robertschiele9

I suppose I fly Posky's Boeing 757s and the SGA DC10s more than anything else.

I think you did exactly the right thing in installing FS9 to C:\. I've had mine there for years and it works like a charm. I would also, if you haven't done so, give fs9.exe administrator rights. You can do so by right-clicking on fs9.exe and then clicking on the Compatibility tab, There you will find a checkbox to allow fs9.exe to run as administrator. This will ensure that it is able to write to/modify the files it needs to access no matter where they may be located on your computer. Your specific issue sounds to me like a graphics driver issue. I may be wrong, as I haven't used an ATI card for many years, but it might be worth your time to see if your graphics driver is updatable. Whatever the truth of the matter is, your computer shop person is 100% wrong. FS9 should run just fine on your hardware and on 64-bit Windows 7.

Give AISmooth administrator rights. That's what I did on my Windows 7 system and it works fine for me.

I had no installation issues on Windows 7 x64, either. I loved the textures--much better than the default ones. Never did use the flight-planner or weather engine, though.

I have the FSGenesis mesh for the US and Canada. I'm happy with it.

A few simple precautions should lead to a trouble-free migration, and your father will probably find that FS9 runs better on Windows 7 than it did on XP. 1. Install FS9 to its own directory, not to the "Program Files x86" directory the installer will select for you. I.e. "C:\FS9" would work well. So would "C:\Games\FS9.". 2. Once you've installed and patched FS9, right-click on the executable fs9.exe and set it to run with administrative rights. 3. Anytime you are installing 3rd party software into FS9, always run with administrative rights. Using the above suggestions, I've found FS9 to run very well on Windows 7 64-bit, and I haven't had any problems with installing any of my 3rd party addons either.

I once noticed some weird graphic issues similar to those reported by the OP. In my case, it turned out that the issue was caused by the default settings in the nVidia graphics driver for Win7_x64. I don't recall which version of the driver was involved. When I used the NvidiaInspector software to optimize driver settings for FS9, the problem disappeared for good. I've never seen it since, either.

No disrespect intended, but you seem to have little or no understanding as to how scenery even works in FS2004. Simply downloading and installing libraries, be they trucks or the Runway12 or EZ libraries, won't add a thing you can actually see unless you also have scenery installed which makes use of those libraries. Having noted that, I wonder whether you've installed any addon sceneries correctly. As you are describing your current problem, it sounds as if your scenery.cfg file has gotten corrupted (or even erased) somehow, and unless you deliberately delete the file, corrupting it shouldn't be an easy thing to do inadvertently. Unless, of course, you've either tried to manually edit the file or used the Scenery Library function within FS2004 to rearrange things to your liking as opposed to, say, the way the sim expects to find them. Without more information, I doubt if anyone will be able to help much in working through this. How badly is the scenery,cfg file corrupted? That would be one question I would have. If most of it's still all right, you might get rid of any jumbled bits and begin reinstalling any addon sceneries in the FS2004 Scenery Library as they are supposed to be installed. Failing that, you may have no better alternative than to delete your entire FS2004 installation and reinstall the entire thing from scratch.

If were me, I'd rebuild the system beginning with Win7. Replacing the motherboard is analogous to replacing the entire system unless, of course, the new motherboard is exactly the same make and model as the old. That's true even though some or all other components remain unchanged: HDDs; video cards; etc. Win7 is never going to operate at peak performance in that situation, reactivated or not. Hence, neither will anything running on Win7 including FS9.

I actually fly a lot of the stock Microsoft passenger jets, but with custom sounds obtained from here at Avsim. I've added Ken Mitchell's panels where available for a particular type, and one or two other panels where they aren't. I'm also a big fan of Project Airbus's A318-A321 series, and have most of their liveries. All with Ken Mitchell's panels and custom sounds, and with a few tweaks I made to the FDEs which may make then less realistic, but which bring their performance (and the skills required to fly them) into line with Microsoft's default jets. Same thing with the DC10 series by SGA, for which I use a custom DC10 panel which I got here at Avsim, although I do not recall who created it. I'm also partial to several HJG DC9 and MD80, MD90 planes, for which I did a few FDE tweaks for the reasons given above. They seem to pride themselves (probably rightly so) on the realism of their own FDEs, but I've never been a pilot, never wanted to be, and never will be. For all of them, I use custom sounds and the MD80 series panel (found here at Avsim) created by Tom Dennis and modified for FS9 by Bill Alexander. Regarding my FDE tweaks: As stated, I am not a pilot IRL. The only aircraft I ever flew was a one time flight in a Cessna 172, back in the 1980s. I managed to do the takeoff properly (well enough at least not to damage the plane or kill anyone) and flew around for roughly 30 minutes before gratefully relinquishing the controls to the instructor before we landed. That I could do even that much was due solely to what I had learned fooling around with a very early version of Flight Simulator ported to 8-bit home computers, long before Microsoft bought the franchise. I learned there and then that I haven't the skills (or the coordination, not to mention the nerves or stomach) to be any kind of real-life pilot, although I will always cherish the experience. That is why I've always considered the flight models of the default FS9 aircraft to be about as close to realistic as I can handle. Sometimes, I am moderately challenged, usually only in particularly bad weather, but by and large I can take off, get where I want to go, and land successfully while having an enjoyable experience, not a waking nightmare.

I use Teracopy too. It's faster and more reliable than using Windows Explorer's copy function, and it's also free.

First, I chose all aircraft files I really needed to backup. By that, I mean aircraft which hadn't shipped with FS9, stock aircraft to which I'd added dozens of new liveries, and so on. For reasons of convenience, I copied all of these files into a temporary folder I'd created for that purpose. I deliberately did not include AI "traffic" aircraft, since as these are installed, .bgl files must also be created and copied into some of FS9's scenery directories, a process the installers for these aircraft carry out. I personally use WoAI and a few PAI aircraft, but the principle should be the same for similar "traffic" aircraft. Once I had the files (still in their own folders) copied into my temporary folder, I used Pk-Zip, the freeware archiving program to create .zip archive containing all of these planes, and it was that .zip archive which I copied onto my external hard drive for safekeeping. Now, anytime I must reinstall FS9, I can restore all but my AI "traffic" aircraft in minutes by simply unzipping that archive into FS9's "Aircraft" folder.

Project Airbus is developing a new A330 and a new A340 for FS9 and FSX. Based on some photos they've released, it looks like they're making progress, although no one's mentioned a projected release date yet. They've long since released the A318, A319, A320, and A321 series, and you can download the files from here or from their site itself. I've flown their aircraft for years, and thoroughly enjoy flying them. You can find the Project Airbus site here: http://www.pafs.wf/

By renaming Trafficxxxxxx.bgl you've disabled FS9's stock AI traffic, yet you don't mention what, if anything, you are using to provide AI traffic to replace it, it's no wonder that you aren't seeing any AI traffic. To be clear about this, the only times you should rename Trafficxxxxxx.bgl are: 1) if you intend to replace FS9's stock AI traffic with something else (e.g. Ultimate Traffic, WoAI, etc.), and; 2) if you don't want any AI traffic in the sim at all. What RadarContact may or may not be doing with AI traffic which apparently doesn't exist in your sim, I do not know. I haven't used RC in many years.

The CPU listed by the OP didn't enlighten me as to what its clock speed might be. IMHO, if it's 3.0 Ghz or better, he should have few problems. I would, however, point out that he might still experience some comparatively lower frame-rates if and when flying in, over, or under any sort of heavy cloud cover. There may be FS9 users who have such high-powered systems that nothing FS9 can throw at them causes much if any degradation in performance, but if so, though my system provides me with excellent performance otherwise, heavy cloud cover can still affect it.

I downloaded and ran DxtFixerX simply in order to find how many files were affected by the lack of an alpha channel in my FS9 installation. It turned out that there were a few, but not many. Some were aircraft textures, others had to do with scenery. Since I have my whole FS9 installation imaged, I decided to let DxtFixerX try to fix the anomalies to see what would happen. It reported the affected files as being fixed, and on flying into one freeware airport, a nicely detailed rendition of CYVR which I've long enjoyed but which on my system has always been murderous on frame-rates, I definitely noted significant improvement.

Never heard of that software. It's apparently more expensive than ASE, but it looks interesting. I may download the evaluation version and try it. Your point about publishers having to pay costs of weather server(s) is also well taken. Thanks for the reply.

I'm hoping that someone here will have tried both Active Sky Evolution and FSrealWX and is therefore in a position to comment on the relative merits/disadvantages of both. It has been pointed out in this forum that MS is apparently no longer updating its real weather servers, and this seems to be the case. I cannot really blame MS for this, much as I might like to, since both FS2004 and even FSX both reached end-of-life status some time ago and no doubt it was costing MS money to keep their own weather servers constantly updated with real weather. However, this situation produces a quandary for those of us using one sim or the other, who are far from ready to give them up. I am currently using FSrealWX to fill that void; however, I've found that that program, good as it is, does have some limitations, and while the developer is apparently working on an entirely new version which may (or may not) deal satisfactorily with existing issues, there is no way to know how long it will be before the new version has been fully tested and made available to the public. Just last night, therefore, I decided to take the plunge and purchase Active Sky Evolution (or ASE for short), which has received glowing recommendations in this and other forums, especially since the current purchase price is listed at 29.95 Euros, which seemed a sharp decrease in price based on what it appears the developers had been charging earlier. But as I began the checkout process, I found that that amount works out to almost $45.00 US, which for me, on a strictly limited income, seems a very high price to pay. I am not contending that ASE's developers are overcharging, merely that I have no way of knowing if their product is sufficiently "better" than the freeware FSrealWX software to justify (for me) paying the price being asked for its purchase. The "issues" which I have experienced with FSrealWX are as follows: 1) Apparent inability, at least at times, to download real weather as scheduled, which resulted in my trying to land at KSLC with an upper-level crosswind of some 29 knots at nearly ninety degrees from my flightpath, while the METAR from KSLC stated that existing conditions there were that I should have had a slight crosswind no more than nine or ten degrees off my flightpath of no more than 5 or 6 knots. I found out only after I'd essentially crash-landed the Boeing 757-200 I'd been flying at KSLC, as when I exited FS9, I found a dialogue box open produced by FSrealWX which stated that it had been unable to connect before I'd exited FS9. 2) The unrecoverable CTDs which in my experience can sometimes occur when running FSrealWX if one attempts to move one's aircraft to another airport via the FS9 menu system, or if one attempts to load a different flightplan, or, once one is already airborne and at some distance from point of origin, even to reload the same, original flightplan with which one started. 3) This may not be an issue at all, but I am wondering how the two programs compare insofar as flights out of range of any ground-based wx reporting station are concerned. Specifically, what do the two respective programs do when one is, for example, flying from, say, EGLL to KJFK? Or from KLAX or KSFO to PHNL? The "global wx" as implemented in FSrealWX seems to be much like flying with the "Fair weather" theme included in FS9. ASE claims to be able to simulate hurricanes, but AFAIK that could easily only apply if the hurricane in question is near some ground wx station or stations. Any thoughts/comparisons anyone feels in a position to share would be much appreciated. If necessary, I will shell out the money being charged for ASE although doing so will impose on me some degree of hardship, but I would like to be as certain as possible that it can/will address the above-described issues/concerns before doing so. Thank you for having taken the time to read this somewhat lengthy post.

I see you've received some good advice as to how to modify the FS9.cfg file, and now to install FS2004 on a Windows 7-Windows 8 system in order to make addons function properly. However, I must point out that modifying the FS9.cfg file is how one applies tweaks to the simulation; it has nothing to do with adding aircraft as you mentioned. Again, the FS9.cfg file has nothing to do with adding aircraft to the simulation. Instead, once FS2004 is properly installed and patched, simply add any addon aircraft you want to include to the same folder beneath the main FS9 folder where all of the stock aircraft live. This folder is named "Aircraft." First, when you install FS2004, run the FS9 installer itself in administrator mode, then install it to a folder all its own, preferably to a folder which exists on a drive other than your main Windows drive. Two last bits of advice: since you are running Windows 8 (this also applies to Vista and Windows 7), anytime you are installing an addon which comes with an installer to FS2004, always, always run the addon's installer in administrator mode. Otherwise, the installer may not do its job properly. And finally, right-click on the FS9 executable itself, "FS9.exe," which is located in your main FS9 folder. Then select the "Compatibility" tab, and check the box marked "Run in administrator mode" so that the simulation itself runs in administrator mode each time it is run. This will ensure that it can modify its own configuration files properly, as needed. Taking these steps will save you a lot of grief and frustration. Hope this helps.

I saw just yesterday that that's available. I'm using the FRF version of KMSP, and since I only fly there once or twice a year at most, I've never considered upgrading to any commercial product. It was a bit disappointing to see that BP's charging for this upgrade. I've known them to do that only once before. Based on comparative screenshots, if I had their old KMSP, I probably wouldn't upgrade at a cost, either. I do continue to hope that they'll develop some completely new airports, however, particularly outside the United States. We'll just have to see if that happens.

Nice to know. I'll give it a try. Thanks for the tip.

I've got FSrealWX working perfectly on my rig now, and it works as advertised. Or at least I think it does. I was reading on their forums yesterday that the NOAA weather non-VATSIM flyers must select, like, Microsoft's Real World WX, hasn't actually been updated for months. I haven't flown with it enough to know if that's true for sure or not, and even if it is, IMHO FSrealWX does a much better job in some areas--depicting limited visibility at lower altitudes, for example--than Microsoft's implementation ever did. Still, could be a problem moving forward if true. Another thing I've noticed while using FSrealWX is that opening the map or trying to load a new (or even to reload one's original) flight plan while in-flight and while FSrealWX is running will cause an unrecoverable FS9 CTD. I've had it happen twice now. I can work around it, obviously, and it's possible that the developer's supposedly upcoming version 2.x will deal with that and other issues. And, as I can't stress enough, it is freeware, so one really can't complain. But if it turns out that it's only capable of downloading "old weather" from days, weeks, or even months ago, even though that would be due to NOAA and not the developer, that'll make me think again. I've looked hard at REX's weather implementation. Love their textures, but their weather implementation doesn't meet my needs. Weather updates are based on distance traveled, not on time, and there is no provision to automatically prevent updates while on, say, final approach such as FSrealWX provides. So I may end up going with ASE after all, particularly since I noted on their site yesterday that they are now selling it for 29.95 in euros. I don't know exactly what that'll translate to in terms of US $'s, but I'm guessing it's substantially lower than the $60 US they were originally charging.

As I pointed out in my OP, they aren't as big on what I consider to be eye-candy as some other developers. I didn't specifically mention that their textures may be a bit more bland than some other developers offer, but there is some truth in that claim. OTOH, how many of those other developers are still providing free and very substantial updates, especially for FS9? Take Fly Tampa's KSEA, for example. I own that one too, and it's a beautiful piece of work. But KSEA has changed substantially since that was released with the addition of a whole new runway, just for openers, designed to reduce traffic congesting during busy times there. Yet has Fly Tampa even hinted that they'll be offering an update, free or not, so that their version of the airport remains current? I think not. And I daresay the same is probably true of KLAX. Other developers' version of it may be "prettier" to some degree, but how many have offered a version (as a free update for those who've already purchased it) so that KLAX is depicted as it looked last month instead of 2, 3, 4, or even 5 years ago? That was the point of my OP, not that BluePrint's scenery is necessarily prettier than that of other developers, but that unlike any other FS9 developer I know of, at least, they remain actively committed to keeping their products updated, and that they typically do so at no additional charge. Which is why, were they to release a version of KSEA, for example, as gorgeous as Fly Tampa's KSEA is, I'd replace it with a BluePrint product in a hot minute were they to decide to offer one. Just a difference in tastes and priorities, I suppose.

Have you tried running the updates with administrator privileges? There must be a simple, concrete reason why you've had such a hard time with the updates. I've never had the slightest issue with any of them. Another possible reason could be that some of their updates must be installed sequentially, where multiple updates exist. They are usually not cumulative, so that if you had, say, version 1.0 installed, and if updates 1.2.1 and 2.1.1 were each available, the 2.1.1 update would not install unless 1.2.1 had been installed first. If none of that solves whatever issues have been plaguing you, I would recommend contacting them directly for support, which is done from their site via email. I have gotten a very prompt response every time I've done so, and I'm certain they would be more than happy to help solve any issues which might exist.

I wish they'd design some new airports too, a few regional as well as some more major ones here in the States and some overseas as well besides those they've done in South America. On the other hand, I wouldn't want them to extend themselves so far that they couldn't afford the time to keep on coming with the free updates! AFAIK, they're nearly unique in that among commercial FS9 developers, or at least no one else has ever been so consistent about it. And I think it is a fairly small operation, perhaps only a one-man operation. I've emailed comments and/or support requests several times, and each time I've done so I've heard back directly (and within a day at most) from their lead designer himself, so I'm fairly sure it can't be a very large operation. BTW, I'm in no way connected with BluePrint. Never even met anyone who is other than via email. But their commitment to their customers, especially insofar as FS9 is concerned, strikes me as being close to unique, which is what prompted my original post. That kind of dedication ought to be recognized.