Smokin256

Well color me embarassed! I just decided to reinstall SceneGenX and as if by magic the proper .ocx file has appeared in my system32 folder and SBuilder works fine. So sorry for wasting everyones time. Hopefully this will help someone in the furure. Cheers...............Todd

Greetings fellow simmers. I'm trying to get SBuilder up and running after a windows (winXP32) reinstall and a long lay-off from flight sims. SBuilder is compaining of a missing tabctl32.ocx file. Searches on various forums come up with download locations and links that are all long since dead. Does anyone out there know of a place that they trust where this file can be found? I found a place called ocxdump or some such but when I click the download link for the file it wants to install some kind of update .exe. I don't think so! Thanks for reading! Cheers.................Todd

Ah!, thanks very much to both of you! If I can't get it whipped now I don't deserve to call myself a simmer. Cheers................Todd

Hi, back again. I seem to have run into a snag. The website says all the updates are cumulative. But the how-to-install.txt says it only works over build 552. And in fact the installer says specifically 552 to 554. Trouble is I can't seem to find 552 anywhere. can you point me in the right direction? Thanks! Cheers.....................Todd

Thanks for that. I will do, my current build number is 533 if I remember correctly. I saw on the website that the current update is SU3, what with all the threes I jumped to the conclusion that I was up to date :oops: . Cheers.........................Todd

Running AS6.5 and FS9 on win XP. Not running widefs or anything like that. For the last few months I haven't been able to download weather archives from the day before to a few months before. "The weather for the specified date range was not found. (Or there was an error," But I've had no trouble downloading archives from say last year. Download current has always worked fine also. Now today I tried force secondary and force primary and since then I get a message on startup; "Error initializing, Check your INI file". Looking at the ASv6.ini file I see nothing obvious wrong although I have no idea what it should look like. Any ideas what might be wrong? I don't relish the idea of reinstalling but I will if I have to. Thanks for looking. Cheers...........................Todd

Sorry, I'm a little confused, I have a TrackIR 1. I bought it the week it was introduced. Although I got involved with FS9 much later (obviuosly). It has always worked perfectly in FS9. I was under the impression that TrackIR always has. Naturalpoint has often used FS9 and later FSX to demonstrate the capabilities of 6DoF. Have I missed something along the way?Cheers..................Todd

I can certainly see why you're enthusiastic about this one. It's clearly a labor of love! Lots of neat little details. I don't have time to go into detail at the moment but I'm loving it. BTW, I don't particularly care for aircraft, scenery and whatnot that want to replace default files (gauges). But it seems to work fine without them :( .Cheers.................Todd

Well, I call success at last! Thanks to the timely revival of an old thread on FZ02 and with the help of David 'Opa' Marshall With a copy of FZ02-utusa.zip. (Which oddly enough I already had. I found it in my recycle bin. How it got there I have no idea. But thanks Opa just the same :) ) I've finally gotten my pacific nw sceneries all squared away. I wound up uninstalling all of my add-on sceneries for the area. Then reinstalling starting with utusa. Then FZ02 and then FZ02-utusa.zip. The patch got rid of a problem with lakes on plateaus in the central and southern Willamette valley that I previously had. But I found that the Oregon City area was really bad afterwards. Why the Flight Zone crew chose to use the stock FS9 version of this area to blend with utusa I have no idea. I found that going into FZ02_sc\scenery and disabling all of the FLXXXX.... HLXXXX..... HPXXXX...... RDXXXXX...... RRXXXX....... and STXXXXX..... files leaving only FL_FZ02_IN-v4.bgl activated gives a much better result.I then installed CRG and the CRG-utusa patch. The only problem left after this was no roads from just south of Oregon City to just north of Salem. I found that if I restore RM915150-7077 back to \Scenery\UTUSA\scenery from CRG_back this restores the roads in that area. This gives me doubled roads in the very southern edge of the CRG area (basically just north of the Sandy river/highway 26 corridor). I can live with that.As for my problem with shoreline bridges to islands in the CRG I think that it was caused by the fact that I had the scenery and landclass priorities reversed in my scenery library. FZ02 needs to be scenery above landclass. CRG just the opposite.Cheers................Todd

Yeah, sorry I forgot about the size option. I use 128x128. To me the difference is not that significant. Compared to the performance improvements anyway. I've never messed with the themes that much. I just use "weather influenced". I also limit layers to 5.Cheers.................Todd

I found that using ActiveSky 6.5 with the dxt3 clouds option coupled with "render to texture" in FS9 improves cloud performance a lot. It's really the only thing I've found that helps.Cheers.....................Todd

While I don't have any ctds around Portland I do get quite a pregnant pause as I approach within a certain distance of the area. Maybe 2 - 3 seconds. And then when I am near the upgraded airports, say I'm in the pattern or may be a bit farther away and I look away from the airport for ten seconds or so and then look back, the grounds are all plain gray then the texture will pop back in. It will do it over and over. To me it's distracting. Plus the airport background bitmaps are so much higher resolution than the surounding area that I find that a bit distracting too. Beautiful, no question but still distracting. So I'm going to experiment with reducing the resolution of the airport background bitmaps to 512x512 and see how it works. They are currently 1024x1024 and 1.33 mb each and every airport has at least five of them.Cheers..................Todd

I assume you mean the FZ02-utusa patch not the columbia-willamette_rivers_fix.zip? The latter is available in the library but not the FZ02-utusa patch. I'm struggling with these sceneries myself and would like to get a copy of this as well. I find in researching these problems it has become available from time to time by nice folks posting it up on temporary locations but nobody seems to want to host it permanently. It must be very large or something. If I can get my hands on it I plan to contact Flight1 and see if they will host it. They sell both FZ02 and UTUSA so they would be the logical choice since FlightZone is gone.As far as oom errors It seems to me that most people with the problem just ended up migtrating to a 64 bit operating system which doesn't seem to have the problem. Although I can't remember for sure. Thankfully I don't have a problem with it on my old XP32 sytem but I only fly low and slow GA. I don't fly jets. Good luck with it!Cheers...................Todd

On the hardware side of things, to network two together you need a crossover cable if you don't have a router or an Ethernet hub. A regular ethernet cable won't work. Also if you don't have a router you need to assign your ip address to each computer manually. If you have a router it will assign network addresses automatically.Cheers.................Todd

Thanks Joe, I do have and have installed all the updates and compatibility patches (should have said that in my first post. Sorry). Although I still suspect I did something wrong somewhere. I have also read that thread and many others a number of times in my research into my problem. Most of the problems I see involve duplicate shorelines around Puget sound and what-not. Nothing specific to my issue. Your providing that link did allow me to get the gorge_ai.zip which I have been meaning to get. So thank you again.So I take it you have UTUSA, FZ02 and CRG on your system? And can you verify for me that Oregon City should not look like that?Cheers.................Todd