wombat778

Thanks for the quick reply. I just tried a joystick button, but unfortunately it did not seem to work either.

I bought FS2Crew for the MD80 yesterday and am having a blast with it. Really fantastic work!Anyhow, my only problem so far is that I can't seem to get the mute button to work. I have tried a number of different keystrokes from the dropdown and it never seems to do anything in the sim (e.g., the little M symbol never shows up). I made sure that no other key in FS was assigned to the keystroke I selected. I also looked in the FS2CrewInputMapper.CFG file and it looks like the keystroke is correctly entered there. Any idea what might be causing the problem?Thanks!

Sorry to bump this old thread, but I just thought I would mention my findings. Like many I get the bezel lines. However, with a bit of fiddling around, I found that on my machine turning "Antialiasing - Gamma Correction" to Off in the nvidia control panel substantially reduces the problem. Specifically, with AA Gamma Correction on, the bezel lines are bright white and very distracting. With AA Gamma Correction turned off, the lines become grayish which makes them much less noticeable. For me at least, it takes the problem from a major problem to a minor niggle. Just thought I would pass the info along in case anyone else finds it helpful.

I don't seem to have that problem in RC (at least I don't think so), as my AI aircraft are constantly talking to ATC. Maybe it has something to do with fsuipc settings (like the TCAS range?). Anyhow, I have been very happy with RC and really have had almost no problems with it.

I think it is perfectly normal to have the engines running for a second when you use my program, and you should not need to hit the stop buttons for them to shut down. At least on my PC, the engines will run for a second or two, then the engines will shut down themselves automatically and the main exit will open.

Lek, this is truly amazing debugging work. I have been following the TAT issue very closely, as it is the only thing holding me back from buying ASA. If they can nail this issue, I will be the first in line with my money...

I put together a simple utility to do this. You can download it from this post: http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...t&p=1656639In short, all you need to do is load my program before loading FSX, then press TAB-Q while in the cockpit of the J41. After a few seconds, the J41 will be reloaded in a cold/dark state. Let me know if it gives you any trouble.

Try using the Flight1 registry repair tool here: http://www.flight1.com/view.asp?page=library. I know it can fix some odd autopilot issues, so it might be worth a shot

I don't think that is necessarily true at all. There are many times that I have had to rewrite almost an entire program because of a change in approach. That does not mean the original code has "a big bug" or is broken. The change in approach may only gain a small increase in performance, but may require a big code change to implement. In short, I don't think you can fairly read anything into the amount of rewriting that they have done with UT2.

Hi Dutch,FYI, I have Windows 7 64-bit, and it works just fine here. Very nice bit of software, I might add.

Not sure if it is helpful for you guys, but it might be worth trying. I was not getting any graphical anomalies in SP1. I then tried using the ENBseries HDR modification and immediately started to get these sorts of flashing artifacts. Removed it and all is well again.

ACES introduced SimConnect in FSX, which is where a lot of this type of functionality came from. See, for example, this post from one developer: http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...t&p=1629997 ("Using Simconnect it's possible to create AI traffic that behaves like proper AI traffic, that flies using real world routes and flight planes, which wasn't possible in FS9. "). I think the specific SimConnect API call he is referring to is SimConnect_AICreateEnrouteATCAircraft, which allows you to assign a .pln file to an AI aircraft, and I believe UT2 uses this method. You can google it if you are so inclined to learn about that and the other SimConnect functionality.

My reading of Felix's post was that it was a good natured bit of kidding around, and I don't think he was trying to insult you. The post even had a smiley in it. Of course, apologies if I misinterpreted...

Its not about following the AI until it reaches it destination, its more about how you encounter them on your own flight. To each his own.In any event, its reassuring to know that I am not a completely "uninformed FSX user," at least on this issue. :(

Yep Mackintosh, thats what I was referring to. Those packages offer real flight schedules, but NOT real flight plans as far as I know (e.g., the actual waypoint route that the aircraft travels, as opposed to great circle point-to-point routing). Again, happy to be proven wrong...

Fair enough. Never personally saw much use for addon scenery when flying high altitude jets. My point though is that its not that FSX inherently runs poorly. As my setup shows, its quite possible to run FSX with good FPS on a medium spec PC when using lots of AI and complex aircraft. However, it appears that your specific setup does not work well (e.g., specific addon airports, every single possible AI aircraft etc).

Indeed, it is all about tastes. For me, I cannot enjoy flying with AI traffic that wanders across the skies instead of following airways and proper flightplans...its better to have no traffic at all. To my knowledge (please correct me if I am wrong), only UT2 offers AI traffic with flightplans, and FSX is the only platform it runs on as the ability to assign flightplans to AI is an FSX-only feature. My point being that there really is no single metric of "better" and each has strengths and weaknesses. That said, I am very surprised you get such bad performance in FSX. I can run it reasonably well at 1920x1200 even with 100% commercial traffic in UT2, and my PC is over 3 years old. For example, I tested sitting on the active runway at KLAX with tons of traffic in view in PMDG's 747 (2D panel), I am getting ~25-35 FPS. Maybe its down to the fancy scenery, which I don't bother with...

My understanding is that an AI level of 20% when using MyTrafficX has approximately the same or more traffic than using default traffic at 100%. 100% with MyTrafficX has several times more traffic than the default AI at 100%. Perhaps that is where the confusion is stemming from?

This is actually my theory on why FS9 sales lag compared to FSX sales. I suspect that on average, FSX users tend to be those people who must have and purchase the latest and greatest thing, and will on average, tend to be people that have purchased the newest and fastest hardware. FS9 users, on the other hand, on average, are likely to be people who are not obsessed with the latest and greatest, and who are generally more "satisfied" with their current simming experience. If this is true, then it is no surprise then that FSX users will generally be the ones more eager to buy the latest and greatest addon that comes out. This would directly translate to higher sales of addons to FSX users.As an FSX user, I know that all of the above applies to me. Yes, I want the newest, latest, fastest and best graphics, and no, I am not even close to "satisfied" by what I currently have. I want simulations that have every single button and switch modeled, every single system to be a perfect simulation of the real plane, the package to look beautiful and indistinguishable from a photograph, a flight model that always acts exactly like the real plane, and framerates that never fall below 60. Oh, and I want the whole thing to be 100% bug free. Hell, I want a simulation that takes into account the change in CG caused by the pax using the aft lav. :( Of course, I will never actually get a simulation that does all of this, but I will keep buying all those that get me a step closer...(and yes, I upgraded to Win7, and pretty much for no other reason than that it was newer)

For what its worth, I have never successfully been able to completely remove the head panning effect either. Obviously, in actual flight it is much more subtle than in the video, so it does not bother me much.

I'm not sure that makes sense. I don't think there is any doubt that the PMDG MD-11 is extremely "high quality", and yet it has sold poorly on FS9 compared to the FSX version (according to PMDG). The argument I hear is that the low FS9 MD-11 sales are because it is a "niche" product that FS9ers aren't interested in. That may be true, but it leads to the conclusion that developers of "niche" products should not bother developing for FS9 and should concentrate on FSX where such products are appreciated and sell well. I think that was the point that WarpD was trying to make (please correct me if I am wrong).

This thread has a pretty good discussion of the Maddog, including some Coolsky comparisons: http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=260789&st=0

I must say that I personally find the general opinion in this thread puzzling. I care very little what aircraft is simulated, so long as it is simulated well. I will take a wonderfully simulated MD-11 over a mediocre Airbus any day. Indeed, the reason I sim is to learn, and flying less common aircraft are lot more interesting to me to learn than yet another Boeing. Also, I think with the JS41 that PMDG chose it because one of them had a lot of real world experience with it. I would much rather see devs model an aircraft they know and love, rather than just picking something because conventional wisdom or opinion polls say it will sell better.Then again I am mostly a FSX user, so the sentiment in this thread is probably good for me. If niche developers don't bother with FS9, that is more time they can spend on FSX...

FWIW, I get no obvious pauses with UT2. It runs very smoothly, and I have been thrilled with it. I also love the fact that the aircraft follow actual flightplans instead of just flying point to point like all the other traffic add-ons.