Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Big_Duke

  1. This is the error message received in the Device Manager properties listing for my video card: "Windows has stopped this device because it has reported problems. (Code 43)" Pertinent info: WIN7-64 bit, SP1, Home Professional; Zotac 4GB Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 PCIe 3.0 card; ASRock Z97 OC Formula Mobo. The predominant solution I found on the internet is to uninstall the device using the WIN Device Manager and then use the rescan function to reinstall the video card. After rescanning, the Device Manager does recognize that the GTX 980 is present and changes the message to "This device cannot work properly until you restart your computer. (Code 14). This worked the first few times over several weeks, but now no longer does and the Device Manager reverts to reporting the Code 43 message as if I'm trapped in a maddening do-loop. I have also tried using System Restore with multiple, different restore points; several different versions of the video card driver; re-seating the card; and also moving the card to a different PCI slot. Also tried the Device Diagnostic tool from the Microsoft Support web page - still no joy. I'm beginning to think my card gave up the ghost, but before I spring for a new card, I wanted to check if anyone has heard of any other solutions to the Code 43 problem. The card is powered as the fans do work when the PC is powered on, but I can't use any other video card utilities to check the card as WIN keeps stopping the device from loading. I'd like to stop short of drastic solutions like reinstalling WIN7 if possible as I dread having to reinstall P3D and all my add ons after the Registry is zapped and replaced with a new one. I'd almost rather surrender and move to WIN10! Any ideas would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance!
  2. The 747 tutorial calls for gear down when the glideslope indicator reaches one dot above intercept. In the NGX QRH, it depends upon the type of approach with the most usual being lower the gear when you get glideslope alive.
  3. According to the Boeing web site, UPS ordered 8 -400 freighters back in 2005, with first delivery scheduled for next month (June '07). So the livery is right on target. Deliveries continue into 2008. All were order with the General Electric CF6-80C2-B1F engines.Jerry PostKORF
  4. Jim:I wonder if many folks have just chosen to remain silent, rather than jumping in with a "me too" response? I've seen this phenomenon over several builds and FSUIPC versions. Most often it passes unnoticed, especially on long haul, level flight on autopilot. The only problem arises if you experience it in a "high stress" situation such as on short final to a manual landing using a complex panel and scenery. I've got a relatively high-end machine and have all the "right" settings, but have chosen to consider it a relatively minor irritant overwhelmingly offset by the terrific weather environment furnished by AS2004.Jerry PostKORF
  5. Check out the FAA RVSM ATC Manual at http://www.faa.gov/ats/ato/drvsm/docs/DRVS..._V2_17JAN05.pdfJerry PostKORF
  6. It's a simple arithmetic average - add up all the WDIR values and divide by the total number of entries. Works out to to about 165.86, rounded up to 166. The difficulty is that you have a severe wind direction shift mid-way through the route; the values don't "cancel" each other out, rather they "average" out to 166 which won't help much in FMC calculations unless you enter the average for the first series of the generally westerly winds, then update with the average of the generally easterly winds mid-way through the flight.Jerry PostKORF
  7. Likewise no problem here with As2004. If you are using one of the beta builds, ensure you have installed the included version of FSUIPC as that will affect performance. You'll find it in the AS folder under Modules in the main FS9 directory. Also, they have just posted Build 140 which fixes some issues and includes another updated FSUIPC.Jerry PostKORF
  8. Believe he was referring to the AFCAD file. Quickest way (and since you have to use AFCAD to edit the file anyway) is to search AFCAD using the ICAO code. If you have a MOD file, then edit that one. If using stock airport, then there should only be one AFCAD labeled STOCK and edit that.Jerry PostKORF
  9. The fix is easy - just go in and edit your active AFCAD2 file for KMIA to renumber the runways to match AIRAC 0407. I use the Fly Tampa Miami scenery and edited the furnished AFCAD2 file as follows: Old New --- 8L/26R (new northern-most runway) 9L/27R 8R/26L 9R/27L 9/27 12/30 No changeDon't need to change anything else - ILS frequencies remain the same. You'll be able to select the right procedure in the PMDG FMC and have the FS9 ATC direct you to the new runway designations. Works for me.Jerry PostKORF
  10. Bill Bulfer's excellent B737NG FMC User's Guide contains a lengthy discussion of Cost Index. Alas, there are no tables, only a couple of specific graphs. Basically, Cost Index is the relative importance of time cost compared to fuel cost. A CI of 0 equals Max Specific Range (at ECON speed), while a CI of 500 equals Minimum Time. The wild card in this is the forecasted winds at cruise altitude which is unique to each flight and handled by the FMC. To quote Bill - "If you don't have a Cost Index that was arrived at in a scientific manner, you're simply using Cost Index as a means of choosing climb, cruise, and descent speeds." Higher CI = higher speeds. Since we're not paying for real fuel costs or associated flying hour costs, most of us are probably in this category. Indeed, a CI of 50 seems to be commonplace.I'd like to put in an unsolicited plug for Bill Blufer's manuals - the FMC Guide and the 737NG Cockpit Companion. URL is www.fmcguide.com. While somewhat pricey, they are what the real drivers carry in their flight bags.Jerry PostKORF
  11. I was in the process of replying to an unhappy camper's posting when, lo and behold, the thread disappeared out from under me. Anyway, just wanted to extend some words of comfort to Damian and Team. If not appropriate, then delete.In reply to the complaint, let me state emphatically that the software does work as advertised. I installed and configured it as specified in the documentation and have not had a single problem. In over 15 years of computing, I've noticed that the vast preponderance of problems are caused by 1) failure to RTFM; 2) non-standard systems (either bargain basement components or improperly matched components); 3) uninformed "hacking" (changing settings or parameters without fully understanding what those settings affect; 4) installation of the latest "neat" applet without regard to how it may affect the overall system; and finally, 5) unreasonable expectations. No accusations here; merely an observation based on extensive experience.Folks need to take a deep breath and go look up the word "simulation" in the dictionary - most will tell you it's an "approximation" of a real world phenomenon. Also remember where FS9 is installed on your PC - it's under Microsoft Games - it's a game folks, not reality. I've dealt extensively with industrial strength simulations and simulators designed for the Department of Defense and I can guarantee you none of them were "exact" replications of the real world, at prices in excess of $1B (US). Go ask a major defense contractor to build you a weather sim for $20 or $30 and they'll die laughing. Get a grip.For Damian and team - keep up the good work. Deal with real issues as diligently as you have in the past and the vast silent majority will appreciate your efforts. For unhappy customers - sorry it didn't work for you; ask for a refund. Sorry for the Dennis Miller rant; not directed at anyone personally. As Dennis says, "It's just my opinion and I could be wrong."Jerry PostKORF
  • Create New...