Hi,I just reinstalled FU3 after years away, and it's just as good as I remember. But it is crashing when I go to the map screen in Seattle (San Fran works fine). I did install some 'enhancements'. Is anybody aware of any problems? Thanks-

Christian,You've got too many airports!! You need to remeove some and retry it ;-) I think 75 is the max. I run about 55 in Seattle and they give me more than enough to deal with. Many of the strips are small private ones that most GA pilots wouldn't go to, or are right near much more interesting ones anyway :-waveRegards,Jon Point

Cool Thanks! Is there a way to check how many airports I have? I installed a few scenery packages, so I guess I could reinstall the whole thing if I have to, but it would be nice to remove a few by hand if I could.

Chris,Yes, there IS a way of finding out but.......you need to see the map screen to count them!When you count the folders in the airports folder, you don't see the ones hidden inside the package folders. This is why you can get crashes after loading new packages.I remove some of the 'fictional' airports from mine (I add a few others too!) and that seems to keep it sane.These I don't use:0dpw0kwm0mac0njt - it's a lake...0psj0rmt0ssm0wbf0wdh0wec0wrm0yoowapwaqawawcwscgThere are others, but I still keep them for various reasons.This is an issue that package builders must be wary of - if you put airports inside packages, it can create problems for others unless they have exactly the same mix as you.Personally, I cannot see any good reason to do it, apart from making installation easier (i.e. copy 1 folder instead of 2), but that's lame :-lolAnyway, try deleting a few (I use a temp folder to stick them in - see below) and that should help :-wavehttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/168674.jpg Regards,Jon Point

Jon,That problem only applies to scenery packages that do not obviously include airfields. Every airfield scenery package that I have constructed for FU3 has included a single airfield plus the relevant scenery models (nearby trees, FBO, tractor tyres etc). I can see no logical reason why anyone would want to keep the models if the airfield is removed. Therefore, it makes a LOT of sense to have everything in one package.

"I can see no logical reason why anyone would want to keep the models if the airfield is removed."I can - scenery ;-) At the risk of reducing framerates, I actually to leave the scenery there, as it jazzes things up a bit. I have done things both ways over the years, but my preference these days is to put the airports in their own folder (so I can remove/replace at will) and have the packages elsewhere.The other advantage is 'no surprises' when loading new packages and having the durn thing CTD :-( It's all preference :-waveRegards,Jon Point

I agree -- model packages make a lot of sense. Well, I guess Chris means that it makes little sense to keep models in the vicinity of a deleted airport since you won't be likely to fly low and slow in that area anyway. However, pure model packages can be used to complement any existing airport and any area that you will be likely to check out. Models make sense in towns and cities even when there's no airport present. Models will also make sense for landmarks (towers, lighthouses, masts on mountain tops etc) and these landmarks do not have to be hardwired to any nearby airport. Model packages are always safe. You can create and add as many as you like. As an example, I'm likely to create a package adding buildings to the Seattle area some time soon. New buildings will be added to complement the existing ones and I definitely don't want to mess with existing airports.Hans Petter

Hi folks,I'm pretty green on the package concept generally but for my two bobs worth...Why not have:1) A "models" package based on the area covered by a particular tile 16KmX16Km containing models for that area (named after a town or significant landmark in that tile for ease of identification)2) Separate package for each upgraded airport. That way folks can download and delete as the need arises. (I think)I think the time is coming when some kind of CVS is going to have to be used to keep track of all the stuff you prolific builders keep generating.Anyway, I'm on me bike..CheersBruce H

Bruce,Yeah - I've got lots of overlapping packages and it probably doesn't help! In my case though, I have 2 packages for most of my locations - 1 for the basic airport environs, the other for full "sizzle" (and lower framerates...) Add to that the larger moving models (that cover more than 1 tile) and things like power pylon packages. :-roll"I think the time is coming when some kind of CVS is going to have to be used to keep track of all the stuff you prolific builders keep generating."I agree and hereby nominate you as the 'keeper' ;-)Aw, c'mon - it'll be fuuuunnnnn :-hahRegards,Jon Point

G'day folks...Jon,I've not been to meetings before where you get nominated for something, voted on and elected as grand pu-bah or something, and I didn't even know there was a meeting! :-roll So I think due process should be followed. Seconders, background and police checks, dental records, lineage etc. etc, Then you could put it to a vote...:7 Seriously tho, I think there must be a better way (without dampening anyones enthusiasm) to better control and distribute upgrades, new regions etc.There is no reason why, given a few software tweaks and tricks, you couldn't release regions a tile at a time if you wanted. Smaller packages would encourage folks to download upgrades.I would love to get my hands on UKS, but at the moment I don't have the bandwidth :-hmmm What do you reckon Andre?CheersBruce H

Hi Bruce,Better get a UKS DVDs copy from a guy of your continent. :-wave agtim

I agree with John Point, I keep all airports in main Fu3 folders ,thus keeping taxiways ,lighting ILS,markers intact .If a new created airport is inside a package ,I pull it out and place in airports folder.Thus the models can be placed with package and identified with that name . If at a later date you want to add or remove Either one ,It's much better to modify.CaptRolo