|
Post by DirkDP on Sept 23, 2016 20:44:43 GMT -5
Hey Travis,
I'm setting up the PSS757 to work with FSC. The wing anti-ice doesn't seem to register with FSC. So I can check the inop box and lose some realism. Or... Would it be possible to add another option for the anti-ice systems (engine and wing), which you already have in place for the belt signs; let the F/O handle it. Then, when flying in icing conditions, an anti-ice signal would be generated by FSC itself. The icing hazards could be used on any FS aircraft out there, and no need for interface files.
DDP.
|
|
|
Post by peter on Sept 24, 2016 4:48:22 GMT -5
Hi Dirkdp,
maybe Travis and Dutch will have different opinions, but from my perspective this would not be an desirable option. The difference is that the seat belt sign is not essential to flying the plane, while anti-ice is. My understanding is that the captain makes all decisions related to flying the plane. The FO only performs tasks that affect flying the plane when advised by the captain. The FO can do other tasks without a "command", for instance changing radio frequencies, checking systems etc.
However, we may be able to get anti-ice working if you could go hunting for Lvars using Linda. The procedure is described in "Introduction To FSCaptain Interfaces.pdf". You only have to worry about phase I -III on the first four pages of that document, we can take care of the rest.
Cheers, Peter
|
|
|
Post by Travis on Sept 24, 2016 23:15:38 GMT -5
Hi Dirk, Peter's correct. F/Os are usually not given "flight critical" items to handle. (This very factor will come into play in FSCaptain 1.8.0 for a feature that I'm bound by contract to not mention!!!) If you are running FSX / P3D, the LINDA utility can discover the Local VARiables that the airplane developer could be using for certain systems. I am working to update this document to remove any mention of "writing XML code" and to focus on "discovering data for the ACME team." With regards,
|
|
|
Post by DirkDP on Sept 26, 2016 20:12:07 GMT -5
Hi guys, Thanks for the reply. I don't use FSX, and I certainly can't program XML, so... Member Ajurt37 seems to be working on that. I used his galley power script for the PSS757 and it worked. fscaptain.proboards.com/thread/2753/galley-powerDDP.
|
|
|
Post by Travis on Sept 28, 2016 22:19:29 GMT -5
DDP,
That's understood (about not running FSX) and we're glad that you've found some solace for your needs.
Regards,
|
|
rhoanw
Trainee
Alpha Tester
Posts: 18
|
Post by rhoanw on Nov 25, 2016 23:38:23 GMT -5
Utilizing the World Map and beyond
I was flying some moments ago and came up with a few ideas: 1. How about creating an entire spin off using the World Map feature. 2. Use the world map to create/ view hub(s) that you operate from and have your office/ hangars 3. Offer loans to start the company and lease/ purchase buildings, planes, fuel etc. 4. You manage your company by clicking your hub which will bring up all details of your company at that location in a tabular form such as employed pilots at the location, airplanes at the location and status of airplane, bills, etc. 5. Have area(s) on the World Map that you can purchase or lease airplanes (new or used) 6. Introduce the ability to repair your airplane and buy a damaged one and get it repaired at your hangar. 7. Have a dedicated area where pilots are available for hire and also allow the system to allow pilots to send applications to the company periodically depending on the Company reputation. 8. For the icing on the cake, how about creating a system like a tender whereby each company will have to bid for available routes to fly. The system will randomly select the winning bid based on reputation, aircraft owned/ leased at the time of the bid and amount of money the company has. 9. Each player would be able to create their own routes as before but they would not get them automatically.
That's it in a nutshell. I suppose it would require a lot of work but I think it has potential as the next step to FS Captain or possibly an addon.
|
|
|
Post by Travis on Nov 26, 2016 2:31:38 GMT -5
That sounds a lot like some of the ideas we've bandied about for FSCompany... so I'll let Peter pick up the discussion from here... I haven't seen him for a few days so it may a while before he responds.
Regards,
|
|
|
Post by peter on Nov 26, 2016 5:58:12 GMT -5
Hi Rhoanw,
nice ideas. In part they are already under development, as Travis said. However, do not expect the new features to be out for at least another year.
As for the world map, I can give you access to a web page that can display your past flights and flight details. PM me with your desired user name if you are interested.
Cheers, Peter
|
|
rhoanw
Trainee
Alpha Tester
Posts: 18
|
Post by rhoanw on Nov 27, 2016 23:35:20 GMT -5
Well I for one can't wait! I got access to FSCC already; however I wonder when it displays flights that are coming up can you click them and it will automatically be added to my FS Captain Admin?
|
|
|
Post by peter on Nov 28, 2016 5:20:30 GMT -5
Hi Rhoanw,
yes, something like this will be a feature.
Cheers, Peter
|
|
|
Post by Rustydog on Dec 28, 2016 16:58:35 GMT -5
Change of topic. If I forget to tell the crew I'm about to land (which I shouldn't) would it be possible to just be told about it the 1st time. I only forgot once and in the areas for concern tab I'm told I repeatedly forget and it stays there for several flights. A bit harsh for just once surely? not a biggie but a bit demoralising (hell I'm busy trying to land lol). Great software. Tried others but this one hits the sweet spot. Many thanks for your continued work. Regards Steve.
|
|
|
Post by jkawai on Dec 29, 2016 16:29:57 GMT -5
Somebody's probably already said it, forgive me not reading the entire thread, but (especially since my Air Hauler won't work properly) it would be nice if there was an element of progression in FSC, rather than just stepping up ranks which to me seem arbitrary. Would be good if you were restricted on which aircraft and flights you could fly until you climbed the ranks, like in Air Hauler (except there it is financial restriction)
|
|
|
Post by Travis on Dec 30, 2016 2:42:54 GMT -5
Hi Steve,
First, thank you for you kind words. They're much appreciated!
I've been looking at the 'concerns' of late. About three weeks ago I allowed myself to crash and to then watch the comments (and insults!) thereafter. I've completed eight flights since then, and I'm still seeing insults... so perhaps in the Beta 4 timeline I will look to address a change in this aspect.
With regards,
|
|
|
Post by Travis on Dec 30, 2016 2:59:41 GMT -5
Hi Jkawai,
One of FSCaptain's guiding precepts is to not deny a Captain the ability to make a flight which the Captain wants.
So if on your first FSCaptain flight you want to take a Piper Cub from KEWR to KJFK... please proceed!
Then immediately afterward if you want to take a Concorde from EGLL to KMIA... go right ahead!!
FSCaptain has never wanted to restrict or to enforce progression. Our planned add-on would enable such, but otherwise we feel that YOU should be the guardian of what YOU should be able to fly.
We enforce a 'professional approach' to any aircraft that YOU want to fly as an Air Transport Pilot. We can restrict the types of airports that you can use (private, closed, Customs-restricted....) But those definitions are always up to you....
Do you want to take passengers/cargo in a C172? Come on... we will give you flights and grade you on them.
Do you want to take passengers/cargo in an A380? We're ready, so come on... we will give you flights and grade you on them.
Otherwise if you want to fly piston aircraft on odd-numbered days, and heavy jets on even-numbered days... and then fly amphibious aircraft on days that are evenly divisible by 5... go ahead!
The possibilities for 'progressive flying' are very ill-established, so we feel that any such FSCaptain restrictions are best left to each Captain to enforce.
Regards,
|
|
|
Post by jkawai on Dec 30, 2016 5:48:22 GMT -5
Hi Travis
I see - what do you mean by ill-established?
Also did you say the planned add-on would enable it anyway? If it's an option yes that would make more sense rather than it being compulsory
|
|