microlight

Glad you got it sorted.;)

Shane,Like David, I also can't get smoke to appear. However I just noticed that your Baron has twin smoke trails, which makes sense - but the C150 has twin trails in the same places - and it's only a single engined plane! So it's unlikely to be a aircraft configuration-related issue. Did you load the Baron first and then load the C150 afterwards? Is your sim set up to load the Baron as default? If the Baron is default, try changing the default loadup plane to something like the Skyhawk and see if it still happens.;)

Hi Shane,Good to see a familiar face! ;)Looks like it might indeed be an effects issue; I've never seen it as I hardly ever fly those funny little prop things!It might be something as simple as an incorrect '-' sign in the appropriate .fx file; the trick would be finding out which file it might be.;)

Morning all.This is the way I see it. The functions of the aircraft.cfg and its associated .air file has changed over recent the versions of FS. In pre-FS2000 days, the .air file ruled, and the .cfg file did little beyond tell FS what texture to use. Things changed substantially with FS2002 (FS8) however because most of the parameters that affect the way a plane flies became located in the .cfg file. The core FS engine has remained conceptually the same over the last ten years or so, so that we still have the .cfg and .air files. The changeover was clear to me because if you loaded a FS2000 plane into FS8 then the very bare .cfg file was transformed into a long and complex file with all the headins that we see now. It was actually this discovery that got me interested in flight dynamics in the first place.So, in FS9 and FSX, the two most commonly used MS sims these days, the .air file appears to be loaded first, and the .cfg file after that as ever was, so that its contents overwrite those parameters loaded into the sim by the .air file. There are some parameters that are not included in the .cfg file but they are few in number, so that these still need to be set in the .air file. However for the majority of FDs (outside the specialist, highly-detailed ones) they are not really relevant. As such, for the vast bulk of the properties loaded into the sim, it doesn't really matter what the .air file says because the parameters are overwritten by the .cfg file. In other words, the construction of the .cfg file is the important part. So if you see a FD set that say has different .air files for different engine configurations, then unless the .air file is specifically used to modify parameters like engine temperature (which is one of the parameters that the .cfg file does not address) then it's largely a waste of time. Two examples to illustrate these points: Matthias Lieberecht provided recommendations for two FD variants for his excellent and complex BAe-146/RJ panels, the essential difference being the engine temperature for the RJ which has to be adjusted in the .air file. Also, the FD specialists at Posky have recently indicated that they will focus on the .cfg file rather than modifying the .air file.I've demonstrated this to myself many times over since the launch of FS8, and my normal practice now when constructing a new FD is to use one of the vanilla default .air files - and actually do nothing to it unless there is one of those small specific necessary changes I mentioned. This approach has a wide tolerance since one of my first FDs was for a 727-200 and used the default 737 .air file with no changes. Nothing unusual there - until you remember that a 727 has three engines! All handled through the .cfg file.So for the first Enigma Simulations releases for FS9 for which I have the pleasure to be the FD designer (the first of which is imminent - quick plug there; follow the story at www.enigmasim.com), the whole thing has been designed around the .cfg file using a default .air file, so you'll be able to try it out for yourselves. To answer Nandan's original question: perhaps there's a little confusion here. In demonstration, this is from my 777 .cfg file, uploaded at Avsim recently:[TurbineEngineData]bypass_ratio=8.33fuel_flow_gain= 0.004inlet_area= 89.26rated_N2_rpm= 29920.00static_thrust= 93700.00 //GE90-94B;static_thrust= 90000.00 //RR Trent 890 or PW 4090afterburner_available= 0reverser_available= 1He might be talking about the rated N2 RPM, which as David indicates is pretty standard at a setting of 29920. The static thrust at sea level is however represented by the values in those particular lines (here, variable depending on engines). Whatever the values in the .air file, they are overwritten by what you see above in the .cfg file, as scoob indicated. Also, a thought regarding Nandan's ongoing quest for a PSS/Posky merge which captures the ILS effectively. It may be that this is not a FD problem at all, but is a 'feature' of the PSS autopilot gauges built into the PSS panel. If this is the case, it's possible that no amount of FD tweaking will completely solve the problem.I don't claim this to be definitive, but it has worked faultlessly for me over the last ten years. When the first Engima aircraft is launched (soon!), I look forward to good discussions on the EnigmaSim forums regarding FDs!;)

Care to share, Gus?;)

Rapaz,The switch to basic windows theme is normal in W7. It's not an issue - it reverts back to Aero once you close FSX.I have FSX installed in W7 64 bit, and don't have the problems you describe. Is it installed in the your default Program Files (or Program file (x86)) location?;)

Jeff,If you go here (http://www.btinternet.com/~gb.mitch/index.html), you'll get a download that updates the FS9 database to current; maybe that'll assist.;)

You made the comment; I thought you'd be interested in the logic. :(

Andy,Some FS9 planes are backwards-compatible and others just aren't; it depends what they are made in, how they are exported and so on. Other examples are the Vistaliners/Kittyhawk 737 models. There are hoops you can jump through to make them appear (and to be honest I can't even remember how to do it since I ditched FS8 in favour of FS9 years ago), but the models don't always work as intended if you do that. For example, when I was still using FS8 I converted the Overland freeware FS9 MD11 to work in FS8 - but the nosewheel was permanently stuck at 90 degrees to the runway. Others have the horizontal stabilisers stuck at max elevation, or missing engine parts or undercarriage - very strange to look at!;)

Al,The method I suggested is one I routinely use for setting flap lift in the most realistic way; I wasn't suggesting that the effect should be removed entirely. In fact you absolutely shouldn't do this because if you remove the flap lift altogether, then the plane is likely to stall on approach because the angle of attack will get too high. The point is to adjust it incrementally until the behaviour mirrors what really happens. In this way you can get a FD to mirror what a 737 or a Twotter does. If you have a plane which pitches down at the first notch of flaps when you're setting up for an approach, then the FD design needs looking at, I would suggest. This is especially so if you get to the stage in say a 757 where you're at approach speed at the correct flap setting, and the nose is pointing down rather than where it should be.;)

Pitching down when you apply flap probably means that the flaps are generating too much lift at the rear of the wing on deployment for the speed that you're travelling at. This can be controlled by varying the 'lift_scalar=' parameter in the flap section that governs the trailing edge of the wing (type=1) - [flaps.0] in this case. So you might change the value of 1.0 in your [flaps.0] section to 0.5, which then generates half the lift from the flaps, and see what that does to your attitude in the sim. Vary up or down in increments of 0.1 until you're happy with what you see.Don't forget to back up your aircraft.cfg file before you do anything!;)

Mark,Where you put them depends on how you want to use them. For example I have many gauges that I use in many different panels, so that it's easier to reference a commonly-used gauge from the main gauges folder. However if you have a specific aircraft with gauges that you are unlikely to use in another panel then by all means put them in the specific panel folder. Just remember that they are not then available for use elsewhere - unless you specifically reference the path to the gauge in the panel.cfg file, and that can get a little messy.Don't forget that you can references 'specific' gauges and 'common' gauges within the same panel.cfg. FS9 first looks in the specific panel folder first and uses the gauges there, and then looks in the FS9 gauges folder for the remainder after that.;)

Don't forget that PMDG may be about to do themselves a disservice regarding the new 737NG not being available for FS9, because iFly will soon be releasing a 737NG that WILL be available for FS9! Based on the pics out there, and the detail that went into the 747, it should be at least as much of a winner as the PMDG. And there are more quality FS9 developments out there...;)

Nicolas,I had FS9 and FSX sitting side by side in XP SP2 and 3, and now in W7 64-bit, with no issues at all. There's no reason why they should interfere with each other - there are no common parts. PMDG and any other addons would be separate for each sim.;)

I don't think that it matters what that line actually says, as long as it's different from any other title= reference in FS, including AI. This is one of the mechanisms that FS uses to differentiate one plane from another and should have nothing to do with the PSS - or any other - programming.;)

737 Experience 737-700...;)

I had an incompatibity message with FSX, so on advice from here and other forums, downloaded DX9.5 (I think) runtime from the MS website to sit alongside the DX9 kernel that is included in DX11 (which does not appear to be compatible with FSX) and installed it. FSX + Acc now runs fine - even if I hardly ever use it! I installed FS9 in a variant of what David posted (my FS9 is 9.1 out of the box) and runs perfectly.;)

Don't forget to drop in from time to time. If you do decide to get back into FS9 (and I agree with the others, you probably will!) then we can help you out in your rebuild as far as we can.Rafal's right; balance is all. I also run my own business and my wife encourages me to fly as a hobby as it de-stresses from the day-job. I've also taken up real flying! Learning in a Piper Warrior. So don't panic, FS9 works great on W7 and with just a few tweaks and addons it will look a major percentage of the way it used to for you, I'm sure.;)

Adam,I routinely convert all aircraft textures to DXT3; there is no perceptible quality hit and loading times are much faster. You can either use Martin Wright's DXTBmp program to individually convert the 32-bit files, or another of his programs, Convim which will batch-convert. (here http://www.btinternet.com/~mnwright/).A good strict routine with scenery/aircraft addition and removal meant that I never had a FS9 OOM event with XP (and never used the 3Gb switch) and it has not happened yet in W7, although as 7 will address all the installed memory, I guess that's not likely.Once you find your fs9.cfg file (and as Bill said, you can't not have one! Try using the Windows search facility, making sure you tell it to search hidden files and folders), I'd recommend making a shortcut to it from your desktop. That way you always have easy access.;)

Greetings.Yes, it is a beautiful model; I know what you mean about the steering. I made the following adjustments to improve the ground handling - make sure you back up your original aircraft.cfg before making these alterations in case you don't like them. Just copy/paste over the original sections, or rem out the current settings using ';' or '//' and then add these after them, your choice.These adjustments to the payload locations improve the balance and add cockpit weight so that more weight is shifted forward which improves traction. The yaw MOI adjustment prevents the nose swinging too much after turns:under [weight_and_balance]:station_load.0 = 360, 15.000, 0.000000, 3.000000, Cockpitstation_load.1 = 75, 13.124, 0.000000, 3.000000, Wardrobestation_load.2 = 0, 13.124, 0.000000, 3.000000, Galley1station_load.3 = 0, 13.124, 0.000000, 3.000000, Galley2station_load.4 = 2080, 13.124, 0.000000, 3.000000, Std Economy Fwd // 14 PAX station_load.5 = 2340, 0.000, 0.000000, 3.000000, Std Economy Aft // 23 PAXstation_load.6 = 1276, -15.000, 0.000000, 3.000000, Aft Baggage empty_weight_yaw_MOI = 1268455This addition includes differential braking, which assists in turns:under [brakes]:differential_braking_scale=1And just for good measure: this improves the contact points so that the nose wheel doesn't lower into the ground under braking:under [contact_points]:point.0 = 1.000, 35.531, 0.000, -9.165, 1300.000, 0.000, 2.000, 55.000, 0.300, 2.500, 0.750, 9.000, 10.000, 0.000, 250.000, 280.000 // Editedpoint.1 = 1.000, -3.969, -6.705, -10.390, 1600.000, 1.000, 2.200, 0.000, 0.800, 2.500, 0.900, 13.000, 15.000, 2.000, 250.000, 280.000 // Editedpoint.2 = 1.000, -3.969, 6.705, -10.390, 1600.000, 2.000, 2.200, 0.000, 0.800, 2.500, 0.900, 13.000, 15.000, 3.000, 250.000, 280.000 // Editedand this improves the VC view perspective:[Views]eyepoint = 30.5625, -1.30, 1.00None of these alterations affect the CoG. Don't forget to turn at a reasonable speed; 10-12kts is plenty.;)

Napamule;Check out your post (5 above this one) from 8.33 yesterday, second sentence.Anyhoo, not an issue. I'm trying to help also, which is why I uploaded the FDE in the first place, as there was a request - might have been from Nandan himself, can't remember. If he wants to use the Posky model (and why not, it's a cracker) and is having a problem with a merge with the PSS FDE, then my suggestion is not to use the PSS FDE...Over and out.;)

Thanks, Rafal, that's really useful information to have.BTW, you can also update the default FS9 AIRAC information here (http://www.btinternet.com/~gb.mitch/index.html), latest update April 2010.;)

Napamule,Dropped a bomb? No, don't think so. Sorry if you think I abandoned you; not the case. I just get around a little. A bit of intuitive searching in the library would have helped you out, as I posted here when I uploaded the FDE a few weeks back. So go to the Avsim search page, type in '777-200ER replacement' and you'll find it. No, my initials are not BDH, you must be thinking about somebody else. You're right about the FDE (flight dynamics engine, or flight model) being a combination of the aircraft.cfg and the .air file, and the replacement FDE contains both. The .air file itself in the upload is nothing more or less than pretty much the default Microsoft 777-300 .air file, and no, I did nothing to amend section 1199 - I didn't need to. You mention that .cfg and .air files from different planes might not work with each other; I don't agree with the blanket statement. Except for a very few parameters that are not modified by the aircraft.cfg file (e.g. parking brake strength, engine temperature), what the .air file specifies is largely over-written by the .cfg file contents during the loading process. Here's my take on it.FS9 loads the air file first as a general frame of reference for the plane concerned (simplistically that it has two wings, undercarriage etc that are defined to act in a certain way). Then it modifies all of the detailed operating characteristics from the .cfg file. In other words, the way a plane flies is almost totally dependent on what the .cfg file defines. This is different to earlier incarnations of FS such as FS2000 where all the .cfg file effectively did was include [fltsim.X] sections for individual variant identification. So in FS9 I've constructed many FDEs from scratch and the way I do it is to take a default FDE and modify the .cfg file to produce the appropriate flight model. Then if there are any adjustments necessary to the few parameters in the .air file that need to be done, then it's done at that point. I don't use FSEdit (a buggier piece of default software I've yet to come across!); my tools are Notepad, AirEd and a knowledge of what the changes to the .cfg file actually do. So the .cfg file is matched with the .air file from the perspective that they started life together.So what do you do when you're designing a flight model that's not reflected in the default models, such as a tri-jet? Simpler than you might think, and this is where the evidence of what I'm saying can be found. Because the .cfg file defines all of the major operational systems, it doesn't seem to matter if you use an .air file from a different design of plane; I just make sure that it's approximately the right size and of the same propulsion type. So, I have previously put together FDEs for three-engine 727-100 and -200 FDEs from the default 737-400 .air file, also DC-10s and MD11s from the default 777-300 .air file - and they all work fine. Proof of the pudding.Above, you recommend swapping out my .air file with the one that Nandan already has (the PSS one); this is not likely to make any difference because as I said, it's effectively the default MS one. The .cfg and .air files should be used as a matched pair. While the .air file is important from the perspective of laying down the basic template and defining the few characteristics that the .cfg file doesn't modify, it's the .cfg file that's the critical one regarding flight characteristics. It's possible that my .cfg file would work with the .air file that he already has, but it's not good practice to do that. So if he uses the file pair and simply inserts his [fltsim.X] sections into the .cfg file (it even shows you where to put them), then he should be good to go. All the data adapting it for the Posky model (contact points and so on) are already pre-set. ILS interception (like ground handling) is influenced by aspects of the FDE design, beyond the autopilot.Nandan - is the point of the merge to use the PSS flight characteristics with the Posky model, or to be able to use the PSS panel with the Posky model? If it's just that you're not happy with the original model FDE then I'd suggest using my alternative FDE to see whether you prefer it, and whether you still get interception problems. You shouldn't do (because I don't), and if you do then the problem may lie elsewhere in your installation. Or perhaps you might need to re-think your approach strategy - are you approaching the interception point at too high an airspeed?This is just a suggestion - the use of the alternative FDE is entirely optional! Just make sure you make backups of your original FDE before you do anything. You may be interested to know that the alternative FDE allows the 777-200ER to autoland if used with the autoland option in my AutoEnvironment v1, also here in the library.;)

Er, you could try the FDE for the Posky 777-200 I uploaded a week or so ago... :(

Al,You are so right! When I started learning, pretty much the first thing that my teacher (an ex-BA 747 pilot!) said to me was to forget the instruments and look out of the windows (it's a nice view over the Warrior's wings). Pick an external reference point to judge straight-and-level, and use that. Only glance down at the instruments to confirm what you already know. P.A.T.... F.R.E.D.A.... H.E.L.P.!I haven't done first solo yet - a terrifying but strangely attractive thought...;)