Information on the next build...

[Julio Bolaños 0]

Thanks Norman,

Estimated date to release it?

J

 

[Andrew Wilson 6367]

@Alexandre Kubatko

Thanks Alex - updated.

[phil highton 126]

Bugger !!!

[phil highton 126]

And ive deleted the 4.5 client pre hotfix now I cant find it !

[Alexandre Kubatko 340]

@Andrew Wilson

So about the sequence described, where does it take the weights from first ? fltsim.cfg still ?

Manual says it will first find a specific reg.cfg, otherwise will build the cfg from an airline pack or if nothing is found will generate the default values.

It's understandable for the [Callouts] and [Options] sections, I guess it'll look for the airline_icao_code value, but what about the [Weights] ?

[Karl Brooker 719]

1 minute ago, Alexandre Kubatko said:

@Andrew Wilson

So about the sequence described, where does it take the weights from first ? fltsim.cfg still ?

Manual says it will first find a specific reg.cfg, otherwise will build the cfg from an airline pack or if nothing is found will generate the default values.

It's understandable for the Callouts and Options sections, I guess it'll look for the airline_icao_code value, but what about the Weights ?

It will look for everything in the order specified: first reg.cfg, then airline cfg file, else it'll use default values.

[Andrew Wilson 6367]

4 minutes ago, Alexandre Kubatko said:

what about the [Weights] ?

If no reg.cfg is available, then the weights are built using default values (i.e. what you'd see when loading up the FSL livery). 

[Alexandre Kubatko 340]

Makes sense, thanks !

[DanielBruehwiler 7]

Has the autopilot problem about not holding altitude and start sudden climbs been fixed as well?

[Andrew Wilson 6367]

@DanielBruehwiler

We're unable to reproduce the issue of the pitch becoming un-responsive. Let us know if you still experience this issue with the next build, in case the issue was related to any of the fixes that have since been made.

[David Norfolk 1168]

So this pushover app doesn't support Samsung tab 4s which is kinda strange...

[qingxiaoxun 0]

[I.fi.kra.tis.Ka.me.ni.dis 171]

1 hour ago, David Norfolk said:

So this pushover app doesn't support Samsung tab 4s which is kinda strange...

why not? The Pushover app is also on Android.

[Markos Papoutsidakis 32]

@Andrew Wilson any fix in trim calculations?

[Andrew Wilson 6367]

3 minutes ago, Markos Papoutsidakis said:

@Andrew Wilson any fix in trim calculations?

That's not on our side - it's a Wabpro issue. 

We're preparing our own Takeoff Performance solution to be made available at a later time.

[Hubert Colman 0]

Ser

 

where can I find PUSHOVER. ini,impossible to find

Thanks

[Andrew Wilson 6367]

It’s in the next update.

[Stu Antonio 1440]

So just to get this right, the system will look for an aircraft configuration file first, if it can‘t find one, it will look for an airline configuration file (airline pack). 

What if I have both? Will it stop looking when it finds an airframe config? Or will the airLINE config overrule the airFRAME config when it finds one? 

Thanks! 

[Lars Schneider 68]

21 minutes ago, Stu Antonio said:

So just to get this right, the system will look for an aircraft configuration file first, if it can‘t find one, it will look for an airline configuration file (airline pack). 

What if I have both? Will it stop looking when it finds an airframe config? Or will the airLINE config overrule the airFRAME config when it finds one? 

Thanks! 

If it cant find an airframe config it will create one based on fltsim.cfg files in the livery folder and in the airline pack. Livery cfg takes precedence over airline cfg in case of a conflict. If either one is missing it will take all the information from the available CFG. And if both are missing it will create one based on default values

At least thats how i understood Andrews explanation

[Stu Antonio 1440]

6 minutes ago, Lars Schneider said:

If it cant find an airframe config it will create one based on fltsim.cfg files in the livery folder and in the airline pack. Livery cfg takes precedence over airline cfg in case of a conflict. If either one is missing it will take all the information from the available CFG. And if both are missing it will create one based on default values

At least thats how i understood Andrews explanation

I see, so there will still be a fltsim.cfg in the livery folder? ... That means we have now tree configs to maintain? .... Or will the cfgs be obsolete once the „New“ registration.cfg is written?  

I guess it will be more clear once it‘s out.... 

[Lars Schneider 68]

1 minute ago, Stu Antonio said:

I see, so there will still be a fltsim.cfg in the livery folder? ... That means we have now tree configs to maintain? .... Or will the cfgs be obsolete once the „New“ registration.cfg is written?  

I guess it will be more clear once it‘s out.... 

nope the other way around: we now have only one config to (actively) maintain. The old system was a bit confusing, as missing option entries in the livery cfg were loaded from the airline cfg. So you had to look at both configs to fully understand whats being applied to your aircraft. With the new system, all the settings are ultimately stored in the airframe file. As long as you dont delete it (and cause it to be recreated), only those settings will be considered when you load respective airframe in P3D

[Stu Antonio 1440]

1 minute ago, Lars Schneider said:

nope the other way around: we now have only one config to (actively) maintain. The old system was a bit confusing, as missing option entries in the livery cfg were loaded from the airline cfg. So you had to look at both configs to fully understand whats being applied to your aircraft. With the new system, all the settings are ultimately stored in the airframe file. As long as you dont delete it (and cause it to be recreated), only those settings will be considered when you load respective airframe in P3D

Sounds great, thanks!

[Kevin Hall 49]

16 hours ago, Samyr Khan said:

This happens with every single P3D update. Don't worry it's nothing new

Just as the frustration with FSL's policy of version locking is nothing new.

[Andrew Wilson 6367]

Ah Lars has said - the new system really just works behind the scenes. You don't need to do anything. You shouldn't need to edit any files - any changes you make through the MCDU OPTIONS will be written to the airframe and retained. You can even now set the airframe reference weights through the MCDU. 

The registration configuration files and/or airline packs just offer an initial set of parameters that are used to configure any newly installed airframe. Once an airframe is installed, you may change any of the settings under MCDU/OPTIONS and they will be saved to that airframe. Nothing will change/write over those, unless you choose to 'reset' that airframe - forcing its settings to be re-generated next time you load the aircraft. 

I think once customers start using the update, it will become very clear how this all works. 

[Alexander Sigg 68]

29 minutes ago, Andrew Wilson said:

I think once customers start using the update, it will become very clear how this all works. 

And when will this be ?

[Doug Miannay 20]

One more nit, Andrew.  The file you attached above is titled "A320X Aircraft Options", but inside the document it is called "Airframe Options".

Love your products!

Doug

[Koen Meier 858]

5 minutes ago, Doug Miannay said:

One more nit, Andrew.  The file you attached above is titled "A320X Aircraft Options", but inside the document it is called "Airframe Options".

Love your products!

Doug

As it is only found in the a320x document folder.

[Lars Schneider 68]

@Andrew Wilson Sorry for hijacking the thread, but as we are talking about airframe options anyways, i figured i could sneak in a question reg max pax setting

by using "max_num_pax=XXX/XX/XX/XX" we can not only set max passengers, but also define the A/B/C zones in the cabin. Will this affect weight distribution the same as cargo compartements, which means we should always ensure that all 3 numbers are more or less equal? Or is it purely cosmetic and only changes the information on the payload/boarding pages of the MCDU?

 I'm just wondering if this could be used to depict classes like Economy, Premium-Economy and Business, but if it affects weight distribution i rather not cramp all my eco passengers into the last third of the cabin *g*

[Stu Antonio 1440]

1 minute ago, Lars Schneider said:

@Andrew Wilson Sorry for hijacking the thread, but as we are talking about airframe options anyways, i figured i could sneak in a question reg max pax setting

by using "max_num_pax=XXX/XX/XX/XX" we can not only set max passengers, but also define the A/B/C zones in the cabin. Will this affect weight distribution the same as cargo compartements, which means we should always ensure that all 3 numbers are more or less equal? Or is it purely cosmetic and only changes the information on the payload/boarding pages of the MCDU?

 I'm just wondering if this could be used to depict classes like Economy, Premium-Economy and Business, but if it affects weight distribution i rather not cramp all my eco passengers into the last third of the cabin *g*

Hm.... I always thought that the pax zones A B C used for weight distribution had nothing to do with the classes in which airlines divide their seats..... 

[Lars Schneider 68]

Just now, Stu Antonio said:

Hm.... I always thought that the pax zones A B C used for weight distribution had nothing to do with the classes in which airlines divide their seats..... 

Thats exactly my question. Its clear that the ABC zones have nothing to do with classes, but if its only cosmetic (and the internal logic will distribute pax weight based on other factors), it could be used to depict different booking classes. 

If it really has an effect on weight distribution i'm actually surprised that it can be user customized rather than being autocalculated based on max pax number ("max pax"/3). One small typo can seriously harm your flying experience in this case

[Alexandre Kubatko 340]

You can just insert "max_num_pax=180" and it will divide for you. No typo to seriously harm your flying experience

[Stu Antonio 1440]

2 minutes ago, Alexandre Kubatko said:

You can just insert "max_num_pax=180" and it will divide for you. No typo to seriously harm your flying experience

In my experience, it will then just divide by 3. 

[Lars Schneider 68]

5 minutes ago, Alexandre Kubatko said:

You can just insert "max_num_pax=180" and it will divide for you. No typo to seriously harm your flying experience

i know that, i was just asking for clarification reg. effect on weight distribution, as it accepts user customization of the zones. I would have tested it myself but my bus has been grounded until we get compatibility for v4.5.12

[Will Tearne 1]

2 hours ago, Andrew Wilson said:

Ah Lars has said - the new system really just works behind the scenes. You don't need to do anything. You shouldn't need to edit any files - any changes you make through the MCDU OPTIONS will be written to the airframe and retained. You can even now set the airframe reference weights through the MCDU. 

The registration configuration files and/or airline packs just offer an initial set of parameters that are used to configure any newly installed airframe. Once an airframe is installed, you may change any of the settings under MCDU/OPTIONS and they will be saved to that airframe. Nothing will change/write over those, unless you choose to 'reset' that airframe - forcing its settings to be re-generated next time you load the aircraft. 

I think once customers start using the update, it will become very clear how this all works. 

Good evening,

Just to clarify, the liveries that require installers will automatically install the correct and individual reg information into the file, but what about the liveries where one requires to put the texture folder into the SimObjects file manually... I know this creates a Panel file automatically but that's within the same folder, so will we have manually put the .reg files into the Airframe Config folder if it is a manual installation?

Thanks for any answers,

Will.

[Will Tearne 1]

13 hours ago, phil highton said:

And ive deleted the 4.5 client pre hotfix now I cant find it !

download it from your account again? Should be in legacy versions

 

[Andrew Wilson 6367]

1 hour ago, will_tearne02 said:

so will we have manually put the .reg files into the Airframe Config folder if it is a manual installation

Only if one is included with the repaint. One issue we observed with the 347 release is that some repaints either didn't include airframe options, or worse, included incorrect airframe options that were conflicting (compiled in error). This new infra will prevent this from happening. 

 

[Andrew Wilson 6367]

1 hour ago, Lars Schneider said:

By using "max_num_pax=XXX/XX/XX/XX" we can not only set max passengers, but also define the A/B/C zones in the cabin. Will this affect weight distribution the same as cargo compartements, which means we should always ensure that all 3 numbers are more or less equal? Or is it purely cosmetic and only changes the information on the payload/boarding pages of the MCDU?

 I'm just wondering if this could be used to depict classes like Economy, Premium-Economy and Business, but if it affects weight distribution i rather not cramp all my eco passengers into the last third of the cabin *g*

Hi Lars, 

It's not cosmetic - you can adjust the boarding configuration, within limits. For example, British Airways have a config on some of their A321's of 154/23/59/72 - which puts 23 in 'business' and the rest in OB/OC. An easyJet cabin layout, with no business cabin, would typically be split 3 ways - i.e. 180/60/60/60.

I've done some more work in this area included in the next update: we do parse these cabin configurations and there is now logic to prevent an improper distribution. I.e. you cannot have something like 150/12/42/96. This would put the ZFCG too far aft - and so the simulator would reconfigure this to even out sections OC/OB with, for example: 150/12/69/69. Any cargo would then be loaded further forward to yield a MACTOW around 28%-32%. 

Customers should certainly see a more balanced load. 

[Lars Schneider 68]

Thanks for clarifying Andrew, appreciate it! 

[Zachary Kerr 9]

I was really excited to install the hot fix......been plagued with stutters and pauses since installing v4.5 a few weeks ago. That is of course until i booted up my fslabs ‘bus only to find it was incompatible.....surprise!  Looks like I’m going back to v4.4 until these guys release a compatible update. Oh well....my excitement will need wait for another day. 

[Zachary Kerr 9]

They will release a fix soon. Just gotta be patient. You can revert back to the original  v4.5 or v4.4 client in the meantime. 

[Danny Moore 151]

Just as the frustration with FSL's policy of version locking is nothing new.

Yep, good old version lock. Last item on my list is the Labs before I can update. Unfortunately it's the norm but I'm expecting sometime this week.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Kuber Padia 5]

They will release a fix soon. Just gotta be patient. You can revert back to the original  v4.5 or v4.4 client in the meantime. 

Hey so, I installed the hotfix for my client, content and scenery. If I want to go back, so I just reinstall the older client? Or does scenery and content need to go back as well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Koen Meier 858]

Only client is needed to rollback 

[Kuber Padia 5]

Only client is needed to rollback 

Thanks very much!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Davede Buckham 5]

does this mean all liveries will be coming with an Airline Pack?