|
Post by electra on Aug 18, 2020 6:51:44 GMT
Hi, this is actually the "Dennis the Menace" from CalClassic propliner forums.
I've finally decided to install all the jets that were in use up to the end of '62. All the 707s are done and installed, all fly and all show up just fine, no issues. One strange problem remains, however. On some 707s, when you click on the kneeboard icon and display the kneeboard, and then go to either the checklist or the reference section, a white screen appears with large blue letters saying "This page can't be displayed" and underneath it says "make sure the web address is correct", "look for the page with your search engine", and refresh the page in a few minutes". I've never seen this in my life.
The 120s, the 120bs, the 720s and the 720bs and the 138 display the checklists and reference normally. However, the 220, the 138bs, the 320s and the 320b all come up with that strange error message in the kneeboard when clicking on the checklist or reference buttons. The other buttons function normally.
This despite copying the html from the reference and checklist in the folder to the aircrafts entry in the config file. I even assumed there might be a corrupt or hidden character in the panel config, so I copied the entry from known good panel config, but to no avail.
If you click on the html in the aircraft's folder, you can read them just fine on the browser. All the information is there and it works normally. As to why nothing makes them show up in the kneeboard, I haven't a clue and I've been doing this now almost 20 years.
This is how it is appearing on the 138B
All installs are completely brand new, having just been downloaded and installed in the last two weeks, so I assume those are the most current files.
Any ideas?
Mike
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Aug 18, 2020 8:50:48 GMT
I've just had a look at this Mike .... based on one of the subjects you say this data wasn't functioning with .... for the -220 in regard to my own check this evening and here's what I can report .... When selected from the panel and sub panel icons neither CHECK nor REF data displayed for me either .... but .... I never saw that particular message since what I was confronted with was blank pages only. Accessing this data is normally just a case of going to the B707 Main Panel .... to the Sub Panel selection Icons at the top of each Main Panel (if using our own panels) in particular .... then selecting the "CHECK" icon .... and when that window opens selecting the corresponding "CHECK" and "REF" icons accordingly and from the icon list appearing at the right of this window/sub panel. The above actions should then result in their CHECK and REF data being displayed individually once their respective icons are selected. As I said above .... this data didn't display for me either .... and the reason for that (in my case) is because the necessary and HTML related CHECK and REF file names (these HTML files should be located inside each individual B707/720 aircraft base pack) "hadn't" been added, by me, to the respective KB CHECK and KB REF data lines with the AIRCRAFT CFG base FLTSIM.XX data for each texture. Once added .... and again in the case of my own B707-220 .... everything then displayed OK, for me, upon my accessing the CHECK and REF knee board data via the appropriate Sub Panel icons. The only reason for this data to not be accessible (so far as I'm aware) is .... (1) if the required HTML files aren't located inside their respective aircraft base packs .... (2) if the KB CHECK and KB REF data lines within the FLTSIM.XX data for each texture aren't edited with the respective files names .... or (3) if the required KB CHECK and KB REF file names are incorrectly edited into the FLTSIM.XX/CFG data lines for each texture. I can't think of any other reason/s that might impair this data from being viewed upon being selected as described above. I don't think there's any WINDOWS incompatibility associated with these HTML files, but, can't definitively confirm this isn't the case. I admit that by default most of the FLTSIM.XX/CFG based KB CHECK and KB REF data lines for each texture we offer may not be edited now .... since despite the fact we continue providing this HTML data most people seemed to find it just as easy, if not easier, to print off copies of this information in order to refer to during their virtual flights, so, we've not really worried about it. Again .... and if you intend to use it .... check the necessary HTML files are included within each of your B707/720 aircraft base packs .... and that references to these files are edited into the KB CHECK and KB REF data lines within the FLTSIM.XX data for each texture you've installed .... as advised above. Although I've read you've apparently done this (and I know from personal experience how meticulous you normally are) please check that the said data lines inside your CFG's read in accordance with the following example/methodology which is specific to the "B707-120B" only .... kb_checklists=boeing707-120B_check kb_reference=boeing707-120B_refApply the above methodology to the CFG based data lines KB CKECK and KB REF data lines for each of your B707/720 subjects accordingly. FYI .... B707-120/-138 use the following HTML type CHECK and REF data .... boeing707-120_check boeing707-120_ref B707-120B/-120BF/and both -138B EARLY and LATE /138 use the following HTML CHECK and REF data .... boeing707-120B_check boeing707-120B_ref B707-220 uses the following HTML type CHECK and REF data .... boeing707-220_check boeing707-220_ref B707-320 uses the following HTML type CHECK and REF data .... boeing707-320_check boeing707-320_ref B707-420 uses the following HTML type CHECK and REF data .... boeing707-420_check boeing707-420_ref B707-320B EARLY/-320B ADV use the following HTML type CHECK and REF data .... boeing707-320B_check boeing707-320B_ref B707-320C and -700 use the following HTML type CHECK and REF data .... boeing707-320c_check boeing707-320c_ref B720 uses the following HTML type CHECK and REF data .... boeing720-020_check boeing720-020_ref As Tom might say .... "I hope this helps" Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by electra on Aug 18, 2020 9:48:57 GMT
Hi again,
Just looking at the 320B early. Everything matches. In fact I copied and pasted from the checklist htm right into the config file aircraft's entry to make sure of no misspellings or other issues. No change. I wanted to try something, so I moved the check and ref htms into a new folder, then put the 120 check and ref into the 320b main folder to see if I could trick it into working by renaming them to the 320b name. That did not work. Also, every checklist and ref is in every respective folder for every entry. The strange thing is why it works for some, and not for others. Has got to be some simple mistake......
PS, I did a backdated Alice Springs and Ayers Rock airstrip, working with Mat Dalton and his Ayers Rock. Not NZ, but its still in "upside down" land!
Here's a screen shot of the 320b entry, maybe you can spot something....
Mike
|
|
|
Post by Klaus Hullermann on Aug 18, 2020 12:37:26 GMT
Hi Mike,
I think I found the solution to your problem: Delete the ".htm"-part of each kb_ entries in the aircraft.cfg file. Then you should be able to access the checklist and reference files of your HJG 707s.
Klaus
|
|
|
Post by electra on Aug 18, 2020 17:45:24 GMT
Thank you Klaus, and Mark for your help. That solved it!
Its so funny what a third set of eyes can do; I had looked at those configs side by side and never even saw it. Like they say, "if it was a snake, it would have bit you". I had gone to the point of trying to trick it into showing by using a different air file (from the 120, which was showing up), to new config files, to using different panels....and I was at a complete loss. You know how your mind starts to wander.... Turns out as is most cases a tiny error.
Now all the Boeings are done and its on to the Convairs. I would like to have side views, but there are none on the net, and really no photos to use as the plane is so rare. So I have a choice, the 707 or the DC-8, neither of which are correct but it seems to me the DC-8 is a bit closer looking. I also have side and rear still views of an Electra.
After that, the Douglases and the Caravelles, and then I have to find a decent TU-104. Getting a panel that is understandable seems to be the biggest issue. Any suggestions on a decent one?
Mike.
PS heard this the other day when I went to pick up my computer from the repair store (the power supply had died). Two young 20 somethings were talking about the new Flightsim 2020, and how great it was going to be on a laptop, then one asked the other "do you think I could play it on my phone...?". Imagine looking at a panel on a 2 inch screen......omg - FS on a phone - I must be getting old or out of it.
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Aug 18, 2020 20:40:43 GMT
Gut identifizierter Klaus .... gut gemacht .... danke! The old "file naming conventions" imposition aye. On some PC's the file type suffix is mandatory whilst on others it's not. Thanks for that 2nd posting Mike (with all the necesary data imagery we could possibly want (if everyone thought to do that it'd certainly help us big time) .... whilst I was catching some ZZZZZZZ's Glad the issue's now resolved, so, enjoy the B707's/B720's .... "as they currently are". I say "as they currently are" because FYI .... and for the last wee while (since we can only do this as our persaonal time allows) too .... we've been working on FDE upgrades to benefit our entire B707, B720, and C-135 flight lines. These simulationns have "NEVER" been FDE enhanced since 2004-ish .... at least not beyond what was deemed necessary in order to allow George's great panels to work properly with them. They're badly "IN NEED" of enhancement knowing what we now know how to do that we didn't understand to be able to do all those years ago. ANYWAY ... this FDE enhancement "IS" still proceeding and with so far "GOOD" results .... thanks to both Mike and George's assistance .... and when re-released we hope to offer them with yet "ANOTHER SURPRISE" as well Here's a little concerning what's so far been achieved .... B707/720 (2X pges) tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/9327/tweaking-120-family-members[n]C-135[/b] (coincidental to a recently released new militarty base pack) tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/9778/new-military-aircraft-base-packSome of this FDE work is "quite tedious" .... requiring thorough testing of a number of variations of the same data in order to find, and apply, the "best solution/s" .... but .... 95% of what's been done, so far, is resulting in considerable improvement/s. There is still a bit we can't resolve though .... for reason of one technical limitation or another .... but .... that's the way these models are/FS sometimes is and we just have to live with that whilst benefitting from the other "successful" edits. No time frame re this re-release. We may opt to release these "in parts" .... as each block of aircraft subjects is completed .... we'll just have to wait'n'see. I'll come back to you later Mike in regard to some of your other comments and suggestions Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Aug 18, 2020 21:16:21 GMT
Our CV-880's should perform "right on their numbers" (MACH 0.88 and MACH 0.89 above the virtual FL310 .... for both the -22 and -22M) since Mike and I retuned them a few years ago. Our CV-990's should also perform right on their numbers too (in the high altitude/high speed cruise regime .... MACH 0.89 to MACH 0.90 for the unmodified/standard -990 and MACH 0.95 through 0.97 for the modified -990A), but, these simulations do still need some FDE tuning (other than the fact they do otherwise fly/cruise beautifully) which Mike (MONCE) and I might eventually get to in the future .... since I do now have the AOM data for them. More than a dozen years ago .... probably even longer .... I did discover some interior FD side views on the NET that were intended for both CV-880 and CV-990 use. I never used them .... or ever sought to get authorization to use them .... simply because they didn't properly capture those 7 important and all-around interior quarter views specifically from "the left seat pilots eye position". With the passage of time .... and despite my normally "very clear and precise memory", and obviously influenced by the fact these particular files didn't satisfy me anyway, I can't now recall where they were located .... other than the fact they do/did once exist. I also recall, back in 2003/4, we/HJG were hoping to have got access to the CV-990A located at the SWISS TRANSPORT MUSEUM. Someone in that region was trying to arrange this for us, but, it never came to pass .... for whatever reason I'll get back to you later still re TU-104 panel options .... since there's a lot of "DISINFORMATSIYA" concerning some of these Russian panels is the minds of a number of western FS entrhusiasts. Our Walter TAUSH/"WALTERLEO" might also be able to help you with this quest as he's our resident "Soviet aircraft" specialist .... whatever he doesn't know about these aircraft and simulation simply isn't of value Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by Nathan Ford - HJG on Aug 18, 2020 22:54:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Aug 18, 2020 23:30:21 GMT
"THAT" .... would be "A VERY GOOD START" Nathan. Now I'm aware of the existence of this exhibit I also know someone whom might be able to assist, so, I'll raise the subject with this FS colleague (whom "IS" very well aware of our needs) the next time I occasion to communicate with him in order to see what might be achievable. "TO DATE" the recurring problems have been .... (1) locating an aircraft front end (almost impossible) that's sufficiently intact and presentable as to be usable for the required photography .... and (2) someone being "very clearly briefed", by us, in regard to our "specific needs" in order to enable getting "PRECISELY THE ANGLES OF VIEW WE NEED/WANT" since, unless we're incredibly lucky, we'd probably only get "ONE SHOT ONLY" at being able to successfully acquire the necessary resource. Doing so would also probably undoubtedly require "a donation" of some sort being made to the host/s concerned .... a simple matter of negotiation and courtesy. There is also though another developmental consideration we now have to bear in mind that might dictate the worth/sense of doing something like this but which I won't publicly comment in regard to Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Aug 18, 2020 23:33:18 GMT
GETTING BACK TO MIKE's QUEST .... re the TU-104 at least .... IMHO .... this's the best TU-104 panel/simulation ..... "YES" .... it's panel and gauges are placard in cyrillic (as should of course be the case) and read in accordance with metric conventions, but, from memory most are also identified "in English" per tool tip placarding when one's mouse is hovered above each gauge item. After flying it for a while (only I haven't flown it for a fair while) and needing to do this, then, one tends to adapt to this "minor imposition" (much more easily than one might first imagine) .... as one's "own memory" tends to take control after a while when each item becomes adapted to/known per both "memory and familiarity" .... and IMHO once again I feel half the fun of any new simulation is "learning how to fly and adapt to it" As I recall there was an AP NAV related issue with this particular panel (in it's original release), but, I also recall commentary to the effect this might now have been resolved. According to my own records it's development team are as follows .... Walter will certainly know more .... and may even be able to link you to more recent updates for this panel/simulation An FS colleague of mine has also recently produced a selection of R/W and HD textures for this same TU-104 simulation, but, which have not yet been publicly shared/distributed. Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Aug 19, 2020 8:45:20 GMT
Hi friends: The screenshots above show a Tu-104 which started in FS 2002, there is a much better and genuine Tu-104B by Michail Stepanov: www.avsim.su/f/fs2004-originalnye-samolety-40/legendarnyy-layner-tu-104-v-0-91-25499/zipI have worked on that simulation and pubslished refinements for the Tu-104 A and B model according to time of service. I also could correct an issue with the joystick-gauge. A known bug is only with the working of the brake chute on the Tu-104 A. Many repaints for the Tu-104 A were published but not for the B-model. This was the last repaint for the Tu-104 A of Aeroflot: Here my reworked Tu-104B as from 1976 according to the Aeroflot manual of that time: www.avsim.su/f/fs2004-originalnye-samolety-40/reworked-tu-104-b-1976-56272/zipThe navigation panel contains everything the Soviets achieved in real. To understand the simulation I have presented a flying guide and exampleflight Gander-Keflavik as it was flown by Aeroflot in the sixties: www.avsim.su/f/fs2004-originalnye-samolety-40/tu-104-english-brief-flight-manual-and-exampleflight-atlantic-crossing-56273/zipCSA flew some years with its Tu-104 A from Prag to Jakarta quite a long way for the range of the 104 making necessary 4 stops in between and taking 15 flighthours. Various time and climate zones had to be crossed, making a good weather radar a necessity: But also offering tremendous sights like over Gizee: The Tu-104 had no ILS coupled AP, so the approaches were handflown: Kind regards Walter P.S.: I would suggest to use the Stepanov Tu-104, and have a look on my reworked versions of it. For more on the Tu-104 see that: tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/9048/atlantic-crossingThat flight was done in the earlier version of Tu-104 with the older navigation panel and not with the NAS-50 Doppler Radar navigation instrument.
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Aug 19, 2020 9:05:50 GMT
Hi friends: Only a side note on the CV 990: As for my private pleasure I have worked on the CV 990 panel without publishing it: So the panel as it could haven been with Swissair and Spantax less the AoA/G-meter. The CV 990 A for me flies well, as long as you respect the higer speeds this bird needed to come down gracefully so for me the AoA indicator! LOL!!!!! Kind regards Walter
|
|