-
Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:
- Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
- Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
- Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
- Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
- Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
- Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.
Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.
By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.
Please Report Version 1.5+ Issues Here
- Thread starter gadgets
- Start date
- Status
- Messages
- 8
- Country
The program icon is missing.
There are unhandled exception errors when validating multiple flight plans.
The 'Help - about' shows the wrong version number.
Dave
There are unhandled exception errors when validating multiple flight plans.
The 'Help - about' shows the wrong version number.
Dave
- Messages
- 8
- Country
They're intermittent, when validating multiple flight plans.
There's also a problem when doing a 'collect airports'. Quite a few airports are not being entered into the list - and nothing has been changed since 1.4 (which didn't miss them).
As an example, I have an RAF Bentwaters and an RAF Woodbridge. Bentwaters makes the list, but Woodbridge doesn't. It did with 1.4, though.
I'm also told that there are aircraft that are 'not in the list'. This is being reported by the stock FS9 traffic BGL. I have not changed any aircraft or scenery since AIFP 1.4, but am now getting errors that are making this program unuseable.
I cannot trust the program.
Dave
Dan, I am unable to duplicate any of the problems you noted in your second post.
1. I have validated several sets of traffic files without any unhandled exceptions (or other problems). This suggest there may be some sensitivitys to file content. If you would send me the set of traffic files you were attempting to validate, I'll check further.
2. I do not get any reports of missing aircraft when I decompile the FS9 default traffic file - though there are a host of other non-critical errors. Is it possible that your copy of the file has been modified (It should have a date stamp of 29/05/2003.)
3. Re the missing airports, I can collect FS9 add-on airports without difficulty. But there are several possible explanations as why you are having problems:
At what point in the collection sequence did you determine that quite a few airports were not included? (I'm presuming these were add-on airports.) Please send me the files where a couple of those missing airports are defined (AFCAD/ADE/AFX) and I'll investigate further.
Please note, however, I'm away for three weeks starting Thursday and will only have intermittent web access and no access to my development machine. So, I probably can't do much more until I get back. In the meantime, I suggest you stick with 1.4.
Don
1. I have validated several sets of traffic files without any unhandled exceptions (or other problems). This suggest there may be some sensitivitys to file content. If you would send me the set of traffic files you were attempting to validate, I'll check further.
2. I do not get any reports of missing aircraft when I decompile the FS9 default traffic file - though there are a host of other non-critical errors. Is it possible that your copy of the file has been modified (It should have a date stamp of 29/05/2003.)
3. Re the missing airports, I can collect FS9 add-on airports without difficulty. But there are several possible explanations as why you are having problems:
- it's a bug in AI Flight Planner that needs a special circumstance in order to be triggered
- in Version 1.5, the logic for add-on airports was changed to exclude any airports without either a runway or a heliport - to address the situation where (for a variety of reasons) a designer may include more than one definition of an airport in an add-on file - only one of which is likely to have runways or heliports specified.
- I made some (sometimes subtle) changes in how things in the way the user interacts with the system. Perhaps, you've stumbled onto one of those.
At what point in the collection sequence did you determine that quite a few airports were not included? (I'm presuming these were add-on airports.) Please send me the files where a couple of those missing airports are defined (AFCAD/ADE/AFX) and I'll investigate further.
Please note, however, I'm away for three weeks starting Thursday and will only have intermittent web access and no access to my development machine. So, I probably can't do much more until I get back. In the meantime, I suggest you stick with 1.4.
Don
- Messages
- 8
- Country
Thanks for the new information, Dave.
I agree with Bob. It appears you don't have sufficient access privileges to "look where you are looking". That being said, AIFP shouldn't throw an exception. I thought I had trapped all those circumstances, but obviously I've missed (at least) one.
Now that I know what I'm looking for, I'll see if I can identify and fix the cause.
Don
I agree with Bob. It appears you don't have sufficient access privileges to "look where you are looking". That being said, AIFP shouldn't throw an exception. I thought I had trapped all those circumstances, but obviously I've missed (at least) one.
Now that I know what I'm looking for, I'll see if I can identify and fix the cause.
Don
- Messages
- 2
- Country
Hi Don,
I think there may be a bug with using the Subset Flight Plans feature in v1.58. I have been trying to separate the FSX default GA flight plans as described in Sect 6.6 of the manual however the Aircraft selection process does not seem to work correctly. No matter which Aircraft I select to subset the program thinks I am selecting from the top of the list down as many lines as I pre-select (refer screen shots in zip file below).
Subset-1.jpg: Select Aircraft for inclusive subset. (C172SP)
Subset-2.jpg: Note window asks to confirm keeping Aircraft with Ref No's: 1-10 (not 57-66 as selected above)
Subset-3.jpg: Subset generated flight plans have wrong Aircraft (Ref No's: 1-10)
Subset-4: List of Aircraft from 1st Subset generated flight plans confirming the top 10 Aircraft were used incorrectly.
Any assistance with this issue would be appreciated.
I think there may be a bug with using the Subset Flight Plans feature in v1.58. I have been trying to separate the FSX default GA flight plans as described in Sect 6.6 of the manual however the Aircraft selection process does not seem to work correctly. No matter which Aircraft I select to subset the program thinks I am selecting from the top of the list down as many lines as I pre-select (refer screen shots in zip file below).
Subset-1.jpg: Select Aircraft for inclusive subset. (C172SP)
Subset-2.jpg: Note window asks to confirm keeping Aircraft with Ref No's: 1-10 (not 57-66 as selected above)
Subset-3.jpg: Subset generated flight plans have wrong Aircraft (Ref No's: 1-10)
Subset-4: List of Aircraft from 1st Subset generated flight plans confirming the top 10 Aircraft were used incorrectly.
Any assistance with this issue would be appreciated.
It was an indexing problem (as you had already figured out), Flinty72, and has been fixed in Release 1.58(a) .
Thanks for taking the time to fully diagnose the problem. I made my job a lot easier.
Have a great weekend,
Don
Thanks for taking the time to fully diagnose the problem. I made my job a lot easier.
Have a great weekend,
Don
- Status