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.

I use the increasingly annoying RC4 and have FS9 ATC on as background chatter, just to fill in the space. I bought and tried PFE but sadly couldnt make head or tail of it.

Lisbon LPPT was my home airport for a short while but it wasnt till I moved south to LPFR that I started really paying attention to airplanes. Two years later I bought my first pc and discovered FS. Anyway ...... to get to the point! ..... Yesterday, three years after its release, I found an unofficial freeware extension to Aerosofts FS9 LPPT that adds T2 and T3 with APIS parking, new taxiways and some extra raods for internal traffic. There is a manual that explain the new aircraft movements. The developer, Ricardo Sousa, says this is his first scenery and that some bits are "a mess", but my untrained eye couldnt find it and I could point to a lot of payware less good than this.. (There is one bit in the manual that is possibly confusing so I hope Ricardo will forgive me when I stress here that UTE users must remove/rename two files in the original scenery folder to avoid terrain elevation issues.) I am sure that everybody who enjoys Aerosoft Lisbon will already know about this addon but frankly its worth another mention. It is here: http://www.airsim.net.projectos-nacionais/ (and in the FS2004 freeware sceneries list under "Portugal").

Isnt there a "Base Scenery" that is necessary to make all the other sceneries work properly? I recall looking at their Greece but package but got put off by all the - apparent - extra complications.

I have tried to find the patch - tried to find Flightzone! - but with no luck. Found a 2010 post from the late "Opa" Marshall saying that there was no patch. For non-UT users disabling some FZone LC files fixed the KSEA problem. There are other files to fix river elevations around KPDX but they too must be for non-UT cos they did nothing for me at KSEA. Why havent I been to the UT forum? Does one still exist? Will let you know. Thanks.

Its not My World LC: the results are the same without it. (And My World only brings land detail like cities or forests, not coastlines.) Mesh on top of UT? I thought everything had to be laid over mesh. The patch is applied correctly: running it again says "Nothing to do". But - is it the right patch? It reads v130. This is s shame cos I have just discovered how neat that whole area up to Victoria/Vancouver is: now I understand the "low and slow" guys with their rusty old Beavers and Otters. Looking for solutions to this problem I have found lots of files for the Columbia River Gorge and all the fixes necessary to run it with UT and meshes. I suppose one radical solution might be to install the Gorge files, and the fixes, and see if that "forces" the default coastlines to disappear. Otherwise I am at a loss. Thanks for trying.

XP SP3 - FS9.1 Never flew in or out of KSEA - its never been more than the default before loading something else. I have the stunning Flightzone KPDX but for some reason have under-valued/used it and always gone South from there. I have just strted buzzing around those lakes, rivers and gorges to the West of KSEA and see that pretty much all my coastiines are bad - it looks like UT has given me the detailed coasts but left the originals, more rounded, less detailed and separate from the land. At this moment I have only FSGlobal `05 mesh, My World Landclass, UT-USA + Can-Alaska, FZone KPDX with the UT patch, and the default KSEA . Vertex level is 21 but the problem is the same at 19. Whats the problem and whats the solution? (I would have attached a shot but cant see how.) Thanks.

"We recognize the delay has turned into a hideous mess. But, in hindsight, we should never have released ANY INFORMATION until the project was closer to completion". If Level D had employed that level of frankness years ago none of this "hideous mess" would have been necessary,

If PMDG really is holding off on a 757 out of friendship with Level D then perhaps they could give Level D a friendly nudge and suggest that the higher-ups there make an official announcement about the expected release date. The continued bleating of "The 757 is coming" by the Level D mouthspiece, without giving any credible facts to back it up is worse than a joke - its a total lack of respect. Worse - imagine that PMDG really would like to do a 757 - but cant because Level D wont tell them about their time-scale - thats a pretty one-sided friendhip if you ask me - and we are the ones who will lose out.

Savelints8: Couldnt really understand the tone of your post there: you started out apparently dissing people who doubt Level Ds word (sorry, Mr Shuttleworths word, seeing as statements from anyone else connected to Level D are non-existant), then apparently take a poke at Level D (I sense some sarcasm there, in your last paragraph). I dont mind people attacking me, particularly if I am wrong, but surely you cant have an issue with my rejection of "Its coming" as being a valid, professional answer. "Its coming by the end of the year/Its coming but only in 2013/Its coming but we honestly dont know when" are credible answers from a credible developer. Darryl: Why do I care? Because I think its a shame that the team that produced the finest sim airliner of its time, one that still stands highly regarded many years later, has decided on a policy of "lack of credible facts" regarding the situation of their new product, which is disrespectful to the FS community and to their own once-highly-held name as developers. Bets are on: Released first - PMDG 777 or Level D 757?

Why do people still expect a credible response from Level D?Is this .... "Again... The 757 is coming." .... supposed to be serious? Is this an Official Statement? Well youve just shot yourselves in the foot.There is a glimmer of truth in the phrase .... "Development is painfully slow for us..." .... so how about telling the whole truth:"We are out of our depth, the team is fragmented and unfocused, and we have no idea when this project will be released".People - stop worrying about whether the Level D 757 will be released and start worrying whether Level Ds inability to be honest with themselves and with us is going to prevent PMDG from building a 757. PMDG is holding off out of friendship and Level D continues to be dishonest - seems like a pretty one-sided friendship to me.I once went out with a girl who tiold me that yes, one day she would let me kiss her, but wouldnt say when. Im a guy, I like to kiss - I didnt wait around but went and found another girl.We have the iFly 737 and the PMDG NGX, there are useable although not inspiring 757s already, the 777 is coming and there is still - looking rather tawdry now after all this grubby scuffling, the (gasp!) Level D 767 - so lets stop with this silliness already!Note to PMDG:You taxied into position, you held, but there is absolutely nothing of any significance or credibility in your way so you are now cleared for takeoff.