tell you a short story. Imagine an Aircraft Designer presenting a wonderfully designed new aircraft, including all the trimmings and goodies every pilot and passenger would dream of. The only disadvantage would be that when it came to design the wings, the designer was lacking resources. He therefore decided to abstain from attaching wings to this wonderful aircraft, thinking that the absence of one single feature would not weight in too much against all the other available gimmicks and goodies. Now try to imagine in what numbers this fantastic aircraft would be sold ! And that's exactly what this thread is all about ! SimBrief has become one of the most used and most universal flight planning tools within a short time. Lacking support for such a tool has nothing to do with what you described with "every requester sees his request of course as the most important one". It is simply a fact that SimBrief as (I said it already) one of the most used flight planning tools is lacking support by NavDataPro. It does not need any reference to something " coming out from the children room upstairs" to understand that this lack of support reduces the low market share of NavDataPro even more. Ok, maybe in your world a market share for a product is the least important thing, but I doubt that this is the way a commercial company would and should think.
  5. If you take this out of the context it indeed may look like kind of a "honest answer". However if you consider the fact that this discussion is going on for more than two years and you still complain about limited resources, then it is definitely a bit doubtful - to say the least. TWO YEARS, not only a few days, but TWO YEARS ! If that does not ring a bell then I must admit that I'm obvioulsy missing a few things within the world of Flight Simulation... There's of course not much more that we as stupid members of the Simmer Community can do than to remind you every day of this important gap to be closed and pray for the day to come where Aerosoft can provide enough resouces to finally fulfill this task...
  6. Sorry, Mathijs, but this is not an acceptable answer. The subject ist not just arisig by now, it is now up for much more than one year, actually for two years already. If you have such "limited resources" that do not allow a solution for something that can be solved within one month, then I must ask myself whether you are in the position to really judge the importance of this whole matter. I'm afraid that you are not! We are talking about one of the most important support requests that has come up in the past months - not just a "spleeny idea" from a few Simmers. It would really be adviseable if you could convince your superiors to give this the importance it deserves !
  7. I am a NavDataPro subscriber from the first moment of its appearance on the market. However I noticed in several cases that NDP is extremely passive in expanding into new fields. I have furthermore never seen the resposible Project Manager to show up in this thread, although he was reminded of missing SimBrief Support more than a yea ago by me personally. I'm not sure what else needs to be done to wake up Aerosoft from its lethargy in that and other respects. The present situation could be a great oppoertunity to increase the rather low market share of NavDataPro in the Navigation Data business, it would however need some real efforts by the responsible people. From what I have learned in the past, I'm not sure what the real culprit is. Maybe people with closer relationship to Aerosoft and its Leaders could increase the intensity of direct wake-up calls ?
  8. Isn't that a somewhat simple answer for quite some time? Your Project Manager has been informed about the requirements long time ago even by me personally), but nothing has happened ever since. As SimBrief has become a widely accepted Planning Utility for the community, it cannot be that Aerosoft's NavDataPro is deliberately kept away from using it within SimBrief. I understand that this is a protective measure for Aerosoft's PFPX, but we are living in a world of diversification, aren't we?
  9. ... and maybe also simMarket? With the latest download from there I still get an error regarding a few SAM objects....
  10. Ebenso erstaunlich ist es, dass sich keiner der zuständigen Entwickler zu diesen Thema meldet ! Es sind immerhin alle 4 ILS-Approaches betroffen und das ist für einen Mega-Airport doch eher schwach ! Eine - noch so kleine - Randnotiz eines Entwicklers dazu wäre definitiv wünschenswert. Es kann ja nicht sein, dass dieser fatale Fehler einfach so unkommentiert bleibt, oder ?? Oskar
  11. Nicht nur auf der ILS 16 - siehe hier : http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/54233-mega-airport-zurich-x-falsche-ils-dme-readings/ Es ist einigermassen erstaunlich, dass sich noch keiner der Entwickler angesprochen fühlt. Es ist immerhin 80% der Radionavigation im Eimer... Oski
  12. Disregard this post here. I have opened it in the German Support Forum. Oskar
  13. Erstaunlicherweise ist es offensichtlich bis jetzt niemandem aufgefallen, dass alle vier ILS-DMEs falsche Distanzangaben liefern. Dies, weil die DME-Stationen fälschlicherweise bei allen vier ILS auf der Localizer-Antenne positioniert wurden, anstatt beim Glideslope-Sender. Dies ergibt je nach Runway Fehler zwischen 1.5 und 2NM. Da sollte ein Patch helfen können. Das DME jeder ILS von LSZH Zürich zeigt NULL am Touchdownpoint (0.2 NM nach dem Threshold). Nachstehend die Profile aller ILS-Anflüge in LSZH: RWY 14: RWY 16: RWY 28: RWY 34: Oskar
  14. Here is some additional information on that subject: See below the 4 profiles for the ILS 14, 16, 28 and 34: RWY 14: RWY 16: RWY 28: RWY 34: Regards Oskar
  • Create New...