Post by M.I.B. on Apr 16, 2017 14:02:11 GMT
I've just "taken delivery" of my brand new HJG BAe 146/Avro RJ fleet, and it is nothing short of a treasure, no bugs or issues encountered so far, I'm super happy with it. However, I did stumble upon a handful of minor errors here and there, in the case of certain files of this package, and I figured I should maybe let you folks know. These apparent errors have nothing whatsoever to do with the simulations themselves and the way they behave/fly, as was the case with the recent weaving issue, it's just a bunch of wrong links on the website and misplaced text in some readme files. There may or may not be some other BAe 146/Avro RJ files with similar errors, I'm only reporting on the ones that I personally encountered. If I'll encounter more in the future, I shall report those too here. So here they are:
- On the "BAe146-300QT Quiet Trader" download page (bottom of the page), the second repaint for that aircraft (Malmo Aviation) shows a preview screenshot of an XP - Express Parcel Systems repaint (I suppose this is correct), but upon clicking on the preview to see the screenshot in full size, a screenshot of the first repaint for this aircraft - Australian Air Express - is being displayed.
- On the "Avro RJ100 download page" the last repaint for that aircraft (Swissair) contains erroneous data in the "add to aircraft" txt file that comes with the repaint. Specifically, the "sim=" line reads "sim=bae1463" but it should read "sim=arj100", because the name of the air file of this aircraft is "arj100", not "bae1463", as is the case with the BAe 146-300 simulation. It would seem to me this repaint, although being included in the Avro RJ100 list of repaints (as it should), "looks like" a repaint of a BAe 146-300, judging by the "sim=" line in the "add to aircraft" txt file, as well as by the name of the zip archive that contains the texture, which contains "bae146-300" (as is the case with the BAe 146-300 repaints) instead of "rj100" (as is the case with the RJ100 repaints). So it would seem to me this is indeed a repaint of an RJ100 (as Swissair did operate the RJ100 and had this livery on the aircraft), the repaint is correctly included in the RJ100 list of repaints, but it is wrongly "configured" like a BAe 146-300 repaint.
- The "installation instructions" txt files that come with the RJ100 and BAe 146-300 base packs, contain potentially, slightly confusing instructions. Specifically: The last step at point number 3, (INSTALLING THE ADDITIONAL TEXTURES CONTENT) says this: "PLEASE NOTE ADDITIONALLY: After successfully installing this additional textures content each of the following texture BPM files may be safely deleted from each BAe 146-300 QT texture folder assigned to this particular aircraft base pack". But since these are RJ100 and BAe 146-300 base packs and repaints (and not BAe 146-300QT ones), shouldn't the instructions read "from each BAe 146-300 texture folder" and "from each RJ100 texture folder" respectively?
- The "installation instructions" txt file that comes with the BAe146-300QT base pack, also contains slightly confusing instructions, which are similar but not identical to the ones described in the case of the RJ100/BAe 146-300 base packs above. Specifically: The first step at point number 3, (INSTALLING THE ADDITIONAL TEXTURES CONTENT) says this: "The folder "ADDITIONAL TEXTURES BAe 146-300 & RJ-100 PAX SUBJECTS ONLY" contains 6 additional texture BMP files.". But since this is the BAe 146-300QT simulation, I think the text should read: "The folder "ADDITIONAL TEXTURES BAe 146-300 QT FREIGHTER SUBJECTS ONLY" contains 6 additional texture BMP files.", because that's the title of the folder containing the additional textures in the case of the BAe 146-300QT. The "ADDITIONAL TEXTURES BAe 146-300 & RJ-100 PAX SUBJECTS ONLY" title is valid only in the case of the BAe 146-300 and RJ100 simulations, because that is the title of the folder containing the additional textures in the case of those 2 simulations.
Keep in mind that this is the way things look like to me, so it could also be that I am wrong here, in which case, I apologize. If, however, I am correct about these minor errors, no problem, I won't sue you. They are just that, minor errors, which are utterly inevitable when dealing with such amounts of intense work like you guys do, so that's totally understandable. In fact, I'm surprised there aren't more of them, given the amount of work involved. I just figured I should report them, in case they can be easily corrected.
Thanks again for existing, HJG, and for everything you do!
- On the "BAe146-300QT Quiet Trader" download page (bottom of the page), the second repaint for that aircraft (Malmo Aviation) shows a preview screenshot of an XP - Express Parcel Systems repaint (I suppose this is correct), but upon clicking on the preview to see the screenshot in full size, a screenshot of the first repaint for this aircraft - Australian Air Express - is being displayed.
- On the "Avro RJ100 download page" the last repaint for that aircraft (Swissair) contains erroneous data in the "add to aircraft" txt file that comes with the repaint. Specifically, the "sim=" line reads "sim=bae1463" but it should read "sim=arj100", because the name of the air file of this aircraft is "arj100", not "bae1463", as is the case with the BAe 146-300 simulation. It would seem to me this repaint, although being included in the Avro RJ100 list of repaints (as it should), "looks like" a repaint of a BAe 146-300, judging by the "sim=" line in the "add to aircraft" txt file, as well as by the name of the zip archive that contains the texture, which contains "bae146-300" (as is the case with the BAe 146-300 repaints) instead of "rj100" (as is the case with the RJ100 repaints). So it would seem to me this is indeed a repaint of an RJ100 (as Swissair did operate the RJ100 and had this livery on the aircraft), the repaint is correctly included in the RJ100 list of repaints, but it is wrongly "configured" like a BAe 146-300 repaint.
- The "installation instructions" txt files that come with the RJ100 and BAe 146-300 base packs, contain potentially, slightly confusing instructions. Specifically: The last step at point number 3, (INSTALLING THE ADDITIONAL TEXTURES CONTENT) says this: "PLEASE NOTE ADDITIONALLY: After successfully installing this additional textures content each of the following texture BPM files may be safely deleted from each BAe 146-300 QT texture folder assigned to this particular aircraft base pack". But since these are RJ100 and BAe 146-300 base packs and repaints (and not BAe 146-300QT ones), shouldn't the instructions read "from each BAe 146-300 texture folder" and "from each RJ100 texture folder" respectively?
- The "installation instructions" txt file that comes with the BAe146-300QT base pack, also contains slightly confusing instructions, which are similar but not identical to the ones described in the case of the RJ100/BAe 146-300 base packs above. Specifically: The first step at point number 3, (INSTALLING THE ADDITIONAL TEXTURES CONTENT) says this: "The folder "ADDITIONAL TEXTURES BAe 146-300 & RJ-100 PAX SUBJECTS ONLY" contains 6 additional texture BMP files.". But since this is the BAe 146-300QT simulation, I think the text should read: "The folder "ADDITIONAL TEXTURES BAe 146-300 QT FREIGHTER SUBJECTS ONLY" contains 6 additional texture BMP files.", because that's the title of the folder containing the additional textures in the case of the BAe 146-300QT. The "ADDITIONAL TEXTURES BAe 146-300 & RJ-100 PAX SUBJECTS ONLY" title is valid only in the case of the BAe 146-300 and RJ100 simulations, because that is the title of the folder containing the additional textures in the case of those 2 simulations.
Keep in mind that this is the way things look like to me, so it could also be that I am wrong here, in which case, I apologize. If, however, I am correct about these minor errors, no problem, I won't sue you. They are just that, minor errors, which are utterly inevitable when dealing with such amounts of intense work like you guys do, so that's totally understandable. In fact, I'm surprised there aren't more of them, given the amount of work involved. I just figured I should report them, in case they can be easily corrected.
Thanks again for existing, HJG, and for everything you do!