X-View - Preventing control of X-Plane aircraft?

[LawyerPilot]

Hi All:

Setting up a new PC. I was able to set up xview with XP11--worked like a charm. But I went into Xplane to check something out in one of my Xplane aircraft (Flight Factor A320U) and noticed that I can't move the aircraft. The throttles spool up, but it won't move (chocks removed parking brake confirmed off). I tried with the default aircraft (both prop and jet) as well. In those, the throttle movement has not effect at all--not even spooling up of the engines. The keyboard controls are similarly ineffective.

It's as if Xplane is stuck in an external visuals slave mode...even though I set network to Master mode and disabled xview in pluggins. What am I missing?

Thanks!

[Bastien]

Hi,

This is a known issue.
Disabling the plugin in X-plane menu doesn't work.
You have to rename or remove the Xview file in the plugin folder before starting X-plane.

Regards,
Bastien.

[LawyerPilot]

Ah, ok. Thanks for the heads up!

[cagarini]

Hi,

This is a known issue.
Disabling the plugin in X-plane menu doesn't work.
You have to rename or remove the Xview file in the plugin folder before starting X-plane.

Regards,
Bastien.

Instead of dropping the plugin in the general XP11 Resources\Plugins folder, put it in the psx747 model, in it's own plugin folder, and this way the plugin will only be loaded when you load that aircraft.

[LawyerPilot]

Bravo! Thanks Jcomm!

[Bastien]

Thanks Jcomm for the trick!
Didn't know this one

[cagarini]

Glad it worked guys :-)

BTW, a very nice scenery for TNCM has just been released for XP11. Actually many developers are moving into X-Plane and more and more sceneries will become available.

Unfortunately for me using PSX with an ancillary visuals sim never worked convincingly - it always massages the feel of inertia, and is particularly inexact under situations where we have to take from the sim the best visual references, like during approaches under bad weather... Also having only one low spec desktop and monitor doesn't make it practical...

But then, the visuals provided by PSX didn't satisfy me very much either, with the limited rw lighting systems and rw perspective / visual references, no sideviews being possible, the very rough terrain mesh that sometimes causes weird effects while taxing or taking off from some airports with sloped taxiways / runways ( even LPPT rw 21 with the bump we get during takeoff for even a slight slope irl), daylight sometimes not matching RL at the end / begining of the day, etc... Picky stuff that comes miles behind the priorities for such an extraordinary / unique simulation of the real 744, but for an armchair simmer like me who does not use it professionaly, are more in the focus.

Wish Hardy could one day implement his Masterpiece in an add-on for X-Plane
I am using there a very complex / detailled Airbus simulation, the FF A320 ultimate, which runs it's FDM and systems modelling totally outside of the flightsim, using only the sim physics on "ground mode", until the author gets time to also bring that out since ground physics have some well known problems in X-Plane 11...

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Wish Hardy could one day implement his Masterpiece in an add-on for X-Plane

Actually I think there is a better approach; one that has not yet really been taken, I believe.

If excellent visual scenery generators like X-Plane and P3D would really focus on becoming a near-perfect camera platform, without all the hocus-pocus that we need to do today to make it work, we could combine both the systems/aerodynamics world and the scenery world. I know there are APIs to do nearly the same but I feel these are still a hack, a workaround. The 'simulators' don't really want to be used only as scenery generators. So people think 'addon'. Instead of 'linkup'.

None of the two systems should be 'the boss'. They should be equal. One does the aircraft, the other the planet. They need to meet in the middle in terms of camera position and attitude, and in terms of weather. This needs to come from both sides. The scenery generator needs to be slaved completely to the plane sim in terms of position and attitude, but it may tell the sim that there is a hill coming up visually, which may not be present in the sim's world. And the same for weather. The sim likely knows best what to do when in a cloud with buffeting, but the scenery generator needs to feed the situation, the actual cloud penetration.

This middle ground has no real primary source. Either side could generate it. But both sides need to agree completely on it. There will usually be a practical solution which side does what. For example, the weather radar model and the visual cloud model both are capable of being in charge, but it likely is easier to model the radar after the visual clouds than the other way around, as clouds are more detailed already.

Hoppie

[GodAtum]

I think most full motion sims have 1 set of linked avionics and visuals?

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Nope. They have two distinct components, often even from different manufacturers. One is the aircraft electronics, flight deck, and motion system, all integrated (though some discrete avionics boxes like the GPWS may remain original equipment, to assure exact responses). The other is the visual system, with a separate computer, including the projectors on the roof of the cabin and the wraparound screen.

I don't know whether things changed a lot over the last decade but I believe that generating visuals still is a completely specialized job, not typically done directly by the big sim manufacturers -- though they may have bought a lot of suppliers.

Simple errors like landing on a taxiway when lined up with the ILS do pop up. Of course they are not present for the airfields that the instructors frequently use, but if you go adventurous, you may discover offsets. I remember that in the then brand-new 747-400ER sim at Lufthansa, LPPT (Lisboa, PT) was depicted nicely, and I was aligned nicely with the runway for landing, when a 767 pulled in and was supposed to hold short. Nope. She held short 90 degrees off the runway heading (ok) but with the forward half of the fuselage over the runway. Not intentionally -- just a slight misalignment.


Hoppie

[Toga]

It sounds like there's an opportunity out there for some whiz developers. Meanwhile, I mainly use it to keep my foot in the door. It's the perfect trainer as is.