wbrand

Unfortunately simply de-activating the HSP entries in the scenery .cfg file will not remove the problem.I solved this a few years ago without rebuilding any files. I had to undo the installation of the HSP files in the base FS9 scenery.This means (1) restoring the original FS9 scenery files removed (or backed up) during HSP installation and then (2) removing the new files added during HSP installation. The HSP installation instructions will show you exactly how to return to the original configuration.After this, (3) I installed the Istanbul files following the directions.Note that it is still possible to use the many fine add-on sceneries for individual Greek airports (but not the august HSP as a whole) in conjunction with the Istanbul add-ons.Hope it works out for you,Bill

Hope it works out for you. By the way, the Istanbul scenery worked for me after I not only unchecked the Hellenic Scenery Project boxes in my "Scenery Library" page within the sim, but also removed the bgls installed by HSP in scenery/world/asia/scenery and scenery/world/eure/scenery and reinstalled the default bgls, before installing those Istanbul bgls that you mentioned in the first post. There's even some overlap -- both HSP and the Marmara package by Bibir Salsa have their own replacement HP955170 bgls (asia) -- maybe that one bgl is the source of all the trouble, but haven't tested it by itself.All the best,Bill

The "other bgl" could be from the excellent HSP --Hellenic Scenery Project -- at least that's what it was for me when I had exactly the same problem. So for me now, the rule is -- switch off all Greek add-on scenery when flying in Turkey, and vice-versa.An unintentional replication in flight sim of the real-world relations between these two members of NATO. Then again, it gives us the wonderful takeoff and landing restrictions at Samos!If you don't have Greek scenery installed, please use the elimination method to find the culprit. After having had the same problems as you and fixing them, I'm now more than happy with the lovely Istanbul package!William

Hello Iain, and thanks for the interesting reply -- useful information about PMDG claiming to model the LSAS. Have to check that out.... Nevertheless there's that nagging uneasiness that I think we've both experienced in different ways, where trying to add more realism (through complex aircraft, airport sceneries, heavy AI traffic, etc.) bites back with the tiniest little deterioration that can nevertheless cut into performance at just the most critical (and enjoyable!) moments. It's always a matter of tradeoffs and running as fast as you can just to stay in one place -- maybe that's where FS comes closest to RL!All the best,Bill

Hello Iain, I don't think the problem is whether or not pilots are gods, or we're human beings, or anything like that. It's just that after reading whatever I could about landing the MD-11 (especially in the wake of the recent accident at Tokyo), I learned two things. The first is that there is a special control augmentation on the real aircraft that automatically changes the pitch at touchdown, and the second is that it's apparently a matter of extremely tight timing and a delicate feel for exactly what's going on to know just what to do--and what not to do, and when not to do it--as the pitch change takes place. Now, although I'm neither a real-world jet transport pilot nor an FS aircraft designer, I've never come across or seen any mention of anything in FS9 similar to the automatic nose-pusher on the MD-11. Furthermore, since I don't have a Cray supercomputer to run FS9 on, I have to be honest and admit that I sometimes get a microstutter or a momentary dip in frame rates at touchdown, especially at large airports with hundreds of AI aircraft around. To put it differently, my FS9 runs very smoothly with the occasional exception of a stutter just at touchdown. More than one other contributor to this board has noted a similar phenomenon. That was part of what I was referring to when I said I doubted that many simmers would be able to land a super-accurate version of the MD-11. On most aircraft, I've got everything trimmed and settling down nicely on the numbers, and a few fractions of a second of stutter at touchdown don't make any difference (although they annoy the h*ll outof me). However, I imagine getting that same microstutter just at the moment when the pitch augmentation kicks in on the MD-11, and in that same split-second I've got to react or not react to the pressure on the control column, and by just the right amount and for just the right duration--well, I don't see it working out too well, at least on my humble computer.So please don't lecture about thinking somebody's a god, or whether or not we can learn to do everything -- it's just a matter of realism in a retail computer simulation, and the limits of it. FS is great, but it's not the real world. Which I for one am happy with, since I have no idea what my existential status would be following even that very first BSOD in the middle of a flight all those years ago, let alone a few landings I might have botched up along the way.All the best,BillP.S. the popular commercial forum "Pprune" has an interesting and extremely long thread on MD-11 landing characteristics in reference to the recent Fedex accident in Tokyo.

Zach -- you can find useful information about the A340 landing speeds in the VAPP section of the excellent website to which Egbert Drenth has provided the link (above). Thanks Egbert!Please bear in mind that I'm only a flightsimmer like many others here and I'm the farthest thing in the world from a pilot who actually flies the A340 or the MD11. However, having taken some time to research the available resources and discussions on the internet, I do believe that the A340 and the MD11 are extremely different in all aspects and especially in regard to landing. I believe that if you check around you'll find that the usual landing speed for an MD11 is about 158 knots, while that of an A340 is around 138 knots. See also the thread on this same forum about the landing characteristics of the MD-11. You will find similar opinions (and indeed the very same message as in the OP) on many aviation forums. Not only does it land at a very high speed, but the MD-11 also requires a different landing technique from other large transport aircraft--and a difficult and tricky technique as well. Just look, on the other hand, at the wings of the 777, A380, and A340 -- there are visual similarities, and indeed these very large, very heavy aircraft all share the trait of landing at relatively low speeds.Now, the question is whether the FS plane that you're flying reflects these characteristics to one degree or another. I hope so! I know that the Project Opensky 777 flies right on the numbers. As to the other types, I don't know what's available. After reading recently about the MD-11, I doubt that any FS model captures its flying characteristics as described by pilots on aviation forums--and I doubt that many of us simmers would be able to land it if it did have fully accurate characteristics. However, my real question is this -- is there, as the original post implies to me, a common "a340/md-11 checklist"? You should probably look for a more accurate checklist. The speeds you quote are way too low for the MD-11 and way too high for the A340, so it's no wonder you're having trouble with landings. Assuming, that is, that you're flying FS models with accurate flight characteristics. It's not easy to find the info, but it's out there. Tip of the hat once again to Egbert Drenth!All the best,Bill

I think the thing you need to turn off is not "tool tips," but rather "show flying tips." Sorry because I'm at work and can't check it out right now, but I believe that option is located in either the "general" or the "realism" screen at startup.

Wow, Chan, you made an "awesome" panel but only one person is using it--you. Thanks for not leaving us "hanging out to dry" like Ken Mitchell. Really appreciate that. Magnanimous :( As for Ken Mitchell, geez, I wonder how many tens of thousands of people, aside from the OP, "rate them by and large to be the best for simplicity, looks, and quality" when, as you have been so generous as to tell us, "forget it. It really is not one of the better ones anyway." Anyway, not as good as yours. Glad to see that you respect the other people in the community as much as you respect one of the most prolific makers of panels we ever had. Reading between the lines in your post, I get the impression that you used his panels in the past, found them to be not as awesome as the ones you can make in a single night with your payware program, and have been harboring a grudge ever since. Your post really made me feel good about life. I don't know whether I appreciate your panel-making skills or the way you express yourself more, because I also couldn't help noticing one little word you like that seems to sum it all up -- "Viola." Here's a little story that it brings to mind. I decided yesterday morning that I wanted to become a world-famous concert musician because I'm sure I have really awesome talent, and it beats working for a living. So I figured I'd learn to play the voilin. I went down to the music store but they were out of voilins. However, the guy there gave me a great deal on a voila, and as soon as I laid eyes on it, I said, "Viola." Now I am only looking to fork out some money on a computer program to teach me to play, but I won't let anybody listen anyway, and I think that's just awesome, exactly like my musical talent. Anyway, with a deep bow of respect (from one awesome artist to another),William Brand

Thumbs up on all the aircraft mentioned above.An excellent primary trainer is the Chipmunk by Rick Piper et al., available in the library.If you search for the name "Milton Shupe," you will find a varied range of superb GA aircraft, some of classic vintage. His Spartan (single) and Beech 18 (twin) are especially lovely. There's a great series of single-engine Zlin aircraft by Tibor Kokai in the library, ranging from basic trainers to some of the older acrobatic aircraft.One of the alltime FS classics is a Maule-7 package by Mikko Maliniemi, which I couldn't find just now in the Avsim library (withdrawn?), but which may be available elsewhere. Also available elsewhere is a lovely model by Goran Savic and Luka Midic of the UTVA 75, a low-wing primary trainer. All of these have exquisite virtual cockpits and represent FS modelling of the very highest order. There's lots more... keep looking around -- and when you start talking about biplanes, crop-dusters, historic planes, and ex-military models, you'll find that there's a treasure chest rich enough to keep a smile on your face for years. Bill

As for searching---- While I have always found the little search doggy charming, with its optimistic eagerness to help and its playful pawing of the other side of my monitor screen, I have also found that it stops working on occasion, possibly due to gunk that clogs up our registries and possibly due to the fact that we use other applications, including some specifically designed for FS, that monopolize whatever part of Windows handles the search processing.However, there is a more powerful alternative to the standard search engine, and it seems to work even when the pup is unserviceable. It's called "Agent Ransack" and, like most of the good things in life and flightsim, it's free. It will locate files, and can also find specified strings of text within files. This makes it possible to find not only main aircraft and texture folders with a given name, but also, for instance, all the "aircraft.cfg" files that contain the name of a given airline, callsign, designer, etc. Agent Ransack can be downloaded at the following website (the download link for the free version is near the bottom of the page):http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack/All the best,Bill

The fact that we see other objects in the distance apparently sharing the same elevation error as the airport in the foreground suggests a possible problem with a terrain mesh file. Remember that the effects of even small errors in mesh files can crop up either adjacent to, or literally halfway around the world from the area covered by the mesh file (often because of a single slip-up in a latitude or a longitude specification within the mesh file). Have you installed add-on terrain mesh? Good luck in identifying the problem,Bill

Fantastic, Bols!Thank you very much.Bill

I second (or third or fourth) the idea that it's already the best thing since sliced bread. The PDCS being completed would make it just that little bit better.Bill

Are you using the stock, unmodified "default" flight? Remember that, if you save a different flight as "default" (through the "save flight" menu), then all those settings will carry over every time you start FS9--including failures. Been there myself. Bill

You're right--those trees look out of place, especially next to the palm! Have you by any chance installed any new texture sets? Looks like it might be a good idea to try reinstalling the default tree textures if that's the case. Although, with the FS9 climate, you never know. Maybe it's a glitch in the way the climate zones are defined in the game. Some pretty strange things have been seen over the years...Bill