Virtavia C-17 Globemaster III is OUT!!!

I have not tested this myself yet but try editing the following lines in the electrical section


autopilot = 0, 5, 0 //1, 5, 0
avionics_bus = 0, 10, 0//1, 10, 0

Bruce
 
I just tested Bruce's fix from a cold/dark cockpit and all seems to work perfectly.

I detected no problem with the autopilot switch after applying the fix.

Don't forget to change the electrical always available back to "0"

Many thanks to Bruce for helping to get this issue squared away!
 
mal998 said:
I just tested Bruce's fix from a cold/dark cockpit and all seems to work perfectly.

I detected no problem with the autopilot switch after applying the fix.

Don't forget to change the electrical always available back to "0"

Many thanks to Bruce for helping to get this issue squared away!
Click to expand...

Mal, I just concluded the test and the fix works perfectly. No issues at all now.
 
One thing I noticed, and it's only in a multiplayer session that requires a realistic IFF code depending on whether you file a VFR or IFR flight plan: the session bot doesn't recognize a change to the squawk code, even if I put in the right one (1200 for VFR, 2200 for IFR). I'd say it's a bot issue, but the bot recognizes the code on literally every other plane I fly (so if I start off squawking 1200, file an IFR plan, then change to 2200, it'll work in other planes; in the C17, the automated warning comes up that I'm not squawking 2200, even when I am). Not a truly huge deal if the session is VFR conditions, except that if I'm following ATC rules it means I can't fly above transition altitude. Otherwise, I can't fly IFR in the session at all. However, when I talk to controllers, they confirm I'm squawking the correct code - so something's missing there.

Thoughts (other than "just don't fly IFR in that session")?

FYI, other than this relatively minor issue, I LOVE the plane - favorite is the max performance tactical landing, very nice.
 
This has been taken under advisement. Will let you know if someone here can shed some more light on how to resolve the issue.

Thanks for the kind thoughts about the plane.
 
Thanks - don't know what I was doing before signing up with SOH, great to have direct contact with the developers.
 
Just wondering if you happen to also have the Virtavia B-1B, the Skysim Mirage III/5 or the the ALS-SIM Su-27? These all use the same piracy protection system. Trying to narrow this down so just wondering if it is unique to the C-17 or can be reproduced in one of those since they have this one thing in common?

N324JK said:
One thing I noticed, and it's only in a multiplayer session that requires a realistic IFF code depending on whether you file a VFR or IFR flight plan: the session bot doesn't recognize a change to the squawk code, even if I put in the right one (1200 for VFR, 2200 for IFR). I'd say it's a bot issue, but the bot recognizes the code on literally every other plane I fly (so if I start off squawking 1200, file an IFR plan, then change to 2200, it'll work in other planes; in the C17, the automated warning comes up that I'm not squawking 2200, even when I am). Not a truly huge deal if the session is VFR conditions, except that if I'm following ATC rules it means I can't fly above transition altitude. Otherwise, I can't fly IFR in the session at all. However, when I talk to controllers, they confirm I'm squawking the correct code - so something's missing there.

Thoughts (other than "just don't fly IFR in that session")?

FYI, other than this relatively minor issue, I LOVE the plane - favorite is the max performance tactical landing, very nice.
Click to expand...
 
I don't have any of the other aircraft listed. Are those the only payware that share the same anti-piracy? And I'm wondering what anti-piracy protection would have to do with an automated XPDR code recognition program.

Another way to attack this might be to ask the server host how the bot recognizes a XPDR code and then responds accordingly (e.g., it might be running off of a kind of IF_FP=IFR_AND_XPDR_=12XX_THEN_PLAY_INVXPDR.WAV, where the wav file is the audio message played for an invalid squawk code - note this isn't the actual programming, just an idea of what might be happening). If I knew what the bot's "looking for", that might pinpoint the problem (or at least eliminate it as a factor).


fsafranek said:
Just wondering if you happen to also have the Virtavia B-1B, the Skysim Mirage III/5 or the the ALS-SIM Su-27? These all use the same piracy protection system. Trying to narrow this down so just wondering if it is unique to the C-17 or can be reproduced in one of those since they have this one thing in common?
Click to expand...
 
I like this aircraft... it needs a few fixes but she is alot of fun. :applause:

Please for the repainters out there whom have her, a request for the QATAR paint like the area 51 version would be very nice...

for any takers on this request A big Thank You :wavey:
 
I asked about it a while back was told that Pierre who did the release textures was looking in to it. But that's all I know about it and it was a while ago.
:ernae:

doublecool said:
Please for the repainters out there whom have her, a request for the QATAR paint like the area 51 version would be very nice...
for any takers on this request A big Thank You :wavey:
Click to expand...
 
The ISG update is out with specific C-17 gauges, linked to a Smiths FMC. See Integrated Simavionics web page.It is wonderful!
 
Virtavia C-17 - Retrofit

coolguy3 said:
Matt wrote:



Hi Matt,

The reason why I haven't yet bought it is the price tag....it's high, particularly for a plane that doesn't have an FMC. I know Ernie Alston is working on one for his ISG package, which is good, but I still think a plane of this price should have a fully (or as close to it as possible, given FSX limitations) functional FMC. I'm still VERY much considering buying it, though!

Cheers,
Jim
Click to expand...


Hi, this is my first Post.

Maybe it is of interest.
My own corrected C-17A Virtavia ISG retrofit panel.

http://fsbuild.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4229

Now all original switch buttons are working, even the original ones.

The retrofit did not include the 2 Virtavia_C-17!MFDX1 + MFDX2 Gauges necessary for the 2-D panel.
The 3-D panel is now including 2 ISG MCU as you can see on the image. Click on, the MCU is opening.

View attachment 55876

regards,
Raimund

.
 
Strange sales

I find it rather odd that there are many versions of the same Bird being released at almost the sametime, Kinda makes it hard to make money at this dont ya think. Maybe there should be a Developers Summit, A meeting of the Minds, if you will so that everyone can compare notes on upcoming projects and decide on whos is making what. Maybe Im just dreaming but I do think it might help a Bit...... Oh Dont Mind me!!, Just happy to be here:salute::salute::salute:

:173go1::173go1::173go1::173go1:
 
Rattler said:
I find it rather odd that there are many versions of the same Bird being released at almost the sametime, Kinda makes it hard to make money at this dont ya think. Maybe there should be a Developers Summit, A meeting of the Minds, if you will so that everyone can compare notes on upcoming projects and decide on whos is making what. Maybe Im just dreaming but I do think it might help a Bit...... Oh Dont Mind me!!, Just happy to be here:salute::salute::salute:

:173go1::173go1::173go1::173go1:
Click to expand...

I think it makes for a more competitive environment. Also helps moderate prices a bit, but I fear at the challenge of potentially shutting out their competition. I remember not so long ago, arguing a bit with Iris about their F-111 and F-35 forecast releases. They stopped working on their F-35 because of Dino's then pending F-35 release. I thought it was kinda strange, but also a bit admirable that their model back then was not to undermine other developers working on the same airframe. And the comparision of the Virtavia and Area 51 C-17 to me, are night and day. I find the Virtavia one a bit more modelled better than the Area 51 variant.

Matt
 
strykerpsg said:
I think it makes for a more competitive environment. Also helps moderate prices a bit, but I fear at the challenge of potentially shutting out their competition. I remember not so long ago, arguing a bit with Iris about their F-111 and F-35 forecast releases. They stopped working on their F-35 because of Dino's then pending F-35 release. I thought it was kinda strange, but also a bit admirable that their model back then was not to undermine other developers working on the same airframe. And the comparision of the Virtavia and Area 51 C-17 to me, are night and day. I find the Virtavia one a bit more modelled better than the Area 51 variant.

Matt
Click to expand...

I don't really understand what you're saying here Matt. You say the comparison is night and day, but also say the Virtavia one is only modelled a "bit" better.

I'd like one of these, but not sure which yet.
 
dougal95 said:
I don't really understand what you're saying here Matt. You say the comparison is night and day, but also say the Virtavia one is only modelled a "bit" better.

I'd like one of these, but not sure which yet.
Click to expand...

The Virtavia C-17 is better but more expensive.

Nota:
Better without own FMC as with a bad FMC that maybe cannot be exchanged with other ones like the ISG.

Raimund
.
 
Rattler said:
I find it rather odd that there are many versions of the same Bird being released at almost the sametime, Kinda makes it hard to make money at this dont ya think. Maybe there should be a Developers Summit, A meeting of the Minds, if you will so that everyone can compare notes on upcoming projects and decide on whos is making what. Maybe Im just dreaming but I do think it might help a Bit...... Oh Dont Mind me!!, Just happy to be here:salute::salute::salute:

:173go1::173go1::173go1::173go1:
Click to expand...

Yeah in most countries that sort of behaviour between competing companies is actually illegal, it's called a cartel, as it reduces competition and raises prices to the detriment of the consumer. i.e. you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top