I know of the "ColorLayerAirports" option, changing the value works well, but it only applies to "towered" airports, which show up blue by default on the FS map.I'm wondering if anyone knows if there is a way to change the colour of the uncontrolled airports, the ones that show up as pink/purple by default.Similarly, there is a "ColorLayerAirspaces", but is there a way to change the colours of individual types of airspaces (class B, C, Military etc)?I'm using http://www.fs2x.com/Tutorials_files/FS2004_gps.txt as a reference, and would like to know if it is complete.

I tried to do the same and couldn't succeed...I even looked dierctly into the DLL to search all the possible "Layers" and couldn't find any that changes the uncontrolled airport colors. I think you can not control the color of ALL the objects on the GPS display, but if you find a solution, please let me know...Good luck !!Eric

You cannot. The gps.dll is already an extremely complicated bit of C/GDI (not GDI+) programming as it is. To have added the ability to control of every possible display element would have increased the complexity bt at least one order of magnitude... ;)

That's right, the GPS DLL is made of C (or C++ probably) and GDI. But I disagree with you: making all the colors accessible is not a hard work, I did this on several software products, it is just a matter of will. Microsoft just didn't want to make our life easier, that's it...Eric

How much extra FS revenue would be generated for MS compared the cost of the resources that would have to spent to achieve it - and all the other changes that enthusiasts would would like? I suggest the answer is none, which is why it isn't done.

Sorry to disagree again: IMHO the success of FS, since FS4, comes from the fact that it is an open platform on which other developers can bring their added value. The more open it is, the more add-ons can be developed, and this contributes to the success of the base product: FS.I'm sure MS is aware of this ;-)Eric

>Sorry to disagree again: IMHO the success of FS, since FS4,>comes from the fact that it is an open platform on which other>developers can bring their added value. The more open it is,>the more add-ons can be developed, and this contributes to the>success of the base product: FS.In the strictest meaning of the term, FS is certainly NOT an "open platform" at all.What MS/ACES has provided is a huge "sandbox" in which third-party devs might play, but there are nonetheless boundaries to that "sandbox."In nearly every case where 3dpty devs have managed to push past those boundaries, by the next iteration those 'hacks' no longer work as expected.By then, many users have become accustomed to such 'hacks' then feel outrage towards MS/ACES when their favorite 'hack' no longer works, as though they were now "entitled" to it... :)

He he, Bill, I fully agree with you this time ;-)You're right, we add-on developers had to fight against the poor documentation and we had to hack here and there to make our products work.Nevertheless, even if it is difficult, FS lets us integrate add-ons. I don't think all the simulators are the same. I am not an expert in Falcon4, IL-2 or LOMAC, but as far as I know, these simulators will nto let you add aircrafts or sceneries. I may be wrong here, your opinion is welcome.Eric

I agree with Bill's comments about FS not being an open platform.Also I repeat my question - what benefit would Microsoft get in terms of increased revenue from making it possible to change those colours? In my opinion as I said in my previous post - NONE!