Byrna

Jeff, you hit the nail right on the head! That's what people here have been trying to say. We don't NEED to get updates on new car models because we know that about the same time each year, the new models roll out. And if, for example, electronics companies like Sony say "it'll come out when it'll come out"... then they would lose customers fast! As for software, Microsoft releases windows and gives updates about whether it is in alpha, or beta stage and people are invited to do beta testing and a firm date is announced and STUCK TO! I realize that these are much larger companies then the team developing Radar Contact and have much more resources, but it's a matter of THEIR attitude, not OUR patience! I personally don't get impatient a week after a product is announced and expect it to come out. I give the company time ... a year perhaps, and then expect some eta's. A good example of a fiasco is Airsimmer's 'advanced' A320 - it's dragging on and on and on and on and on... It's also on the heels of a very buggy basic edition. RC is not like Airsimmer but still, they seem to think we'll wait 'ad infinitum' for their software and wait in a 'vacuum' without any updates and then run like hell to grab our credit cards to buy them. This is probably because, as stated in this thread already, there is almost no competition, so FlightSim software developers can take all the time they need and then some. I don't mind being patient but RC 4.3 was announced in 2007 I believe and version 5 was announced what-2 years ago? There is a limit to our patience and a limit to the patience of all humans. This is not ranting, this is basic passing of time!And Jim, I also like you and love Active Sky but a case in point: Hi-Fi does not take YEARS to release a new version and they are very good in keeping us informed about the progress. So there is a big difference between Hi-Fi and JDT LLC for RC.Just my two cents worth...John

I don't even do simming anymore because I've lost all interest due to lack of intelligent ATC and good planes, and developers taking until we all go to our graves to complete their "precious" planes the ETAs of which have, frankly at this point, has become irrelevant to me. I just fizzled out. RC4.3 falls way short of what a proper and smart ATC program should do. So, Dave, to answer your question RC4.3 has serious issues: (1) resetting to the first waypoint in the middle of a flight for reason I still don't understand nor frankly care about as this is a problem that should NEVER occur in a $45 software (2) No NAT and Trans-Atlantic / oceanic controls which pilots would radio to check in with at regular intervals during the "blackout zone" where there is no radar contact just like in real life, get oceanic clearance, be told their expected ETA to the entry point of the NAT etc...These two points are enough to ruin this software for me and wish for their correction in release 5.Let's see how long it will take for Radar Contact (or a competitor to which I'm NOT afraid of switching if it beats RC) to get it's act together.John

This reply is a bit late but I re-read at length the step-by-step descriptive sections of the events in the crash report again and found that it was quite disturbing that none of the three pilots on board (including the training pilot) thought of monitoring the airspeed and then trying to react to it by simply disengaging the auto-throttle. This would have probably done it. This way, the ILS would be managed by the auto-pilot but airspeed would be managed by the pilot or first-officer. The airspeed was the big problem here. The pilots DID PUSH THE THROTTLES FORWARD in response to drop in air-speed, but apparently they did not push it forward enough. The RETARD mode PUSH THEM BACK AGAIN! The document suggests that A/P would have MAINTAINED the airspeed if the throttles were pushed to near or at maximum, but that pilot intervention would still be required with throttles at full since now, the plane would try to climb due to excessive thrust, which could pitch the nose up dangerously steep. So disengaging A/P altogether or just the A/T would have probably saved the plane. The visibility being very low that day (roughly 1SM or possibly less I think), it would have been wise to ONLY disengage A/T and control the thrust levers manually to recover the aircraft.So you are right of course, in saying that the pilots were distracted but sadly, could not learn their lesson. There was also an important point made in the final report about REPORTING : reporting mechanical problems promptly to engineers/mechanics by pilots. The malfunctioning LEFT (pilot's side) altimeter was apparently not dealt with due to negligent reporting of the issue or it was reported and not fixed. This is why, even though I AM Turkish, I will not be caught dead flying with Turkish Airlines and find the commercials we see on TV (in European channels like Deutche Welle or Euronews) quite hypocritical, making Turkish look so much more professional and safe than they really are...John

Hi Richard,Doesn't your FSX PC have a motherboard with a BUILT-IN network card on it? Many motherboards, in fact most of them, have this now, and they also have built in audio as an aside... I use Norton Internet Security 2010 and have used the newly designed Nortons since 2009. They have many options which you can turn off and also have full-screen program detection mode and I have found it to be highly effective in stopping malware and internet intrusions, even when surfing new websites that I've never been to. Norton, by the way, has the LOWEST performance impact of any security suite out there now, and has the best spyware and other malware detection percentage... Check PC Magazine reviews for proof if you like. Also, Norton Anti-virus with Anti-spyware has a gamer edition I believe, which has a much lesser performance impact...So don't worry about the internet. One thing I WOULD do (and which you are probably already doing) is not to install any other games on that FSX PC or any other programs which can conflict with FSX and its driver requirements).Have fun!Can Agbaba (John)

OK, if I did miss something, then why don't you point me to the exact post that answers ALL my questions above? By the way, I just did a advanced search with author "Tabs" for posts between Dec. 5 and 16 and "no results found" came up. That issue regarding the search engine in the avsim forums returning zero results continues and others have had this issue also. So even if I did search (I did look at the PMDG site and these forums before asking the question), the results would have been either zero or unclear. So if you're so "thorough" a person, show me the posting ... then I might believe you. Otherwise, consider this: It is not a crime to ask a question to clarify a matter in a forum.Can

Ryan,That is why I posted this above - In order to clarify "what was said" because "what was said" is spread out over 11 pages of postings in this thread and is difficult to make out since it is a long thread and most of the discussion concerns the manuals on sale now, and not what will be included with the plane as a package. Furthermore, I just saw this thread yesterday and had to try to sort out all of it in one reading so it was quite an ordeal, not that I need to explain why I need clarification. If "what was said" WAS clear, I would not have posted this request for clarification. I hope that clarifies for you, what I said.Can

Hi Robert and Ryan,I am quite excited about this plane as many people are and the real-life manuals are fascinating to be sure. But I wanted to get at least an idea of what the content will be of the manuals included in the NGX as PDFs. I think from what I've read from you and Ryan in this thread, these will be shorter less detailed versions of the manuals being sold now (developed by Boeing), is this right? Do we just pay for the NGX and have these manuals included as downloads or will be purchase these PDF (or "non-authentic") version separately?Thanks again for this astounding project that you have undertaken PMDG! It is the closest Flight Simulator has ever gotten to providing "real-world" training using a PC simulator! Can Agbaba (John)

Hi Al,Have you seen the final report for the crash? I had not searched for it and had not realized it was out in May of this year. It is basically faulting Boeing's design and recommending that it be changed, as well as faulting the pilots and recommending more training for stall situations during approach.I for one found the wording of the Netherlands investigation committee quite clear and blunt with regards to the need to have adequate warnings and design changes for the altimeter / retard/auto-throttle systems on the 737NG and quite glad that they made this recommendation.I think now, money or not, Boeing will have to at least consider some redundancy and warning systems for the altimeter / auto-pilot coupling logic.I am curious about what you and anyone else think about this also.Here is the link to the final report, which is publicly available: http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/docs/rapporten/Rapport_TA_ENG_web.pdfJohn

Just wanted to make sure that you did NOT delete or rename the uiautomationcore.dll in the Windows folder as this should not be touched in any way and is required by Windows 7. You just place the VISTA version as per the links in this thread into the FSX main folder.

Anyone?

Hi, I'm curious about a basic thing you may be lacking since you mentioned crashing when accessing the FSX menu. Do you hav the UIAUTOMATIONCORE.DLL file for VISTA installed on the root of your FSX folder?Though, I assume from your post that you had no FSX crashes before installing FSX? I have had the PMDG 744X and have had no crashes but I DID install the uiautomationcore.dll file which is required. Otherwise, you will have crashes randomly when you access any item in the FSX menu.If you do have the uiautomationcore.dll vista version (and you have Windows 7 running FSX), then it's best you post in the PMDG forum or if it gets bad, send a ticket to PMDG via their website:http://support.precisionmanuals.com/Main/Default.aspxHope this helps you a bit...John

Hi Ron,I certainly sounds like a process to me. It is like a program is running, then stopping, running, then stopping again, at regular intervals. You have to ask yourself a few questions:(1) Have you updated you windows via winodws update recently and if so, did this update include upgrades to Windows media player, internet explorer and anything other than the usual security updates?(2) Have you upgraded your video card, soundcard drivers recently?(3) Have you updated or installed an ADOBE product like flash or ADOBE AIR recently? I am quite suspect of the program "adobe air" which installs now as part of a flash player update or is required for the Adobe flash player to update properly. Today, I got an error during the update of my Adobe flash player to version 10.1 that Adobe Air is not installed. Also, by the way, I keep getting requests to UPDATE ADOBE FLASH player to the same version OVER AND OVER AGAIN (v. 10.1). I have finally ignored and cancelled this update. For now, I don't want to waste time troubleshooting it. But I HAVE uninstalled Adobe air as it has the same file extensions as the .AIR files in FS. Just a thought you might find useful.(4) Do you use windows media player to scan your files as already suggested here? Did you recently rip MP3s to your MP3 player using media player?(5) have you changed the settings in your internet security suite or antivirus/antispyware or have you purchased a new internet security suite?(6) Have you installed any new programs at all lately?John

Martin,I read parts of the threads here and in your link provided. I am curious about something: Did you remember to place (manually copy) the VISTA version of UIAUTOMATIONCORE.DLL file into your ROOT FSX folder? This is a MUST to avoid crashes to desktop, screen going black with FSX giving error that it has encountered a problem and needs close ... I had recently re-installed my FSX and forgot to add this file and was getting CTDs. After finding the correct VISTA version (not the windows 7 version), all is OK. This CTD is a known issue in Windows 7/64-bit if this uiautomationcore.dll for Vista is not placed in the FSX folder.Here is the link to the correct version from a thread in the avsim forums:http://www.search-dll.com/dll-files/download/uiautomationcore.dll.htmlThis file also exists in the Windows 7 SYSWOW64 folder. Do NOT delete it as Windows 7 needs it. Just ADD this version from the link above to the root of the FSX folder as FSX will see it and use it automatically, without searching for the Windows 7 version.Hope this helps.John

Hi Coneman,Thanks... I was actually just digging around about how to use AI planes. Just never had interest in them so I basically know very little about their setup. UT is mentioned by many flightsimmers. I wonder how the framerates are like though. I don't have an i7 system, just an E8400 (see my signature for my system specs) with a good video card (5770) though not the fastest. Can you or anyone else tell me if this will reduce frame-rates even if I just use, say 25% AI traffic for airliners only and no GA traffic for example? I use add-on airports and my frame-rates are anywhere from 10-20 (Aerosoft Mega Airport Amsterdam X is slower for example). Will my frame rates be unusable if I add AI even at only say 25-50%?Just wondering...John

Great! Thank-you so much Loyd. I had tried to search the tutorials about AI aircraft but it is complicated since "AI" is only two letters and Avsim forums search engine does not permit searches less then 3 characters...Thanks again. I shall be downloading some beauties soon then! :( John :(

Hi,I was thinking of trying out a few of my favourite airlines as AI add-on aircraft in my FSX. I have the Acceleration pack.I never installed AI aircraft in FS2004 when I used it for several years, but thought this would be a nice experience.I have seen several re-paints of existing full (base) packages like those from "Ai Aardvark" or TFS (The Fruit Stand) in the AVSIM library, but these are all for FS2004. Yet the repaints are in the FSX Ai Aircraft section.So can I use these FS2004 models in FSX or will there be problems? If not, what are some sites which make AI base models for FSX?John

Yes, I was flying at 1x speed at the time. No, I do remember that I set the SIM time to my time in Montreal so the local time was around 16:00 and UTC would be 4 hours ahead but I will do another flight next week and capture a log.By the way, which time is Radar Contact sensitive to since I was flying in Asia, from Jakarta to Hong Kong but used 15:00 local as my start time?thanks.

Anyone had this happen to them? RC support... you there? :( (Are you "lined up and waiting" ? :( )

Hello,I have used the AVSIM forums since 2004. I usually do a quick search using my forum username (Byrna) and a recent date range like the past week or more recent. I am consistently missing many search results and in fact, I get "no results found" when searching for threads where I know I made a posting in the past few days.I have cleared my cookies but I am stumped as to what is going on. Same problem occurs whether using Firefox 3.6.10 or Internet Explorer 8 Can someone from the AVSIM forum admin/moderators help?Thanks in advance.John

Hello,I had simply paused FSX in mid-air today while I ate lunch. I had done the exact same thing during yesterday's flight, again for lunch and RC4 resumed the flight like nothing had happened. But today, RC4 initially started continuing its instructions for me to climb to FL340 (the flight was paused while still in the climb stage, at FL290, with final cruise altitude at FL340.)I had saved the flight as I went, so I had a saved copy of the moment I had paused it before going to eat. But RC display switched to show the first waypoint in the flight and then gave me msg. that I am off course, and a new heading to turn me back... I tried resuming from last saved point and same problem. So I finished the flight with RC4 completely closed with no ATC. :( Why would this happen? Has anyone had this issue before? I know that if we change the FSX sim time, RC is adversely effected, but the sim was paused. I never exited the sim.So I am at a loss to explain.Thanks for any help or suggestions you can provide.John

Hey, I used that book in my marketing class! Nice book... but that was many years ago. Marketing it is though, you're right Tom.But still, it is quite fascinating what PMDG is trying to do. Though it looks like you read many more of these "updates" than I have since I think to just avoid these endless postings until we see the final product. So lessee... where iz it? :( John

I had a similar variance today during a flight using RC and ASE. However, the variance was not that much - around 10 degrees I believe. RC WX report (option 2) was reporting winds from 200 deg. and ASE had winds of 190 deg. This was for a landing and New York JFK (KJFK) airport. I do not have have DWC nor global mode on in ASE. I do have wind smoothing turned on in FSUIPC (version 4.60a from March 4, 2010) as well as suppressing turbulence etc.. under the "winds" tab in FSUIPC.I will do another flight soon and will see what happens, but would be interested in knowing the result of examining this log file.John

Thanks JD, your own explanation above is actually much more direct and clear than the manual. I had not encountered such a save from resume before where FS had to be not just "running" but loaded into an actual flight. I thought Radar Contact would open the appropriate flight from the FSX main "free flight" window if I just clicked on the RCD file. But since my post here, I have figured out how to do it and thanks to your reply, it made sense. It may seem a bit silly but with all the time and brain energy I was spending on trying to fix the serious performance issues in Windows XP 32-bit (switched to Win7-64 basically! :) ) and a problem with my main (and in fact my only used) payware aircraft, my mind was frankly too tired and frustrated to figure out a complicated resume from save procedure. I just wanted it to work ...Thanks again. Radar Contact is pretty good. Hopefully, though, version 5 will introduce some more realistic features like Oceanic clearance with Gander and Shanwick Oceanic control.John

Hi Ryan,I am also curious to see how the flight dynamics (FDE) will "feel" like when flying them. I have the PMDG 737NG 600/700 for FS2004 so it would be fascinating to compare the two. Since I always do manual landings, I am wondering how the planes will react to the thrust levels which I think (believe from what I've heard) a 737 needs - lots of thrust. But the later generation models are possibly much more efficient gliders than the earlier NGs so I wanted to see the difference here.Does the 800/900 or later NGs glide much better than the earlier NGs like the 600/700 (kind of like the Airbus A320 glides, at least the PSS version I used to fly)? Just wondering. Thanks for all the information.John :(

Hello mad dog and Greg,Well, it is interesting to see that XP-64 is also running FSX flawlessly.But I just finished two flights, one yesterday and one today, using Aerosoft Mega-Airport scenery as my arrival without any glitches at all. Today, I landed at Mega-Airport Amsterdam in the PMDG 744X albeit it was already night-time (just after sunset) but there was never any missing cockpit parts nor massive loss of textures in the scenery or spikes etc... Perfect in everyway. I did do tweaking as per Bojote's suggestions and used his shader version 3.0. But I don't use add-on textures nor mesh... yet, just airports for now.So Windows 7 64-bit, with the right hardware as Greg mentioned I think, is excellent. I will continue to expand my FSX installation by adding stuff and see how it goes. I have decided, however, that I will NOT add any textures as the ones in FSX default are already excellent for me. I may add mesh to make the geography much more detailed, nicer-looking mountains and coastlines, etc... I am aware that my system is not the fastest but it is damn good. I am also thinking whether I may still have to expand my RAM before the 1333MHz. DDR3 is discontinued, since I want to get the exact same model RAM as what I have now.