3catcircus

Anyone happen to know where I can find a United Airlines repaint for the PSS 777-300ER? I've got a livery for the 777-200 but not the -300ER. Thanks!

Thanks! I'll have to try that C-47. I noted today that another of my FS2004 add-ons isn't pulling weather - the Mad Dog 2008 Pro planner attempts to pull weather using FTP and it didn't pull up weather. REX not pulling weather is what prompted me to pay some kind to FSX:SE to begin with. As I continue to discover other add-ons not accessing weather, I might just have to bite the bullet and buy a new computer that will run FS2020. Of course, it makes one wonder just exactly who thought it would be a great idea to hard-code a web site address for the NOAA metars (or worse, proprietary server).

Did you run the sxstrace tool or look at the log in the event viewer like the error says to? It'll tell you what file is corrupt or missing. My guess is it'll probably be one of the Visual C++ redistributables.

Hmm. I'm thinking I might like the L-1011. But which one? CaptainSim or Just Flight?

I'm a long time FS2004 guy. I've got it along with PMDG 737/747/MD11, Mad Dog MD83, Level-D 767, CaptSim 757, PSS 757/777/Dash8/Concorde, Wilco/FT 737-300/400/500, Wilco/FT Airbuses, ATR-72, SSTSim Concorde, etc. along with many payware sceneries, Active Sky Evo, REX+Overdrive, Navigraph, etc. Awhile back, I decided to buy FSX:SE in order to buy AS16 in order to plan using CPS-X (due to inability of it to download current METARS, so having to use AS16 weather). Needless to say, my enjoyment comes from the planning as well as the flying of the sim: figure out a real world flight, randomly generate a load, plan with PFPX, export to both FS9 and FSX, generate performance numbers (CPS-X, TOPCAT and others), import into REX and generate the appropriate textures for the planned route, load FS9, load ASE, run through my checklists to include the CIVA INS or an FMS, and off we go. Recently, REX stopped downloading METARs, so I've had to manually download and use it as archival weather. Not ideal and it seems like writing in the wall that FS2004 will eventually not be as much fun when the add-ons stop working. So - I started actually using FSX:SE with AS16. Just playing around with it, because I assumed it would run horribly slow with low frame rates (I'm on a Dell XPS 8300 using Win7 x64, with a 1GB AMD video card). I tried a flight out of PHL using the stock CRJ700 and got 40+ fps with the 2D cockpit (70+ external view). So now I'm thinking it might actually run well enough on my machine with payware add-ons. So - should I expect decent performance if I install payware add-ons? If so, sell me on ones that might still be available and that I might enjoy. TFDI 717? DCD Concorde? Leonardo Mad Dog? Or should I just wait until I buy a new computer and slowly build up an investment in FS2020?

So, I still use FS2004, but it seems REX+Overdrive no longer pulls METAR, AIRMET, TAF, or PIREPs. The NOAA METAR server in the config file isn't even available, and the tgftp site that has them doesn't use the same filename convention. I can manually download a METAR and use it as archival weather when generating a flight plan in REX (imported from FS9 after exporting from PFPX) so that it can generate the wx textures. I normally use ASE as my wx engine with the REX textures. Now that I can't download wx in REX to generate the wx textures, I'm wondering if I've been doing it all wrong all these years. I normally import a flight plan, tell REX to generate a flight plan, then click the texture button. When it's done, I shut down REX, open ASE, import the same flight plan from FS9, have it generate weather, then tell it to not use it's own texture snapshots. Does REX copy over to FS9 different textures every time you generate them in a flight plan, or is it copying over *all* of the textures it has every time you generate a flight plan and click the texture button? That is - is it selecting from the entire pool of textures and only copying a subset, or is it copying the entire pool of textures? Thanks, John Powers

Unfortunately, most of these are unable to be purchased except possibly on ebay or a lucky Amazon search as a CD/DVD. Merging with a POSKY model is probably the best bang for the buck for a lot of them. B737NG: PMDG or iFLY. B747-400: PMDG or iFLY. B757: Just Flight's repackage of PSS's B757. Unfortunately, it has a nasty FMC bug that limits the amount of SIDs/STARs that can be displayed. Captain Sim's 757 is also nice (and has more stuff), but it has a nasty control acceleration bug that prevents many users from precisely dialing in the MCP speed in the window. B777: Just Flight's repackage of PSS's B777. It suffers from the same FMC issue as the B757. B787: I haven't found one. A320, A330, A340: Wilcopub's Airbus package is decent. A380: I haven't found one. My current fleet: PMDG 737, 747, MD-11 packages, Leonardo Mad Dog (2008), Wilco-Feelthere 737 Classic, Tin Mouse 737-200, Wilco-Feelthere EMB-170/175/190/195, Captain Sim B757 package, Just Flight PSS Concorde, Just Flight PSS Dash-8, Wilco-Feelthere A3xx package, Flight 1 ATR-72, Level-D 767, QualityWings AVRO RJ/BAE-146 package, Ready for Pushback 747-200 package, VirtualCol Saab 340/2000. Flight 1 Iron Knuckles DC-9 (unfortunately this was a FS2002 product and it doesn't currently work). Project Tupolev TU-154, SSTSIM Concorde. For me - I could care less about a virtual cockpit and, while visually appealing, the external model is also secondary. Do the systems work as close as reasonably possible to the real thing, especially the FMC? For example - putting in a 2nd route for ETOPS, redispatch or alternates. Being able to enter a hold, entering PB/PB or PBD fixes. Sort-of accurate FLEX TO/Reduced thrust performance. Does it climb like a rocket when lightly loaded and like a dog when close to/at max TOW? In that regard, I offer the following: The ATR-72 allows for hotel loading of the STBD engine (run the engine without spinning the prop, to supply power). Leonardo's Mad Dog *will* give you a hot start if you don't start the engines correctly, and it will cool them down if you then motor the engine per the checklist. JF PSS Concorde *will* get to M2 at FL580. The Fuel system is a bear without the Virtual Flight Engineer. RFP 747-200 allows you a semi-realistic fuel loading capability, and the ability to configure the fuel system. The PT TU-154 is very difficult to operate - properly starting the AC and properly using the RSBN navigation system are a challenge, but provide a great feeling of accomplishment. That everything is labeled in Russian (in Cyrillic alphabet) just adds to the challenge.

So - this is a really late posting in comparison to the last one. I currently have a custom FS2004 KORD scenery from 2016 (freeware) that still has RWYs 14/32. How can a guy who has never done scenery design stuff edit the scenery to remove these runways and associated ILS? No intent to worry about AI traffic, which I have turned off in FS2004 anyway.

This is the ideal time to switch from FS/P3D to X-Plane 11 and get the Rotate! MD-11 when it comes out.

Two reasons. 1. All of the addons I have: PMDG MD-11, RFP 747-200, FSNavigator, Leonardo MD, multiple sceneries, etc. that I purchased before I had a PC that could run FSX. 2. Not having a PC that can run P3D or XPlane 11 with full graphics capabilities (Dell XPS 8300 = not enough room for a bigger power supply = not able to install a more powerful GPU.) I've made a few concessions - buying FSX-SE to be able to buy AS16, so that I can use CPS-X to do flights for my PSS Concorde; reverting some payware scenery to newer freeware versions for airports that have added new runways, etc.

I've been out of the flightsim scene for awhile. I'm going back in and exploring various paywares I've purchased over the years that I never got too into before. One of those is the Wilco A380. I'm not impressed. I've been trying to find a file from Maxime Konareff for FS2004 that merges the PA A380 with the Wilco A340, to no avail. Anyone know where I might find it? Thanks! -John Powers

You might have to bite the bullet and do a complete uninstall and reinstall. Install to *any* location other than the default and run the install as an admin.

Try and look for Blue Spruce routes.

Again I ask the question: what stops a developer from releasing an addon on their own? Is it just that they can't label it an "official" addon? What stops a developer from releasing freeware that can be unlocked to a higher fidelity payware model or payware that doesn't time out after a few minutes use? I completely understand PMDGs position, but without knowing more, it seems like there wouls be ways around the onerousness of selling on Steam at a loss. Of course, I'd draw parallels to Dungeons and Dragons - 3rd edition sold like hotcakes because of the OGL license but 4th edition tanked because of the onerous GSL license (with terms like not allowing you to continue using the OGL and publishing for 3rd edition if you were publishing the same product for 4th edition under the GSL...) Seems like DTG wants to profit off of the backs of other developers. Had they actually developed FSX themselves I'd say they had that right. But they are profiting off of ACES hard work as well rather than the sweat of their own labor. John Powers

So I guess I'm a bit confused by the DTG / Steam situation. Is there something that prevents any 3rd party developer from selling an add-on on their own? That is, when MS sold Flight Simulator, did add-on publishers need their permission? Wasn't the situation such that they didn't need permission but MS wouldn't be in a position to provide tech support? How is this any different than buying 3rd party parts for your car? Once the first sale of the car is made from the dealer, what you do with it is up to you. Isn't that the same situation here? Once you install the software, they have no say on what add-ons you use. John Powers

I didn't even get that far - I normally run with admin privileges in WinXP SP3 compatibility mode with visual themes and desktop composition off. After installing this fix, it popped up the notice that windows was running in basic graphics mode (as expected), and then did nothing. If you go the manual route as opposed to editing the registry, just make sure you open the command prompt as an administrator, otherwise sc config secdrv start= demand or sc config secdrv start=auto won't work. Also, remember that you need a space after the equals sign in order for it to work properly. I'm shocked. Silent Hunter III works just fine. Microsoft's own product gets broken by this security update...

Who said anyhing about descent? In general, the highest workload situation (for me) is during takeoff - when I have to quickly switch from Tower to Departure (I only use flightsim when online with VATSIM or IVAO) while also controlling the aircraft and also looking out for traffic. Having that radio/comms panel as a2D pop-up on the main 2D panel is much much quicker to deal with than trying to sweep from heads-up to looking down at the pedestal to switch frequencies in a 3D panel. Additionally, how much do you need to pan? I find that the 8 points of a hat switch work just fine to see where I need to see.

One very simple reason: well-done 2D panels are ALWAYS going to be cleaner-looking than 3D panels for the majority of users - the vast majority of them aren't going to be running a bleeding-edge rig with everything maxed out graphically. Additionally, most users don't have TrackIR and/or EZDOK. Second reason - unless optimized, 3D panels typically eat up frames in comparison to 2D panels. Third reason - I personally prefer the 2D panel because it is quicker for me to switch between pop-ups to mash buttons while keeping my eyes on the main panel rather than try to sweep across a 3D panel to mash buttons.

I'd just be happy if the newer stuff (777, DC-6, whatever is next) were made in a FS9 version. I saw no reason to "upgrade" to FSX in order to enjoy CTDs and lower framerates when FS9 still looks great and is "supah-smoov" when running any combination of complex aircraft and scenery with all details set to max. The MD-11 works great, looks great, and is thoroughly enjoyable. Likewise their existing 747 and even the original NG package works great. Do I need it to model the inner workings of the sanitary system to enjoy it? Nope - I'm not one of those that runs through all kinds of failures. Nor do I care too much about the smallest rivet being detailed in the external model - as long as it looks like the aircraft being modeled and the moving parts move, I'm happy. VC? Couldn't care less - too distracting for me. Give me a package that allows me to line up the systems used the majority of time in flight and the FMC allows me the tools to fly an RNAV DP or STAR properly, and I'm happy. Accurate VNAV/LNAV operation without the need to play with the crossing restrictions? I'm there. Ability to operate SLOP and ETOPS on a NAT crossing the pond? Good stuff. For me - the most enjoyable part is the system operation aspect moreso than the FDE - but that's why I'm an engineer. The MD-11 doesn't need a makeover at all - at least as far as the FS9 version is concerned. I'd much rather see a continuing trend like they are doing with the DC-6. Perhaps a good DC-10, 727, or L10-11? Maybe A 707 or DC-8? How about a 717 that SW/Airtran fly all over the place? If they are going with current fleets with a lot of aircraft in inventory - then they need to do the entire Airbus family A318-A340 since no one else has done one that isn't an utter travesty (I'm still using the PSS Airbus package since it just works, despite its age). I don't see a need for the following (mainly because the level of modeling of he listed developer works "good enough"): 737 - they already did it. 747 - again - they did it. 757 - the PSS/JF one works just fine. 767 - Level-D. 777 - they are doing it. MD11 - they already did it. MD8x - Leonardo's version is top-notch. DC-9 - the Flight 1 version works pretty darn good and is fun to hand-fly. That's my $0.02...

I'd love to see PMDG do the following: 1. L10-11. I missed the boat on the OMWings L10-11, but I'd love to see one done right. 2. B717. This thing is a workhorse for Airtran and I'd love to see it done. They have the "base" of the cockpit, at least, since much of the B717 and the MD-11 systems are common. 3. Airbus A318 - A340. Take the idea of the old PSS Airbus series and do it right.

No - but I imagine if the weather radar works in other panels in Win7 x64, it should work here too. Yup - Just remember to have UAC off when installing, install as administrator, and if it gives you an error and an option to reinstall using suggested settings to go ahead and do so (likely it'll automatically then select the correct compatibility mode when running the installer). In addition, you'll likely need to do the same thing when attempting to run the configurator.At that point, your pre-Evo 737PIC should work just fine in FS2004 on Win7 x64 (just remember to turn off the Aero features in Win7 when running FS2004).

Why would you need FSX for a Win7 compatible version? I'm running PIC 737 in FS2004 on a Win7/x64 machine with no problems. Does the update break it?

The PSS Airbus packages are still available from Justflight.com They are sold as the "A320 Professional" which includes A319/A320/A321 and the "A340 Professional" which includes the A330/A340.While it is a bit difficult to find a whole bunch of new(er) livery repaints, and the PSS models aren't the latest and greatest, the package works well enough for me: smooooth performance with high frame rates and an MCDU model that is good enough for government work (it may not be 100% modeled, but it is sufficiently different than the standard Boeing FMC that it provides enough immersion that you know it isn't a Boeing...)

Great shots - where are you getting your repaints from?

That did the trick - thanks!