Okay, here's what I was trying to accomplish. I wanted to do a parallel clean install of FS9. So, renamed my original FS9 directory, and attempted to install a totally clean version to patch against. I get to CD4 and it won't recognize it. I don't have problems running my first install, didn't have this problem when I installed my first install, they are the same set of disks, etc. etc. I seem to recall that there were issues when FS9 first came out with some folks not be able to get beyond disk 3. Anybody remember the fix? Am baffled.

Did your remove/rename the old FS9.cfg and the folder containing it? Just guessing but it would seem a possibility that you should do so before a new install.Dave

Thanks Dave. I gave up and just installed the patch over my existing configuration and it doesn't appear to have "damaged" anything. What I was really hoping to do is a "before" and "after" FPS on a clean install. Not this time I am afraid.

Tom, I bet your problem has something to do with SP2 if you have that loaded on your computer. I will not re-install SP2 until we are forced to do so. As for the FS9 update, I was amazed how smooth mine went. After reading through some of the instructions I just decided to do what you did and load it over what I have. Knock on wood but so far it seems to be working just fine, even with add-on scenery and using the non-mentionable work around for having a disk in your CD drive.Terry

I have the same problem Tom...everytime I try to start FS 9 with disc 4 in the drawer I get an error message "CANNOT LOCATE THE CD-ROM"..."Please insert FS 2004 Disc 4, select OK and restart application". A retry ends up with the same problem. I am baffled as well.Ted CreaghFlight Ontario

> Knock on wood>but so far it seems to be working just fine, even with add-on>scenery and using the non-mentionable work around for having a>disk in your CD drive.I am baffled why folks seem to be confused on the "non-mentionable work" and the FS9 patch.Folks, the FS9.exe is an executable file. The patch writes new instructions to the original FS9.exe, which means that it now contains a different set of instructions than it had before the patch was run.If you now restore the "non-mentionable work" to your system, you've completely removed a large part of the "fix" that MS has supplied. Yes, it will still run as before, but since you no longer have the new instructions, it should be obvious as the nose on your face that you aren't going to be getting the full benefit of the "fix!"

I know you all have already checked the drive to see if the CD is being recognized but in case not, the CD has 4 directories and 4 files under the CD Drive. If the CD is not being recognized, recommend you try cleaning the CD or take it out and put it back into the tray. I have had problems with my CD drive not recognizing a CD in the past and have solved it simply by restarting my system. Good luck.Jim Young

Yeah, I have the exact same problem. I ended up reinstalling the sim, then starting it on the clean install before applying the patch and i get "Please insert disk4", which is in the drive. Run the 9.1 patch, looks successful but I wouldn't really know as it won't start - same problem...Finally added the nocdpatch and at least it starts. Whether the 9.1 patch is applied or not, I wouldn't know. As far as i'm concerned M$' wanting to force users to keep the cd in the drive is idiotic and pointless. Of course you'll expect problems like this! Stand in the corner Bill, bang your head on the wall and say "Stupid, stupid, stupid" one hundred times.LonelyplanetXO

>I am baffled why folks seem to be confused on the>"non-mentionable work" and the FS9 patch.>>Folks, the FS9.exe is an executable file. The patch>writes new instructions to the original FS9.exe, which>means that it now contains a different set of>instructions than it had before the patch was run.Bill, no matter how much boldface type you use, I don't think you understand much of programming architecture. When you have your completed source code and go to compile it, you have two options, a statically linked compile, and a dynamically linked compile. In a statically linked compile, all the source is compiled into one executable file. If this were how FS was compiled, then you'd be correct, replacing the FS9.exe file with an older version would lose all of the changes done in the upgrade.However, FS is a dynamically linked executable. In this case, the vast majority of the code is compiled into files outside of the executable... .dll files, or Dynamically Linked Libraries. In this case, assuming that the software engineer has followed a sane design document, pretty much all the exe file does is call code from the dlls.>If you now restore the "non-mentionable work" to your system,>you've completely removed a large part of the "fix" that MS>has supplied. Yes, it will still run as before, but since you>no longer have the new instructions, it should be>obvious as the nose on your face that you aren't going to be>getting the full benefit of the "fix!"While I do agree that we don't know exactly what is changed inside the FS9.exe file, I showed in performance tests in an earler thread that replacing the new FS9.exe with an "older version" executable retains the framrate gains and autogen fixes of the 9.1 upgrade.Dan

>Bill, no matter how much boldface type you use, I don't think>you understand much of programming architecture. When you>have your completed source code and go to compile it, you have>two options, a statically linked compile, and a dynamically>linked compile. >>While I do agree that we don't know exactly what is changed>inside the >FS9.exe file, I showed in performance tests in an earler>thread that replacing the new FS9.exe with an "older version">executable retains the framrate gains and autogen fixes of the>9.1 upgrade.Dan, you may well be right. My thirty-seven years as a programmer & system analyst were probably handicapped because of my abysmal ignorance.OTOH, perhaps I understand far more than you're willing to credit. Be that as it may, I trust the word of the programmers at MS and many MVP's who've repeatedly stated precisely what I did.YMMY, of course. I can wait.BTW, I have now performed the upgrade on six machines here at St. Gregory House, and guess what? I don't NEED the silly CD in any of the drives in order to launch FS9...

Sorry if I offend anyone. In my knowledge the failure to recognize the 4th cd happens if you are using pirated CDs. Ofcourse its kind of too much for me to believe that Tom is using a pirated FS!

I doubt it ;)...Anyway, I had the same problem when FS9 first came out - CD4 just wouldn't run, but a copy did (I used CloneCD to copy it). Figure that one out...Cheers,Gosta.http://www.hifisim.com/images/as2betateam.jpg

yeah, & I suppose I'm using pirated disks too...no. Really, I doubt there's many pirated copies of FS because the application is cheap for what it is & is big enough to discourage downloaded copies. I like the sim & have no issue with the cost; hell, I've spent 5x that much on addons! And I think M$ has to recognise that the concept of a flawed, hardware based security system is just plain dumb. Please, someone...come out with a nocd version of the patch...I hold little hope of an M$ fix for the don't recognise the CD thing.LPXO

"BTW, I have now performed the upgrade on six machines here at St. Gregory House, and guess what? I don't NEED the silly CD in any of the drives in order to launch FS9..."How did you manage that? Also just to play the devils advocate, did you use 6 different boxed versions for those 6 installs or just 1? If you now something about Safedisc 2.9 I would like to hear it. I have to use my CD after the patch.Carmine http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/Images/wave.gif

I can assure you that of the five copies of FS9 that I have, at least two of them were purchased. The other three were beta / gold candidate copies sent direct from MS. :)