Jure

:( :( :( Well, I finally went and updated my drivers too. Been using 181.20 with my 9800GT for ages. The latest for WinXP, 197.45, as Mike says, give zero issues with the latest nHancer. regards,Jure

Yep, I have it and love it. It adds a lot to the atmosphere and the copilot will perform his duties (if you let him). It isn't too hard to master and once you'll make a few flights with it, it will become second nature to you. Whenever I fly something else after I have flown the bus for a while I routinely forget to switch off the landing lights at 10k feet because FS2Crew's copilot will do that for you. :( Just to add.... FS2Crew Airbus Special Edition will work with both, Vol.1 and Vol.2 Airbuses, so you get a lot...Regards,Jure

Egbert, there's been a discussion about it, but let me write a few words. I have it and graphically it is something that has to be seen to be believed. Clouds cast shadows(!), textures are crisp and beautiful, effects are great. Landscape is the most convincing one I have yet seen.On the other side, it can be a bit arcadish... on the realistic level (there are three levels) it gets serious enough and flight modeling is as good as in IL-2 Sturmovik (I read somewhere that FDEs are actually from IL-2 - don't know if it is true). You get to fly missions with great intros and each one has a "story", but there are no campaigns as such. I did some online flying and it was terrific! I managed to survive and not only that, I even managed to shoot a few guys down, LOL. W.o.P. is very immersive, the atmosphere is really great and it is being polished and patched all the time.Final verdict? Go get it. I'd put it behind IL-2 Sturmovik (or 1946) which I also have and love, but not by so much. Graphically it really shines...Two quick shots. On the first you can see all the "activity" that goes on in the air - and it gets much busier still!Over Dover, you can clearly see dark ground on the right, a shadow cast by cloudsRegards,Jure

Rafal & Egbert,thank you very much for your comments. I think I will go and have a closer look at UT (Europe for starters). Amen to that, Rafal! :(Regards,Jure

I've resisted getting UT so far because of it's alleged reputation of being a memory hog (CTD's, anyone?) So far I've been pretty lucky, only got a few CTD's due to a no memory condition, but I always found the culprit. With UT installed, I am afraid that it would gobble up what's left of free memory and there would be problems flying a, let's say, PMDG B744 into Aerosoft's Heathrow. As it is, memory consumption gets as high as 1.5Gb without any ill effects.Is my "fear of UT" justified or am I seeing ghosts where there aren't any? :(Regards,Jure

Jim,neither have I... :( In FS9, VHHH is a default airport, yes. Regards,Jure

Hi Jim,VHHH is the new airport. I get the same thing as Peter... reporting station is VHCH - even on the old Kai Tak airport (which I am using, of course. LOL)Furthermore, if you approach VHHH from N-NW, there is always a clouds popup when getting close to VHHH. There is some kind of conflict between weather stations in and around Hong Kong, methinks. :(The other day I went and forced weather on all four nearest weather stations around Hong Kong and only then got something that resembled reported weather. But the clouds popup is still there. Something is definitely not quite right over there. Well, I learned to live with it, it makes approach into the old Kai Tak even more interesting. But clouds popups can be a tad annoying...Other than that, I am now using ASE exclusively, no more ASv6.5. At last. ASA/E has improved a lot lately and I finally came to a spot where I am happy using it. Still some issues left (high alt clouds, screen flickering on weather insertion) but you're getting there.... and it is appreciated. A lot. :(Regards,Jure

Jim,I am using Saitek Pro Flight Yoke System (yoke + 2 throttle quadrants + rudder pedals), hooked to a powered USB hub. I never have to calibrate anything.Before that I was also using analog CH pedals (game port on the sound card). Investing in Saitek was one of my better moves in virtual flying :(Like Madfred said, just make sure you always plug them into the same port...Regards,Jure

Vaughan,When FS Real Time does it's stuff, do the AI aircraft reset? If I understand correctly the effect of adjusting FS time by FS RT is the same as if I did it manually - and each time adjustment will reset AI.Thanks!Regards,Jure

Hi,I usually set up a smoke effect for a VC "light". This is an example for Feelthere's ERJ_145:(SMOKESYSTEM) <---- square brackets!smoke.0 = 0.0, 32.00, -1.00, fx_vclight,I have forgotten where I have gotten the fx_vclight.fx effect, been using this system for ages and I usually "install" it in every aircraft that has their VC'stoo dark. I switch it on with the "I" key, the default key to activate smoke. Works like a charm and really brightens up the VC.It takes some trial and error and I usually move outside to one side of the VC when testing and setting up the coordinates, so it gets a bit easier to spot where the light patch from the effect is. Regards,Jure

Dave & Momtchil: thanks for the heads up... .smile: The Tu-154 has long been on my list of the "must have-s" and I'll just have to find the time one of these days. I've become quite comfortable with both russian navigation systems on Tu-134, so transition will be a bit easier. I hope...I forgot the PMDG MD-11 and the CS Herc. The first I fly a lot, the latter I haven't flown for a long time. Interesting topic!Regards,Jure

Hi,My pick would be:- SSTSIM Concorde- RFP B747-200- Leonardo MD-82- SCS Tu-134- Dreamfleet B727- DA Fokker 70/100- PMDG B747-400- PMDG B737- LDS B767- F1 ATR-72- Feelthere ERJ 135/145There are still a few complex aircraft out there that I hadn't had the time to enjoy yet. Project Tupolev Tu-154M comes to my mind...Regards,Jure

Hi,I got it working, but it's a bit tricky. If someone wants to try it, here's how to do it:(Please, make a backup of your Cloud 9 Rome folders first!)1. First install Cloud 9 Rome, then ISD Rome.2. Folder structure. We need the following:- Rome Cloud9 <---- Original Cloud 9 folder- Rome Terrain Cloud9 <---- Original Cloud 9 folder- Rome ISD <---- ISD Rome LIRF installation(This is how I named the ISD Rome folder; feel free to name it as you wish)"Rome CLoud9" and "Rome ISD" have both scenery and texture subfolders, while"Rome Terrain Cloud9 only has the scenery subfolder3. Look at the attached cld.txt file. It contains a list of necessary files that need to be in the "Rome Cloud9\scenery" folder. Delete the files that are not on the list from the folder4. Look at the attached isd.txt file. It contains a list of necessary files that need to be in the "Rome ISD\scenery" folder. These are the ISD scenery files. 5. Scenery.cfg order: [Area.221]Title=Rome TerrainLayer=221Active=TRUERequired=FALSELocal=D:\FSscenery\Europe\Rome Terrain Cloud9Remote=[Area.222]Title=Rome Cloud9 ISDLayer=228Active=TRUERequired=FALSELocal=D:\FSScenery\Europe\Rome Cloud9 ISDRemote=[Area.223]Title=Rome ISDLayer=229Active=TRUERequired=FALSELocal=D:\FSScenery\Europe\Rome ISDRemote=This is directly from my scenery.cfg. You numbers will be different - it's the order that's important.Do this at your own risk, I spent quite a while deleting and reinstalling files, tossing them around... but it works. With AES, too. :)Hope this helps....Regards,Jure

Yep, I agree. After the latest update (or upgrade) PFE really shines. I just love the ATC atmosphere it creates, not to mention all the goodies... highly recommended!Regards,Jure (currently near Nizhnevartovsk, flying a Korean A330-300 from RKSI, Incheon, Seoul to EGCC, Manchester. It's a loooong flight :()

Hi,another way to do it is make a copy of fs9.cfg and rename it so that you know for which aircraft you will use it. For example: fs9_B737.cfg. - put fs9_B737.cfg it in the main FS folder.- create a shortcut on your desktop, right click on it and select Properties- Type this in the field Target: "D:\Flight Simulator 9\FS9.EXE" /CFG:"FS9_B737" (obviously, change the path to FS9.exe as you have it on your computer. Also, use the quotes!)- Save and exitIf you wish to have separate FSUIPC.ini files for your different configurations, you can do that as well. - go to Modules folder- copy FSUIPC.ini and rename it to FSUIPC_B737.ini- copy FSUIPC.key and rename it to FSUIPC_B737.key- go to your main FS folder- open your newly created FS9_B737.cfg- right on top insert these two lines: (FSUIPC) <---- these are square brackets!ControlName=FSUIPC_B737- Save & closeYou're done! Now you have a separate fs9.cfg file just for your B737 and a separate FSUIPC.ini that goes with it. Rinse and repeat for as many aircraft as you like. :)Regards,Jure

Hey Paul,thanks for the heads up and thanks to HiFi! How cool is this, a brand new ASE! :( See ya at Manchester, departing from KIAD in a few, will take the old Panam 742 queen across the pond to test ASE.Regards,Jure

Perfect! Thank you very much! Will do so... :( Regards,Jure

LOL Paul, then it must be really, really good. :( Thanks for the heads up, EHAM will be mine next week when I'm back behind my computer.For those who have C9 EHAM, any issues with uninstall?Regards,Jure

Matt,the only "tool" I am aware of, is to speed up the sim. Now, when flying at 16x, RC has a tendency to drop waypoints and sooner or later it will start complaining about your course - you know the drill :( I did a few such long haul flights when I didn't have all that much time in two hours or so, using 8x and 16x. What you could do is what you wrote: "teleport" your aircraft close to the TD point, then manually lower fuel qty and request a "Direct to" wpt from RC. Then you would not lose contact, I think.Regards,Jure

Dallyborr,yup, happens to me as well from time to time. By now I got used to it and I usually ignore this. :(Regards,Jure

Jim,thank you... :( sorry if I wasn't clear in my post; it was too early :( I tried that, I created a separate folder for MyWorld2005 but if I placed it too high in scenery hierarchy, New york (Manhattan) was one big city texture. Until I put it just above the default photoscenery. I am curious, has anyone else experienced this? One more thing, can somebody check the date stamp of the LC files, please? Maybe I don't have the latest version. If I remember correctly, mine is from around april or may 2005.Thanks! :(Regards,Jure

An interesting topic... I have Myworld2005 and I removed it long ago. After reading this topic I tried it again and again I am disappointed. While there is a certain improvement in some areas, in others things get worse. Where do you guys keep MyWorld2005 in scenery.cfg? I tried a few locations like Scenery/Base/Scenery, then it's own folder which caused to drain all water in New York(!) - city textures all over the place... in the end I put it just above the default photo sceneries and that seems to work best. Still, I am not convinced. Las Vegas, for example looks worse than before. And I also noticed, that MyWorld2005 tends to remove big city centers, mainly showing suburban textures (I am using GeProII)Regards,Jure

That's what I meant, thank you, Mad dog. I am sure that devs have their numbers but wherever I go, whatever I read on the forums, FS9 doesn't seem all that dead to me. I often read about users switching sims, FS9 to FSX and FSX to FS9, too. That surely doesn't seem dead to me. Both FS9 and FSX have a strong following as mentioned by others, so I believe it is perfectly ok if we, the FS9 users, express our wishes for more add-ons and pester the devs a little bit. Especially because we DO NOT say something like, hey, develop for FS9 only, who cares for FSX! :( An interesting example is the FSDreamteam. They develop a full blown version of an airport for FSX, then port it to FS9 without losing much sleep over it - and losing some detail in the process, but so what? Their work is excellent and way, way better than default airport(s). And we all benefit. Amen to that. I tried FSX, I have the HW to run it but FS9 remains the sim of my choice. Very simple and I don't push my choice down anybody's throat, just expressing my views and opinions in a FS9 specific forum. :( Regards,Jure

I, too, am staying with FS9. In fact, I am "expanding" it with GoFlight modules, TH2Go, another computer to drive the instruments via Wideview and such. I tried FSX, in fact I was very enthusiastic about it and have spent almost half a year with it. Tweaking, even buying add-ons, trying to make it run... In the end FS9 proved to be the sim to keep. Why? Fluid, high FPS, tons and tons of quality add-ons and so on... not to mention that I spent a LOT of money on FS9 addons and they do the job perfectly. I am happy as never before what with REX, ASA, GeProII, FE, PFE/RC4, FS FK, tons of AI and all those beautiful places and aircraft. Let's face it, FSX is as dead as FS9! MS has abandoned it so I find it a bit funny when I hear cries "But FS9 is dead!" Well, so is FSX... on the other hand, both sims are VERY much alive because of the community and what we should do is coexist in peace and share what we know. I will surely reinstall FSX at some point for VFR flying and soaring - and feel good about it. But for now, FS9 gives me everything I need and wish for. The fact that some developers now swear by FSX amuses me. As I said, FSX is just as dead a platform as is FS9, so.... :(Ok, off my soapbox. To answer one of the two original questions:1. You're not imagining things. ASA kindly provides for adequate fun, usually on approaches when your aircraft gets bounced up and/or down, ruining that perfect glide towards the treshold. I love it! :(2. I can't comment. I remember that wet rwys look fantastic in FSX and that is all. ...and add a third one:3. I find FS9 autogen much more "realistic" and convincing than FSX autogen. True, neither is perfect, but in FSX it has that nasty cartoony look inspite greater density. Just my personal observation.Regards,Jure

LOL Paul, that gave me a good laugh (and it's 6:30AM over here), thank you! :( We are all doomed & practically dead with eye patches over the left eye and a wooden leg? Okee... works for me, LOL.And what, pray, makes FSX more "alive" compared to FS9, huh? Nah... I don't want to go there. Not worth it..., so I move to point F :( Thanks for an interesting thread, I am going to try a few of these settings because I feel I am also one notch blurrier than Mitch :( Interesting indeed, in-game AA.... I heard (and tried it) that it was an absolute no-no. Time to re-evaluate my beliefs, huh? Paul: thanks for the tip about cloud coverage, didn't know that! Ok, I better get to work now.Regards,Jure