First I have to say what an amazing panel, a real work of art. I'm still flying the the 737-200 FFX. When I upgraded to v1.1 the folder for the 732 FFX did not have an FDE file. Should I use the the the new FDE or the old one that came with the first tinmouse 2 download? Scott

There should be just an aircraft.cfg file in the folder. If it's not there perhaps you could try downloading again.By the way, Philip Foglar has just released a new FDE for the FFX 737-200 with his new USAir/Metrojet repaints. It uses Mike Baumann's FDE but with improved contact points (for each individual wheel) and more precise tyre smoke effects. There is also an option for wing and flap vortices.boeing_737-200_metrojet-kittyhawk.zipI find Philip's and Mike's updated FDEs a noticeable improvement on the original. If you do use the aircraft.cfg from the metrojet you may have to copy the radios entry from the .cfg provided with the tinmouse in order for them to work correctly.RegardsIan

Use of FM that is not that one that if finds in the original package can give abnormal behavior of the aircraft in the simulator, and wrong reading in the EPR gauge.you was informed.regards,

I would expect that you can transplant the contact points end effects sections into our aircraft.cfg without issue. But as Gustavo points out, the FDE supplied with the TinMouse II and a number of internal functions in the panel are interrelated, and your aircraft performance is likely to be badly affected by use of a different FDE (.air file and aircraft.cfg together make up the FDE).RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile

I'm sorry guys. I guess what I ment to ask was what .air file should I be useing. There was only the aircraft.cfg in v1.1 for the FFX model. Thanks again for all the help.Scott

Scott; The .air file is the same for all supported models (includes Terry Gaff's model and the FFX one)...they use different aircraft.cfg files, however.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile

Thanks for the quick follow up about the .air file. I did try the metro jet FDE. First with just the contact points and then the whole thing. What I found was that if you do use this file you need to also copy over the weight and balance or the aircraft will flip back on it's tail. How much the EPR is effected I can't tell. What I could tell was that the aircraft did taxi better and changing the pax weight as much easier. If any body could come up with a way to incorporate the contact points and weight and balance to the tinmouse 2 FDE and still get correct EPR values that would be great. Until then, I'm sticking with v1.1.

Hi guys,My first post here. Firstly, thanks for the developement of the Tinmouse II panel and packages as a whole, great work!!Something that just concerns me a bit that may need to be clarified some how. When you chaps refer to the "FFX" model I gather that you are in fact talking about the Kittyhawk model which is the later version of the 737-200 model that Erick Cantu made. The "FFX" model was released in early 2003 with the Kittyhawk model being released in 2004 for FS9.All the best,Philip.

Thanks for that clarification, Philip. I have to admit that I wasn't aware of the difference, but I was indeed talking about the Kittyhawk model. I assume that the alternative FDE supplied with the Tinmouse II, although designated FFX, is also intended for the Kittyhawk model? Further to my earlier post about using the FDE from Philip's Metrojet and it being pointed out by Gustavo and Bob that it would not be compatible with many of the panel's operations. Of course, they were correct and although it flew and landed smoothly the engine performance was a long way out and I didn't get the benefit of the improved Localiser locking.My present compromise is to use Gustavo's .air and .cfg file (for the 'FFX' model)but substituting the following sections from the .cfg file of Philip's Metrojet: Contact Points, Airplane Geometry, Flight Tuning. This keeps the engine performance correct for the panel but seems to give a slightly more stable flight and improved landings.I hasten to add that I am not an expert and this is not a suggestion, just a personal preference, so if anybody has any comments or advice (or abuse!) please fire away!Ian