outlaw2001it

Greetings. Made the move to Windows 10 two days ago. FS9 seems to be running, but with a few flaws. When in full screen mode can't switch to the desktop, or another application using Windows key/alt + tab. To solve the problem I have to minimize FS9 to window mode (alt + enter). The Video drivers that I had when I was using Windows 7 didn't not install with the Windows 10 upgrade...so I downloaded/installed the latest driver(s) from NVIDIA. I was maxed out at 70 fps (with LOD clamped), and 150+ fps without it in WIndows 7. With the NVIDIA settings at default, and using NVIDIA Inspector I'm maxed out at 60 fps (Windows 10 - NVIDIA drivers: 353.54). Going to install earlier drivers to make sure that problem is not with the drivers (I'll report back on that). If anybody has better frame rates than mine...please start another thread with NVIDIA settings, and what drivers you are using. Other than that...don't see any problems with running FS9 with the following programs installed: FS Genesis (all) Aerosoft FDC Live Cockpit Ultimate Traffic + WOAI packages Active Sky GE Pro EVO My Rig I5-4590 3.30 GHZ 8 GB of Ram ASUS Nvidia GTX 750 TI 2GB GDDR5 Take Care J.R. Duda

Greetings, Just got my new rig up, and running. Specs: Intel I5-4590 (3.30 GHZ) ASUS Z97-K Motherboard Kingston Hyper Fury X 8 GB DDR3 1600 MHZ ASUS GTX 750 TI 2GB DDR5 Is anybody running anything close to mine (or even an I-7), and if so have you tweaked the FS9 configuration file, or kept it stock??? I know over the years many people (including myself) have tweaked it to get the most out of FS9, and their system. If you have tweaked the configuration file can you put down what you did, and what improvements you've seen in FS9. Right now I have everything maxed out with the exception of traffic (50% - Ultimate traffic installed, along with some WOAI packages), and scenery complexity - normal (hate installing new afcads, and seeing aircraft embedded into a terminal). I have the following addon's installed: Active sky, FS Genesis Terrain Mesh (entire world), Ultimate Terrain (USA, Canada/Alaska, Europe). The frame rates that I am getting are 60 FPS...maxed out. Not worrying about frame rates, what I am wondering is if there are any tweaks to improve the overall look of the scenery (other than MS configurations), and get the most out of FS9. Thanks J.R. Duda

Greetings, Just installed Windows 7 32 bit on my 10 year old rig: Pentium D 930 3 GHZ Asus 9500 GT 1 GB DDR2 4 GB DDR2 Everything is chugging along nicely, except for a few problems within FS9. Before I start i just want to say that all drivers have been updated, and I even loaded older drivers for my video card that I was using in Windows XP to see if it helped with problems within FS9. Now for the problem(s) some of the gauges don't load, or they do load...but end up crashing/freezing FS9. The gauges that are wrecking havoc are the ones for the Stratojet Excalibur...EICAS, and Mini-Display. Has anybody else had any issues with these gauges or others??? I have ran FS9 in several compatibility modes, and nothing seems to work. I have tried different settings in the Nvidia Control panel, and nothing seems to work. At this point of time I have deleted those gauges, and currently writing a few gauges in XML to compensate for the loss. If anybody could share so insight into this, or have any ideas (including new rig, or video card) I would be grateful. Thanks J.R. Duda

I use FS Repaint, and at times have to shutdown FS9 in order to see my repaint...Windows XP. More than likely this is caused by memory usage within FS9, and other external programs.

If you're are planning on overclocking (which you are) get a motherboard with the Z77 chipset. The Haswell processor will be coming out soon, so that is going to using the Z87 chipset. Difference: Major thing that I could see between Z87/Z77 (besides using the Haswell CPU) is the default clock speed of the memory...1600 MHZ - Z87, 1333 MHZ - Z77. Other things under the belt most people wouldn't know/care about. When it comes to size of the motherboard, I prefer nothing smaller than an Micro-ATX. More room to move around, and easier to get things inside such as huge graphics cards. So bottom line is do you want to build now, or wait for the Haswell processor/Z87 chipset??? A little better performance than the I7/Z77 processor/chipset, but most likely will be upgradeable for future CPU's. If you're not going to wait, then get a motherboard with the Z77 chipset for overclocking. When it comes to motherboards I prefer ASUS/ASROCK, but others use other companies. You'll mostly get conflicting reports on this from different people...it's all what you want out of the motherboard. Nothing smaller than an Micro-ATX, for larger video cards, and for moving around inside the case.

Greetings, Is there a gauge, or work around to refuel the external tanks without going into the fuel settings of the aircraft??? I know you can design a gauge in XML, or make a keyboard shortcut...but those fill all the tanks except the externals. It's just sort of a annoying to keep going into the fuel settings just to refuel the external tanks. Thanks J.R. Duda

I just wanted to post a screen shot. Again, Thanks to all!!! Take Care J.R.

Problem solved. Believe it or not I had the string that way last night, but I screwed up on a parameter...and didn't catch it. Have to stop working on stuff without sleep.. Thanks to all for the help. Take Care, and Happy Landings J.R.

The aircraft has only 2 stations...crew (station 1), and pax (station 2), and the max payload is 8200 lbs.. I'm kind of confused as to how, and where to put the station index, or even what the whole string should look like...compared to my original post. Thank You J.R.

Thanks for the replies, but i think almost everybody missed my point. I'm trying to make a simple XML gauge to show what the total weight of the pax/cargo onboard the aircraft is. The string that I have is <String>%((A:PAYLOAD STATION WEIGHT, POUNDS))%!6d!</String but it's showing up a complete zero. Thanks for the help MGH, but I'm still a bit confused...I sent ya a "PM ". if anybody could give me a little more insight I would appreciate it. Thank You J.R.

Greetings, I'm working on an XML gauge for PAX weight. I found an entry for payload station weight...is this the same thing??? if not, what is the correct parameter??? This is what I have come up with so far...but it's not showing anything but a "0". <String>%((A:PAYLOAD STATION WEIGHT, POUNDS))%!6d!</String> Any help, comments would be appreciated. Thank You J.R.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_162-57587193/four-years-later-lessons-from-air-france-flight-447/

Thanks again for the replies, but Metalmike got it correctly. Boeing offers a 737 with enhanced short runway landing and takeoff capabilities. The 737 design enhancements allow operators to fly increased payload in and out of airports with runways less than 5,000 feet long...taken from Boeings website. Thanks to all, Take Care J.R.

Thanks for the replies, but my question is if the takeoff length specs of the aircraft are longer than what the runway is...isn't this against FAA rules??? If not...why do the manufacturers list them, or even make them??? Thanks J.R.

Greetings, Was planning a trip to Key West Florida (FS9). I have to say after all my years of simming I've never flown there, so I did some research on the Web to get some info about the airport. The runway is 4,801 ft, but Southwest Airlines have 737-700 flying in/taking off from that airport. I've done some research on the specs of the aircraft, and found that the basic takeoff length is 5,249 ft...400+ ft longer than the runway at Key West. My question being...is this correct??? If so, if the basic take off length is longer that the runway isn't this against FAA rules, or am I missing something about takeoff length of an aircraft??? In the real world if I did take a vacation there should I worry about flying in a 737-700 out of that airport??? Thanks J.R.

It was the load time of the actual website, and not the actual ping from/to the servers. Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers...my comment with check with your ISP came from another thread. Don't know who posted it...but wasn't about to waste up to 10 minutes finding it. (sorry if I was out of line on that). Right now it seems all is good...great job!!! J.R.

Okay, I can handle the problems, and they are looking into it. But, they are saying the problem is only been happening for a week (it hasn't) it's been going on since around the end of November. I don't think the recent upgrades are the problem...they need to go back a few months, and troubleshoot from there.

Hello, I've seen posts by numerous people claiming that the website is slow to load, and they have been told to check with their ISP. I can honestly say that it's not their ISP(s) but your website. I've been a member since before 2000, and visit your website at least once a day (no kidding), and never have experienced the slow loading like this before. It takes roughly 20-30 seconds before the main page, or any other page loads...this has been going on for I guess the past 4-5 months (roughly). I thought that it was the updates to my browser (Opera), but it seems that other people have the same issues. This is very unfortunate because as of now I am visiting websites that I haven't used in years (I will leave those sites name deleted), because not only is their website fast to load, but seem to have more up to date files (FS9/FSX). Please don't tell me to check with my ISP (the "it" in the back of my user name doesn't stand for Italy) especially when other people from around the world (including the U.S.) are having the same problem with loading times. Please let me/us know what you find out...I would hate to lose this site for another after so many faithful years!!! Take care!!! V/R J.R.

Greetings, I'm working on an aircraft.cfg file, and I seem to be stuck on what to fix...here's the problem. At Mach 2.75 (give or take), my N1 is reading around 75% (I know how to adjust that), the problem that I have is my thrust lever indicators are pegged around 1-2 percent...any lower, and the plane will hit Mach 4, and I'm unable to get the speed down. What do I need to adjust in the aircraft.cfg table to fix this problem. I have messed around with table 430, but that seems just to adjust my speed settings, but not my thrust indicators. Enclosed is a picture of my cockpit...please look at EICAS N1 indicators, compared to my thrust indicators (arrows on the outside), just want to get them both as close as possible. Thanks J.R. Duda

Boeing today unveiled its latest Boeing Business Jet, a new 737-700 with luxury appointments fit for a king.Among those appointments are Honeywell's Ovation Select digital system, which Boeing said "offers the latest technological advancements to deliver seamless and easy connectivity -- whether passengers are connected via their BlackBerry, using their laptops or iPads or conducting a video conference call...The modular, lightweight and flexible cabin management system provides component command and control, high-quality, crystal-clear surround sound audio and vivid full high-definition video, which is stunning to watch on the 42-inch and 46-inch high definition monitors."http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-57404887-52/boeings-new-business-jet-is-fit-for-a-king/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title

Ok, I think that is what I was looking for. A little disappointing...but at least it looks realistic. Thank you for the help. much appreciated it. J.R. Duda

Thanks for the reply...but that's what I trying to figure out. :( If I change the fuel flow scalar in the aircraft configuration file...that would also change the fuel flow at cruise. If I change that...technically I can make the plane travel around the world five times without refueling...that would be unrealistic. What I'm trying to find out is...with all of the specifications that I gave...would it be realistic (or even possible) for a plane to travel 3,850 NM on 8,900 gals (59,630 lbs) of fuel at a flight level of 40,000, or even 50,000 maximum (ISA/SL/MTOW)? I guess the engine(s) would matter also...so let's give it two General Electric F110-GE-132's with a thrust of 32,000 lbs. I was looking at the Concorde which had a range of 3,900 NM (but had a fuel load of 210,940 lbs), and was traveling at a speed of Mach 2.02. It was also a lot heavier than the plane that I'm working on, and had four engines compared to my two. I'm in no way an Aircraft Engineer, but sort of just wanted to redo an original configuration file that I didn't think was realistic (weight/fuel load...etc)compared to other aircraft of it's size. Appreciate the help J.R. Duda

Greetings, I am working on a new configuration file for an aircraft for my own personal use, I would like to know if the fuel/range ratio sounds realistic. Aircraft Specs: Length: 95 FT, height 18.9 FT, overall wingspan: 55 FT, empty weight: 45,200 lbs, maximum takeoff: 109,775, maximum fuel 8900 gals/59,630 lbs, 2 Engines/Thrust: 30,000 lbs (each). I have the plane setup for an altitude of 40,000 FT, with a speed of Mach 2.25 with a range of 3,850 NM (ISA/SL/MTOW). Does this sound realistic, or a little far fetched? I'm not sure what other specifications that are needed, so let me know for more information. As I said earlier this is for my own personal use, and I don't have permission from the author of the plane to change the configuration to repost it in the library. Thanks J.R. Duda

On the memory issue...Windows XP home edition (32 bit) can only recognize up to 3.5 GB of memory because of the architecture. Right now the problem seems to be hardware (new drive, data cable, something not connected properly), but can't say for sure. If you replaced the hard drive...maybe you bumped something in the case, and didn't realize it. Go back into the case, and check to see that everything is connected properly. Something that may look connected but only is partially connected could have an effect on the system. If everything looks good, try reinstalling FS9 (no addon's), and see what happens. Good Luck!!!

Just to let ya know...2GB of memory is fine for running FS9. I'm Running a 3 GHZ Pentium D/Nvidia 9500 GT (1 GB of memory), 1920x1080x32 resolution with everything maxed out (except for mip map quality - 6) , and getting roughly 35 FPS (average). Have the following addons: Ultimate Terrain, FS Water, Ultimate Traffic, FS Genesis land mesh/class, Ground Environment Pro. The problem could possibly be your memory setting within your BIOS. On my motherboard if my memory selection is set to Auto in my BIOS...it will actually drop my memory clock speed down to 533 MHZ...instead of it's operating speed of 667 MHZ...significant difference in FS9. Excessive programs running in the background will have a damper on your system. You can look at your msconfig file (Start menu, run, msconfig), and determine what programs you want to run when your system starts up. Or you can shut down programs within your task manager while your running FS9, and then log off, log back on, or reboot your system when finished flying. Check you system configuration in the Control Panel, and make sure you have nothing with an asterisk, or question mark. Check Dell's website for other drivers you may need. One more thing...let Windows handle the Virtual memory (system managed size). J.R.