Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Christopher Low

Panel problem with FU3 and Vista64

Recommended Posts

My aircraft panels aren't displaying correctly in FU3. They have huge black sections running through them, and this obscures virtually all of the dials and switches. Can anyone help?Asus P5K-SE motherboardIntel Core 2 Quad Q95504GB PC2-8500 RAM512MB GeForce 9800GT500GB SATA-II HDDSoundBlaster X-FiWindows Vista64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I have just realised that Naji mentioned something very similar to this in his recent "Success" thread, so I will try his solution when I get home (disabling AA Gamma Correction in the Nvidia control panel).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That method didn't work for me. In addition, I can clearly see banding in the sky textures. Not good :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I couldn't find a solution to my panel problem in FU3 (and the sky graphics still looked a bit weird), I decided to uninstall it......and retire from the world of FU3 :( Yep, I know that is a bit of a shock, but it had to happen sooner or later.Now for an even bigger shock...........I purchased a copy of Flight Simulator X : Gold Edition (FSX Deluxe + FSX Acceleration). I had tried the demo, and I was particularly impressed with the clouds and water effects. I still think that many of the default planes feel rubbish to fly, but thankfully the Cessna 172P Skyhawk is an exception. It seems to react properly when raising or lowering flaps, and doesn't "leap" off the runway as soon as I pull the joystick back very slightly during take off.Of course, the city textures still look rubbish in default mode (New York really doesn't feel right at all), but some of the mountain/grassland/island terrain actually looks pretty decent. One of the "missions" (actually training flights in disguise) requires the player to land the Cessna 172P at a place called Sitka (is that in Alaska?), and the mixture of high coastal terrain, islands, water, and the beatifully placed airport runway really was rather impressive (I flew right over the top of a massive cruise liner during final approach). If anyone here (I'm pretty sure that Naji likes bush flying in this region) knows of any other dramatically located airports, or some decent scenery for this area, then please let me know!I have purchased several addons (including the astonishing Madeira X and VFR London), and there are others that I want to get my hands on. I also got hold of the entire four volume VFR Real Scenery collection, but then realised that it wasn't the same product as Horizon Simulations VFR Generation X Version 2! Fortunately, I only paid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You probably ran fu3patch.exe years ago, but I thought I would mention it in case you haven't?? The patch is still available for download. Just Google it.Merv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,As addons for FSX go I reccomend the HawaiiX from the MegaScenery shop. It only does the island of Oahu but it does it very well. And it has the advantage that since it is an island the edge is the water line so you never really come to an edge. You can add DillinghamX from AeroSoft. Dillingham is a small airfield in the Northwest "corner" of Oahu and the AeroSoft product is excellent. I have other sceneries but this combo is the best I've found if you like to do low level VFR with great scenery to look at. The island isn't all that big but you can have many hours of fun investigating all the mountains and valleys at Skyhawk speed. Although I tend to use either the Goose or the Mustang.Just a suggestion. :)Hmmm... my signature doesn't seem to be working... so I'll add it manually...Later,Tom Wunder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom,Yeah, the Hawaii-X + Dillingham combination is something that I have been looking at. My primary mission is to be able to fly around a highly detailed rendition of Great Britain, but the combo above is relatively inexpensive, so I may just take your advice. I assume that the default Honolulu International airport is used (and any other airports on the island)? I haven't checked that airport out yet, but is it one of the more detailed airports in the basic FSX Deluxe package?Your comment about it having a natural boundary because it is an island is a very important one. That is one reason why I eventually want complete photographic scenery for the entire British Isles (England, Wales, Scotland, plus the Western Isles, Orkneys, and Shetland). Since Britain is entirely surrounded by water, I would have a lovely, large area to explore, without having to worry about horrible "joints" between photographic and default scenery.When I get going in FSX, I will post a few screenshots in the relevant forum.Merv,I am well aware of the FU3 patch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,Yes HawaiiX uses the default airports. And it has a small bug that kind of puts a green slime on the runways. There is a patch available that fixes that right up. There is also quite a lot of details in some freeware add-ons that assume you are using HawaiiX on FSX SP2. If you search the library for "Manny Mahadevan" you should be able to find them. Actually it is almost too much and Manny suggests in his docs that you should pick what you like and leave out the rest. He adds a whole bunch of buildings & aircraft on Barber's Point NAS (Naval Air Station) and the Marine Corps base which I can't think of the name of at the moment. I've taken a lot of that back out but I love the ships and other details he added at the harbor at Barber's Point complete with a grounded fishing trawler a mile or two North of the harbor. He also placed some very nice microwave towers and radar stations. The MegaScenery is actually made by AeroSoft so while the DillinghamX scenery is a stand alone product it is fully compatible with HawaiiX.I also have the MegaScenery Las Vegas & Reno/Tahoe FSX sceneries and they are very good but do suffer from that "edge" problem... especiall true with Reno one as it doen't cover the West side of Lake Tahoe. And edges are ugly things.They have their new MegaSceneryEarth product that is supposed to eventually provide photoreal scenery for the whole world. I'm a bit skeptical about it as of yet. I have seen some screen shots of the Florida part that are horrible. Low clouds at the time of the aerial photography show up as huge white blotches on the scenery. One of the shots on the product web site shows a bridge in Seattle with the road drawn under the 3D bridge. AeroSoft is capable of much better work than that. Also right now the Washington State part ends just at the West side of my favorite airport (KTIW - Tacoma Narrows) so that would put me right at one of those edges I hate so much. I'm sure they will get it worked out in time but for now I'll hold onto my money.But with regard to HawaiiX + DillinghamX it looks good, loads fast, and runs smooth. I'd bet you would enjoy a nice sightseeing excursion in paradise on a cold and gloomy day in jolly old England. And don't tell me you don't have days like that. I lived there for 26 months and that included 1 Summer. ;) I have spent time in both Las Vegas & the Reno/Tahoe area and I really don't know the Oahu area (been there 4 times but never had time to get outside Honolulu Airport) but I bought a cheap map of the island and I'm enjoying the exploration of areas I've only heard about. :)This post is also a test to see if these forums are actually working now.I hope you are still having fun with FSX and whatever else you are currently up to,Later,Tom Wunder :-wave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon,I don't think the armys of FS fans are going to abandon it any quicker than you guys have FU3. The MS problem is a setback for the entire flight sim hobby. But FSX is a stable product that will continue to function well for years to come. My guess is that MS or somebody will put out FSXI long before FS runs out of loyal fans. For right now I'd bet that producers of FS freeware and payware add-ons are encouraged by the knowledge that FSX is for the moment a stationary target for their wares and that those wares will not soon be made obsolete by a new version.And no matter what you think of MS as a corporation you have to feel for those thousands of people who find themselves without employment. :(I have mixed feelings about MS as a company. I have loudly complained about many of their policies and decisions but I have to say that I believe that overall they have been very good for flight simming in particular and computing in general. Anyway that is my take on it. :)Have a good one,Tom Wunder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom,I'm not suggesting that any users abandon it (I still have '2004 installed) but that M$ will. I don't know what M$ will do with it though. I assume that they would attempt to sell the code rights, since they don't want to develop it any more but are still hungry for money... Still, good for add-on builders.I feel sorry for the developers though, and I wonder just what triggered the decision? I read the other day that the gaming industry is now a good deal larger (money and people) than the movie industry ever was. It seems that in hard(er) times, people are happier to stay at home and play the PS - or '360.Anyhoo, this is great news for X-Plane :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For right now I'd bet that producers of FS freeware and payware add-ons are encouraged by the knowledge that FSX is for the moment a stationary target for their wares and that those wares will not soon be made obsolete by a new version
If there is one positive note to this news, the above is surely it. Since I have only just purchased FSX, I am actually delighted that a new version will not be appearing for a fair amount of time. Like you say, addon developers can concentrate on creating great stuff for FSX, without having to worry about preparing stuff for FS11.I'm just praying that Horizon Simulation get VFR Scotland released in the near future. Flying over the Scottish mountains and islands with VFR photographic scenery draped over them is a mouth watering prospect. By the way, really nice scenery of the Channel Islands is also on its way (from a guy who used to work for Horizon). The company is called Earth Simulations Ltd, and you can see some screenshots of the Channel Islands scenery (plus an amazing set of 3D models that were supposed to have been provided to Horizon customers ages ago) by accessing the following link....www.earthsimulations.com@Tom,Is there a highly detailed freeware version of Honolulu International airport available for FSX?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon,You may have a point (pun not intended) regarding X-Plane. Strangely yours is the only mention I have seen of it thus far in the wake of the MS announcement. It is the only "currently active" GA sim that I'm aware of. But I can't claim to know anything about it. The last version I had of it was 5.something and I think they are on 9.whatever now.Chris,I'm not aware of any add-on scenery for Honolulu International but that sure doesn't mean there is none. The default isn't bad. But I have my default flight set to Dillingham GA parking space #4 with the glass cockpit Baron. It comes up with me looking at the glider base across the way. I have some time this coming weekend so I'll look around and see what I can find.I was just looking over your long post when you were talking about how you had purchased FSX. The Sitka Approach mission was my first taste of FSX as well. I went to a international flightsim convention 3 or 4 months before FSX was released and MS had a dozen or so computers setup to run some of the missions. I can remember being very worried about if I was going to get rammed by that cruise ship or not. :-lol They had it setup so all you could do was pick from 4 or 5 missions. That one and the Aspen Approach one were the only ones I could master at that time. In my defense the joysticks they had there were pretty well worn out. ;)Later,Tom Wunder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The default Cessna 172 SP Skyhawk is a really nice plane to fly. In fact, I can fly it in exactly the same way that I fly planes in FU3 (using only the throttle to control ascent and descent, and not having to touch the joystick pitch until I flare just before touchdown). After tweaking the take off trim, it seems that I can do the same with the Beechcraft Baron, although it is of course much faster, so landing approaches require a greater degree of skill.What I would like to be able to find is a small executive jet that also allows me to do this in FSX. The default Learjet 45 doesn't feel all that good to me, and I'm not keen on its looks. Eaglesoft's Beechjet 400A/Hawker 400XP would (at first sight) seem to be the logical choice, considering that I flew the plane in FU3! However, I have come across another small jet today that looks very interesting, and that is Flight 1's Citation Mustang. It looks very smart indeed, and has the kind of short runway performance that would suit me perfectly (I enjoyed flying FU3's Beechjet to and from relatively small airfields). In addition, it has a rather appropriate name. I play the GT Legends racing simulation a lot these days, and I am known online for my love of one car in particular.....the 1965 Ford Mustang :( Is that fate playing its hand?The only two negative points I can see are that the engines don't appear to have thrust reversers (although I could be wrong about this), and the price is $55! That is quite steep for someone who will probably not use 90% of the plane's features!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have fun with FSX Chris :( Personally I'm having fun with FU III, FS9 and X-Plane 9. As I've stated many times before, FU III is the one that stays. Sooner or later I may be running other versions of FS or X-Plane but I'm not going to ditch FU III. Since I'm not into anything but flightsims as "games" are concerned I can handle three different ones.The fact that MS sacks the ACES team may be due to the current financial situation. They may pick it up later. However, FSX may not have been the success they had anticipated. A major portion of the FS community decided to continue using FS9. The reason is simple, FSX required more powerful hardware than most people were willing to acquire. Further, FS9 with lots of addons looks quite stunning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hans,To be honest, it's the addons that make the big difference in FSX. If I had to make do with the default scenery, then I wouldn't have purchased it. However, it is very clear to me that the flight models of the Cessna 172 and Beechcraft Baron in FSX are significantly improved over their FS2002 counterparts. I have no idea if this was the case with FS2004, but it is a big relief to be able to fly these planes in the way that I enjoy. Another positive point is that they also move convincingly when on the ground. FS2002 was abysmal in that respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy Hans!Chris,I'm happy to hear that you will use a bit of trim now and again. The Baron is easy to land if you put down the flaps. I haven't tried any of the payware business jets for FSX. There are quite a few that look nice but they have a lot of involved code for their flight management computers and in FS04 I found that tended to get in the way of performance. Modern jets are basically flown with their FMS but I have yet to see a simulated FMS in FS that works well. I guess that is because MS never implimented one. The autopilot for the old FU3 BeechJet was about the best jet control I've seen in a sim. I was getting fairly good at flying the airliners in FS04 but I haven't really mastered them in FSX as of yet. Probably because I spent most of my time in the smaller planes.I'll have a bit more time in a day or two and I'll take a look at my aircraft inventory and tell you what I think is good in the way of addons.GTL is a great racing sim and I use the Mustang a lot myself. But the real fun with that program is figuring out how to get good speed with each type of car. But another great Mustang that you already have is the P-51 from the FSX Acc/Expansion pack. It is intended for racing but I like it for just fun flying. It does great aerobatics if you cut back on the speed some and it lands like a dream especially for a tail dragger. It is a job to taxi but if you use differential brakes it can be done. It lacks a 2D panel but the 3D cockpit is crisp & clean and works well.Well I need to get my stuff setup for work tomorrow and get off to bed.Later,Tom Wunder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modern jets are basically flown with their FMS but I have yet to see a simulated FMS in FS that works well.
This is something else that is drawing me towards the Flight 1 Citation Mustang. Apparently, it is a great small jet to hand fly. I'm not an autopilot kind of guy, but it would still be nice to fly a jet plane! I have asked one or two questions in the FSX forum, so hopefully I will receive the necessary information.On a side note, it would be nice to be able to fly a small airliner (I have downloaded the Elite Global Jet version of the Project Airbus A318), but I am probably extending myself a bit too far with that at the moment. I need to become familiar with the 172 and Baron first, and then work my way up! I'm not interested in the really large airliners. Ansgar's 747 in FU3 is cool, but I get the feeling that the large jets in FSX are way out of my league!O/T - do you race GT Legends online, Tom? If so, keep an eye open for Mogget. That's me :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,I told you I would get back to you with a list of add-on planes worth buying in my opinion. I meant to do that a couple of days ago but even though I have been off of work my wife had other plans for how I should spend my time.I'd like to say that some of the Carenado fleet was on my list but I'm not at all happy with the 2 planes I have of theirs. What I have are the Cessna U-206 Stationair and the Beechcraft T-34B Mentor. I bought before they came out with their FSX specific versions. But I bought them only because they were supposed to be good to go in FSX. Each has an annoying bug in it (different bugs) and they wont fix them. I assume that the FSX versions have the bugs fixed but they not only wont give those to me they wont even give me a price break on them. I'm not about to pay full price for something that as far as I'm concerned I've already bought. So I've resolved to never purchase anything more from Caqrenado until they make good on it. They never will so they aren't going to sell anything more to me.The 2 best I have are both from RealAir. The very best is their SF-260. I've had payware versions of it going back to FS02 and I had freeware ones prior to that. It is a fast and nimble little single that is fully aerobatic yet flys with the stability of a Skyhawk. It looks great too. The other one is their American Champion Scout Pack. It isn't always called that but it is easy to find. It has 3 very similar aircraft. The Scout, Decathalon, & Citibria. There are also versions with amphibious floats and tundra tires. You might remember the Decathalon as one of the aerobatic planes from FU1. Neither the SF-260 nor the Scout have traditional 2D panels but both do have ways of doing 2D that work well. The Scout (all versions) also includes a 3D cockpit mode that is reminiscent of the FU style 2D cockpit in that if you use a hat switch to look around it will spring back to the forward view when you let go of the hat.The only other one I'd like to point out is "Beaver X" from Aerosoft. OK I know... FSX has a default Beaver. But it is float only. Aerosoft's has every configuration you can think of including my favorite with amphibious floats. It also doesn't have a 2D panel but I figured out how to make the default Beaver's 2D panel work in it. And that is one of MS' best ever panels IMO. It does make for a minor conflict if the interior you are using has other than a tan interior but that can be fixed as well. If you look around in BeaverX's config you will find that you can assign the interior color. If anything this aircraft comes with too many liveries. I've kept the best 2 or 3 of each type which still makes for a powerful lot of Beavers to have in your collection.Beaver X also comes with a small but detailed bit of scenery. The Fisherman's Wharf area of San Francisco. There is also a free download on Aerosoft's web site of a highly detailed Alcatraz Island. That can make for some short but fun flights ferrying passengers back and forth from Fisherman's wharf to "The Rock".I'm sure there are many more that I don't know about including no doubt some very nice small jets.The F/A-18 from the Accel pack is tons of fun to fly but if you can figure out how to land it properly on an airport I wish you would tell me how. The only way I can figure out how to stop it without doing a ground loop is to drag the arrestor hook on the ground and that can't be the proper way. The Hornet is especially fun to fly at dusk so the afterburners glow in the dark.A good A-318 or maybe A-319 would be nice. If it wasn't too complicated. The A-319 is the only Airbus I've actually flown on. And I "flew" a A-320 class IV simulator at United Airlines Training Center back in 2004 along with the 747-400 so that is another reason for my interest.I've just been looking over your Flight1 Citation Maverick. It does look kind of neat. I miss the old Flight1 Cessna 421 Golden Eagle. They don't seem to be carrying it over to FSX but I had it in FS02 & FS04 and it was one of my favorites. I've looked over their Cessna 441 Conquest but it just doesn't look near as much fun. Not to my eyes anyway.I've never used GTL online. I haven't done any online racing in a couple of years. FlyBert, Staggerwing, and I used to get together with one or two others and race a couple of different NASCAR sims and a lot of Rally Trophy online. Stag still does some but I think his current favorite is rFactor or something like that.I'm going to have to lookup your email address. This thread is getting really long and way off topic. :)Time for me to get to bed. I've been off for 3 days but that is over and I have to be up at 4 AM... YUCK!!Take it easy,Tom Wunder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of other Sims;I think I have found what I could call FU4 .It's X-Plane 9.2 you need a power house to run it ,but seems a lot like FU3 in a lot of ways and Tools similar to FLED.Real weather and air currents a plus,scenery is good.As technology increases for computers ,so do the programs that run on them.I also have FSX but uninstalld it.Capt Rolo

Tom,I'm not suggesting that any users abandon it (I still have '2004 installed) but that M$ will. I don't know what M$ will do with it though. I assume that they would attempt to sell the code rights, since they don't want to develop it any more but are still hungry for money... Still, good for add-on builders.I feel sorry for the developers though, and I wonder just what triggered the decision? I read the other day that the gaming industry is now a good deal larger (money and people) than the movie industry ever was. It seems that in hard(er) times, people are happier to stay at home and play the PS - or '360.Anyhoo, this is great news for X-Plane :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware, X-Plane lacks the AI planes and ATC that would be required for it to be considered as a candidate for "FU4" status. FSX has those two attributes, although I haven't really experienced them yet (Just Flight's Traffic X AI package has been ordered, and I will be starting flights from the airfield parking spots when it has been installed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT has ATC ,you have to file a flight plan to activate it .Also AI but not as much as FU3.Of course the more you add ,the more demand on processing power .you will not be able to tell anything from trial version.

As far as I am aware, X-Plane lacks the AI planes and ATC that would be required for it to be considered as a candidate for "FU4" status. FSX has those two attributes, although I haven't really experienced them yet (Just Flight's Traffic X AI package has been ordered, and I will be starting flights from the airfield parking spots when it has been installed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites