Jump to content

BudSpencer

Members
  • Posts

    149
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BudSpencer

  1. I fear exactly the same. Why? Because it is beyond me how a further improvement wouldn't be possible with the current recordings??! Unless someone has coded the whole sound, protected it with a password and then immediately left Aerosoft, so that no other person there has any more access to the sound files (I don't think that's the case), I see no reason why the current sound set couldn't be improved in the simple matter of enabeling the tone pitch to go up and down, like any person who can open the config file should be able to. Obviously someone at Flightsim.to already did a makeshift mod for it. So, the developer himself should be able to access his own files as well^^ I appreciate their approach to rework the whole sound (even if I think some small mods at the right place would be enough), but I'm not too confident with the upcoming result.
  2. Agreed 100% !! This is exactly what I wrote in another thread about the bad sound transitions before the fix. It's just the frequencies that didn't change at all with increasing engingne power, and that still don't even a Hz after the patch! And somehow I would have guessed that this main problem wouldn't be fixed at all in the announced fix. I've never ever attacked a developer for anything technical in detail, because I have no clue of programming, nor with designing. But as an experienced musician, the only thing I really got (even without an app like the one shown above) are the variables in the sound files of the aircraft (at least in FSX/P3d times). And so this is the first time that I really think the sound designer of this professional product has no clue what we're talking about if we're talking about PITCH / FREQUENCY change depending on engine power! ...as good as the samples might be. If yes, I'd like to know a single reason, why this was released like that (twice)?! Sorry, this is really unbelievable, at least if it won't be adressed anytime in future. After listening to a youtube video of the FIXED version, I saw my concerns confirmed. I won't buy this, at least not if the only words by Aerosoft will be that most of the customers would be happy with the sounds... or the the sounds were recorded by professionals from the real aircraft... that the loss of sound quality in youtube videos would be to blame... or anything else that just tries to "talk" the problem away. @Payt Laros: Thanks, now after decades of trial and error with the numbers, I've learned that there is a program to visualize those variables and transitions.
  3. Folks, no one ever spoke out the exact problem of the Twin Otter sound. That's why I'm writing here in the hope that someone reads it who is really working on a fix: The 2 most important things that makes an engine sound appear "smooth" is: 1) a proper cross-fading of the volumes from one sound recording (yes the *.wav files) to another. 2) a proper change in frequencies that match the next sound file. ...given that there are proper sound recordings in those files are correct. From what I can hear in the youtube videos, there's nothing wrong with the recordings themselves, and there's nothing to little wrong with the fading of the volumes. But there's a lot (!) wrong with the frequencies of the files, because they don't change at all or only very little while increasing or decreasing power. I've seen the exact issue years ago at Carenado's C 206 (the old one) and with their Seneca II. Various people claimed to have made it smoother by editing the sound.cfg then, but did exactly nothing to the core of the problem: the spooling up of the frequencies of the files. So, at that time, I fixed it myself by adjusting the "rparms=..." entries in the sound.cfg with success. OK, it took quite some time, because if you have no app that visualises this for you - and I don't know any - it's pretty much trial and error, until you come close to what it's right. But it works. So, in short, here's a generic example from P3d (same thing since FS2004 or even 2002, I believe): [Spool-Sound1] filename=Spool1 => name of the sound file, minus the .wav extention in its name (...) rparams=0.6000,1.000000,0.87000,1.3000 => ...which means: At 60 % power (1st value), the sound engine of FS plays the file with 100% (second value) of its speed, thus as it is recoded. At 87 % power (3rd value), it plays the file with 1.3x (4th value) of its speed, thus pitching up all frequencies of in the file by factor 1.3 It's the same principle like playing a sound file in time lapse, making the music sound in higher or lower scales, or transposing them, as musicians would say. Just with the difference that the sound engine of FSX and Prepar3d is able to smoothen that transposition depending on engine power (I'm sure every aircraft developer can tell more exactly which parameter of the engine power exactly). In Any case, those "rparams=..." define two points within a linear line (I don't know the exact mathematic term in English), that connect engine power to the way the *.wav file is played. And that is what has to be fixed here. I've seen in various aircraft in MSFS that the sound information are packed (pck-file??) so that I can't directly see the sound.cfg or whatever it is called now. But even if the structure of the files might differ from P3d and earlier sims, the musical problem remains the same. You might say now, that you know every single bit of what I've written here, but I'm not completely sure if the proper things are discussed here in this thread, regarding the sound issue. I'm not saying that as a programmer (actually I have no clue about this), but as a musician with an acued sense of hearing: This has not to do with recording quality, nor with sound dynamics (OK, that might be a seperate little problem), but with proper pitching of the files. Thanks for concidering that in the fix.
  4. OK, I can try. But how can I avoid then that there are duplicate assignments (default and FSUIPC) for all my other aircraft in P3d? ...exept removing and reactivating the default assignments every time I switch between the A330 and something else??
  5. Yes, I've checked the tutorial section. Lots of information about the TCA Thrustmaster in connection with the Airbusses, but not with Honeycomb. I should add that I left any Honeycomb profiles untouched so far, because I wanted to avoid any interferings with FSUIPC, which I'm using as the tool for assignments. I'm still not sure, weather Honeycomb profiles are linked to specific "title=" entries in the aircraft.cfg's (like the FSUIPC profiles can be) or if they are globally set. If they are NOT "title" specific, they are no option for me.
  6. Hello again, the problem with the thrust levers still exists. To make it clear: It isn't possible to assign any axis to the throttles using FSUIPC. No problem with the other axes (aileron, elevater, rudder). I'm using the Thrustmaster T.1600 as a sidestick, the Saitek rudder pedals for the rudders and I'm trying to use the Honeycomb Throttles for throttles. Never had a problem with the old Saitek throttles, but only now with the Honeycomb - and ONLY with the AS A330. All other planes work fine with it. To describe the problem more exactly: With any Honeycomb axis assigned, the throttle levers in the virtual cockpit don't move at all, nor does the movement of the physical throttles any effect on the thrust. Moving them just triggers a "click". Then, I tried the throttle lever of my Thrustmaster (for both engines): There, the throttles in the vc are moving, but the thrust settings don't respond to it. Example: The thrust levers show TO/GA, but the thrust hardly increases and decreases to idle a few seconds later, while the throttle levers still remain in the TO/GA position. Even the commands of the keyboard don't show any reasonable influence: I can use F1-F4, and anyhow the thrust increases and decreases, but far from being controllable. With the release of the AS airliners from the past years, there was always an option to click at the config. panel "If your throttles show strange behaviour, check this box"... or similar. Whenever I did this, the problems were solved. Where has this checkbox gone in the A330 config panel?? And why isn't it there any more? What can I do about the problem? The throttle assignments are a complete mess at the moment, as if there were 2 or 3 systems trying to move the throttles at the same time. And thus the A330 is still unflyable because of this here in my sim. A330 version is: 1.0.5.1 (problem already occured in previous versions) P3d v 4.5.14.34698 Thanks in advance. Regards, Dominik
  7. Hi there, a new strange problem occured while using any Airbus since I've got my new Honeycomb Bravo throttles. I've intended to use FSUIPC for the axes and LINDA for buttons. So far, I didn't use any profile in the Honeycomb software, as I wasn't sure if those settings were "global". In any case, I want a certain setting of axes to be loaded automatically with a certain aircraft. And that's what FSUIPC can do very well. Now to the problem: When using the Aerosoft A330, the throttles don't move at all, even when I use the same FSUIPC profile that works without a problem with all other addon aircraft such as PMDG, TFDI,... It doesn't matter wheather I use "Send direct to FSUIPC Calibration" or "Send to FS as a normal exis" - When I move the hardware throttles, nothing happens in the cockpit but the click of the sound of the throttle detents. The FADEC section of the configurator - as described in the manual - isn't there anymore. So, nothing to switch there.. When using the FSL A320, he throttle levers in the either start halfway to full throttle (only half the range that it should be), or they work in the opposite direction. To make it more exact: You have 2 options to set the axes in FSUIPC: 1) Axis assignments => Send direct to FSUIPC Calibration => Assign "Throttle1" and "Throttle2": Then I can influence the direction in "Joystick Calibration" by ticking or unticking the "Rev" tickbar at the corresponding Throttle setting (all the other axes need this setting with my Honeycomb). But this way, the throttle movements in the Airbus effectively start in the middle of the throttle range in the VC and ranges to TO/GA - so only half way of what it should be. No chance to bring it to idle with the Honeycomb throttles. 2) Axis assignments => Send to FS as a normal axis => "Throttle1 Set" and "Throttle2 Set": Then I get the full range from Idle to TO/GA, but in the opposide way (Honeycomb idle causes TO/GA in VC and Honeycomb full power causes Idle power in the VC). In this 2nd option, there is no tickbar to click "Rev". So again, no way to change that. I just can't find a way to tell the Airbus to recognize the full range or the proper direction of my throttles. At first, I thought it must be a special FSL problem. But now, that it doesn't work with the Aerosoft Airbus either, I'm not even sure in which forum I should adress this problem: Here at the AS Airbus forum? At Honeycomb? At FSUIPC? Or at FSLabs? ...as it only seems to come up with the combination Honeycomb throttles and any Airbusses. With the Saitek throttles that I've used before, there was no problem at all, using the same kind of axis assignments. Could you imagine, what is wrong here? Best regards and thanks in advance. Dominik
  8. Thanks a lot! Do the Yoke and the Throttles use the same screws? ...because these are the only things that aren't included in the description of the dimensions from their Website. For the yoke they are not even in the drawing. But at the throttles they are, and I could conclude from the other values how long they should be, as I assume that the dimensions in the drawings are right. I know, but in the long run, I don't trust things too much that are mounted just with a suction pad. At least not for things that you touch weekly or daily over years. Thanks though.
  9. Hello flight simmers, I've already ordered the Honeycomb Throttle to replace my aging Saitek and I'm thinking about to replace my older CH Yoke with the Honeycomb Yoke as well. But before I order anything: Can anyone tell me, how many centimeters the screws exactly need under the tabletop to be mounted?? I've got a desktop with 2 layers: One lower for keyboard and mouse, and one higher (that is a bit further away from the desk chair) for monitor and in my case to mount the throttles and the Yoke. My CH Flight Sim Yoke LE had no problems with the space between those 2 tabletop layers, and the Saitek Throttles didn't either. But the screws on the Honeycomb anyhow look bigger. How much space do they need exactly under the desk? Thanks in advance. Best regards, Dominik
  10. Hello flight simmers, I might need a bit of your advice on a possible purchase of a new monitor. At the moment, I've got an ASUS VS247 24'' as my main monitor. A year ago, I got a smaller Hanns-G.... whatever for free and have been using it as a second monitor. Although a second monitor in general was a huge improvement over a single one, but the 2nd monitor is really old and not very good. The direct comparison always reminds me how of much better the colors on the ASUS are. I got the ASUS a few years ago, I've actually bought 2 then: One bigger (I guess it was 25'', I can't remember exactly), but I decided for the smaller ASUS and took the other one back to the shop, because the ASUS was so much better concerning the colors and, above all, the quality of the image when viewed from different angles. What's more, the ASUS has nearly zero glow, whereas the other one is glowing like a sunrise^^ So, with the increased time spent in front of the screen for home office - plus the still amazing views in P3d v4 - took me to the decision to kick off the smaller no name monitor, use the current ASUS as the second monitor instead, and go for a new one as the main monitor. And the big question is, which one. On the one hand, I've always been happy with my ASUS, but if I go for a new one anyway, I could maybe need something bigger. However, I don't want to lose too much quality just in favour of the size, nor do I want to spend 500€++ for it. These are the 4 options, which I'm uncertain about yet: - Buy another ASUS, very similar to the current one, just bigger (probably the cheapest option and a relatively reliable one) - Buy a curved one with similar capacities than the current one, maybe a bit bigger - Buy an ultra wide one (straight) - Buy a curved ultra-wide one, such as the Xiaomi Mi 34'' Gaming monitor (probably the most expensive option) Does anyone of you have any good suggestions what is worth buying in that situation from his own experiences switching to a new monitor. For example: How much better does a curved monitor make FS experience? And how much better does an ultra wide screen compared to a 16:9 Also important: Does anyone of you have comparisons, how much performance in P3d v4 is lost by the additional pixels it has to deliver at an ultra wide screen? Unfortunately, due to the lockdown, I can't go to any shop to watch several monitors "live". My CPU (i7 9700k @4.4 Ghz) does fine and stays cool. But my GeForce 2060 Super is working pretty hard. Visually, it does a very good job, but it's getting 70°C+ frequently and the fans are howling pretty often, especially in clouds. Thanks in advance. Best regards, Dominik
  11. I've spent 140€ for a single aircraft addon, and I don't regret a single cent of the investment, because I have flown it hundreds of hours and I will keep on doing that with great pleasure. I think flight simmers think a bit different than the typical "gamer". For example, I have a lot of friends, but no "gaming friends", as I have absolutely no interest in "gaming" - I fly FS because I'm interested in flying and can't afford a real aircraft and fly that around the world.
  12. Liebe FS Community, ich nutze seit mehrern Jahren P3D v4 und bin sehr zufrieden damit, sodass ein Umstieg auf MSFS so schnell nicht in Frage kommt. Allerdings strecke ich hin und wieder mal die Fühler aus, um zu sehen, was dort allers geht und was nicht, sodass ich doch eines Tages in der Zukunft mal zum neuen Simulataor switchen werde. Ein wichtiges Argument dafür: AI Traffic! Hat damit schon jemand Erfahrung oder einen Überblick? Man findet ja viele schöne Screenshots über Szenerien, Flugzeuge und die Grafik allgemein, aber an AI Flugzeugen hatte ich dort bisher nur solche "generic" Flugzeuge gesehen. Die sehen zwar besser aus als die fiktiven Airlines in FSX oder P3d, aber es wäre für mich immer noch nicht im Geringsten ein adäquater Ersatz für meinen bisherigen AI Traffic in P3d. Den hatte ich mit bestehenden AI-Modellen (FAIB, FSP, Aardvark,...) und Flugplänen in Textform über die Jahre komplett selbst erstellt, um immer die Kontrolle über Updates oder Sonderbemalungen zu haben. Dass ich diese Arbeit nicht zugunsten eines fiktiven Verkehrs in MSFS über den Haufen werfen will, scheint logisch. Daher die Frage: Kann man mit den P3d v4-Modellen (OK, teilweise auch noch FSX-Code) in MSFS irgendetwas anfangen? Und gibt es für MSFS irgendetwas vergleichbares wie TTools, womit man die Flugpläne in Textform in brauchbare Dateien für den MSFS kompilieren kann? Gibt es überhaupt irgendwelche Aircraft-Modelle, die im MSFS für Repaints und den AI Traffic brauchbar sind? Ich hatte gelesen, dass MSFS "live" reale Flugpläne generieren kann. ABER: Geht das, dass die auch von entsprechenden Flugzeugen samt Bemalung geflogen werden? Das mit dem Live Traffic ist gut und schön. Aber mich interessiert viel eher, ob z.B. in Stuttgart Eurowings, TUIfly, Lufthansa, oder SunExpress-Maschinen stehen und fliegen, als ob irgendwelche Phantasie-Airlines einen realen Flugplan abfliegen. Danke schonmal im Voraus für bisherige Erfahrungsberichte! Gruß, Dominik
  13. Hi Yannick, Was genau meinst du mit den "neuen" Eurowings-Lackierungen? Grundsätzlich ist es möglich, manuell Liveries hinzuzufügen, sofern es für das entsprechende Modell welche gibt. Allerdings müsstest du die ensprechenden Einträge hinter "title=" in der aicraft.cfg auch in deinen Flugplan einbinden, um sie auf den Flughäfen auch zu sehen. Dazu brauchst du den Flugplan in dekompilierter Form, also in Textform mit den Dateien aircraft.txt, airports.txt und flightplans.txt. Dort kannst du dann den einzelnen Flugplänen bestimmte Flugzeuge zuordnen, so auch deine neuen Liveries. Das bedeutet allerdings, dass du dich in das System der Flugpläne einarbeiten müsstest. Ich kenne zumindest mal keine einfachere Lösung, um individuelle Wünsche beim AI Traffic an bereits bestehenden Flugplänen umzusetzen - auch keine kostenpflichtigen. Gruß, Dominik
  14. All right, for the case someone might be interested because he has similar thoughts on upgrading his hardware, here's a little update on what I did: - Just tidying up the sim brought nothing than a little shorter loading times. - Deleting the graphic driver completely and reinstalling didn't help either. - Various settings almost changed nothing at all. - Cleaning the inside of the tower was not point either, it wasn't that dirty. So I had to invest. I tried a new graphic card first, not because I thought it was the main issue, but because it was the easiest part to change. Now, I've got the RTX 2060 Super with 8 GB VRAM. What to expect: The blurred textures on the approach have gone, autogen scenery is now ALWAYS there - yay! Even at very dense settings, and I could extend the LOD, cloud and shadow radius a bit. Very good, but fps only improved very little at the big airports. But at least I've tried if it might have been "good enough" - well, it wasn't. Upgrading the CPU means indeed a new mainboard (no octa core for my 1155 socket), and updating the mainboard meant also updating the RAM - because it now really needs to be DDR4 RAM. And that means probably a new Windows 10 licence, because the old one was a free upgrade from a Win 7 OEM licence, which would be linked to the old mainboard, as people say... (?) You see where things go... I hope at least the CPU cooler, the PSU and the case will do their job as well as before. I've now grit my teeth, closed my eyes and ordered an ASUS Prime Z390-P with an i7 9700k and 16 GB DDR 4 RAM, additionally to my new RTX 2060 Super. Don't this new system dare and work brilliant for anything less than the next 10 years of flightsimming I'm gonna report back again how much better it is when it's done.
  15. I would love to see the ATR-72-500 redone for P3d. And I still hope for the PW and GE variants of the A330, even if it would only be visual and sounds. Concerning scenery, I would look forward for a Saarbrücken (EDDR) scenery for P3d.
  16. OK, I'm really not a fps hunter, so as soon as I get 15-20 fps in the worst situations (for example approach to AS London Heathrow in the Wilco Embraer v3 in clouldy weather and with 50% AI traffic and sliders set to medium in the average, I would be perfectly happy. OK, but has RAM to do with fps? I thought that would be responsible for loading textures and thus for OOM crashes if it's too little. I have DDR4 ram installed, which should be the newest component in my system. I don't remember exactly the name of the CPU cooler (Alpenföhn??), but it was huge and at the time I bought it, it had good recommendations, even for higher overclocking. I did some temperature tests in the beginning, and temps never got more than 60°C, rather below 50°C at maximum. The graphic card has the default coolers, but was never overclocked, so I didn't suspect temperature problems here. No smoking anywhere around my house, so the only problem here could be that it has simply become dirty over the time. I should really open and clean it first. But I don't think that's the main issue here. I've feared it^^ Tried to find a way around that because it's so much work. But that really seems the way to go first. Do you also mean a Windows reinstallation? If I'm gonna do that anyway, would it make sense to just switch to P3d v5 then? I mean... GTX 970 and DX12 is something I never really understood if it would work (??).
  17. Hi together, just wanted to ask you about your opinion on my system, which is slowly growing old, and can't really cope with my P3d v4.5 anymore, at least not at big airports with complex planes. So my system is now: - ASUS Z77 MB - Intel i5-3570K @ 3.4 Ghz - NVidia Geforce GTX 970 (4 GB) - 850W power supply unit - 16 GB RAM - Windows 10 64bit, of course - Only SSD hard drives My problem: At most bigger airports with the famous complex aircraft, I get around 12 fps. And under those circumstances, it's difficult to steer the plane, it's really no fun anymore. What is strange: My settings seem to be less and less relevant to it - for example in earlier P3D versions (yes, even v4.X versions), it seemed there was a very noticable difference between the different AA settings. Now, even after deleting the P3D.cfg and shaders, it seems to have ZERO difference wheather I choose 2 x MSAA or 8 x SSAA. Even other settings are not too important anymore. But what is very significant: In the cockpit, fps are a LOT worse than in any outside view of any plane. For example, with the PMDG 737 in Bogota (PKSIM), it's rather common to get 12 fps inside the VC and 25 fps outside. And I'm not even talking about dynamic lights. Furthermore, when approaching an airport after cruise flight, ground textures are often blurry as soon as I've used even a little time acceleration minutes before, and autogen scenery loads VERY late - even too late. I'm ready to invest money into my system, but I'm not willing to pay 1000€ just to be sure everything works without thinking about anything. So, I'm looking for the most urgent part(s) in my system to be replaced. I've heard newer P3d versions are more and more GPU demanding and less CPU demanding. This is why I was very surprised that on another forum, I was told my CPU would be what should be replaced first. Before that, I've thought about a new graphic card ...GTX 1070 or 1080 maybe. But now, I'm uncertain again, which part(s) to replace first?? Or do you think, there is this ONE setting that can kill performance in the cockpit so much? At the moment, most sliders are in the middle. Thanks in advance. Cheers, Dominik
  18. Oh, that's indeed good news! I hope for some more African airports in the sim in future. Africa is also the next continent to be covered by ORBX' OpenLC. So, there would still be some nice approach views then.
  19. Now that a lot of the wishes from 2016 or so has been made by someone, here a few further suggestions by be: - Marrakesh (GMMX): ...could be something for FSDG?? - Addis Ababa (HAAB) => FSDG Lite a là Dakar? - Colombo (VCBI) => FSDG Lite a là Bangalore? - Bogota (SKBO) - Panama (MPTO) I would also appreciate a P3D v4 version of the existing Dublin Intl a lot!! I think it's not useful to suggest any more South African scenery after we saw why Johannesburg couldn't be made… which is sad because I would love to see something from there in the sim.
  20. Hey! Couldn't find this excellent one so far, which I would love to see with AES support. Forgive me if it has already been posted and I didn't see it: ICAO: KSNA NAME: Santa Ana/Orange County TYPE: Freeware FS: FS9 DESIGNER: Mateusz Stabryla / MK-Studios Link on Avsim: http://library.avsim.net/search.php?SearchTerm=mkstudios_johnwayne_fs9.zip&CatID=fs2004scen&Go=Search Regards
×
×
  • Create New...