Pete Dowson

As will Pilot2ATC unless you set the option to force it to stick to a pre-determined pilot choice. ProATC/X and Pilot2ATC support (and assign) STARs, which have terrain clearance included. If you, the pilot, decide to do the approach without that benefit then it's up to you, as it was with RC. Not needed -- I'm pretty sure all the main ATC programs discussed here are capable of selecting runway and approach to suit the weather on arrival. With Pilot2ATC (and, as far as I recall, ProATC/X) you are told what approach to expect before commencing descent from cruise. I think even after that point it can be changed if the weather really is so variable (or it's a long long descent?), but of course that could be more problematic. The ActiveSky lock was added by HiFi Simulations on request, and operates at about 40 nm away from the airport. I think that this was based on the RC distance at which the approach was determined. It ensures that the weather read by the ATC program matches that which you expect on arrival. That lock also helps ensure that the AI traffic are set for the same or compatible runway to try to avoid the occasions where you see them landing or taking off from the other end of the runway you are approaching. Significant changes in the weather closer to the airport are problematic for that reason too. So, it isn't really a "dumbing down", just a delay in any later changes. Pete

Only when you press them. The next axis movement a very short time after releasing them will operate instead. Those assignments are operating the same way as the . key does for both brakes. Just dab them, in brief presses. Then they shouldn't lock the brakes. Those controls operate with a timed increase in pressure. To get genuine differential braking using the axis controls you could have a Lua plug-in which switches left / right both depending on those two buttons, and use the same axis / lever for all three modes, just holding the appropriate button down at the same time as operating the lever. BTW I am better placed to help with things like this on my FSUIPC Support Forum. Pete

Sorry, I misunderstood. No, you supply AIRAC information, as with ProATC/X -- Navigraph or (I think) the Aerosoft variety. It gets all your installed airport data from MakeRunways generated files. Pete

No. As I said, it assigns them normally, though there is an option for the pilot to be able to override that (which I don't use -- I really prefer having them assigned. BTW, Pilot2ATC is also available on a trial basis. Pete

I was a Radar Contact user too, right from it's "adventure" based beginnings. I then used ProATC/X for some time, and still have it on standby, ready to use should I choose. I run it on a Client PC, not on the P3D4 PC and it works fine that way. I did try PF3 but found it too unwieldy for me. Interesting that whilst it, like Radar Contact, started from the old Adventures, it looks to me as if PF3 is still basically an adventure compiler. I know they have smoothed over the cracks quite well, though (Probably someone will correct me on this). These days my ATC program of choice is Pilot2ATC. No in cockpit menus needed -- all voice interaction, with no "robotic" speech, or badly joined strings of pre-recordings. The only drawback is the cost of decent voices for the MS voice synthesiser. I've built up a small collection. There's little point at present getting more than about 15 voices because currently you have to pre-assign a voice to each of so many ATC functions or stations. A future enhancement will be semi-random choice from installed voices -- then it will be worth building up a bigger collection, and maybe, by then, I'll have become so used to knowing what to expect from ATC (as real pilots do, of course), that I'll be able to add some voices with non-English accents. I've tried some and don't understand them (even though you can adjust the speed, individually, for each voice). Oh, and whilst learning, you can get the "copilot" to do your voiced replies for you. Or have a button to tell P2A to "say it" for you. P2A does assign your SIDs and STARs, as ProATC/X does.. Pete

Yes to that for some of the liveries, but the business about which stands are used is surely down to the Airport data (the AFD). EGCC needs editing with ADE or similar to change the airline parking codes at each stand. I have Traffic Global, but I'm currently using UTLive (also with MyTraffic6 also at a low level). And I certainly need to get to work on the UK2000 EGCC parking codes. Ryanair aircraft are even sometimes at Terminal 2! Pete

In order: no, yes and not as far as I understand that question. I’ve not needed to do a clean driver install for a year or two. It’s a pain with the sunsequest sorting out of different display numbers, different screen orders left to right, resolutions and scan frequencies. Pete

Having read that you were using these drivers, I updated to them for my 1080Tis. Disaster. My first ever DXGI crash, fairly consistently, and soon after starting up P3D4. I've seen all these reports about this and wondered what was going on! Now I know! So, I'm rolling back to a previous driver. Pete

I've had to roll back. got my first ver DXGI crash in P3Dv4, soon after loading up, and the only prior change was updating to 411.63! I am using 3 x 1080Ti's in SLI. Pete

The Content Error log is aimed only at developers, not users. Either report each entry to the respective developer, or switch that logging off. You as the end user are not expected to correct those things. I don't know why you had it on in the first place. I don't think it is on by default, at least in recent versions. As it states in the referenced L-M discussion: "Normally Prepar3D will silently handle these errors as best as possible, but developers should verify their content is not generating entries in this file. " Pete

If the app will read GPS data in one of the formats the GPSout facility in FSUIPC supports, and you can rig a serial port link between the PC and the iPad, then FSUIPC can do it. But there are are serious 'ifs' there! Pete

What was the answer please? Pete

My main interest is in improved performance. To me, with a 210 degree FOV curved screen needing 3 separate scenery windows, performance is a much higher priority need than better textures and surface effects. After all, with my airliner flying in Europe my view is mostly of the clouds below, not metallic surfaces. When I first heard of this I thought, wow, moving more graphics work over to the GPU alleviating the current almost constant 100% loading on my Core 0 (even at 4.8 GHz). But if instead it merely involves even more complex modelling it sounds like it could have a negative affect on performance. I hope someone will assure me that this is not so, that it will be good after all ... Pete

The FSUIPC option doesn't use the pedals for steering, but a separate assigned axis. It does use the rudder input in P3D for steering, just gradually changing to pedals as you accelerate. It does need such an axis assigned for steering. If you don't have a spare axis to assign then you'd have to do it using a plug-in to switch to whatever other function you need on that axis. There is an example of such a plug-in, but for throttle action, in my User Contributions subforum -- the thread by the name "Throttle Manager to Allow Axis Forward/Reverse Toggle" Pete

Yes, but so many folks seem to get traffic, and presumably a decent size of BGL for the routes . I posted the sizes which just a plain install provides , and the same after a no changes compile. No big difference, and both only a small proportion of that provided by a default My Traffic. Surely feedback as well as pleas for help is what their forum is for?