[closed] FsPassengers for FSX official note and please !

[Flying Monkey]

Jeffrey, time acceleration is not the same as saving at all. You cannot do your preflight 16X (and who would want), nor your approach, and even if you
16X the cruise, you still need a couple of hours for a standard flight in a realistic plane -my point was there, saving is extremely useful for a lot
of us.

[jeffreycor]

You have a really slow plane if you need a couple hours to run a standard flight. :P Your idea of a realistic plane must be a DC3 or
something similer. I'm running 747 transatlantic and transcontenental and it doesn't take anywhere near that much time. And I never said
anything about preflight or landing in 16x. If you only have 20 minutes you don't start a long flight. So really I honestly do not see how
saving is such a huge benefit as you seem to make it out to be.

[jeffreycor]

dds92 wrote:
will fsp x have hijack? and if you have an emergency, will the atc follow your problems or will it still being like a perfect flight?

ATC is compleatly unrelated to FSP so that won't change at all, since it isn't in Dan's program to begin with Some addon ATC software
like Radar Contact has emergency handling in them, apart from that you have to fake it by canceling IFR or using the change destination
for a vectored approch to another airport and call it an emergency diversion in your own mind. It's dirty but gets the job done.

[Flying Monkey]

All I'm saying is that it take a while to do a preflight in the PMDG 747 for example, right, then you still need to handle the TO and a good part of
the climb before you switch to accelerated time, and then approach and landing take a long while too, right. In total, you end up playing a couple of
hours. Not everybody can do that. I can't with my little family, so saving would be extremely useful. I'm not trying to say that everybody should play
that way, just that for some people it would be very useful - why should I stop playing long flights at all if I can do it with saving? I don't see
why I should be told that it's not right playing that way. You can play long flights without saving and you have the time to, fair enough, just don't try to tell me that I should not have the right to play long flights because I can only afford to play 30 min per evening, please.
I don't want to argument about whether it is legitimate or not to save to be able to play long flights, that would hijack this thread and I don't want that.

I just wanted to express that point of view, which was that a "saving" option would be great. Since I also know it can be technically hard to
implement, I won't hope too much to see it, but know that some players rely a lot on saving, that's all.



Post Edited ( 02-12-08 01:09 )

[DanSteph]

About saving codes exist that I disabled in final version of FsP 2004, reason is that many complex planes and flight didn't restored well,
there is too much chances that your flight get messed and peoples will blames FsP. From my test I don't think the situation have changed
in FsX so no save planned sorry. So it's not by conviction but because of technicall problem not due to FsP.

Dan

[Flying Monkey]

Thanks for the answer Dan. I totally understand this. I thought the function was probably missing from FsP for this precise reason. Oh well, I'll go
on with the Beech 1900 or ATR 72 during week time, and long haul during week end time



Post Edited ( 02-12-08 04:18 )

[DanSteph]

UPDATE:

The "flight report banner" feature (see above) is soooo cool that I'm annoyed that a lot of peoples will not be aware of it. (who read doc ? )

So I just had an idea: logos (pilot/company) will have a "click on me to add a logo" and the flight report dialog will have a "add banner"
button, once clicked you'll have a "browse to image" dialog to select any jpg on your hard disk. Jpg will be resized (if needed)
to fit logo or banner max size and saved in FsP's directory ready to use.

Still there will be a "logo" and "banner" directory and I'll add a "banner" section to "more download" so peoples will
be able to share their logos & banners.

Dan



Post Edited ( 02-12-08 04:52 )

[xandan]

Thats a good idea Dan lol specially for those people who might not of read this part of the post =)

[crowebird]

can't wait!! everything looks great Dan!!

[fruitfly]

DanSteph wrote:

---

About "no pause" sorry no, one important phone and your flight is ruined... not that good.

----

[Viggo1]

Infact, there is a way to save a flight, shut down the computer, start it again when you wish and continiue with everything remembered.
It is called Hibernate and is inbuilt in windows XP (dont know in other versions). It works so that the computer saves everything it is doing
at
the moment (programs, open windows etc) to the harddisk, and then shouts down. when you then start the computer again, everything
come back... I use it sometimes and I think it works 99% of all the times.

hope it is usefull..

Victor

[m0thm]

Dan heres a maybe odd curve ball for you. IRL I fly gliders the new aerotow in FSX has therefore pleased me greatly. However it has crossed my mind
that it would be great if i could use FSP to take a passenger up for a joy ride. That would of course need a two seater and no co-pilot. Also landing
out or back at the same airport. (a poke at Microsoft but when are they gonna make it so runways arnt flat! my local airfields (not yet in FS anyway)
Have some intresting apporaches made so by the runway and a need to land up or down hill!).

Cheers

Tim

[runibl]

Would it be possible to implement a feature for diverting to another airport?
When you need to divert to another airport, click a button to notify flight attendants, then you would hear the flight attendants announce it to the
passengers. Then perhaps show in the passenger report something like "Did not land at planned airport, diversion was announced" or something like that.

Another thing i was thinking about (probably minor), was better seatbelt control. As it is now you can choose to have "Manual" & "Automatic" seatbelt
control. How about adding a 3rd option, a compromise. Where it would be manual seatbelt control, but still have it auto for turbulence.

[DanSteph]

m0thm wrote:
That would of course need a two seater and no co-pilot. Also landing out or back at the same airport.
Tim

Already done, I believe I wrote a notice in the old thread, declare your flight as "flight tour", you be able to take up to 15 pax and land at the
same airport. Income will be based on flight time. You'll be able also to declare a flight as "aerobatic flight" the goal here is to shake
them

Dan



Post Edited ( 02-13-08 15:24 )

[xandan]

Every little update is interesting Dan =D it gives us a chance to see how these things are coming along.

p.s. if someone says something will not be included within in a programme you should respect their decision, not matter what you want to try add on
if the answer is no just respect the answer.