ACSoft

11 hours ago, byork said:

We've been using the same update system for years and years.  I'm sorry you found it difficult.

1. Login to your account.

2. Redownload and Re-install.

It takes 20 seconds.

 

I'm sorry about making updates mandatory, but you can blame the pirates for that.

And we need everyone on the same 'page' or support becomes very  hard.

We'll be expanding the key assignments menu.

Best,

Using the same update system for years and years does not mean your system is good !!!

It take 20 seconds, when you know/remember what to do, otherwise it is everything but not straight forward. I have ton's of other applications who warn you that an update is available and simply ask if we want to update. If you answer yes, then the update is made automatically, without affecting your settings.

No, I won't blame pirates but YOU ! I don't care you need everyone on the same 'page', what I care, is to be able to decide if I will update or not. I am the customer and I consider this is my elementary right.

For sure, I am not going to buy anymore any of your products.

Cheers.

They are absolutely no valid reasons to impose us to update to the last version. I urge you TO STOP this in the future.

I buyed this application and want to have the freedom to adopt or not your new versions. Moreover, your upgrade process is just a big mess ! You are directed to a page where you have ton's of choices and when you select the link to the product, you come to a page where you just can do nothing. To download the new version, I had to go to my shop transaction history page and link from there, to a download page. Something which is not really intuitive, I must say. Maybe I am stupid, but it took me more than 15 minutes of searches, to finally find the solution. Then after, you have to reconfigure the tool, because you are not even able to keep the user setups and all this for what ? Just 2 or 3 ridiculous minor changes and no correction of the other problems we signaled to you.

In the change log you say that hotkeys are no longer bound to MSFS stock events. Fortunately THIS IS WRONG, because your new binding system is just a bad joke ! It DO NOT ALLOW to choose any of the keyboard keys, just a poor pulldown list, with just the alphabet in capital letter. Apparently, no way to combine keys with shift or control keys, or use like me, some well placed special characters keys.

Not having the possibility to went back on previous version, if I hadn't been able to continue using the keys I'm now very used to, I would have asked for an immediate refund and desinstalled this application forever, because I start to be really fed up with your product and your lack of professionalism.

It is more the transparency that I don't like.

Yes, right, typical things that will never made everyone happy, this why options exist, so everybody can choose and even if this panel is most of the time not visible, to satisfy every body is good.

Double clicking the menu bar is a method I never use. Why to keep this imersion breaker before my eyes ? To remind me that this program is runing ? Sorry but I am not a very old man, whith big memory problems ! LOL ! Moreover, using the hotkey shortcut is much more convenient to my opinion. But, if they are people who prefer double-clicking the title bar, please guys proceed. To have the hotkey in toggle mode do not invalidate this double-clicking method !

Sorry, initialy, it is not a "+", but an aircraft symbol ! It become a big "+" after you start. So it is on this very initial step, that the problem occur, when the captain say "Let's start setting up", the 1st officer answer OK over the end of captain speech.

 

 

18 minutes ago, byork said:

On the Secondary Panel, there's an option called call lock main panel.

Untick it.

The panel will then close.

I think that's what you want.

Cheers,
 

Thanks !

Effectively, this solve almost my main problem, but you would be advised to rename your option into "keep in front" instead of your mysterious "Lock Main Panel". Just my 2 cents !

Nevertheless, I still hope that you will change the hotkey "Open Main Panel" to "Toggle Main Panel" function and I would also love to see the new option to choose if we want a transparent window or not.

By the way, when you start the process with the big "+" button, with UK voices, the answer of the FO overlap the end of the captain talk. Not very clean this !

About your new 1.4 mandatory version (why ?!?), thanks to have added the memorization of the window location, a feature I asked to you, BUT...

Now, your windows CANNOT BE HIDDEN !!! To my humble view, this is a very bad move, a big immersion killer. Why didn't you changed the logic of the "open window" hotkey in "Toggle window" like I suggested to you ?!? This would have neen a much better move, to my opinion.

OK, now when I am in full screen mode and I click outside your window, it make your window to disappear behind. This is the typical Windows normal behavior, for a window not defined "always in front". But, apparently, you detect this situation and quickly force your window to come back in front !!! By the way, to see this window going away and coming back is something really ugly and again, all this stuff is a bad immersion killer and a bad design !!! You really must CHANGE this please !!!

- Add an option to activate or not this "come in front again" feature.
- Transform the *open window" hotkey into a "toggle window" function.

This way, everybody will be happy and able to configure program behaviors to their taste.

You said in you release description:
Main Panel background is now transparent.  This makes the main panel look much nicer.

Sorry, but this is a matter of taste. Personally, I don't like this AT ALL. Personally, I would be happy if a further additional option would allow to choose transparent or not.

In the waiting of better days, I have returned to the very first version I have, the 1.1, which fortunately, don't force me to update to this bad 1.4 version.

I wait for your soonest reaction to this message.

1) OPEN FS2CREW PANEL (function assigned to Toggle TAIL WHEEL LOCK)

Made this function to be TOGGLE FS2CREW PANEL instead of just OPEN. It would be much more convenient to use the same button to close the panel, rather than to have to take the mouse and minimize the panel window. You often just want to quickly check the panel (for example to see the remaining time, or the actual position into the check list, etc...) and close it immediately after.

2) FS2CREW PANEL WINDOW POSITION

Please, memorize the position of the window on the screen, so we do not need to place it where we want it, on each start of FS2CREW. For example me, I place it on the left, just under of where the ATC window open.

Maybe you should try this instead: https://www.foobar2000.org/

Personnaly, I use it in parallel with Flight Crew A320, to play some other sounds, including some .wav sound loop I made myself in the time of FS200X, for on of my addons.

Any news about next update with boarding / debording sound and musics ?

OK, fine. I was suspecting this.

So, it isn't my change of sidestick type !

Is it normal that, when it is the turn of the co-pilot to check his command, that both joystick into the game cockpit are moving ?

Asking this, because I had my Thrustmaster sidestick set in co-pilot mode and now, I switched to pilot mode. Maybe, it is the reason of this anomaly ?

35 minutes ago, byork said:

Okay, I like the idea... c'est possible!

Very good news, thanks a lot.

I can't wait to have these nice improvements.

Allow me to give to some more advises:

Of course, a music volume control is mandatory, maybe also for the rumble of passengers embarking and disembarking. Some other addon have the same permanent rumble during all the flight, I think this is not good. Just a specific noise where you can hear passenger opening and closing hand luggage compartment. Maybe even the stewardess welcoming or saying bye bye to them. During the flght, you may just play a very very low rumor. Maybe also, for futur improvements, screaming during severe turbulence and in the event of a hard landing.

speaking of the music I would play it automatically during taxi, but, of course, not during announcements. Maybe also during end of approach ? I don't know if it is still the case (very long I didn't fly), but in my time, it was done to calm passengers being afraid of landing phase.

Of course, just ideas ! I am sure you will design this "picolo-bello" LOL !

Thanks again for your agreement on this !

I am soo happy now !

Realistic or not, door open or not, to my humble view, it is not the right approach to this question.

The good approach is to satisfy a maximum of customers ! As long as these kind of features are optional, purist will have the possibility to disable them, so no problem. In French we say: "who can more, can less".

As a former developers for FS (https://www.acsoft.ch/Flight_Simulator/ACS-CRPB/acs-crpb.html), I dream to have not only this feature, but also music playing during taxi. This will remember me my old addon I mentionned here ! Something in a very open fashion, where the user can add mp3 files into a location and your program choose them randomly during both taxi phase and even maybe during approach.

Byork, please do this for an old collegue ! LOL !

Dear Simmer's,I have just discovered that, when booting my PC in /3GB mode for FS, the other games I have, which have the StarForce protection system, just crash hard my machine, when attempting to run them (black screen + reboot and then, after the reboot, Windows saying it recover a "serious" error). This occur, for example by me, with Lockon 1.12b (StarForce Internet protection) or Silent Hunter III (StarForce media protection).I wonder if some other simmer's of this large community, have experienced the same problem ? Or the contrary ? Can somebody affirm he is able to run StarForce protected games with his machine booted in /3GB mode ?Many thanks in forward for your numerous testimonies. They will be probably very helpful to clarify the situation about this problem.ACSPS: My PC run Windows XP version 2002 / SP3 (32 bits / French)

Dear ACS - please sign in with your real name.Do not delete any sound files or you will get a FS crash - the file you mentioned is exactly the sound which has had its volume increased.

Hoops, Armen, sorry for the name !You mean probably "PMDG_MD11_NoseGearAirflow.wav" but not "PMDG_MD11_NoseGearAirflowxxx.wav" ?I guess the "xxx" version is the old one and probably forgot behind.Alain Capt

Hi Carl,Well spotted! For FS9 we increased the volume of the nose gear up / down mechanical sound and the nose gear down wind turbulence sound to match the FSX version performance.Cheers,

So, I suppose the sound "PMDG_MD11_NoseGearAirflowxxx.wav" can be deleted as it is probably never used ?ACS

Despite all my efforts to explain, you still insist on using the term "memory" when discussing this issue, which means I've utterly failed to convey this clearly...

I can insure you that I perfectly understood all what you explained and the fact that, to your taste, I have used the term "memory" in an inappropriate manner, does not mean you failed to convey this clearly. French is my mother language and it is very difficult for me to express such complex things in English.Finally, You probably missunderstood (because of my poor English) the sense of my question. It was just a technical curiosity. No suspicion or fear, or whatever you want, about the /3GB trick. So I didn't needed to be convinced about the benefit to use it or not.Oh l

n4gix,I have maybe a last question for you:Does the "/3GB switch trick" really solve the OOM problems, or just delay it ?In other words, does this increase of room for applications in VAS table, on the detriment of OS room, allow the Memory Manager to stabilize, when harassed by FS ? I mean, the hudge fragmentation of VAS stabilize at one point and therefore, we enter into a stable situation, where OOM won't occur anymore ?Or, with the FS behavior toward the memory, it is just a matter of supplementary time (or more complex and demanding addon) and the OOM will be there again ?I ask me this question, because you clearly said that the OOM does not come from the fact there is really no more room, but the system cannot anymore found a single contiguous space large enough, to fullfil the request in this chopped virtual memory.It will be probably difficult for you to answer, as I know yet that we are all blind to really monitor what's happen, but I guess you should have your opinion about that matter, maybe based on experiences you made.Thanks in forward,ACS

The other restriction is that once cards are filed, they cannot be moved from their current location.

Yes, and this restriction make all the problem !Such a memory management is maybe sufficent for "standard" applications in a multi-tasking environment, but probably the worst one for FS, which never stop to request and release ton's of memory blocks.This "rolling fire" of textures load/unload should NEVER has been implemented straight forward over the Windows system Memory Manager layer !!!The visible symptom of the horrible slicing of the virtual memory, made by FS, is probably the growing of "Virtual size" we can see into the "Process Explorer". For example this afternoon, I made the following test: I flew my "OOM flight" and saved along the flight "Virtual Size" and "Virtual Bytes" values (yes I know, it is a non sense, but it is all what I have !!!), while doing in the same time, a "Flight" save, in order to be able to restore the exact same situation later.So I got:Top of Climb -> VS=1288MB / VB=731MBTRA -> VS=1402MB / VB=754MBMILPA -> VS=1547MB / VB=775MBNARAK -> VS=1557MB / VB=761MBVASUM -> VS=1552MB / VB=728MBOOM -> VS=1554MB / VB=739MBThen, I reloaded the situation for VASUM and, after having well played with all views, internal, virtual cockpit, map at different zoom factor, etc..., to make sure all textures loaded, I looked at "Virtual size" + "Virtual Bytes" values and I got: VS=1020MB / VB=659MB.Quite a dramatic difference !!!So, what is missing in this Memory Manager, is a possibility to "defrag" the memory.But I think I guess why it isn't implemented !!! To defrag the memory would probably require to hang all running process until defrag is done, and a mechanism to make them aware that their private memory allocations are going to move elsewhere !!!ACS

I have NEVER had an OOM in years of simming.

Touch wood Red1 !!!ACS

There is absolutely no relationship whatever. Once again, the "Process Explorer" utility is reporting on physical RAM and virtual RAM.

OK, but the informations reported by "Process Explorer" in section "Virtual Memory", are more or less in correlation, or if you prefer, "in connexion" with the VAS.

No, in this context "Virtual size" is referring to the number of bytes of physical and/or virtual RAM...

In other words, you mean we cannot deduct from the behaviors of "Virtual size" and "Private Bytes", what really happen on the level of VAS table.More or less that !!!

The following applies to that portion of VAS that is allocated to applications and the applications data. Please understand that it is very, very difficult for me to "simplify the explanation" to make it more easily understood. In truth, this "explanation" leaves out a great deal of technical details. It is as difficult as describing a spectacular sunset to a blind person, or the mathematical beauty of a Beethoven Symphony to someone who's tone deaf and can't count above ten without taking off his shoes... :(

Yes, I undersand it is very difficult to explain such a complex way of managing memory in a computer (with Microsoft, I always thought his phylosophy should be: "Why to make it so easy, when you can do it soooo complicate" ). But, I must say you succeed really well to enlight the darkness in which we are all plunged !!! After the Library, the antiquated card catalog, the books, now, the mathematical beauty of a Beethoven Symphony !!!I love your imaged explanations. It really help understanding !!! :(

Every loaded application has a VAS table record of how the memory addresses for the application and its data are "arranged" while it is "actively loaded" in the physical RAM space. This way, even if you have so many programs running at the same time that the operating system has to shift the bytes off into virtual memory, when any specific application needs to "do something" it is copied back to physical memory, the operation is performed, and the bytes are copied back to virtual memory.In effect, the VAS table is a "dynamic shapshot" of how the application code and its data were arranged in physical memory as of the last operation.If you have eight programs running simultaneously, then you have EIGHT separate "VAS tables," one for each application+data+operating system "snapshot."

I understood that "Virtual size" was the memory address "interval" into process VAS and "Private Bytes" the quantity of used memory repartited into this interval.So I was looking at "Private Bytes" thinking it can, "IN THEORY", grow up to a maximum of 2GB (the section of the VAS allocated to applications) and the maximum contiguous space still available could be deducted from 2GB minus "Virtual size".But in fact, all this stuff is muuuuch more complex, as you try to explain here.NOW I AM CONVINCED that we are just totally BLIND.That the single tool we have is not even a "blind person's stick" !!!That Microsoft, as usually, created a "Monster" on which we don't really have control.

OOM Errors are caused whenever there is a "collision" or "contention" or "insufficient contiguous space" problem. The last one is the most frequently encountered by FS, because the "currently executing instruction requires 1 MB of contiguous addresses, and the largest available block of addresses is two bytes less than 1MB......bam! "Your computer has run out of available memory..."

Yeah, bam! That's what happen when the Monster wake up :oBut something really shock me:To have a computer with absolutely all unecessary task's & services shuted down, 2GB of good physical memory, 4GB of good cache memory defined on the HDD, so in all, a virtual memory of maximum 6GB, just running FS2004 version 9.1,... and this computer come to the conclusion that it is out of available memory when using ""only"" 750MB.I also do not understand why the "Virtual size" grow up so much when you are flying, even if the "Virtual Bytes" remain stable (no memory leak). This is for me, the only visible symptom that FS just make the Microsoft Monster crasy.So, in conclusion, we know how to avoid to wake up the Monster (64bit OS and/or 3GB tweak), but we will NEVER have a real solution to OOM's, because we don't even know what really happen when FS return this error."n4gix". Again many thanks for your patience and your imaged explanations. :( Regards,ACS

N4gix, thanks for these interesting explanations.What is the relationship between the applications VAS and the "Virtual size", respectively "Private Bytes" shown by the tool "Process Explorer" ?Isn't the "Virtual size", the "application VAS" of each process ?Shall I understand that a single PC system only have a single VAS ?Does the so called "OOM" error come from a VAS operation failure ?Thanks in advance for the further enlightments you may give to me on this matter.Regards,ACS

I give up and going back enjoying MY FS9, which is not OOMing. Believe what you want. Cya.

Hi Word Not Allowed ! Don't be upset !Where did you see, in my initial message, that I was asking for explanations or solutions ?!?!? I said in further answers, this was just a testimony that, to my humble opinion, the generally accepted "theory" about FS OOM is simply not confirmed AT ALL by the monitoring of the events with Process Explorer. Period.Dont worry, I know perfectly how to fly without OOM on my system. It is very simple. I just have to desactivate Ultimate Terrain Europe and I never have any OOM again.Regards,ACS

Explanation enough?

Sorry Word Not Allowed, not really. I don't believe you are right.In my tests, OOM occur far before biggest parts of an airport are loaded. In any cases, whatever provoke the OOM in my example, IT IS JUST IMPOSSIBLE it is provoked by the famous "theory".OK, let's even say, the approaching airport weight 300-400MB. Let even say when the OOM occur, FS try to load all this stuff, which I don't believe AT ALL on second. What is sure, FS is NOT going to do just a SINGLE memory request of 400MB. You will have a salvo of many requests of different sizes and only the last one, close from the OOM condition, will fail. So, if this "theory" was correct, Process Explorer should show a state much more closer to that famous OOM condition, which is obviously NOT THE CASE.Process Explorer display only OS informations in relation with the process. So, even if the process is hanged by a OOM error, Process Explorer continue to scan these datas. We can even see them still changing after the OOM and after you answer to the OOM error message (proof these datas are still alive & valid).Regards,ACS

I thought Bill explained it pretty well. You may not understand it ,or believe it, but it is fact. If you run a 32 bit system, with 2 to 9zillion MB of ram, you may run into an OOM without the 3GB switch.

Bob, my point with this thread is not to believe or not this fact, my point is to testify with my example, that the theory found everywhere on the Net, about the reasons why these OOM's happen, is probably simply incorrect.I love to really understand things !

I've been following this topic, and have been just amused by it, how some people just won't accept the fact that OOMs happen if you don't run 64bit or use /3GB switch. Just accept it, otherwise its like searching for holy grail.

Word Not Allowed, I prefer to amuse you rather than bother you !!! LOL !!!But again, my point wasn't to believe or accept anything.In my search & read about this matter here and elsewhere, I didn't found a previous testimony that this apparently unanimously accepted "theory", about the reasons for these OOM's to occur, could be totally wrong?So, this is my stone in the building !!!Again, I love to understand things and if the reason given is wrong, I though that maybe they were other tracks to explore ? Of course, I didn't knew, when I started the thread, that even ACES itself just gave up on that. So I am going to give up myself too !!! LOL !!! Like you said, otherwise, it would be like the holy grail quest !!!Apparently, it is a long time you follow these discussions about OOM's. I saw your name in many thread's. So I can understand you start to become tired of that. But it isn't my case, sorry.By the way, many thanks to always take the time to answer & help peoples about that.ACS

Looking at your screenshot makes me think that the report is for memory usage of FS9 only and does not include services running in the background? If I read it correctly it does show memory used and not memory available.

As far as I know, this is not determinant, as long as you don't have a hudge quantity of stuff's running, who would be able to overflow the total capacity of your RAM and swap page file.Each process receive this famous 2GB of adressable space called "Virtual size". Then, the private bytes used in this space, are physically mapped into the RAM and/or the hard-disk swap file "pagefile.sys".If you look on my picture, you will see that 852MB of the 865MB are located into RAM (physical memory). This mean obviously that my PC is optimized to run FS2004 in the best possible conditions. Apart FS, you just have the strict minimum.

Could it also not take into account the 512mb of memory that will be reserved for your memory card?

As far as I know, this is a separate memory mapping.

The error box says you may not have enough space on your hard drive. What percentage of your drive is available? If it's packed full it does not matter what you set your pagefile at, Windows needs empty hard drive space for virtual memory.

I have two physical hard disks, one for the system and another one, for FS and other games. Both disk are about 3/4 empty. Both disks are optimized with "UltimateDefrag".My cache page file is defined on system disk and has the max possible size (4GB fixed). I tried also with 2 cache files (one on both disk), but it does not make any difference.

What's the alternative?

LOL !!!That's a good question, unfortunately !!!ACS