Pete Dowson

Thanks Steve. I'll try it on Win7. Pete

Okay, wilco. Thanks Pete

Will I still be able to use my P2A version 2 installation whilst evaluating version 3 (and in particular testing it on my Windows 7 PC currently running version 2). Thanks Pete

I expect you've no access because you are only evaluating Prosim, and haven't actually purchased it. I can't think of any other reason. I can only suggest you contact them through the purchasing mechanism -- surely there must be some way of asking questions there? I don't really recall such things as it was a very long time ago that I moved to Prosim from Project Magenta. Regards Pete

No. I am using FSUIPC6 and my settings for this, carried over from FSUIPC5 (and FSUIPC4 before that) are working fine, with similar settings to yours. As noted in the thread you started over in the FSUIPC Support Forum, I am using Windows 7 on the P2A networked PC. I have noticed some hot key problems when the focus is elsewhere on Win10 systems, but I've no idea why as they've been with programs other than mine. I suggested there some things to test, and also asked for a log. Pete

I do and have newer had it cause FSX-SE to crash. I don't use P3D at present, though I do have it installed hoping it will one day reach the same level of performance or better. I prefer ATC on a Networked PC so I can have the sound separated -- it is routed into my overhead speakers or headset (switchable on overhead). Pete

The list posted by Clive is of the new or changed facilities. As far as I'm aware all known bugs have been squashed too, including the missed waypoint one. Pete

Try running FSX-SE is Windowed mode (ALT + ENTER). I expect the browser windows etc Steam use are only shown in non-full screen mode. Pete

Yes, if "B" is still assigned in FS -- but FS will then look it up and convert it to the BAROMETRIC control, so it is more efficient (and always is) to assign direct to the control instead. Pete

All keypresses in FS invoke FS controls, so "B" will be sending a control. If you don't know what it is called, you can always use FSUIPC's Event Logging to log it! I've just done that, and the relevant control is "BAROMETRIC"! Questions about FSUIPC are really best put on my Support Forum. Pete

Actually the work around is much more straight-forward than that -- just use the "Say again" request, then acknowledge the repeat. Hmm. Never had that, and I've been using ProATC/X since I first heard about it. There's a significant update every year. About twice as frequently as FSX before that was abandoned (till DoveTail and L-M came along). Radar Contact version 5 looked promising, but that was abandoned and left version 4 already abandoned. I release about 20 updates of FSUIPC4 a year, which I don't mind, but that doesn't mean it's the right way of going about developments. For me I suspect it's mainly to do with getting very old and if I don't do things and write about them within days I would probably forget them. ;-) As you must well understand, the Beta testing he and I are involved in are for further developments, not the original product, which was evidently good enough way back then for us to think worth investing in. The fact that we are Beta testers now shows how much we are enthused about it and its future. Pete

As I said in my earlier post, the ProgramData ones are processed first, then the AppData ones. As for whether it be EXE or DLL first, I'm not sure. Best not to assume that either way. Note that if you move items from one to the other, as you propose, then you will get into trouble next time any of those are updated as you are then liable to get double entries -- the same things run from both. Just leave well alone! Pete

Actually, both places are perfectly valid, and P3D sees both -- the ProgramData files first then the AppData files. Both are documented as valid in the P3D SDK documentation. Some programs' add-ins (the ASN DLL, FSUIPC and one or two others), work best when loaded last, and to guarantee that they MUST use the AppData path. Furthermore, by using that path programs can have installers which are more easily compatible across all versions of FSX, not just specific to P3D. Pete

Yes, no change for FSUIPC since the main 3.3 release. The installer will complain that it doesn't know the later build number, but it does no harm, and anyway if it's already installed you don't need to reinstall after applying a Client uninstall/install. Pete

I would have thought that the ASN facility would cope with more than one requesting client, but this is definitely a good question to ask HiFi. Please do so. If that isn't a possibility, I could consider making the FSUIPC action configurable by Profile -- assuming switching one client off would enable another, which is also unclear (another question for HiFi?) If you find out more and wish to pursue a solution with FSUIPC profiles, please come to my Support Forum and discuss it there. Pete

From what Gary and Andras say, the grass and normal ground texture season changes are presumably handled okay by the system, it's the tarmac, runways and so on which should also show seasonal differences which are the problem. At least, that's what I'm understanding. Pete

But the "creative ways" in this case seem to have been the only ways until P3D version 2, as explained in the post by Andras in the L-M forum, and I quoted from in message #52 in the parallel thread here "P3D V3.3 incompatible Sceneries". Gary says he's going to alter his sceneries to suit, but i don't think he should need to. The hotfix from L-M should prevent that, hopefully, but I would be concerned for the longer term. The priorities of the P3D developers are not necessarily aligned with ours. It is L-M we are talking about, and P3D is emphatically not an entertainment product, remember? Pete Pete

I don't think you understand what the technical background to this is, else you might have a different opinion. I was just about to compose an answer with these details so you can approeciate that what has happened is a step backwards, NOT forwards, in terms of techical capability, but I just found this one by Andras which I'm sure he won't mind me quoting: Personally, I think the change in P3D3.4 was an oversight, a mistake, by L-M which they are now rectifying. I'm sure that, yes, one day much of the old methods will have to give way to new. Ideally this will be in a major release and with some pre-warning. And again, hopefully, such change will be an advance, not a regression as this mistake turned out to be! Pete

I thought MDL files were aircraft models, not scenery. Scenery is in BGLs. Pete

Everyone seems to assume that everything L-M does is progress forwards, and changes such as they made in this are bound to make things better. But this is not necessarily the case. The tech details in Gary Summons' thread (UK2000 forum) about the change and why he uses some methods originating in FS2002 show that there can be steps back in the ongoing design "improvements". Here's a salient section which I'm sure he won't mind me quoting (my emphasis though): Pete

That's a user option, maybe selected by those who don't understand the phonetic alphabet. And, yes, I know it shouldn't be there, but so shouldn't many user friendly additions added to most of the ATC programs. As for the other points, there's actually a lot of variability throughout the world. Some things may even be set in concrete, like "all ATC in English", but try telling the French that! ;-) Anyway, though there may not be as many user releases of ProATC as for others, at least it is still being developed, which, sadly, didn't happen for RCV4 which is why I switched. Currently, the ability of ProATC/X to use AIRAC data and provide proper SID and STAR operations makes it well worth while for me to stick with it, and help it to continue to improve -- and, yes, become more accurate in its way of issuing instructions. Constructive criticism is quite welcome, but it would be much better coming from those who are actually trying it and testing it. Pete

Those two paragraphs seem to contradict each other. If the MyTraffic\Scenery layer was truly disabled in the SCENERY.CFG file then the BGLs that layer contains could not have been loaded. I've always found that having the MyTraffic scenery layer well below (in priority order) any add-on scenery layers solves any such problems in those scenery layers. However, I do tend to create a "saved" subfolder there and move all of those BGLs which relate to any add-on airports I have out of the Scenery folder into the subfolder, as otherwise they are causing more processing work during scenery loading than is necessary. Pete

There's no 4.955e. The current release is 4.955. The FSUIPC Support Forum has several "subforums", one of which is called "Download Links". If you don't see the subforums, above the main support forum, there's something wrong with your browser. The Schiratti site always carries links to the same main (Installer) version as that found on the "updated modules" thread in my Forum. It is only the text on the Schiratti page which takes longer to update, because it isn't my page and i have to wait for Mr. Schiratti to update it. Pete

This information is in the AIRAC. The SID/STAR information in those packages may not be perfect, but they do contain the correct waypoints and restrictions. This is why they work so well for FMS's. ProATC uses the Airac information. That should be known to the ATC program in any case if your aircraft data is entered correctly. Requests for different altitudes are allowed in most if not all the ATC programs I've tried. Whether the change is allowed or not, and how immediate, will vary, as in reality. Again, provided in the AIRAC. Allowing the pilot to request a change to a different one than that assigned by ATC is good, and either is or will soon be done in ProATC. I think all the ATC programs have these provisions. "Robotic" implies computer-generated, and the only ones like that used in an ATC program are those in VoxATC I think. They are less "robotic" sounding if you pay a lot for each such voice. The default ones are terrible. The other ATC programs use real recordings from humans, not robots. I think what you probably mean by "robotic" is "disjointed", and that results from putting together sentences from fragments, because it is impossible to have all possible needed numerics, names, call signs, etc, included in complete individually recorded messages for every occasion. The only way other than the expensive synthesised true "robotic" voices, is to put together the sentences with separate recordings for numbers, phonetics, callsigns and so on. That's what is being done. There are ways to make it sound better and these are being pursued for the ProATC ones, but it will never be perfect. Pete

FSUIPC 4.955, released today, supports P3D 3.3, BTW, you never need to uninstall FSUIPC first. Pete