Kuckoo

My apologies. I wasn't aware there was a free version of FSrealwx. Cheers.

Not free. 30 day try period, then either buy or uninstall. If one is going to spend money, the Active Sky series is far better.

Two weeks later and no change. FSXWX still getting no reply from the server. Website is still up but with no announcements. In fact there has been no new activity on the site for quite a long time now. Just going to uninstall it once and for all. It's great when it was working - only gripe is that it restricts upper visibility too much.

Something happen? Logging onto the site has been agonizingly slow recently, and my profile pic has disappeared. I also cannot download files in the file library, keep getting "504 Gateway Time-Out - The server didn't respond in time" message after staring at the download page for a couple of minutes. Not critiquing, just wondering what's going on. Thanks. EDIT: Also, it took a couple of minutes for this message to post in the forums. [had to try re-posting multiple times when posting this edit as I kept getting 504 gateway timeout errors again]

Same here. Same events shown. Start up the client with FSX, finds the sim and simconnect, but hears nothing at all from the FSXWX server. It's been a week AFAIK. The website is still up but there are no announcements, so I don't know what's happening.

No, I don't use AISmooth. Used it before and didn't like it. Among other things, there were technical issues with it (aircraft landing while rolled at 90 degrees or even upside down, etc...). The traffic spacing manager for FS9 - forget what it was called - was much better, reliable, and more flexible. I've learned to live with the go-arounds which, thankfully, occur a lot less often in FSX than it did with FS9, as the former doesn't "stack up" spawning traffic the way the latter does. Lowering sliders, other than being an unhelpful "work-around", is out of the question. I don't install traffic just to lower sliders and see less of it.

Bolded is me, especially the last one lol.

Every time I've ever reconfigured FS9 AI .bgls to FSX standard - which probably number in thousands by now, a warm, fuzzy feeling always came over me while watching the conversion process shown by the AIFPC utility. No joke. Yep. I'm a true nerd, through and through. B)

Hello. Is there any way to turn off or otherwise minimize controller traffic advisories when using EditVoicePack (v4.0, Windows 7 64bit)? I use a ton of GA and military AI traffic (UT2, WOAI, HTAI, ANAI, UGA, MAIW, AIG, etc...) and even with the speech sped up to realistic rates, the amount of traffic advisories has gotten over the top, especially between AI in the pattern. Thanks.

CPUs shorting out due to contact with water is a frequent problem for you, however. :lol:

I tried talking to the guys at Intel in Folsom and Santa Clara, CA about letting me live in one of their very nicely air-conditioned data centers during the summer so that my CPU can have an easier time. They said no, and they looked at me funny. So now I'm looking into installing one of these babies:

Just trying to get a good understanding of what this setting does in the FSX.cfg. First, I understand that "CLOUD_DRAW_DISTANCE=8" is the max slider setting in the UI, 110 miles. With this or a lesser value, the clouds are rendered at up to the maximum specified distance, centered on the user's aircraft. OK, fine. Simple enough. The value entered in the FSX.cfg can be higher than "8". I've used values as high as 16 and 32. When a value higher than "8" is used, depending on conditions the clouds render at a greater distance than what an "8" entry yeilds. This way you can see the tops of very distant cumulonimbus clouds that rise above the horizon's haze layer, and can be quite a nice effect. However, with a setting higher than "8", it seems the distance that clouds are rendered is a radius centered on a static point instead of the user's aircraft (i.e. the user's selected starting airport at the beginning of the flight session). If I use a setting of "16", then take off from an airport and continue to fly in any one direction, eventually I come to the outer "edge", beyond which clouds are no longer rendered. However, FSX still thinks clouds exist beyond this perimeter if the weather data calls for them, and weather stations will report clouds even though you don't actually see them anymore. Funny. If you use "32" instead of "16", the outer edge is pushed out even further, but it's still a finite radius based on a static center. I figured - possibly incorrectly - that when a value of more than "8" is used, it becomes a cloud distance rendering multiplier, so 16 = 160 miles, 32 = 320 miles, etc. So I experimented and for the hell of it tried using "2500" to equate with the circumference of the earth! After selecting [FLY!] to start, the flight began to load, but nothing else happened. My question is: Am I correct in my assumption of what values higher than "8" mean, and does anyone know if there is a hard limit to this setting? Thanks!

1: Are you using Windows Vista/Windows 7, and... 2: Did you install FSX to it's default folder (Program Files (x86)), or did you create a different install folder?

I recommend that a FSX/Acceleration Intall - Reinstallation thread be stickeyed, with instructions if practical. Between new users making a new installation, and verteran users making the inevitable clean re-install, this is going to happen often enough to warrant a sticky. Anything to help reduce this unfortunate headache.

Trust me: You'll get over it. It's minor. I've used UGA's G4s in FSX for years now, along with every other business jet in their entire library, and wouldn't ever think of removing them. It's an issue that doesn't occur often enough to warrant not enjoying the benefits of having it. Besides, there are plenty of other "quirks" in FSX that draw more attention than that. But, that's just my own opinion on the matter...

Yeah, no kidding. It's annoying that they haven't done a DC-3/C-47. Anyone who knows anything about old planes loves the old Douglas, and would likely buy an AccuSimmed DC-3 without even thinking about it. Talk about cash cow... :rolleyes:

I don't know about skipping it altogether. The problem is relatvely minor. That would be akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The G4 gives you plenty of badly needed AI business jet flights in the FSX world, and they look great otherwise.

It may not be the piston version, but the Basler BT-67 Base Pack (see bottom of page 2 for the aircraft) is arguably one of the best freeware aircraft I have ever downloaded for any flight simulator. Indeed, it's one of the best aircraft I've ever used in FSX, freeware or payware. Some really outstanding work by these guys. Definitely worth a DL.

I noticed that, too. :lol: Correct me anyone if I'm wrong, but it can't be corrected unless you get the source .mdl files from the author. Editing attach points, animations, etc. on an aircraft model requires decompiling, then re-compiling the .mdl files, and this can't be done in FSX unless you have the source file itself. Trying to decompile the .mdl from the SimObjects folder will either result in nothing happening, the file getting mis-translated, or animations, attach points, bones, etc. not functioning correctly. Sorry.

> I have (or 'had') v1.9 > Textures are fine, but are fairly low resolution, especially when you compare them to the Lufthansa textures created by Toby Rayfield. > I did say "airfile", not "aircraft.cfg". > The phantom airbrake is there. The author confirmed it. > It definitely happens. I've had numerous takeoffs in the aircraft where after I've cleaned up, the aircraft stayed below 150 knots until I "retracted" the "airbrake". Again, it's there, with the author's confirmation. > 32 degrees C is still rediculously low for operating oil temps, especially for a jet engine. It should be up in the 70s - 90s or so, if not higher. Look at your oil temp indicator closely. > OK, NAV1 then. As a toggled window around the PFD HSI, ONE of the toggle flanking NAV flags is unavailable on the PFD, for sure. You get to choose one NAV window, an ADF window, and an airspeed and direction window. That's it. Again, it's been a while since I deleted the LT, so I might have gotten that confused. Now, I know of the upgraded version of the G1000 available for the EPIC, but that's more money to be spent on top of already buying the aircraft. I'll pass, thank you... > Well, at least you agree on the TAS/GS. The author disagreed when I indicated this to him. > Inexcusable because: 1) it's payware, and fairly expensive payware at that, and: 2) if both the default C172 and Baron have TCAS for their G1000s, then considering the price range of the EPIC LT, and that one of it's touted features is the G1000, it should have TCAS, too. No reason not to have it. > Blowing things a bit out of proportion, are we? Don't play semantics. This is, after all, a regrettable purchases thread, and the LT qualifies as a regrettable purchase. You don't have to like what I think. If you like the LT, fine; keep flying it. I agree that it's a nice add-on, but not for $25. Too many nagging fundamental issues to warrant the price, not to mention that it has a copied/pasted FSX default airfile. That alone should raise eyebrows.

^^ This. ^^ The Lionheart Epic LT ranks as one of the two most disappointing purchases I've ever made for FSX, the other being TrafficX. The model looks good, though the exterior textures are too low. The VC is good, and looks great at night, but in the daylight literally everything in the cabin has an almost overwhelming shiny glare when the sun hits at certain angles, including the seats, and even the carpet! There are no 3D buttons on any of the G1000 bezels, but there are 3D buttons and switches everywhere else, some of which have no function. Even as payware I could live with all that, if it weren't for the flight model, which I discovered was ported in directly from the default King Air! I paid $25 for this? Also, it has a hokey auto-airbrake which may, or may not deploy as you descend (even though the real LT doesn't actually have an airbrake). There is no indication of it anywhere on the panel, and there is no control or switch for it, either. Sometimes it's deployed - without you knowing it - when you take off, and you're left wondering why you can't pick up speed after you've cleaned up, until you remind yourself that you have to retract the phantom airbrake that you never extended in the first place, using whatever key you have assigned for it... On the G1000s, the TAS tape displays GS, and the oil temp never rises above 30 degrees, no matter how hard you work the engine. There's no option to display NAV2 on the PFD, and there is no TCAS for the middle display, which is inexcusable considering the performance of this aircraft, and that even the default C172 G1000 has TCAS, though with no advisories. Still... I've written the author about this long ago. Though he acknowledged some of the quirks, he actually disagreed about the TAS/GS display and said that was working the way it was meant, as was the extremely low oil temps under operation. I left him alone after that. $25 is a lot to pay for an aircraft that has these kinds of issues and uses one of the default aircraft airfiles.

Been using a combination of UT2, UGA, HTAI, and MAIW for years now. Very satisfactory results. There are some minor "drawbacks", though. The UGA, HTAI, and MAIW models are all FS9 native, and though they run fine in FSX, they don't render efficiently, and large numbers of these aircraft in the area can inflict a major hit on frame rates. Also, the .bgls need to be converted to FSX format before installation to FSX, but it's simple to do, just an extra step to carry out. Also, regarding the MAIW packages, all of the included AFCADS are for FS9. I don't install those into FSX. Instead, I download FSX native AFCADS for military airports, of which there are plenty. Still, the extra work is all very much worth it. Really enriches the flying environment in FSX significantly.

Thanks. Glad you like it! The reason why water-rudder activation didn't work is because the Goose doesn't have a water rudder. Gotta use differential throttling to turn in the water, though applying full-rudder does help once you get moving a bit.

Ah. When backing up before installation, did you copy and save the backups, or did you backup by renaming the files? At any rate, perhaps I should have done a better job at explaining in the readme that the panel folder that is already be in the Goose's folder needs to remain there for the installation to work correctly. The "panel" folder in the installation package contains only the .cab file. It does not contain the panel.cfg and none of the bitmaps, so when installing it must be merged with the panel folder that is already in the Goose folder. Otherwise the aircraft will not initialize.

Also, for those of you experiencing this, are the FSX default Geese still appearing as they should, and it's only the Standard, non-HP OZx Geese that are not initializing?