Aerosoft official retail partner for Microsoft Flight Simulator !! 
Click here for more information

Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by radeon29

  1. light must be here somewhere: --- Also, for P5, no NDB RСA is required, so in the stock data it already exists and has more correct coordinates. And correct airport name just: Reggio Calabria and not Aeroporto Tito Minniti Di Reggio Calabria.
  2. I noticed that when updating scenes, your tool checks the date of the files and if any have been changed by a newer date(I often make changes to AFCAD for myself) then it does not change them, but reports that the update is successful and it will not be possible to update again and you have to do a complete reinstallation of the scene...😟 it seems to me it was logical to force update all files if the name matches🤗 Any ideas, suggestions?
  3. ok, nevertheless, if you create a additional mini-mesh area for only such a problem area, then you can solve this problem.
  4. seems to be available v2.0.0.0 for P5 now:
  5. yes, there is a tag there(below under the spoiler I posted more .xml code). yes, but they are not in a hurry with this, and I myself am interested in finding a solution, thanks for helping. it is interesting, it looks like it really is so but not in all cases, a riddle... I changed only: LTAI_SVET to LTAI_Svet2 and now there are no warning now: --- but why then no warning for LTAI_SVET, because the naming(letter size) is different(.xml=LTAI_SVET, SimObjects=model.LTAI_Svet)?:
  6. I also thought about it, I specifically conducted this tests and it turned out that it does not matter. you made me think again and oops, it turned out that on the contrary there was an excess tag, because it was already higher then it is not needed again: or did i do it wrong? p/s yes, I did it wrong, this is another SIM object and I should not have deleted the closing tag: ERROR SODE.XML : Failed to load file 'C:\ProgramData\12bPilot\SODE\xml\LTAI.xml
  7. yes, I already fixed it for myself, although setting AcftType = 'NOT DEFINEDALL_ACFT' I think was intentionally done by the developer(this was done intentionally for some purpose), but it doesn't seem to work correctly... I already fixed it for myself, the problem was a text error, tag closing was not performed correctly: ; "/> was "/> should --- I have a more serious problem, neither I nor the scenary developer(AS non developer this) knows the solution, everything looks right, but we get a warning: WARN SODE.XML : Environmental Data Probe ‘LTAI’: Listed Client SimObject ‘LTAI_SVET2’ does not exist in the XML!
  8. ok, I’m waiting, will be good if the soda developer, can remove the warning, I also wrote him, thx!
  9. the developer of specifically this scenary is Maxim, he said that he is looking for a problem, I already found this: extra characters caused a problem... SODE warnings are probably not just(senselessly) created?
  10. Hi Oliver ! yes sorry, the first one by mistake, this refers to JustSim. the second problem is exactly your scenario, I already fixed it, I already wrote to the developer, I think he will soon find it the same. well let's call it a problem, but no matter how we call it, it should not be... I fixed it myself, I think the developer will see this message and make a fix for everyone.
  11. Yes, the new soda has been substantially changed, newest AS scenary for P5 now give an error: EDDV [13:03:56.846] DEBUG SODE.XML : Building List from File 'C:\ProgramData\12bPilot\SODE\xml\JustSim_EDDV_VDGS.xml' [13:03:56.848] WARN SODE.XML : [VDGS] SimObject 'VDGS GATE 16', Stop@22.600000: AcftType='NOT DEFINEDALL_ACFT' is not supported by SODE! --- LZKZ [13:03:56.903] DEBUG SODE.XML : Building List from File 'C:\ProgramData\12bPilot\SODE\xml\LZKZ_Kosice_rain.xml' [13:03:56.903] WARN SODE.XML : Environmental Data Probe 'LZKZ_Kosice_rain': Listed Client SimObject '' does not exist in the XML! --- EDDF [13:03:56.746] DEBUG SODE.XML : Building List from File 'C:\ProgramData\12bPilot\SODE\xml\AJS_EDDF_SODE.XML' [13:03:56.747] WARN SODE.XML : Environmental Data Probe 'EDDF': Listed Client SimObject '' does not exist in the XML! --- EGLL [13:03:56.761] DEBUG SODE.XML : Building List from File 'C:\ProgramData\12bPilot\SODE\xml\AJS_EGLL_SODE.XML' [13:03:56.762] WARN SODE.XML : Environmental Data Probe 'EGLL': Listed Client SimObject '' does not exist in the XML! --- It seems that testers did not check these scenary with soda, although the release of the new soda was a very long time ago, already on May 12!
  12. Hi! I have not performed this procedure for a long time and just forgot it ... what actions must be performed in order to be MCDU offered optimal cruise altitude in case of activation of an alternative route?
  13. Yes, I know this, usually use the base airport elevation. in this case, because there is a high elevation difference between the runway 96 to 37ft, this is probably the right option, ok...
  14. Aerosoft 49ft Correct 95ft please check it.
  15. Yes,it is🙏 Or🤗 I suggest just adding a second AFCAD to switch it through the configurator before starting sim. For your part, only make a new AFCAD with an angle of 3.2, and I will set all other navigation as in truth. How do you like this idea?
  16. One of the problems has been fixed in the latest update, but nothing was said about papi angles? How to switch them from 3.2 to 3.0 (and vice versa)? unrealized?
  17. i confirm, in the latest update, DME was added but the problem of markers is not solved;)
  18. nevertheless you can use my adaptation for P5, but you will need the original installer and recording prepar3d v3 for install the scenary base: -fixed navigation aids and ILS -fixed vector data -default bridges excluded -added wind socks and glide transmitter -add Dynamic Lighting (credit to inibuilds)
  19. use this free utility to find conflict easily:
  20. yes this is so: unfortunately without an initial .ad4 project, it is very difficult to move all objects to new coordinates...
  21. +1 only on the contrary for me, the ND are enlarged, for a330 this was not... p/s:
  22. Yes, I read about it, the gs mini looks great( but in any case we use +5). i.e wind correction is needed only without A/T?
  23. as far as i know it should be something like this: VAPP = VLS plus 1/3 of the tower headwind component. The value of VAPP is limited so that it is never less than VLS + 5 or more than VLS +15. As a result, VAPP is increased above its minimum value for runway headwinds above 15 knots. VAPP correction is not increased further for headwinds exceeding 45 knots. But I miss an example for a complete understanding: if the wind is 16-17 knots we need to set plus 6? and is this true if we do not use A/T? if we use A/T then it’s only + 5 for all cases or?
  • Create New...