FalconAF

I'm confused on getting a "license" file (?) for my RC4toXplane purchase from SimMarket yesterday. The instructions that came with the download were not clear on how to make everything work (sorry, but I'm a new X-Plane 11 user too, so am still learning that also). After much searching on the 'net, I discovered I needed to download an updated version of XPUIPC (2.0.5.9) to replace the 2.0.0.0 installed by the RC4toXplane installer. After doing that, I did get RC4.3 (which I have used with FSX and P3D for well over 10 years now) to provide accurate ATC for ONE flight. It seemed to be working great. But the next time I closed then re-opened X-Plane and tried to use the plugin for RC4, it gave me the (sic) "Your copy of RC4toX-Plane is unregistered" popup. I filled out the Registration.txt file in the plugins folder and sent it to the email shown in the popup... register(at)multicrewxp(dot)com (I included a cut/paste of my SimMarket invoice also just in case). I haven't heard anything back yet. My SimMarket invoice says for support I should contact support(at)multicrewxp(dot)com. There are several other internet "searches" I made while trying to get rc4toxplane to work that say to post in the MCE forum here at AVSIM. So.....it's confusing. 😀 1. Was my email request for the "license" file for RC4toxplane sent to the correct email address? register(at)multicrewxp(dot)com ? 2. Is there anything else I need to do now to get RC4toxplane to stop telling me to send you an email to get a "license" file now? Thanks for any assistance.

It happens a lot here at KLAS in Las Vegas when the weather is clear (which is most of the time). Many of the STARs take the aircraft to an IAF for the Instrument approach procedure, but on initial contact with the approach controller they will receive "Expect visual approach.....". This does not relieve the pilot from still following the STAR and the initial instrument approach flight path (the approach controller did not say anything about "...expect vectors..."), but eventually the aircraft will be "...cleared visual approach runway 26 Left....", and then if the pilot goes "missed" later during the approach the Tower Controller will (actually, must) issue an "instruction" to follow, as the requirement to follow the missed approach procedure on the chart was voided after being cleared for the visual approach. I've never heard a Tower controller say something like, "Fly the published procedure (sic)…" in these circumstances. I'm not sure if that would even be a legal instruction anymore after being cleared for a "visual approach" that doesn't/wouldn't have a published missed approach procedure (anymore since being cleared for the visual). Have any real world pilots here ever been cleared for a visual approach and THEN been told to "fly the published procedure" when going missed? I would think ATC would have to vector you all the way if they wanted you to follow the published procedure route then.

I agree 100%, Ray. Except... An OPINION is not a rational reason to accuse ANY developer of "conning" the consumer. You are accusing developers of being "conmen" based on YOUR own opinions. Which are not facts.

Because if LM made ALL textures in the DEFAULT P3D 4K overnight, the users who are using 5-year old computers would scream bloody murder when THEIR computers ran like dogmeat then. There are plenty of addon developers who will (and already do) provide 4K texture addons for the core simulator. Heck, already many users of P3D who are still using old computers who realistically SHOULDN'T be using 4K textures buy those addons. It's their OWN fault when the core simulator "doesn't run right" then.

Ray, with all due respect, anyone who has taken a course in Logic or Critical Thinking Decision Making would recognize the fallacy of your above statement/question. Just because YOU don't (or won't) "fly at night" in YOUR flight sim DOSEN'T mean the developer is "conning" anybody with the update. If the product DOES have a new P3Dv4 capability that DIDN'T exist in P3Dv3, then it IS a "real upgrade". You can't try to establish your OWN way you use the simulator as the "benchmark" for whether a new addon is an "upgrade" or not. For the sim users who DO use their sims to fly at night, the addition of Dynamic Lighting IS an accurate upgrade to the product. Nobody is being "conned" by the developer in your example above.

Heck, that's been around since Telemarketing began on TV. "Buy our (grill that uses disposable bags...or our razor that needs replacement blades...or whatever we can sell you that you will need to buy replacement parts of it that wear out or you throw away) and we will send you FREE replacements for LIFE! Yes! FREE FREE FREE !!! (Just pay Shipping and Handling, which we hope you don't realize the shipping and handling cost we charge you is incredibly higher than OUR cost for the replacement parts and our ACTUAL cost to mail you the items to begin with). Consumers are gullible. Marketers have known that for a long, long time. You can get them to pay for just about ANYTHING as long as you tell them it's "Free" or "New and Improved", etc. I'm not surprised SOME (not all of course!) flight sim addon developers have taken the same marketing tactic. I'm waiting for one of them to try this... "Buy our airport for FS9 and we promise to give you FREE Upgrades for ANY future version of flight sims you may buy!!! Just pay our low (*cough* *cough*) Shipping and Handling Bandwidth costs for the download!!!" I'm positive many flight sim users who refuse to pay for an airport upgrade from say FSX to P3D would jump at that sales pitch. 😎 (For anyone who doesn't see the "satirical" part of this post, please don't respond to it) 😉

I bought it. It's a good scenery. And I also own all the other Flightbeam sceneries and they are good. But for cryin' out loud...how long does it take a developer to start allowing their sceneries to be added to P3D OUTSIDE of the main P3D folder using the XML method? For Flightbeam to still INSIST that their airports MUST be installed inside the main P3D folder is really getting silly. And it's a bad reflection on how serious they are in making their products P3D "compliant" with the current Lockheed Martin XML installation method. C'mon Flightbeam. You took a major step getting your products dis-associated with the Couatl Addon Manager. Now get them so the customer can install them in P3D using the P3D recommended XML method.

Your friend didn't have HIS hardware configured correctly. Period. The hardware and software is not set up properly in both previous posts/cases above. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If anybody is ever going to be visiting Las Vegas, if you want to, send me a PM and I'll be glad to bring you to my house and show you how to do it. No magic involved. But if ANYBODY is using a 40" or larger UHD 4K TV with a 1080 GPU (or better) and has unclear text or graphics while sitting even 3 feet away from it, they simply don't have the hardware configured correctly. And we WILL record the entire session with my GoPro video cameras so nobody can say ""He's lying". People are entitled to their own opinions. But not their own facts. Visiting a friend who doesn't know what they are doing and seeing the results of that are not "evidence" that the hardware won't perform correctly.

deleted

Ray, nobody is disagreeing with "known facts". The disagreement is in the way you represent your "objective" information. You can't just say something like, "The downside of a large screen is you don’t get the sharpness a smaller display gives" or "but (I) accept others want the immersion of larger displays. But you do lose out on sharpness". Those kind of "blanket one size fits all" statements are just plain false. They are called "Erroneous Information" in an academic teaching environment. And they are misleading and a disservice to people asking questions like the one asked in this thread. A 65" UHD 4K capable TV doesn't even need to use an Anti-Aliasing setting in most cases to have a "sharp" display...text included. IF it and the software application being used is configured properly. I use only MSAA and Anisotropic with P3Dv4 on my Samsung 65" UHD 4K and there are no "jaggies" or "un-sharp text" ANYWHERE on the screen. And yes, you do need a "good" GPU to do it...but not even a 1080ti. I use a plain old GTX1080 without it being the "ti" version. I'm not trying to be "hostile" to anybody. I just abhor "Erroneous Information" in what should be an educational environment like a forum that offers "advice" for it's members who ask.

Yes. And it seems some people don't understand how to make that technology work yet. Anyone saying that using a large(r) screen TV will give you "less clear" output simply doesn't know how to use it. I've been using a Samsung 65" UHD 4K Curved TV as my monitor for well over a year now. Using ONLY ONE nvidia 1080 GPU (not even a 1080ti) HDMI-cabled from the GPU to the TV with the resolution in P3D set to 4096 x 2160 and there isn't anything "blurry" in the display. No performance issues whatsoever using ORBX, PMDG, ActiveSky for P3Dv4, REX SkyForce for P3Dv4 (for textures), and a few other addons. No need to use a bunch of "tweaks" for any of it either. I sit in a recliner about 4 feet away from it. And my "sliders" in P3D are all set to at least "dense" or better. Yes...it can be done...if someone wants to learn how to do it. Please...PLEASE...if you DON'T know how to make a hardware system work, quit telling people it WON'T work. This forum should be an educational venue that passes on ACCURATE information for people looking for information.

True. But if the user's previous driver wasn't acting "buggy" to begin with (which means any "bugs" in it weren't applicable to THEIR computer usage), would you STILL recommend they upgrade just because there was a new driver release? For none of the 4 REQUIRED reasons listed above? If I recommended (or did) that in my 40 years of IT experience/employment, my employer would have rightfully fired me for incompetence (or sent me to Leavenworth after a Courts Martial). Nobody needs to update drivers "just because there is a new one available". That recommendation never has been accurate. And it's what caused unknowledgable Windows users so much angst when Windows 10 included the "automatic update all drivers" fiasco. Microsoft included that "feature" simply because MOST home computer users don't use their computers for things like WE do in our flight sim community. But those same people could have ALWAYS just turned the individual driver updates OFF if they took the time to LEARN how to do it within the OS. The ability was always there to allow Windows itself to update, without automatically updating the GPU drivers. And there are STILL people posting in our forums who don't seem to know how to do that with Windows 10. They blame the Operating System for a fault, when it is really the user who hasn't learned how to use the OS properly for what they want it to do based on how they are using their own computer. If you are only running "games" or self-contained "apps made for Windows" on your computer, you can let Windows update all your drivers for you and you won't normally experience any problems. NOT so when you are doing the kinds of things we do with our flight sims, tons of complex interacting addons for them, and the plethora of different computer setups we use with our sims (stand alone, networked, etc). People need to learn when they really need to update their drivers...and when they don't...when using our "home" computers with the flight sim software WE use on them. And my apologies if anything I said upsets anybody. But if a flight sim user comes to a flight sim forum seeking "education", what they are told should be factual.

That would make sense too. I know I read somewhere that SimBrief will "select" different cost indexes for different reasons, and I thought one of them was also based on a table of "common" real world CI's for individual airlines. But from my understanding, SimBrief also uses real world FlightAware routes and flight times based on the selections you input for the flight plan (aircraft type, airline, etc). So it very well may be looking at a proposed flight time from somewhere like FlightAware, and coupling that with the aircraft type for the flight plan it is creating to get a recommended CI.

Do people actually READ the posts they reply to BEFORE they reply to them? As I said, the nVidia drivers are updated for 3 main reasons: 1. A "game" update. 2. An Operating System update. 3. A hardware update. Geez! I would hope if somebody bought a brand new state-of-the-art GPU they WOULD update their 2-year old drivers for it. 🙄 But this is a P3D flight simulator forum. Saying everybody ELSE "needs" to update their drivers because YOU needed to update them for your Need For Speed or First Person Shoot 'Em Up game is really silly.

SimBrief will do that depending on some different factors you input about the flight. Like most times if I use a SWA flight designator (for Southwest Airlines) I get a really low Cost Index used for the flight plan. It's not unusual to get a single-digit one that will make my descent speeds much lower than many, many STAR crossing speed restrictions. You can see them in the FMC waypoints list when you verify your flight plan using the "Step" sequence after entering the flightplan in the FMC. That is when you can initially make the adjustments recommended above in previous posts to make sure you have a descent profile that fits the crossing restrictions for STAR arrivals in the plan. I think SimBrief has been designed to determine Cost Index values based on the airline designator used. I might be wrong about that though. In any case, Southwest flight plans consistently get lower Cost Index values when I use SimBrief, because in real life, Southwest does use lower Cost Index values. That works for the climb and cruise portions of the flights, but the pilot(s) would still have to adjust the descent profiles to comply with STAR crossing restriction speeds if needed.

Don't forget there are TWO different types of "zoom" being talked about in this thread. The P3D "zoom" by using the "+" and "-" keys (which adjusts the OUTSIDE "zoom" view of the sim (the 0.30, 0.40, etc, etc shown in the sim window), and the "Eyepoint" views using other keyboard combinations that adjust the "view" of the Virtual Cockpit panels (you can move the panel eyepoint "Forward/Back", "Up/Down", etc). Lots of newer users don't know you can set the outside view and the Eyepoint position for the cockpit panel separately. I routinely set the Outside view value first (change it to 0.60 or 0.70 or whatever), THEN adjust the panel Eyepoint View to get the cockpit panel where I want it.

Actually, yes it is a crime. I assume you haven't read the P3D Licensing Agreements, have you? Thank you for reading too. 🙄

The reality with nVidia GPU drivers is that their updates are made mostly for SPECIFIC reasons concerning new game releases or game updates, etc. And sometimes their drivers are updated for Operating System reasons (like a new Windows related update) and/or hardware reasons. The "LIST" of reasons are included with each new driver release, but most people just arbitrarily do the update without even reading the list to find out if it's needed for them. If none of the reasons are specific to your hardware or OS...or even MORE relevant to us as P3D users...if nothing listed is specific to P3D...you are most likely experiencing a placebo effect in whatever "improvements" you perceive in P3D. OR...…. I've lost count of how many times I've "updated" a user's GPU drivers using the SAME version of the drivers they already had installed (without their knowledge I was installing the SAME driver version they already had). They were "AMAZED" at how much it improved their PC's performance and "looks". Of course, that was because their lack of user maintenance on their computer had resulted in their current drivers either getting corrupted or their computer was just plain "bloated" after a while. Older nVidia drivers will work just as well for P3D as the most current drivers will...depending on the individual user's computer setup. Way too many people just don't understand that concept. "Newer" is not always "Better". And in many cases, not even "Necessary". 😎

That can already be done with the AFCAD file. Users have been able to label one end of a runway for takeoffs only, or one end for landings only, etc (there are some limitations though). But even though I can have more than just one AFCAD file for different runway configurations for an airport (like Copenhagen mentioned previously in this thread), I can only use ONE of them at a time in the sim. And I have to CLOSE the sim to change them if I want to change the "available" runways. That is useless to me if I "checked the weather" for my arrival airport 2 (or more) hours in advance, only to discover the weather changed at the arrival airport while I was enroute. The loaded AFCAD file won't be using the "correct" runways for the CURRENT weather on arrival then. And there isn't a darn thing I can do about it to change the AFCAD while the sim is running. It's NOT just a "the winds are from a certain direction in the sim" problem. It's the inability of the USER to do what the DEFAULT ATC is INCAPABLE of doing. So the default ATC "doesn't know" that after 10 PM local time, KLAX will start using a "landing east and departing west" runway configuration for noise abatement? Then give the USER the ability to select those runways FOR the default ATC. I should be able to "tell the sim" to "Use 25R for takeoffs and 6L for landings", and the sim's ATC should act accordingly. That solves the problem for late night flying using someplace like KLAX with parallel runways. And for someplace like KLAS with "crossing" runways, I should be able...in the sim WHILE it is running...tell the ATC to "Use runways 19L and 26R for takeoffs, and runways 19R nd 26L for landings"...like in the real world...REGARDLESS if the winds are only 3kts from the east. Before anybody says, "Well, that would be too much work for the user to do for every airport while flying!", THAT argument goes right down the drain when you look at addons that are "Best Sellers" like GSX2, where the user can select (or "change") what the jetways look like for almost every INDIVIDUAL airport in the sim. Or leave them whatever way the sim decides. It's the same principle for "realistic runway use". Many of us have "taken the time" over years of sim use to install "more realistic crosswind runways AFCADs" in our sims. But it's still a band-aid fix, because of the way the default ATC selects runways. I don't mind if someone wants to use "UNrealistic runway configurations" chosen by the default ATC in their sim. That's their choice...go for it. But I'm using $100+ airplane addons...and $100+ worth of real world weather addons...and $100+ worth of ATC and AI addons....all in a $200 "default" simulation...and ALL of those addons (and me) are at the mercy of the default sim's ATC selecting idiotic runway configurations for "real world" simulation. At LEAST give me the chance to select "real world runway configurations" if I know what they will be, and if I want to do it. Give me the opportunity to do the default ATC's runway configuration job for them if they can't do it correctly themselves. If anybody else wants to just use whatever the default ATC selects, I'm fine with that too. But let me override the default ATC's selection when it would be "more realistic" at the time.

I do use AS. I do see what AS says the "current runways" in use are. In many cases, AS reports the real world runway configuration that will be used. In calm winds conditions at KLAS it will say the 19's or 26's. Then I start P3D and it is using the 1's and 8's and so will all the AI. And it does that at most large multiple runway airports if a crosswind runway AFCAD is being used. It will do the same thing at KLAX with PARALLEL runways. Starting late night, real world KLAX uses the 6's and 7's for landing, and the 24's and 25's for takeoffs, and continues doing that until early morning. Noise abatement rules. And during the daytime it would take darn near 15 kt tailwinds before KLAX will use the 6's or 7's at all. But the sim will select the 6's and 7's in calm winds all day long. Totally unrealistic. What good is my real world Active Sky addon if it injects real world calm winds and the sim's default ATC selects bogus runway configurations? It has been a problem for over 20 years in our flight sims. I honestly can't believe that a current technology $200 flight simulator, marketed as a "professional training simulation of real world flying", still has this happening in it, and can't re-program a user interface that would allow the user to select the runways that would correspond to a real world configuration. "Eye Candy" improvements seem to be more important that realism. And that is a shame for something marketed as "professional". I know how to use weather briefings to plan flight departures and arrivals. Did it for 40 years real world. It's the default simulator that makes it impossible to do realistically. Heck, my weather addons are more accurate in predicting the real runways than the default ATC. That's the issue. The addons are useless if the default sim still makes unrealistic choices and the end user has no control over them other than to turn off OTHER parts of the simulation (like crash detection) so the user can fly the flight in a realistic manner. EDIT: Just to be sure, I'm NOT saying that the default ATC can't be allowed to select the runways to begin with. Sometimes they DO select the correct runways to coincide with the real world operations (but it usually depends on the airports in question). What I am saying is that if the default ATC selects a runway configuration that DOESN'T correspond to what I KNOW would be the real world configuration, just give ME the opportunity to select the real runways then, and have the sim USE them so I won't be flying head-on into a string of AI aircraft coming in the opposite direction when I land on the realistic runways. I honestly don't mind if someone wants to land at KLAX on runway 7R at high noon with 3 kt winds from the east. If that's all they want from their $200 simulator, it's fine by me. But please don't make me do it when I know better.

We just cross-posted again. Yes, I know you know what needs to be done. I'm not mad at anybody, nor criticizing anyone in particular. And for what it's worth, my solution to the ATC/runway/AI problem is to just turn off collisions in the sim and fly using runways, departures, and approaches that make sense in the real world while using the real world weather my other expensive addons injected into the "default" sim. But that usually really p*sses off the ATC controller too. 😂 Peace

OK. So for the sake of discussion (note: I didn't say argument), why can't the following be implemented? The sim uses "default" runway configurations. The ATC WILL use the lowest numbered "default" runways in the sim for calm winds based on which runways designated as "available" in the AFCAD (.bgl file) for the airport. Years ago (way back in the FSX days) some creative people discovered you could activate MORE than just the "default" runways using the AFCAD. This resulted in us being able to utilize the Crosswind Runway technique for airports like KLAS, PANC, and many, many others. The AFCAD designer simply "told the sim" that all of those "extra" runways were available for use at the same time. But at places like KLAS when using Crosswind Runway AFCAD's, the sim's ATC still uses the LOWEST numbered AVAILABLE crosswind (multiple) runways listed in the AFCAD in calm wind conditions. Why can't the sim's ATC be "programmed" to allow me...while I am in the sim...to select a runway configuration that is equivalent to a real world airport calm wind condition WITHOUT me having to "fudge" the real world weather conditions my $$$ weather addon injected into the sim? If I created an AFCAD file that enabled ALL the runways at the airport (which is basically what a "crosswind runway" AFCAD does), why can't I also have a user interface that lets me tell the sim and the ATC to USE 19L and 26R for takeoffs, and 19R and 26L for landings (like the real world KLAS in calm winds)? As it is now, even changing AFCADs someplace like Copenhagen won't get the ATC to use the real world preferred runways in calm winds (or even higher winds in a lot of cases). What is preventing creating a user interface WITHIN the sim that will let the user say, "These are the runways I want ATC to use. Do it!" WHILE the sim is running? (I can't change AFCADs while the sim is running). If I get an ATIS report 60 miles away from an airport and then change the runway configuration (because I know the runways the default ATC selected aren't realistic), the AI should be able to regenerate to provide traffic that will align with that new runway configuration long before I get there. Our sims use very, very good addons...and sometimes very expensive too...that provide real world information for the sim, like our expensive weather addons that will inject real world weather. It's the sim itself that is "out of date" when it can't USE that information in an accurate manner. Heck, I may as well not even buy something like ActiveSky for P3D if I will have to CHANGE the real world weather it injected into the sim because the sim's ATC "can't" use it correctly compared to what the real world ATC would select using the same real world weather conditions. If the ATC can't be programmed to select the realistic runways, let me select the runways for them, then just force the ATC to use what I select. I assume the AI will follow suit, 'cos that what they will do now if the runways used change. What...from a programming perspective...would be so hard to do to make that happen? Educate me. I'm open to understanding why it "can't be done" with today's simulator technology. I own $100+ of real world weather addons. I use $100+ addon aircraft like PMDG's that simulate real world complex flying requirements to use them. I have expensive addon ATC programs that try to simulate real world airport operations. But the "default sim" still insists in selecting runways that don't coincide with many real world airports operations. And I have no way to influence that short of changing what my "real world information" addons injected into the sim? Seems backwards to me.

And that's my point. The sim ATC doesn't do a realistic job of it. If in the real world the winds are 090 at 5 kts at KLAS, the real world ATC are gonna choose the 19's and 26's as "the default" runways for operations. Give ME the opportunity to do that in the sim also. Without having to swap 3 or 4 different AFCAD files that come with a complex airport like FlyTampa's Copenhagen like Christopher talked about above. Yes, I know it's about re-writing some programming algorithms, etc. But this is 2018. My home computer has tens of thousands (or more) times processing power than ALL the computers on the Apollo missions that took real men to the moon and back 50 years ago. And P3D is marketed as not being a "game", but a real-world simulation of the entire flying experience. My version costs $200. Fix the darn ATC/AI/Weather interaction. Or even simpler, give me the ability to choose in-the-sim, on-the-fly, my own airport runway configuration depending on the real-world procedures at the real world airports. It can't be rocket science to do it. The current sim situation concerning ATC/AI/Weather doesn't remind me of real world flying. It reminds me of this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-02-23 😁

Nobody is disagreeing with "How The Sim Works". The problem is, it doesn't work like the real world. Which is totally ridiculous when you are trying to use "real world weather". Case in point: Many, many real world multiple runway airports have "Preferred Runway Configurations" used in calm wind conditions. FS9, FSX, and now P3D STILL disregard anything like that because if the wind is less than a certain speed, the sim will simply choose the LOWEST NUMBER RUNWAY(s). Always. This happens all the time for KLAS. Unless the winds reach a minimum speed out here, the 19's and 26's are going to be used. Doesn't matter if the "calm" wind is coming out of the east in the real world. But in the sim with a 3 knot wind from 090, you are getting sent to the 1's and 8's. And every AI airplane in the sim will go there too. That is totally stupid if I am using a state-of-the-art real world weather addon that injects real-world winds into the sim of less than about 8 knots. Heck...I'm using the weather addon so I DON'T have to screw around injecting my own winds to begin with, and to create a REAL world environment and experience. It doesn't happen. And it's a $200 simulator. And as an aside, KLAX does use the 6's and 7's...EVERY DAY. They are the REQUIRED late night/early morning runways unless the prevailing winds absolutely, positively prevent airplanes from using them. All due to noise restriction rules in the local area. And many other major airports do the same thing in "calm wind" conditions at night. Tailwind takeoffs and landings are common in calm wind conditions. The real problem is what people are asking for in this thread...the ability for the sim user to CHOOSE TO SET their own runways for use...does not exist in the sim. And it should, to avoid the issues above. C'mon. Our flight sim is third generation (FS9/FSX/P3D) and almost 20 years old. Please don't tell me some intelligent programmer wouldn't be able to include the ability by now to allow a sim user to say, "Well, because of the winds my real world weather program injected into the sim, I want to use the 19's and 26's for KLAS now...like in the real world". Then once we set those runways, the AI would (should?) be sent to them too. Making me "fudge" the real world injected winds to get the real world runways in use is absurd for todays simulation technology. Let me PICK the runways in use when I know the ones the sim is selecting are stupid. EDIT: Simbol and I cross-posted. So consider my post a "request" if it will help resolve a 20-year old "problem" of our flight simulator.

What too many people here are doing is giving advice based on their OWN setups. What will determine if you need more than 16gb of RAM for YOUR P3D computer? Some people have already explained it, but too many people keep missing the point of it. Do you run P3D and ALL your other addons with it from ONE computer? Then you MIGHT need to consider getting more than 16gb of RAM. Yes...P3D ALONE will never use that much all by itself, but I routinely exceed 17gb of RAM usage running P3D and all the OTHER addons at the same time on my 32gb single computer I'm using since my accident. Ray never indicated that he was using a NETWORKED configuration with more than one computer in his original post. Based on how he has many of his OTHER addons running on a second computer, he can easily get by with only 16gb on his "primary" P3D computer. But 16gb may NOT be enough for someone running everything from ONE computer.