mixen82

At AIG's forums there are updated models for the OSP ATRs that make them compatible with v4.

Ok, didn't think about that. I will try that and see how it turns out. Will let you know if this solves the issue. Thanks guys. It does, but it's still way better than what others have to offer. 🙂

Hi Guys, now that P3D has 64bit support, I have finally made the jump from good old FS9 to the new platform. After playing around a bit I have started to insert AI Traffic into it. Everything works well, except for some AI models behaving strange: When approaching their destination airport, the aircraft descent to about 2000-2500ft, but instead of aligning with the active runway for landing, the planes just keep their altitude and just overfly the airport. When they pass it, they just keep flying until they disappear due to exiting the AI display radius. This does not happen to all models, I have just watched this with the following models: OSP's ATRs, FSP's B788,789 and A350 as well as TFS's Dash 8. all other models are working just fine. I'm courious now if this is a known problem that more people are facing and if there is a solution for this? All models used are either P3D v4 native or the updated models that are fully compatible with P3D v4. Does anyone have an idea what this might cause and if there is a way around it? Thanks and Cheers Mike

Hi, hm, that's too bad, but I was also expecting that answer. I just searched the AIG forums and it seems that the release of updated AI models (at least converted from Fs9 to FSX, but better than nothing) is slowly ramping up. But for now I think I will stick with FS9 just a little bit longer since I am a real traffic ###### and I do not want to miss that massive AI traffic. cheers Mike

Hi there, I have just recently switched from good old FS9 to P3D and am currently in the process of rebuilding sceneries, traffic and so on. After installing the first small airline for testing purposes - Condor Flugdienst GmbH - it turned out that everything appears to worl just fine. Except for one thing: The B757-300w is turning invisible as soon as it activates its' landing lights before take off or when getting below 10.000 feet. There are just the lights visible and the little traffic label (that little text above the plane showing what it is, how far away, etc). When the plane climbs above 10000 it turns visible again. so it clearly has something to do with the landing lights. But a search in the net regarding this did not end up successful. So my question is: Is there any solution to get rid of that? I know that the AIG model is not FSX native, so it might be a problem with that. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers from Germany Mike

correct, it doesn't matter what CPU you have, in the beginning there is some tweaking work to be done, with either Intel or AMD.

Ah I see, and yes - that is confusing indeed. But it also might indicate that there is more to do than just changing those values.

And there is absoutely nothing wrong about it. I have done exactly that.

Hi untoweechja, I'm afraid there is just no way to achieve that. As I mentioned, at the moment AMD cannot stand a chance against Intel. Even with massive overclocking AMDs don't come even close to their Intel counterparts. Don't get me wrong, for more than 10 years I have been an absolute AMD fan, as they offered great performance at a very reasonable price. For a pretty long period of time, they were even better than Intel, reaching the same or more performance of their direct counterparts from Intel, but at a much lower clock speed - and a much lower price. But that has changed. Intel judt did an oustanding great job developing their Core CPUs. I am not saying that AMDs are bad, absolutely not. They offer very good performance at a very attractive price. But fSX is one of those programs that are highly dependent on CPU power. And because of this you wanna get every little bit of CPU power you can get. And Intel delivers just that: Massive CPU power, which AMD at the moment just isn't able to deliver as well. As soon as AMD offers the same amount of performance with the same low power consumption and with all the other advantages that Intel offers, I see no reason why I wouldn't switch over to AMD again. It's been just one year ago when I built a new rig. For the first time since the very late 1990s I chose an Intel CPU. As a matter of fact, I even had a guilty conscience taking an Intel CPU, as I was loyal to AMD for such a long time. All I wanna say is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with AMD, it's just that Intel offers the superior product at the moment, CPU-wise. cheers Mike Totally agree, couldn't say it better. Hm maybe except for two things: First, I would prefer a Corsair Case ( Graphite 600T or above ), but that is up to everyone's own taste. :biggrin: It's just important that the case is capable of high airflow. A standard case just won't fit. Second, I would go for a a watercooling option. Why? Simple: Better colling capacity ( especially when extensive overclocking is made ); capable of cooling all components of your rig, not just the CPU, and last but not least: a watercooled rig just looks cool. But of course a decent watercooling is not cheap. cheers Mike

Hi Harald, I have checked the versions. At this moment, the only V1.2 model is the B737-400, all other models are still V1.1. But it seems that there is no difference between those two versions on the matter discussed. Before posting I have watched a B737-400 landing ( V1.2 ), and it was behaving just like the other ones after touchdown. Unfortunately, it's not only the Boeings that have this problem, but also the Buses. I have read the links you provided and I find it very interesting - and not confusing at all. As I understood what they are writing, with "decreasing" they meant to decrease the amount of throttle used for reverse thrust. According to that post, a min_throttle_limit of -0.45 means that the plane will use 45% thrust for the reversers. So by INcreasing the value to -0.25, you are actually DEcreasing the amount of thrust used for reversers to 25% of max thrust. cheers Mike

Hi flamer, you are right. Intel is quite expensive and so are motherboards for Intel CPUs. I would follow with Flyer10's advise. Wait a little bit longer and save your bucks. With the advantages that Intel CPUs have over AMD ( at this time, there was a time when AMD was better, maybe that time will come again, but at the moment, I don't see that coming ) this jsut is a no-brainer. For example, AMD CPUs have a much higher power consumption than even the fastest Intels. But the biggest advantage is the fact that even an AMD FX8350 ( 8 cores @4GHz ) has a really hard time to come close to an Intel Core I5 3570k ( 4 cores @3,4GHz ). And that with a much higher power consumption. There are more things to mention, but to make a long story short: At the moment Intel justs eats AMD for breakfast. I know, it is a hell lot of money, bit it's definitely worth waiting a little bit longer to go with the Intel CPU. BTW: What are you using at the moment, I mean CPU,Mainboard, RAM? cheers Mike

Hi flamer, I would take the Bulldozer FX 4170. But in general I would switch over to an Intel system, although that would mean that you would have to invest into a new motherboard as well. But at this time, there is no AMD CPU that can compete with it's Intel counterpart. And I'm saying that as an former AMD fan who switched from Intel to AMD with the very first Athlon CPUs, one year ago I switched back to Intel, as their Core-I CPUS are much better and much more efficient. cheers Mike

I have just tried it with the FAIB B737-700w and it seems that it works! The plane is now behaving much better after touchdown. Thanks John for the great tip. :dance: :drinks:

Hi John, cool, thanks for this tip. I have tried something similar, even if not that "detailed". What I did was: I copied the .air file from an AIA aircraft into the folder of the matching FAIB pane. Then I changed the Sim= entry in FAIB's cfg file to match the new .air file. I did that because I assumed that the .air file would have an effect on the takeoff and landing behavior ( as a matter of fact, I also have a problem with AIA's takeoff behavior, but that's a different story ) of the airplane. But I was wrong, it didn't change anything. So I changed everything back to the "original" state. But as soon as I am back from today's work I will try your tips :Peace:. cheers Mike

In that case I would suggest it's an electrical grounding problem with your mainboard. Have you made sure that the mainboard sits perfectly aligned on the mainboard tray before screwing it in? I'm asking because if it is not perfectly aligned, the screws or the motherboard standoffs could touch some electrical lanes on the mainboard ( some of those are pretty close to the screwholes ), leading to a short circuit. To check that, I would primarily check the screws and standoffs closest to the I/O panel of the mainboard as that is the most likely spot with power and data lanes going to the USC ports. I once had a similar problem with a customers' PC and it turned out that the customer did not align the standoffs 100% correctly. After fixing it, everything worked just perfect. Have you already tried to plug your BOSE system to another USB port?