rigpig

Cheers, thanks for the reply.

I quite like flying the old school prop and jetliners of the 1950s and 1960s but IMHO they look out of place when you drop them into FSX with modern Boeings and Airbuses everywhere. Does anyone know of a way to roll back the clock and completely replace the existing planesets with aircraft from a bygone era? Yes I know the airports will still have their 21st century look to them, but at least the other aircraft will match the era of the one you are flying. Cheers

Yep, I've certainly suspected that messifan10. As an aside, its interesting to note that the two programs that this thread is about, Radar Contact and Pro ATC were written by independent developers. The much anticipated RC 5 has been binned by the developer for personal reasons (quite understandable) and Pro ATC continues to frustrate people with the lack of dialogue and lack of update. Yet the bigger hitters like Just Flight and Aerosoft who churn out sceneries and aircraft on what appears to be a weekly basis if the EMails I regularly receive are anything to go by, seem unwilling to delve into the development of a fully functioning ATC addon when clearly there is a market for one. I wonder why.

Personally I've written off the 50 Euros I forked out on Pro ATC X and I've come to the conclusion that the update that has been promised for goodness knows how long is not going to appear. :mad: On the outside it looks like it should deliver the fullest FSX offline, standalone ATC experience yet, but on the inside its full of bugs, omissions and features that simply don't work properly. It can be made to work kind of as you'd expect, but you often need to employ a number of workarounds to get the desired result, workarounds you simply should need to do. If anyone is thinking of forking out on this program then I suggest you pop over to Pro ATC X's own forum and look at the hard time the moderator (and seemingly only spokesperson for the developer) Rjord is getting from angry and frustrated punters who have paid out the sort of money PMDG ask for their superb products and got nothing like the calibre of software one would expect to receive having paid that much. Yes I realise price does not equal quality, but in the FS addons world I've found that quality does usually come at a price.

OK, thanks I think I've got it figured now.=

I finally took the plunge after reading a lot about FS2Crew and bought the Jetstream 41 version. Yes, very nice and adds that little extra to the sim experience. But, I'm suffering from possible 'dumb question' syndrome - i.e. I think I'm about to ask one. Step 12 of the manual explains how to start a flight with FS2Crew using the RUN PF button, at which point the clock starts and the FO begins his duties. It also says this is optional, so OK, what if I DON'T wish to use the PF button, i.e. I've loaded a flight into FSX in which I previously landed at Liverpool airport and now wish to pick it up again as if I'm just turning the aircraft ready for the return leg with fresh passengers. I load up FS2Crew with the primary display showing Turn Check but I've not yet loaded my passengers, got the load sheet, programmed the FMS or done any of the other stuff I need to do before commencing the Turn Check. The clock isn't ticking, what am I missing here? Jeff

I have them set and RC works fine without the IndieVolume program running. If I use the IndieVolume applet to lower the RC volume, I get no chatter and the error I described above. I spent a good while chasing my tail trying to set the folders correctly before it occured to me that it might be IndieVolume; I turined it off and hey presto it RC all works again.I have no idea why it should interfere in the way it does, but its no biggie and I'll manage without IndieVolume.Thanks for the help anyway.JD

Its windows XPThe error is:Unable to write to (Flight Sim Saved Files Directory), will not be able to save rcd files

Dang, seems I spoke too soon.IndieVolume works up to a point but cuts out the pre-recorded chatter.More importantly RC stops working a few minutes into your flight, Alt-Tabbing out of Flight Sim reveals an RC error message stating that the program cannot write to the Flight Sim Files directory.Sorry for the bad call folks, looks like I'll just have to be yelled at by ATC.

I had a similar problem and just couldn't get a good balance between RC volume and those in Flight Sim - Radar Contact stomped all over Flight Sim.I did however find a useful applet that gives independent volume control in Windows XP, have a look for IndieVolume. It works a treat, however it is payware, perhaps there a freeware equivalent somewhere but I've not looked.Hope that helps.

GuysThanks for all the advice and example files. This prolem has had me completely stumped. I am using the latest version of MAKEMDL at it still dind't work :(Stil, I've got a couple of examples that DO work, and I can check them out or clone the templates for use in my scenery.Thanks again

No, no and no. Still can't get this to work.I am using GMAx to produce the objectI have created a pole with a light head (box)on itI have created a simple triangular polygon and converted it to an editable meshI have positioned the polygon just below the 'light head' and linked it to the light head box (box is parent, polygon is child)I have orientated the light head box's Z axis so that it is pointing vertically upwards away from the ground. he polygons Z axi also points upwardsI have created a yellow coloured material, called it light_land and applied it to the polygonI have exported the bgl file ensuring the 'haslightmap' option is checkedWhen I run FS2002, there is the pole but no light. It stubbornly refuses to show a light cone.Can anyone see from my decription what 'm doing wrong. Alternatively, can any kind soul Email me a Gmax lamp model they have successfully exported and got to work in Flight Sim? If I can't get that to work then I'm surely doing something else wrong.ThanksJeff (rigpig) davis - [email protected]

Aha,I've been bashing my head against the wall trying to figure this out over the past couple of days. I've printed off Jorgs method and will go off and try it straight away.Watch this space.....I may be back (with a sore head ;))Rig