FS9 solutions / issues.

[Guest]

Would like to have the same force feedback rattles in the 172 as I did in FS2k2 in CoF. In CoF they are less dramatic than 2k2. I copy and pasted the Force Feedback from the 172 config of 2k2 into the 172 config of Cof but it didnt work. Any suggestions?Kil~

[Avcomware 1]

Hi, everyone.As more people will be getting the new game, I think it is important that we try to compile a list with the problems and solutions, you encounter, and hopefully try to concentrate them in one Post, maybe someone can anchor a similar post.We are at the point where we don

[Avcomware 1]

Hi.Here is one more, I hope the last listed here, unless I find something very important.4-Problem.

[LAdamson 240]

>Hi.>Here is one more, I hope the last listed here, unless I find>something very important.>>4-Problem.

[Guest]

I'm running dual monitors, one on an older PCI video card. This worked fine right up until I began to run FS2004 yesterday. Here's the summary, perhaps someone can e-mail me with any suggestions?1-MSI motherboard with AMD2100+, 512 MG RAM. NVidia GeForce4 Ti4200 128 MB 8x AGP, with ATI Mach64 PCI. Motherboard requires PCI card as primary card in order to allow Windows access to it. Windows wouldn't detect it otherwise. Windows is set to use the NVidia card as primary in desktop configuration2-Windows XP Pro4-FS2004 complains of not enough video RAM to run hardware acceleration, even while displaying the video on the monitor driven with the AGP card. Frame rate stinks on software acceleration modeCan anyone offer a solution or is this going to require a new PCI video card? I don't want hardware acceleration on the PCI driven monitor. I only use that for other programs, like Squawkbox, while flying. Could someone e-mail me at moxner@nbnet.nb.ca with any thoughts? Thanks!

[Guest Paragon]

I have a couple of bugs too. Like a lot of other people I have the flickering a smudged out text. This will hopefully be fixed soon by ATI. I don't have any bumpmapping, again this is probably a driver problem.Now for the "real" bug. The ILS approach for runway 28L at Portland airport, forget the code, is off by atleast 20m...in fact it looks like they took the taxiway instead of the runway. Could someone else verify this?