Jump to content

TRauppius

Donor
  • Content Count

    61
  • Donations

    $15.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TRauppius

  1. Check for Android 5.0 or later, some tablets use proprietary mods of generic Android and then stopped updating at V 4.5.xx. This prevents some new apps from installing/updating and does not support the latest encyrption standard that some servers require.
  2. Folks, PMDG has updated the OC again today. The change log indicates the OC fix was to address the livery installation that several forum members have reported. I have inctalled the OC update and can report that the livery loading problem appears to have been successfully fixed. I have loaded a bunch of 777 liveries. Todd
  3. Yeah, I submitted a ticket to PMDG Product Support and they responded with a registry fix that leads up to a full/new installation of the new installers. This all worked fine, but now I am facing a livery install problem... the new "Livery not found in aircraft.cfg after it should have been added." message that is generated after attempting to either the download or .ptp (add) method of livery installation. I wonder if this is related to the the new OC update that occured early today? Todd R.
  4. Ditto, exactly the same message. Early today the OC was updated and then indicated a new mini-update for the DC-6. This appeared to go OK but the former DC-6 liveries were ignored and I was forced to download them anew and choose to accept the existing .ini/.cfg files. This worked OK, but my 777-200 and 300 liveries are totally messed-up and will not allow new downloaded or add .ptp method to update to work (ie. no actual texture folder is installed in aircraft folder, nor is the aircraft.cfg update. All you get is the error message "Livery not found in aircraft.cfg after is should have been added." Waiting to hear any suggestions, Thank Todd R.
  5. Thanks for your suggestion, but I have already tried to uninstall the base package using both the control panel and new installer. They both fail with identical WER messages. I was able to use the control panel to uninstall the 300 expansion pack though. The upgrade for the 737 and 747 worked fine, but the 777 is now messed up and I don't know how to get a clean delete and reinstall done. Any more suggestions? Todd Rauppius
  6. Encountered installation problem with recent/latest 777 update. Previos update of 777-200/LR plus 300 expansion was 7/18/17 with version 1.10,0395 without any problems. This time I uninstalled the 300 expansion as using the Win 7 Control Panel to uninstall without any problem. I then forgot to uninstall the 777-200 Base Package prior to using the new/updated Base installer. Upon running the new installer with the "repair" button preselected the installation appeared normal until the progress bar reached about the 90% complete point. The installation failed at that point and generated a pop-up window stating "Feature Transfer Error". The box listed "Feature: FSX Version Original Microsoft Distribution" and "Error: The parameter is incorrect." I then unsuccessfully tried to uninstall the 777-200 Base Package using the "remove" option on the new installer and get the same failure to complete the process and an error message; also Windows outputs a WER as shpwn below: Faulting application name: setup.exe_PMDG 777-200LR/F Base Package FSX, version: 1.10.8414.0, time stamp: 0x589ea215 Faulting module name: ISSetup.dll, version: 23.0.0.428, time stamp: 0x589ea13c Exception code: 0xc0000005 Fault offset: 0x0000a70c Faulting process id: 0xc38 Faulting application start time: 0x01d3085697e3a011 Faulting application path: C:\Users\TODDRA~1\AppData\Local\Temp\{435ED4C2-D001-4474-B1D5-86427021CE96}\setup.exe Faulting module path: C:\Users\TODDRA~1\AppData\Local\Temp\{435ED4C2-D001-4474-B1D5-86427021CE96}\ISSetup.dll Report Id: 4ea70ea4-744a-11e7-a244-002421b43a31 Any help will be very much appreciated, I will stand down and try and not make this mess any worse than it is. Thanks, Todd Rauppius
  7. Everything is working again. IE11, Firefox, GetRight all OK. Thanks for the fix.
  8. Firefox 42.0 works in both normal and private modes. Internet Explore 11 fails with "Page Can't be Displayed" message. GetRight fails and reports filez.avsim.net server connected... but continuously busy and not responding..
  9. I too have tried all of the suggestions noted in prior postings and the earlier instances of extended outages of the library download function. I have tried IE 11, MSN Explorer 11, Mozilla, cache clearing, log out/on to no avail. I consistently get the "This page can't be displayed" message. Also, when I try and use GetRight to download via manually pasting in the URL I receive a response showing the filez.avsim.net server status as always "Server busy, waiting to retry...". GetRight shows a good connection to the server, but no server response, and so is further unable to search for mirror/alternative servers as it lacks a valid file size and time/date stamp to search with. I will continue to monitor this thread. Does the AVSIM moderator for this forum know of this current instance of library download problems? Good luck to all, Todd
  10. This is a great product and it just keeps getting better with each timely update. I can now easily manage my ORBX universe + FSDT airports + T7 + (GSX, UTX, UT2, ENB, SHADE, etc.) with adequate FPS and improved awareness and management of OOM issues. I really like the addition of the realtime FSX memory in use gauge and the "video override" showing the max texture buffer being adjusted to met FSPS goals... very nice. Ditto the AGL switching. I would like to hear a little more of an explanation of the "Efficiency" metric; how is it derived, what does it mean, and how can you use the info provided. Also, had you considered alternate/multiple FSPS strategy/profiles? The current strategy seems focued on obtaining improved FPS. But for me I am a bit more concerned with obtaining the best visuals, emphasizing prompt texture loading and timely scenery autogen appearance, as long as smoothness and a MINIMUM FPS threshold is maintained. I can't wait to see what you can do with OOM issue... best wishes for continued success with this very worthwhile utility.
  11. I have been using FEX for several weeks on my older 3GHz/P4/2GB/XP with 256MB 7600GT and FSGenesis Mesh and Landclass rig and have experienced a significant improvement in appearance while also getting a slight boost in FPS versus the default textures; no problem with FEX....well done!However, as with many folks with rigs like mine I am always fighting the constant FSP and blurry tradeoff/battle with FSX and have achieved a (just) acceptable compromise by using many of the tweaks from the RTM/SP1 era; especially the texture tweaks to reduce the size of the textures for trees, buildings, misc. objects, and the scenery global ground textures. This worked very well and I was finally able to get nlt 15FPS with Acceleration and complex planes (LVLD-767, for exanple) over the big towns like Seattle and NY.Then GEX arrived. I love the improved look and realism, and indeed it does look spectacular at 0.6m and dense autogen. The problem is that the texture load has gone way over the limited capability of my rig....again! It is fine in rural areas, or when flying low and slow, but +200 knots with the "adjusted" autogen and new textures over complex scenery areas leads quickly to mass blurries, menu fuzz/fade, some vertical spike visual artifacts, too low FPS and the inevitable lock-up.I am going to ask the GEX guys if it is possible to use nconvert and imagetool to resize their textures prior to overloading them into the FSX teture directories. Perhaps the resulting sacrifice of detail would not be too high a price to pay. If possible, I could finally "rest in peace" and enjoy flying if I can just find a way to use GEX without overburdening my system.Todd
  12. I tried these out at the Avsim conference last week and was impressed with the POTENTIAL of this type of device.I wear glasses with different presrcriptions in each lens, yet the Vuzix gizmos worked perfectly when placed over my regular progressive tri-focals. Well done.The image only covers about 32 degrees FOV, but because it automaticaly tracks your head movement you don't mind the reduced FOV. The limited FOV and resolution is a price/performance compromise necessary for commercial retail user products. I recall the guy pitching from Vuzix saying their military tactical goggles with larger FOV are something like $5k per set.The VR920 is all analog with a hefty driver for calibration and converting the motion sensors info into FS usable signals. There is a significant lag between head motion (not matter how smoothly applied) and the corresponding slewing of the view in the goggles. It is sort of slow and frustrating like running FSX can often be. The Vuzix guy said the digital model of the VR920 is much faster, too bad they were not on sale yet.The demos were using an older nVidia card and special stereoscopic driver that has not been updated for several years; it only supports 640x480 VGA or remapping of 1024x768 downto 640x480. The stero image looks very good and make some tasks like the last few feet coming down in a FS helicopter much, much easier. The downside is it cannot use higher resolution or any other brand of cards (ATI, etc.) and still get the stereo vision effect. The resolution of 640x480 when presented less than an inch from your eye looks far sharper and more detailed than when viewed on a LCT or CTR at 10-20", but more resolution (for details sake) would make this gizmo fabulous. Also, the built-in sound is just adequate and lacks low-end punch.Final thoughts: amazing and immersive, and a great way to the do the full VR cockpit thing. Great for portable laptop use. Just wait for a little more FOV and better stereo support for newer video cards.Todd
  13. I have had this happen a couple of times to me; usually after I have been installing some new video driver or FSX application (for example the recent ASX SP1 update). It is really a pain in the #### because the suggested "remedies" of repair (does not work), or reinstall FSX (much, too much work).Fortunately has been alsways able to get around this be using the XP Restore registry to an earlier date feature. It seems that if I go back to just prior to the onset/notice of the problem, I can always get FSX to come-up without complaints.I suggest you give this a try. It is completely reverseable as Restore makes a new backup recovery point just prior to the restore operation.I hope this works for you.Todd
  14. :) Thanks a bunch Mitch,I had all but surrendered to the supposedly inevitable blurries in FSX. Nothing seemed to be able to get my 3G/P4, Radeon XL1650/512 rig to give me 15 FPS + scenery without blurries. Well, this little program you suggested has made a world of difference for me.All have run all of my own saved benchmark flights and I am certain that the blurries have been almost completely eliminated. I don't know why or how, but I don't really care; now I can back to some flying again.I run Active Sky X, Graphics X, Ultimate Traffic X (set at 10%), Ultimate Terrain USA (mostly disabled, though), LVLD-767 or CLS DC-10, and all of the FS Genesis Mesh and landclass products.Just completed flight from IAD to MCO (Cloud 9 scenery) with multi-layer clouds, rain, lightning and the textures were loading and appearing crisp; frame rate was 7-12 fps, but smooth without stutters.I am going to try it out on FS9 later today.Thanks again,Todd
  15. :* I just got this package installed yesterday and did a few flight using benchmark scenarios that I use to gauge progress in the never ending battle of finding an acceptable balance between FPS and texture loading (the blurries) in FSX-SP1.I have a single CPU P4/3GHz/2GB/ATI1650-AGP-512MB rig that worked very well for FS9, but FSX is another matter.Anyway, the impact on FPS is pretty tough with UTX on my rig. In situations were I could manage 15 FPS and decent texture loading I can now only manage 3-8 FPS with the Traffic set at 30-50% + minumum airport activity + 10% roads. Even with road and airport vehicle traffic off, no general aviation compiled in UTX, and 10% on the commerical air traffic slider my FPS decreased down to ~11. It is better at rural airports or in the air (only a ~1 FPS hit).I will keep tuning and trying but it looks like single CPU folks will not be able to fully enjoy UTX at realistic traffic levels at major airports. I guess the multi-core rigs should do much better.ToddP.S. The product installed, compiled and ran without a hitch.
  16. :-) This LVLD 767 has given me new hope. My older single core P4/3GHz/2GB/ATI1650-512 is struggling to provide both adequate FPS and decent texture loading/sharpness. Very difficult to accomplish as most are well aware.I expected LVLD 767 to make matters worse, as it is very high fidelity, feature-rich, simulation. That is not what happened on my setup, instead my FPS nearly doubled to 20+ when running LVLD DXT3 texture models.I can now actually fly into airports (already tried KLAS/KLAX/EGLL/EDDF) at 150-260 knots and get 15 FPS and sharp textures. Go figure!Well LVLD 767 is a keeper for me while I continue to watch and hope for a more generalized fix to the SP1 performance woes.ToddP.S. I run FSGenesis mesh and US Landclass, ASX+Graphics X, UT for FSX.
  17. ;( Hi,I purchased, downloaded and ran the setup for the bundle. The setup seemed normal but did not install ASX, just X Graphics.What have I done wrong? Do you need to uninstall ASV6.5 before installing ASX?I have a support request email in the HiFi Sim support but would appreciate any help/clues.Thanks,Todd
  18. :-hmmm This is indeed good news. I have a question for Phil and the forum to consider regarding the SP1 installation.Given the very large number of tweaks (texture, .cfg and .ini mods, autogen deletions or mods, etc.), will these have to be "backed-out" prior to SP1? Will a total reload of FSX be required? Or will the SP1 installation be compatible with the nyriad tweaks? I don't have a clue myself. Think about it.Thanks and here to a better FSX experience in the near future,Todd Rauppius
  19. :-) Some good news. simMarket responded to my request by re-enabling my download link so that I could get a fresh/full installation of the updated Version 1.1.After a few flights I can notice the positive improvements:1. More accurate fuel rate2. Pilots shown and a few other cosmetic externals; nice3. FDE and .cfg file parameters fixed for better handling and autopilot tracking; can now use 4X time on autopilot through turns and ActiveSky temp/pressure changes.4. Do not need the .cfg tweaks necessary on the earlier version; although you may want to consider adding a default vertical rate for the autopilot (I am using 1800 fpm).5. You need to change the airline ATC names to Fed Ex, American and Swissair; the default names don't match the FS airlines names with pre-recorded voice callouts.6. Fuel management claims to be automated and move the fuel around for trim/balance; BE CAREFUL...I loaded tanks 1-3 identically, only to have the fuel management system run me dry on engine 2 inflight!The patch is far from perfect but a definite step in the right direction.
  20. :( Yes, whoopy...but it did not install properly on my machine. I aborted after noting "1. Your key hasn't been found on the system".The abort dump refers you to their web page FAQs that say that you need to download a new installer. OK, but SIMMARKET won't allow downloads after a few weeks the initial purchase. Just enough time for early adopters to get denied a free download of either 1.1 or the new installer routine.I have support requests into both SkySimulations and SIMMARKET and I am awaiting a response.Todd Rauppius
  21. I have at normal Dell 8300/3GHz/2GB/800FSB + Radeon X800/256/AGP Pro that has served very well for my loaded (many add on) FS9 rig. When I added FSX I experienced the usual performance shortfalls that most users have raised, not surprises here. I had the good fortune of obtaining a free Radeon X1650/512 Pro AGP card and thought that this might perform somewhat better than the X800 for texture loading speed and AA and AI. The extra texture memory effect is noticeable in FS9, but not FSX. Also, I noticed that Ray Adam's ATI Tool reports a performance benchmark for the X1650 that is just barely above an older Radeon 9800 AGP and just half the value of my older X800 card. Is the normal and to be expected? Is the X1650 processor and memory speed actually less effective than the X800? Is so why?Any insight will be appreciated, thanks.Todd R.
  22. Definitely the Aerosim package. In addition to the many favorable comments already noted, I think the SOUND package is very realistic. The RB-211 makes a very distinctive 'Roll-Royce' sound that has been captured beautifully by Aerosim. They sounds are great, both outside and in the cockpit.The panel is simpler than the procedure based simulators with detailed modeling of systems and controls, but it is just about right (a nicely balanced compromise between ease of use and fidelity).Todd
  23. Yes, I think you can do this by simply not generating any sky texture files for GE Pro to select from and load into FS2004. It comes with a few sky textures pre-generated but you can manually delete these.I prefer the AS6 sky textures as well, and so I generally use the default GE Pro ground textures and/or load GE Pro first, let it do its thing (including sky textures), exit GE PRO, then load AS6 and let it overwrite the GE Pro stuff. I then launch FS from AS6.Todd
  24. :( I have been using this extensively since it was released and the overall visual and functional impact is excellent. The marshalling and moving jetways are the best yet, and detail is spectacular all the while preserving RELATIVELY low FPS impact.HOWEVER, there was ap roblem with AFCAD file that has now been corrected on via the User Forum website, and another, much more challenging problem involving the speed of Nightime texture loading. My high-end system cannot load the detailed textures and do the mip-mapping fast enough at night; the result is a case of severe blurries for the adjacent terrain (which is a separate FS2204 scenery layer) all the while the main airport is loading just fine. I have posted my observations on the User Forum and am awaiting a response from Cloud9. I am holding out for a solution that does not require changing FS2004 display options on a dynamic airport-by-airport basis.Todd
×
×
  • Create New...