camaflight

Sorry Ian that I kind of escalated your initial post. I never meant to say that Aerosoft deliberately made a misleading text to their advertisement in a "crooked" way. But it happens now and then with advertisements in general whether it's SimMarket or other sites, that information texts are misleading and worse; in between there certainly are some unserious providors of FS addons out there. Then it's very OK that the potential customers learn about this before any credit cards are "drawn". That's about what I wanted to bring out, but again, like Aerosoft, neither is my mother language English..... Regards, Carl

I find it very friendly and loyal of you to inform about this. I was fortuned though to find out about this (by searching here, there and everywhere) before I drew my credit card. It would be nice also to use FS fora in order to inform each other more about such things in general. I beleive that it would have a positive effect on the vendors in making more descriptive product information and perhaps also reduce the numbers of "crooks" out there. Carl

All textures restored, thanks ! My sim is pretty well organized; All changes that I'm aware of, are not done without making backup of the default files in question. I always (well 99 %) then write a text file with reference to installation file and so on. All freeware scenery installations are devided into continents and then countries......, library files are picked out and put into a common folder to avoid duplicates of .bgl files and .bmp-files.....well and much more... I also have kept all downloaded scenery .zip's in the same way and a copy of every text-file made lies in respectively download folders.... (It's a lot of work all together, made over several years though. It's all a little bit ----> :Nerd:'y you know, but it usually pays off...) (No wonder that I find it troublesome switching to FSX :Whew:) It's difficult of corurse when a problem sneaks unseen into the sim. Good to have this nice forum here then.... By the way, (a little off.topic) one of the most beneficial efforts I've made lately is to change all .bmp's in the AI-folders and scenery folders to DXT3 with alpha channel. A lot of airports that were slow before are now showing a tremendous increase in performance. Well, thanks to you all again. Carl

Hi Andy, just to supply a bit. OPA was quite right about this and so you. I'm usually do according to this advise, except for those addons that come from vendors that already have a "hub"-folder in my sim. (Multiple installations from same vendor). Maybe one should use the same procedure as you describe for them as well..... But, won't that be a problem later on with updates, uninstallation and so on ? (a registry problem I mean). Further more there exists addons that replace textures at users discretion so to say."REX" or "Ground Environment" f.ex.; which gives you the option to change themes. When one of those replacement processes get hung up or don't finnish the replacement for any reason some texture may get lost? There is of course also a problem with those addons that come with .exe-installer that gives no option for adressing the files. Regards, Carl

Hi Ron, yes, sounds logical - I have "a couple" of such apps :wink: and they're all supplied with .exe installer Regards, Carl

Hi Joe, just got aware of that my thanks to you wasn't posted properly. So again, thanks for helping me out of this, much apreciated ! Have not a clue though what caused those textures to vanish from my sim..... Regards, Carl

Hi rainerk, of course, and as you see now - your and Joe's information surely made my day ! Thanks to you too ! Regards, Carl

Hi, thanks for responding on this. You mean the scenery\world\texture-agn.files ? That's what I have done, as described. Carl

Hi all, all of a sudden I have encountered a problem with autogen textures. White squares pop up and disappear continually at GROUND level where ever I move around in the FS world - default or addon sceneries. I have searched a lot of fora for this problem, however, without finding a clear successful solution. Setting the autogen slider to none (all the way to left) will leave the problem out. Hence I assume that this is related to the autogen textures. I have tried following to solve the problem: Adjusting the FS cfg. file by setting other values for ¤ PAN_RATE ¤ TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS ¤ TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS Replaced all agn.-files in the sceney\world\texture with the default ones (I assume these are the autogen textures) Updated my graphic card driver with the newest offered by NVIDIA. The problem still persists. Here are my specs.: - Intel Core Quad i7-920 - NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 - Socket-1366, DDR3, ATX, SLI&CrossFireX, 3xPCI-Ex(2 - 10000RPM, SATA, 3 Gb/s, 16MB - Sata 3 Gb/s, 32MB Cache, 7200RPM - SATA 3.0Gb/s, 32MB, 7200RPM - W7 Home premium 64 Bit - Wide FS client PC with ASE-weather engine and more Hope someone knows about this problem and could assist me in order to help me back on track. Carl

Hi again,it seems I finally found the text source and how to solve the problem. The text comes from the air-file (the file refered to in the cfg-file in the line "sim=").The problem occurs for those fltsim.-sections where the line "description=" doesn't have any additional text (is empty). By some occasion, I'm not sure which, the aircraft cfg. will read what's in the air file that correspond to the line "description=" and copy tthis text to the line. This means that for every fltsim.-section that allready have some text for the line "description=" will not get an additional text copied from the air-file.To solve the problem one have to mark the description line with any sign (like; description=/). To open the air-file and remove just the text concerned makes the air file not working anymore (FS crashes when traffic is activated and the any of the AC's corrected are active in the AI-machine for the present area in the sim.For those aircraft folders that have air-files without text meant for the description in the cfg-file, the problem I have brought up will not occure.Voila,Carl

Thanks for your response. I will certainly try that, although I have installed FS directly in a seperate hard drive which also is a single partition. However you'r right about the OS; I have W7, and I never had such spooky experience with the previous XP-installation. Carl

Thanks to you all,the text surely comes back "on its own" and of course I've deleted the text in every section, leaving the "description=" without any additional text. And surely I save the ac.cfg each time I make changes I want to keep. I wonder if anyone experience the same as I do. Otherwise the FS seems to have thrown a spell on me....? Carl

Hi,in the aircraft.cfg files there are a line called "description". Sometimes I delete some text there that takes a lot of lines (making the fltsim.number sections far too spacy). However, the text keeps automatically comming back. Here is an example: description=From the most successful family of jetliners ever built comes the 737-400. This can be your entry into virtual airline flying. Whether you're making short-haul or longer domestic flights, the 737-400 is a versatile and efficient airplane. See the Aircraft Information section of Help for tips on flying this aircraft. How can I get rid of this text for good ? Someone feeling my pain out there ? Regards, Carl

Thanks both of you. Yes I can live with that, my reaction was most based on a principal attitude. We flightsimmers must have some principles too......... Carl

My goodness, does that mean the first edition is (nearly) useless and MS require me to buy a new sim in order to have one that works ????? Thanks for your response anyway, much appreciated! Carl

Hi, I bought FSX Deluxe Edition directly after release. Due to the bad performance I uninstalled it and have stayed with FS 2004 since then.Now I consider once more to make the jump to FSX.However, I am confused what is the right up to date installation of FSX. Some talk about Gold Edition when other talking about other editions.Then again it has already been upgrades. Could anybody advise me what I should install in addition to my Deluxe Edition in order to have the best installation of FSX ? I can recall that I also encountered an installation problem when I installed som time ago. The installation application would not read from the cdrom driver.When contacting the vendor they told it was a common problem and that I should copy the cd contents to a hard drive an install from this. I did so and it worked. Is that really a common issue ? Regards, Carl

Thanks Pete,everything is actually OK then as long as I ALLWAYS re-run MakeRunways when doing changes, delete or add airport data. Giving some AFCADs higher priority (that is as you stated for those airports that have "too" many airport bgl's,which is the case for the developers using their "own" techniques I guess) in order to have more correct data for FS Navigator is OK as long as I re-run MakeRunways - just to be sure RC gets what's really there.Interesting !Regards,Carl

I have a question whether the priority that an AFCAD is given has any influence on how RC / ATC executes it's tasks.I explain the issue:I still use FS Navigator in combination with several other tools and sources for route planning. Today I got aware of that for some airports Fs Navigator doesen't read the addon AFCAD although the FS Navigator database is properly updated. There may be several reasons for this. So far I have noticed that if a taxiway-signs-bgl and/or an approach-bgl reside in the same scenery folder (have the same layer number) as the addon AFCAD bgl, FS Navigator ignores the latter and thus update the database with a combination of the two first mentioned and the default airport data. (the default AFCAD)In order to test the updating process for the FS Navigator database I moved some actual addon AFCADs to a folder with higher priorty than the approach-bgl and/or taxiway-signs-bgl. After the updating the respectivly airports were in acordance with the addon AFCADs. As this is the case with FS Navigator I started wondering about RC and if this makes any difference for RC when running the -Rebuild Scenery DB- ?Regards,Carl

Hi Ron,thanks for an extenisve input.I also have ADE9X and before that installed (bought) the AFX. ADE9X is quite a program - awesome. I have spend a lot of time looking into it. Still, I find ways to tweek and manipulate AI traffic through AFCAD to have landings and take offs on certain runway(s). This "crazy" star-technique by Jim Vile as I recall - the documentation that was lost from PAI - gives a lot of options and lately I found out a lot about how AI traffic reacted when changing the order of runways list in the AFCAD.From all you mention and also from my experience there are so many variables to take into consideration regarding AI traffic. That is the main reason for my suggestion to just let the pilot fly about 30nm at his own discretion in order to handle this problematic issue, just by doing what we all are so familiar with regarding FS - making compromises.Ok - I don't know any english expression, but in my country it's something like knowing when the visit is over. I thank you for listening and I'm looking forward to implement the v5 when it is released sometime. ( if i haven't mused myself to death by that time :( :( :( B) ). V4.3 is doing quite allright in the meantime.Carl

1) SOPAR is about 70 nm from the airport.2) I get the weather not far from reaching SOPAR.3) SOPAR is the last waypoint before the airport loaded into the FS flightplan. Why ? Because SOPAR is the first waypoint for adequate STARs into either of the RWYs.4) OK now, as I get the weather just before reaching SOPAR I will have just enough time inserting into the FMC the STAR (starting at SOPAR) that would be adequate for the RWY that one can expect approach to assign.5) From SOPAR on a path that corresponds with the STAR chosen will then be followed. However RC only know about the loaded FS flight plan that says; go direct from SOPAR to the airport. Hence RC ATC will complain about me not following the route.6) I ask about a possible solution by letting RC accept any deviation from the loaded flight plan between 70 nm from the airport (that is about the point at which you can get the weather and knowing which RWY to expect for landing) and 40 nm from the airport (which is the point approach will give you the RWY and you can ask for an ILS approach wherby approach will let you fly the rest of your waypoints according to FMC).7) Now a point has been brought up by JD about seeing a lot of examples where the AI traffic is not landing against the wind. This means that by following my "logic" I would have chosen the wrong STAR leading to the wrong RWY. Just because AI doesn't allways follow the wind direction due to a various reasons.8) I must say that I have rater rearly experienced such behaviour from the AI traffic even if I have made a lot of these "crazy" AFCADs with the so called star-technique and so on. Nevertheless even if this happens my point is that it would still be better to preserve this about 30nm distance, letting us plan and follow a realistic STAR without interuption from RC ATC. That this now and then don't match the finally assigned RWY is something we have to accept due to lack of coding for the MSFS AI traffic.Carl

Yes, at SOPAR. Sometimes I take a chance, after looking at the latest weather report for Bergen Flesland, to incorporate into the flight plan the STAR that fits with expected active RWY. As for the first, one will get busted (of course). As for the latter, this will work perfectly (of course), if however, the plan matches the active RWY at the time of arrival.Carl

Surely by all means, I never suspected RC not to be a really complex FS addon. My enquiry is only a hopeful wish that possibly only a small adjustment to the coding would be necessary to preserve this 30 nm distance between 70 nm and 40 nm to the arrival airport from getting busted for good pilot intentions. If you have the time to look into it and should find that business wise it could be achieveable to incorporate some SIDs and STARs options into RC, that would of course look very much like a long lasting dream of mine...and a lot of others I assume. However, even without it RC would remain standing tall I think.JD, thanks for listening to the community and your customers !Carl

Hi again JD,maybe my input wasn't up to a standard you would prefer. However, it would be nice to know if my thinking is relevant and worth looking at or if you think I'm way off.For me personal it would be sufficient just to have RC accept that I'm making a SID or a STAR thus following the coherent way points and thereat be let off with RC ATC comments about being off the airway. RC is so good otherwise that I don't mind that this part of a flight is doomed by the basic MSFS AI coding. All as long I don't have to be interupted by hearing I'm off the track that I initially had told RC I was going to fly.If this issue is something of your concern then I'm sure you have already made a lot of thinking about it and any suggestion from me or other would perhaps be kind of annoying.However , commomly it's a good thing not only complaining but also contribute with a suggestion. But the only things I can think of is either code RC to accept deviation from the FS flightplan loaded into RC starting at 70 nm to arrival airport until handed over to approach at about 40 nm to the airport.Or; providing RC with more options which would include let's say two SIDs and two STARs by loading more flight plans where the main ("middle") route will be common but differ by waypoints as for the SIDs and STARs. This would of course mean that one had to load 4 flight plans into RC per flight.If I'm way off please tell and I will keep quiet. :( Carl

As allways, thanks for your prompte responce. Sorry then that it took me so long time to come back. No I cant, because this is mistaken expression by me, what I meant is; the runway one could expect being assigned by approach.Sorry for that, but actually this doesn't change the issue I rise - I think. Please see my example as that STAR ends much nearer to the airport than 40 nm which is about the distance from the airport RC hands you over to approach. Yes I know and sometimes I do this, but you can never be sure which runway will be the active upon arrival. However, as stated in my initial post, by pure coincidence I have until now had my arrivals through routes where the actual STARs had common leg points until handed over to approach. Hence I have incorporated those common leg points into the FS flightplan. Yes naturally, but then again, even if RC is very real, this is MSFS and even RC cant provide more than "as real as it gets".Hence my question if there would be a good point by adding an option of telling RC that the pilot has the intention of following a certain pattern into whichever will be the active runway. This pattern is to my understanig what in many cases will be a STAR provided by the AIRAC and thus will be incertable into the FMC. To describe an example I have attach the arrival at ENBR (Bergen, Flesland, Norway) on my route from east.As I read the two optional STARs - SOPA( R) 2N for RWY 17 and SOPA( R) 2P for RWY 35 - both have their starting point at intersection SOPAR. The SOPA( R) 2N has it's ending point at intersection INTEL and the SOPA( R) 2P has it's ending point at intersection OKITO with no common leg points in between.The weather report is receieved just before reaching the starting point for both STARs, but in time for the pilot to insert into the FMC the STAR adequate for the runway that one can expect being assigned by approach.The pilot will be handed over to approach when about half way through any of the two STARs. During this time RC will state that the pilot don't find himself at the airway.Hope this clearifies the basis for my enquiry.Regards,Carl

Hi, and happy new Year to all of you !Until recently it has just so happened that all options I've got for STARs to which ever runway heading being the active had it's starting point which was reached after being assigned final runway by approach ( I have been coming in either from the "absolute" far side or near side). Then after reqiuiring an ILS approach RC has let me in quiet when flying the STAR. Now, however, having followed some routes heading at straight angles and allmost into the midle of the runway length the choice of STARs had a common starting point that were reached before (further out than 40 nm) being assigned runway by approach. Knowing by getting the weather about 70 nm before the airport which runway to expect for landing I have adjusted the FMC to match this with the suitable STAR. For the specific circumstances explained here the STARs have no common path from the starting point (intersection) and futher on towards the airport.As you allready know this leads to a mismatch with the FS flight plan that RC relies on.So my question will be; how will v5 deal with this ? Will an option be available in order to tell RC beforehand that the intention is to follow a STAR adequate for the runway assigned by approach thus avoiding RC "yelling" about not finding oneself on the airway ?Just to mention, I didn't find any post about this issue.Regards,Carl