Please put your post in the correct forum.
Today we had to move over 150 posts manually.  We do feel the forum structure is logical and the section names are clear. As redirecting posts pollute the forum a lot we will not add them anymore. So if you are unable to find your post, look for it in the most logical forum section.

Jump to content

Finn

Developer
  • Content Count

    4259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Finn last won the day on September 6 2014

Finn had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

809 Excellent

About Finn

  • Rank
    Commercial Pilot

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I have tried to convert the PATH to TAXI in my own Frankfurt, Barcelona and Anchorage installs. The taxiways are now displayed correctly on the PMDG 747-8 ND Airport map. There are no visiual impact on the scenery, and performance seems not to be affected by more than 1-2 FPS, if affected at all. This might not work for other airports, but the mentioned airports that I have converted, everything seems fine. I´m not blaming any part of the developers. PMDG has chosen the best solution to get their airport map as accurate as the underlaying AFCAD, so that even inaccuracies in the scenery is accounted for. Also the scenery developers could not know thta their AFCADS where to be used this way. A solution could be (as mentioned by another guy in the PMDG forum) would be to have a seperated AFCAD for the PMDG ND Airport maps. This means that a special formated file maybe called: PMDG_AFX_XXX.pam (*.pam = PMDG Airport Map could be put into the scenery directory. This file would then be the converted AFCAD from the original scenery renamed to *.pam inorder not to actual loading it int to the scenery, but can be read by the PMDG ND Aiport map. If such a file is present tin the scenery folder, then it will be used by the PMDG ND Airport map. If it´s not present, then the original AFCAD *.bgl file would be read instead. This way we can have proper Aiport maps on the PMDG ND, without intruding the scenery. I have made this suggestion over in the PMDG support forum. FinnJ
  2. Back when it was developed we recreated the exact cockpit if the D-IVER. So what You see in the Twin Otter Extended cockpit is the exact same instruments than those found in the real world D-IVER. The only extra instrument we placed was the GPS. A secondary attitude indicator is, as far as I know, not required for IFR flights, but You have both the Cpt. and the FO instruments.
  3. Problem is that feathering the props via hardware axid' in FSX is abit funky, often i need to put the levers a bit forward and then slam them back into feathered position. Finn
  4. Strange... With these settings: Thessaloniki X set to default. Time set to dusk. Weather set via FSGRW. PMDG 737-700 NGX set to High res VC, Model and Displays. Terrain display turned on FTX Global Base pack. My VAS never exeeded 3,2 GB My FSX settings are: Graphics section: 1920x1080x32 FPS Locked at 30 Global texture resolution: Max Preview DirectX 10: Off Lens flare: Off Light Bloom: Off Advanced animations: On Antialiasing and Anisotropic filtering controlled via Nvidia Inspector Aircraft section: Show tooltips: On High resolution VC: On Aircraft casts shadows on the ground: On Aircraft casts shadows on itself: Off Aircraft landing-lights illuminate ground: On Scenery section: Level of detail: Large Mesh complexity: 100 Mesh resolution : 5m Texture resolution: 15cm Water effects: Low 2x Scenery complexity: Extreme dense Autogen complexity: Dense Ground scenery: Off Special effects detail: Medium Weather Section: Cloud draw distance: 60mi Thermal visualization: None Detailed clouds: On Cloud coverage density: High Download winds aloft data with real-world weather: On Disable turbulence and thermal effects on aircraft: Off Rate at which weather changesover time: No change Traffic section (My Traffic 2013 installed): Airline Traffic density: 25 General aviation Traffic density: 15 Airport vehicle density: None Road vehicle density: 16 Ships and ferrys density: 16 Leisure boats density: 10 The only FSX.cfg tweaks I use: [GRAPHICS] HIGHMEMFIX=1 [Display] TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=70 WideViewAspect=True [Main] FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.25 [JOBSCHEDULER] AffinityMask=7 (I know - normally this should be 14, but the Majestic Dash7-Q400 runs smoother with 7) [bUFFERPOOLS] UsePools=1 Poolsize=8388608 RejectThreshold=126976 My system: i7 3770 @3.4 Ghz (No OC) 8 GB RAM Nvidia GTX 560 1GB Win 7 64bit Home edition Finn
  5. As a developer I feel kind of obligated to also participate on giving support for the projects I have been part of. I also feel that I have the right to show up here defend decisions we have made during developement etc. While free speech should be every humans right it still means that You must be responsible for what You say. Happily most posts are positive, informative and serious, but there are also a little group (as in real life) that really can start up and feed useless, unserious discussions and rants. Without the voting system I have very little feedback wether my posts are recieved positivly or not, infact to get the same level of feedback as the rather simple voting system would mean alot of stupid +1 -1 posts that just would flood the forum and other people would simply stop reading cause they don´t want to read through xx pages of nothing. I have a real hard time figuring out whats so wrong with the voting system, its the best ways to tell trolls that their posts are not accepted by the other users and not just by us developers, forum moderators etc. Without a voting system the moderators will be the bad censurating guys, cause it will really mean toughher hands by them if this forum shouldn´t become a state of anarky. Until now the Aerosoft forums has ben the most open and least censurated forum within this hobby. I won´t name them, but I know alot of forums where unwanted (though still legible) posts simply are removed, just because a certain moderating developer or forum moderator doesn´t like to see it posted. I think Aerosoft will do just fine with the good old style of openess while still giving the other users the option to tell whats Ok to post and whats not in what I deem as a real democratic way. Personally I think I will become less present here without a voting system, simply because I won´t seek troubles where I´m defenceless with no option for others to back me up in an easy way. On the otherhand having my own posts downvoted is also a clear way for me to see when I´m on a wrong path. Just my "few" words to this discussion. Best regards Finn Jacobsen (Aerosoft developer)
  6. Finn

    Bronco Manual Typo

    We are extreme sorry if this has caused considable mayhem to general understandment Sorry to say: b jt if this is the main issue of the Bronco, then be it Finn
  7. I´m sorry, but most of the reference material, like blueprints etc are given to us with the demand that we don´t share it. Finn
  8. Do You mean which forum ? Finn
  9. I know that this won´t help You at present, but please read on..... It´s some time since I was participating on this forum. Most posts seems to be focused on problems that Aerosoft now are seriously trying to fix with the Airbus X extended. Airbus X extended will bring You totally re-developed systems like: Autopilot, MCDU, FBW, ND, Aircraft options etc... Also alot of the older code has been re-visited and the ADIR system added. I´m sure most of You will be very happy with the changes - so please head over to the preview forum and follow current progress. http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/49292-airbus-x-extended/page__st__2520 Hint !! Start backwards Finn
  10. I don´t know alot about P3D but.... Did You copy the folder found here in to P3D ? /.../Flight Simulator X/Modules/b21_vario/ You might also need to add this to Your DLL.xml for P3D: <Launch.Addon> <Name>b21 vario sound control</Name> <Disabled>False</Disabled> <ManualLoad>False</ManualLoad> <Path>Modules\b21_vario\b21_vario.dll</Path> <DllStartName>module_init</DllStartName> <DllStopName>module_deinit</DllStopName> </Launch.Addon> Finn
  11. Please read this: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/56002-aerosoft-f-16-leading-edge-flaps/#entry391464 Finn
  12. According to the info we got during developement (how long was that since.... damned time goes fast )... the behaviouris close to that. Finn
  13. Leading edge flaps are not just extended when turning. They are extended as a function of AOA (Angle of attack) - try some slow speed maneuvres and You will see. Finn
  14. Sorry for the late reply.... It is true that the aircraft.cfg come pre-configured for the shockwavelights - that was only meant as a service for our customers. But we cannot / will not provide any support for a product that isn't our own - please understand. You can install the shockwave lights and add // before the original lights as well as removing the // for the shockwave lights. If it works then fine, if not - please search the A2A forum for help on those, cause the shockwave lights are their product. On later product we did not add this service for the very same reason. Please also note ! We try our best to provide support right form the "horsesmouth", but most often the inputs from other customers here are as usefull as the ones we can give, but I think I will put a bit more effort in to keep track of the older projects I have been involved in. Finn
×
×
  • Create New...