northridge

Otto speaks! This is both embarrassing and unfathomable. Yesterday I made attempts with various aircraft, locations, key combinations, looked for conflicts with aircraft commands etc, to no avail. (Just to clarify - RC was previously networked but I now run a single machine and hate it - with lags, screen-jumps, tremendous delays switching cockpit views, etc). All RC commands worked except the Comms handover. After I woke this morning I posted the above and then, after a lot of coffee, was ready to operate heavy machinery. I re-entered the original RC default of Ctrl-Shift-K and it worked straight away - with the same FPlan, plane, location, everything as yesterday. I accept it might have been me (it so often is) but I cant see what. It could also have been "just one of those things". It could also have been jd appearing here on my thread, but thats perhaps stretching the idea of genius too far. I am now @ FL350, EGCC-LDSP in the old but still venerable 767, and Otto is doing all the work while I have my feet up on the dashboard completing my wishlist for RC5. So thank you gentlemen for your time and interest, and thank you "old" and "annoying" RC4 for performing as required.

- RC is a fresh install on the now standalone machine. - I can use the other RC commands - manually replying, etc, until I line-up when I would normally hand over. Auto-tune is "on". - I have tried the default Ctrl-Shift-K with no success. No other combination - or single-letter (without Ctrl-Shift) has worked so far. - Numberpad keys may be "out of the question" but since networking the laptop in March 2008 I had Otto connected using the large + key on the numberpad without a problem. How I did it I dont recall. - One curious thing: when I press the "old" assigned key I see the text window pop on and off in a millisecond - just as it always did - even though it is not assigned. The "new" assigned key does not have any effect. - I figured out the volume thing, as you suggested. - There is a hefty dose or irony here. Like others I have wailed and moaned about how "old" RC4 is and how annoying the "funny" comments are, and could throw a fit at the controller impatience - "I only have one pair of hands here!" - and have complained here about the non-appearance of RC5 - but boy, do I wish the "old" and "annoying" RC4 would work now!

<p>Thanks, but I have used Otto on all aircraft previously. The only thing different now is the install location of RC. I have a pilot and co-pilot voice selected, and both "play pilot wavs" and "pilot autoreply" are checked.

Following the demise of my laptop RC, ASE and FScommander now run from the main pc. This has had disastrous results in performance and I guess I will have to tone down some sliders, but right now the real problem is with RC. Regardless of the key combination (and clearing any conflicts with FS9 or aircraft) I cannot hand over the Comms. I have tried the default settings and a number of others including a single letter to make it simple (I had previously had it tagged to the + key on the numberpad) but get no response. The other thing is that now RC is REALLY LOUD compared to all my other levels: is there any way to alter this? Thanks Nicholas

Its been suggested that sircraft developers have neared the limit of what is possible using the FS9 engine (so no "real" Airbus for example) but judging by the astonishing features and details available in recent sceneries (and not just payware - theres more and more freeware that makes a lot of current payware look like FS2002) it looks like FS9 is still a long way from maxing-out its possibilities. And these visual improvements are not just for VFR or low and slow . I fly jets and I like to have realism at both ends of my flights, and not just at the terminal but good-looking and carefully-placed autogen, proper ground textures and carefully done non-default-to-default transitions - and all of this just gets better and better in FS9. Whilst airplane developers have hit the wall with FS9, a lot of us - and dare I suggest - the majority of us - already have all the realism and systems details we can handle (PMDG MD11, iFly 737, the old but still worthy 767): so making FS9 look better is a logical and valid move forward. I fly for fun, in part to see the world, in part to see "how planes work", in part to pretend to be a pilot, so I dont need hundreds of dolars worth of manuals, every failure scenario imaginable, or to bleat on forums about "why would a proper pilot want wingviews?". So Im all for improving the look: eyecandy is important because it gives us one more degree of realism and immersion, and hopefully the seeds planted by people like kiwiflyer and others will bear more, and better-looking, fruit for us in the future.

Gentlemen Thank you for your interest and suggestions. I never thought Id say this but I think I will give MSE a try. I think I might keep the Comodo firewall as I like to see whats going on (new program alerts, unsolicited attempts to change registry etc) unless of course it will cause conflicts. Regards.

XP Sp3 / FS9.1 For financial reasons I can no longer buy FS payware. For the same reason last year I switched from a subscription full-on Security Suite to just paid AV and installed the free Comodo firewall. Now my AV subscription is up and I need to install a free anti-virus. I know from net-searching (reputable online magazines and help-sites) which are the most recommended, but I´d like to know which has the lowest resource-use - which is the one least likely to drain resources away from my fully-loaded FS9. Any experience with this? Any advice? Thanks.

Twice, in a mid-weight 737, after a frustrating number of messy (shovels and plastic bags messy) attempts. But the thing that I dont understand, not being very adept at charts and deep real-world procedures, is: do all approaches into 02 require a circle-to-land? Im coming from MROC so coming in pretty straight: the last waypoint FSCommander gives me is "Libis" then RC aligns me pretty much ok (and instead of a typical RC100 mile diversion "vector" this is short and to the point). I have a 10km runway extension visible and TEG in the radio, and as I am getting more familiar with the Latin VFR ground scenery know pretty much where I to keep my eyes for reference. So, even though I am as pleased as punch about touching the runway right on the numbers, albeit still a bit overspeed, and stopped well before the last highspeed turnoff, is all my euforia wasted cos "Im doing it wrong"? Thanks.

Speedbird: grateful for your contribution and humour, but a bit worried about why you have pictures of armadillos so close at hand. Scianoir: 10/10 for obtuseness. I had to think there for a while ....

I have a "3 Small Airports" package from Flylogic and if I recall correctly it asks on install if you use Switz Pro - but it was an impulse buy and I was unimpressed and consigned it to the hangar. Lugano FS9 - try here: http://www.flylogicsoftware.com/site/en/fsim.htm

I´m sure its caused by a vertex level innapropriate for the scenery, but just out of interest .........

Can you please tell me which of these packages actually give more - or at least the appearance of more - trees? Do these packages overwrite the defaults? Does this cause problems with other addons that require the defaults? I had previously bought, then consigned to the back of the hangar, "Samoshins Trees". Thanks.

I believe that the executable only works if you have the license, that was installed with the first run of the wrapper, still in its proper location. Following a format/re-install the .exe wont work cos there is no longer any license. Also I believe that after "significant hardware changes" the same situation will occur. Running the wrapper confirms that you are who you say, that your pc is the registered one for that purchase, and installs the license, thereby allowing the .exe to run and the aircraft to install fully functional. If I am wrong in any of this I hope someone will quickly set the record straight.

Thanks Geddy - that was the original post I got my settings from. I´m using the 296.10 driver - which appears to be the most recent for the card - so the settings are not yet obsolete.

XP3, FS9.1, 3.16 Core2Duo, 4 Gb DDR3 Recently found here info about nVidia Inspector (previously had mixed results with nHancer) and found the settings worked well with my old 8800GTS 512. Unfortunately the card has just died but I was able to replace it with a really cheap 9800 GT 1Gb but cant now find the notes I made for settings. Can someone please take the time to suggest optimum settings? Thanks.