martinlest2

What an unnecessary, 'queeny' tone to adopt! I am surprised at you: I thought you were a better person than this, from what I have read of you before. There are quite enough people posting on forums across the web whose sole aim seems to be to make themselves look smart simply by trying to make other people look stupid (a juvenile trick), without you adding to their number! Oh, I am so, SO sorry if I used your ideas 'selectively' rather than as I saw fit. I didn't realise that you expect people reading what you advise to follow through on your input blindly, pearls of wisdom from guru to pupil. You really need to get over yourself a bit! I have been using FS since FS2000 came out and design airports/scenery etc. (some in the AVSIM library): I am not an FS9/FSX idiot by any means and, though, like everyone else, I am quite capable of making silly mistakes, I very much resent being patronised like this, as would most people I think. EVEN if you are right and I SHOULD have done exactly what you said, to write in such a high-handed, imperious way makes a pretty poor impression. Apart from that, there is enough misguided nonsense (and I am NOT classing what YOU wrote to me as nonsense of course, so please don't come back to me to say I am) posted as 'fact' in pretty much every forum on the net that I would have thought using some discretion and looking at advice from the perspective of one's own experience is almost obligatory. Following all forum advice "implicitly" will quickly lead to tears, that is for sure. If you feel a poster is wasting "people's" time (that is, YOUR time, here, no one else's), the answer's simple: just don't bother to reply to them. No one is twisting your arm to post here. And PLEASE don't say that in writing your last reply you were 'only trying to help' and that I am being ungrateful. I thanked you for your positive input before, but your last reply is just a silly exercise in self-aggrandisement.

I can try changing the quotes, but this format works in every other vbs script I use. The sleep command is not essential but makes the whole batch file, of which this vbs script is part, more 'user friendly'. What is odd to me is that the programme starts up, as I imagined, but stops says it is done after finding just 46 airports. No txt, csv or xml files are created either, so something is very wrong.

Hi. For reasons I won't bore you with, I am trying to run Pete Dowson's makerunways programme as part of a batch script programme. It is activated by this vbs script: intAnswer = _ Msgbox(" Do you want to run MakeRunways?", _ vbYesNo, " ") If intAnswer = vbYes Then WScript.Sleep 2000 Dim objShell Set objShell = WScript.CreateObject( "WScript.Shell" ) objShell.Run("""D:\FS9\MakeRwys.exe""") Set objShell = Nothing Else End If This starts the programme up just fine, but for some strange reason, it stops (not hangs - says it is finished) after locating only 46 runways in my entire FS9 setup! If I run it from the file itself the programme finds 30000, or whatever. Why would the programme, once started, show these differences, depending on whether I start it directly, or via a script? Thanks, Martin

Yes, I agree, in theory! In practice, it clearly doesn't actually work 100% of the time, because, as you know, I already moved (not copied!) the AP928170.BGL file to my highest priority folder (temporarily) and I still didn't get any taxiways. It's OK, I thought about this some more and tried again (not with much hope, as I tried this once) removing the whole FSDT KJFK folder before running the FSN Db - and lo and behold, now I have taxiways. No idea what happened before. So now, simply by renaming the FSDT scenery file as sceneryxxx or something and setting it back when the database is done (can do this easily via my scripts), I should be OK. Will post back (once I have torn out my hair) if it doesn't work this time, but can't see why it shouldn't. Thanks for the ideas John, Martin

As I said, I excluded the whole FSDT KJFK folder, so any files in that folder that could create a problem, won't be doing so. I don't just copy the AP files BTW, I change the ones in the fs9/scenery folders to an xxx extension at the same time, so there's no duplication. All returned to their proper state after FSN has run of course. But even so, having done all I said above, I still, to my amazement get no taxiways showing at KFJK in FSN!! Which means that some other file(s) in a completely different folder must be the culprit. It'd be a nightmare to track it/them down, as I can't see any other way than by trial and error, and you have to go through the FSNDb compile each time. Could take for ever!

John, Thanks. I am sure it is not the file appr_KJFK.BGL, as I have always removed that before compiling FSNDb. I will try copying AP928170.BGL to a high priority folder (I have a special folder near the top of my scenery list especially for files that need high priority) before I compile, and remove it afterwards: I already have a number of other bgl files I have do this with before recompiling the database, so I can just add AP928170.BGL to the FSN batch file which does this. As to which file may be interfering with the depiction of the airport, I can try removing AP928170.BGL altogether (plus the FSDT KJFK scenery folder of course) and see what FSN then depicts for the airport, or whether it is then missing. (I might perhaps add that I wrote my 'batch file' for the FSN database some years ago and have been tweaking it ever since. I wrote it because I was fed up of the process hanging so often, every time it reached a 'problem' bgl file. FSN now creates its database from a custom folder structure which mimics the FS9 original folders but contains all my FS9 AFCAD files, from wherever they may be (FS9 and 3rd. party), but none of the scenery bgl files that can cause problems. The process now takes literally less than 15 seconds to completely scan all the folder and never, ever hangs in the middle: the results are perfect, as far as I can see. Should I ever find an airport missing because its AFCAD has a strange name and has not been picked up by FSN, I just add it manually to my script file. I can also exclude files like appr_KJFK.BGL by having the script delete them from the custom FSN folders created before the database programme starts. I know this may sound like a recipe for problems, but I feel I am reasonably fluent with all this side of FS9/FSX now and in fact, after so long tweaking the script to get it right, it works very well, as I say). Have a good Christmas... Martin

John, I did understand what you said, but I don't think you read what I wrote, or maybe I wasn't explicit enough: I said that I have set up my FSNav database creation so that files which cause problems in how the FSN map appears in FS9 are ignored during the process. These files, such as the FSDT KJFK, are changed to an .xxx extension (via a batch script) before FSNav runs its database creation. So there are no files to move, one above the other, in the way you suggest - when I run FSNavDb the only active KJFK AFCAD (for example) in my FS9 setup is the default AP******.bgl file. And that is then the one that FSNavDb finds. Both AFCAD2 and ScanAFD find no other KJFK AFCADs, nor (as those two programmes do not always find every one) does searching my FS9 installation partition for *KJFK*.. To be doubly sure, I tried removing the entire KJFK/scenery folder from the scenery.cfg file (I already knew that a FSDT file called appr_KJFK.bgl was read as if it were an AFCAD, but maybe there were more: I know that bgl files for windsocks & taxiway signs in particular can be read as if they were AFACDs), but still the same result. (When FSNavDb is done, I obviously reinstate the bgl extensions from .xxx). Even so, as I said, no taxiways appear in the FSNav map, which now shows the AP******.bgl file as the source of the airport map. Yes, like you, I don't see how that is possible with a default bgl file. Martin

I simply want the clutch button to operate the F9 key when I press it. I have programmed this for all three modes and saved the profile. When I re-open the profile, the F9 programming shows there fine. But when I press the button on the joystick, nothing happens (e.g. open FS Navigator). If I press the FS9 key on my keyboard or the key on my N52 keypad programmed for F9, then all works as expected. The X52 button would me much easier for me to use, so any ideas why it's not working? Thanks, Martin

I set my FSNav so that it ignores my FSDT AFCAD for KJFK when it builds its database and uses the default FS9 file instead. I did this because the taxiways in the FSDT file are all created as apron links - not sure why; they usually have a reason. But (as far as I understand it) that means they won't show in FSNav. But to my surprise, the taxiways still don't show up: when I hover the mouse over the airport, it shows as being the AP******.bgl file in scenery/Name folder. The AFCAD of course uses taxiway links for the taxiways...Very odd! I find the taxiways showing in FSNav very useful, as I use PFE for ATC and I can navigate to the runway using FSN, if the TGS (Taxi Guidance System) in PFE leads me astray (as it quite often tries to do). I am using Google Earth + FS Earth for this for the time being.. Great to look at but not always accurate to the FS9 AFCADs of course.. Any other ideas??? Thanks, Martin

No reply to my support email and nothing on the website, a week later now. For freeware, you just have to swallow it, but as I have paid good money for two licenses, you'd think that some effort might be made!! I uninstalled FSE for FS9 again and this time, reinstalling has produced the a/c icon, so all is working now. No thanks to certain folks over at wideview.... M.

I have a number of airports (including default FS9 airports) that show in FSNavigator as just parking spots and runways. The taxiways are not shown at all. AFCAD2 shows that the taxiways are indeed drawn as taxiways, not apron links, so anybody know why are they missing in FSN? Martin

This is the problem when you start adjusting areas of dark tarmac outside the apron areas. This is in spite of applying exactly the same changes in brightness and contrast to every file. The result is uneven, as you can see. This patchwork effect could be fixed, but I don't have the patience to edit the gradient of each bitmap file one by one (I use Photoshop's macro function to do the lot) - it would take days and days to get it right. With the right aircraft (equipped with good taxi lights, so no need for glaring landing lights), the middle one seems OK to me. The first screenshot is without any modifications at all (FSDT originals): the second is with the files I currently use - my alterations, but without 'tarmac' enhancement - just the built up areas around the aprons, car parks etc.: the third, after enhancing all **lm.bmp files: I am redoing the other FSDT/Cloud9 airports I have bought recently though (KORD, KLAX, KDCA.. posibly EHAM)...

You'd need to tweak one of the bgl files. Can you post a screenshot of what you mean? The same restriction would apply. Even if I could fix that, I wouldn't dare upload it without permission as the files are copyright. We cross-posted I think : you see what I said about aprons and taxiways. I'll have another look, but it was difficult to get right first time round. Will post back if I have any success..

I am not sure that I would be allowed to, for copyright reasons. If FSDT were OK with it, I'd be very happy to upload the files to AVSIM library. Why not post on FSDT and ask - hope you understand! I also managed to improve the dark apron areas, but it's tricky: if you brighten them too much the pools of light under the lightpoles looks silly. So I discarded the files: may have another go. Not much I could do with the taxiways, as if you lighten anything that is really dark, you get rainbow-coloured artefacts. I just have to keep my landing lights on... Post back here if you do ask and get a reply, OK? If the answer's 'no' (which is what I'd expect), then you could do the tweak yourself, if you have a few hours spare and a copy of Photoshop or similar. There's no law against tweaking your own files of course! Martin

I do, yes:

Hi. I get this in FSX and FS9 Lukla sceneries. That said, the problem is not, surely, anything to do with the Aerosoft airport installation per se, because I am flying a little way away from the airport, and if I deactivate that and the AS Lukla LC folders, the problem persists; so I am posting the question here.. You can see the issue from the screenshots (taken in FSX). These areas do not resolve into snowy textures, similar to those around them, but as you approach just become more finely focussed as they are, as rectangles of rock. As this happens all around the area, it looks quite odd and rather spoils the overall effect of flying here. if anyone has any suggestions, that's be welcome. (Do other people see the same effect?), The last screenshot has co-ordinates (N27.49 12 E87.1 01 Alt 24200')... Thanks, Martin

Apparently not the best place to ask about FSDT! But to answer my question, the FSDT/Cloud9 airports are so dark because the ***_LM.bmp files in the texture folder are all pretty much plain black when you open them in Photoshop. Well, perhaps a small exaggeration, but, having backed up the originals and then spent an afternoon doctoring the relevant bitmaps, KJFK at least looks a whole lot better!

I find a combination of FSNavigator and FS/Google Earth is pretty good (FS9). I only ever used PlanG is FSX: I may still do in the future, but as I use FSX solely for flying VFR over photoscenery and the like (and FS9 for my B747 London to New York flights, or whatever), FS Earth is pretty much all I need - and of course it looks pretty good too. Just wish I could see why I have no icon in the Fs9 version. No reply from Luciano in the forum, or to my email. As I say, as I have paid for two licenses FSE I am going to be a bit annoyed if I get no feedback at all! Martin

Harald, have you tried removing bgl files in small batches until you find the one that is putting the ground texture on top of the FS9 default textures? As Joe says, they are often written to be so close to the FS9 ground texture elevation that the latter can leak through. If you are familiar with SCASM, it is relatively easy to decompile and then edit the bgl file, in the event that it contains other data that you don't want to lose. You can even set the bgl to have the textures below the default (so they become invisible). For the most part these poly bgl files have nothing else in them though. (Just occasionally this is not possible with photoreal sceneries, as there is no texture beneath the 3rd. party photo at all, but that is a rare exception). If you don't use SCASM and bgl decompilers, and have some time to investigate, it's well worth it. More than half my airport errors wouldn't have been fixed without this resource. I'd be happy to tell you what you need (all freeware), if you are interested. Plenty of info on Google of course. (Or maybe you are an old hand at all this anyway!). As I said, I'd rather lose the 3rd. party ground texture and have the original, rather than have this flashing and peeling back when I land. I have done this to my CYYZ installation (which prompted this post) and managed to keep most ground markings, whilst removing a darkening layer which had been superimposed across the airport aprons.. and all is now fine. Martin

Thanks Ray. Will post back anything interesting re. the FS9 missing icon..

Ray, most of the testing wasn't anywhere near PANC. For now, both the FS9 and FSX installations of FSE (I just bought a license for the FSX one, as you might have read) show as 'registered version'. Apart from the icon 'no show' in FS9, they seem to be working fine. (Hope my PC gremlins haven't seen me writing that!) I have emailed Luciano about the icon, so we shall see! Martin

Thanks! I'll have another look meanwhile in Google Earth - I didn't find anything first go, but maybe I missed it... I have now bought a license for FS Earth FSX, as I don't seem to have any issues with it in FSX.

And now, only 15 minutes after writing that, I can't use FS Earth at all as it tells me I have an unregistered version!! Well, it has been showing as registered for the past few days, so why has it unregistered itself? How often, trying to troubleshoot one problem, do I find that things that were OK when I started out suddenly go awry and I end up worse off than before!! OK, so I now have to look up the registration key and register again!! (LATER: Done!), The only logical explanation I can think of is that there are malicious little gremlins in my PC that hate me and are out to get me! :angry: :mad: :angry: :mad: (By the way, in FSX at PANC (so far, FSE unregistered version) I have no problem - the user a/c icon shows fine. So far, anyway.. I hardly dare go back and look again!!).

Thanks for looking at this Ray. As I say, trying to sort out FS9 before I buy FSE for FSX (which I probably will, as, when it's working, it works better than any of the alternatives as far as I can see)... yes, I have a registered version of FSE. Will I get a reply if I email info@wideview.it, do you think? My Options window looks pretty much the same as yours, but there is still no user a/c icon. I have checked a dozen times that the png files are in the folder indicated, and they open OK, showing little a/c icons, in any image viewer or Photoshop. What do all the hundreds of little white a/c symbols represent? They don't move (and I don't have AI traffic enabled in FSE). Martin

OK, thanks.