Startup of FS: Addon Aicrafts vs. Standard Aircrafts

[wahltho]

Although not directly related to your products, you are probably the right expert to answer this question:

Today in another FS forum it was suggested to always start-up the FS with a standard MS aircraft and then to switch to the desired addon aircraft, because otherweise some internal FS variables would not be properly initialized.

Do you share this view and if so do you know about any impact?

[Pete Dowson]

Today in another FS forum it was suggested to always start-up the FS with a standard MS aircraft and then to switch to the desired addon aircraft, because otherweise some internal FS variables would not be properly initialized.

Do you share this view and if so do you know about any impact?

It is certainly a possibility, as some third-party aircraft don't implement all the subsystems and things like, for example, the Master Avionics or Battery switch might by initialised "off". Whilst this wouldn't do any harm to an implementation not using that subsystem, it may cause other aircraft, maybe without one or other of those switches, not to be operable. There are a number of things that this might happen to, I suspect.

The most likely culprits are those aircraft with AIR files originally based upon earlier versions -- FS2002, FS2000 or even FS98 are possibilities. As FS has become more sophisticated many subsystems have been changed or developed.

However, I think there is a better reason for loading FS with a default aircraft. Many of the more complex add-on aircraft, those with very sophisticated panels, are putting quite some demands on the various components of FS during a time when, because of initialisation sequences and so forth, it is not well set to efficiently deal with. This can lead to instability. For many versions there has been a general recommendation to load with a default, or at least relatively simple aircraft, for this reason -- more so I think than the missed initialised switches possibilities.

Regards,

Pete