HiFly

Thanks, Kyle. I just thought you might have a quick answer so I could avoid the wait time from support team.

Help! I have FSX. I followed Kyle's recommended intructs and uninstalled FSX NGX SP1C. When I then tried to install SP1D, I get an error message that the install is aborted because it can't find fsx.exe. I have FSX installed on my C drive titled "FSX" and fsx.exe is indeed present in that directory! Usually an installer will ask to specify where FSX is if it can't locate it but your installer simply aborts. What can I do? I have Windows VISTA 64 as my OS. Update! I even moved the installer into my FSX directory and I still get the same error and fsx.exe is right next to it!

Hi Folks! I must really be missing something. I have searched the PMDG site and I find no product listed as SP1D! I logged into my account and selected my previous NGX order from 2011 and it comes up with all the information. Now what? I went to the downloads menu and that only listed NGX-SP1C. I downloaded it but when I opened the zip it was dated 2012. So that can't be it. I then went to products menu and found the NGX for FX and FX-SE but if I add it to my cart, it wants to charge me again for it! I reread Robert's initial post and though I don't have a screen that says e-commerce I have found my order once I logged in so I must be on the correct page at that point, but I don't know where to now find the SP1D upgrade to download! EDIT: Re-read a couple of other posts regarding this and understand now that we are to use the download link that appears on our order page recap even though it just states NGX. When I went to link and downloaded the 745 mb file and opened the zip it had the 2015 data on it.

The OP stated that it occurred during flight not during preparation or taxi. This is not the same issue at all!

@ Bat I have never seen this happen inflight unless "failures" have been set to 'active' in the setup menu! If it occurs during taxi or flight preparation then it is a real world issue with the NGX models and correctly simulated by PMDG. It is usually a false alarm that should go away once the aircraft begins to pressurize during takeoff. It is something to be monitored, however. If the lights/alarm do not abate during the initial stages of the takeoff roll then the takeoff must be abandoned since it would indicate a serious issue. Having it occur during flight, however, would constitute a real "failure" warning, possibly a predecessor to loss of pressurization or something more serious.

@cptawsom: Your help is greatly appreciated. The problem seems to be that even with all the visual items deleted (so they don't appear), FSX is still registering as RCJC when I attempt to land or takeoff. Even with strong south winds, FSX is not recognizing the ILS station for the 19R since RJCJ is over-writing the 19R GS location I think. Also if I use GSX as a check on this, it still thinks I am at RJCJ and thus there are no gates or services available. If the airports were located in different BGL files within FSX then the issue of deleting (or just excluding) the scenery would work. When you deleted scenery items, did you check to verify that RJCJ is no longer being dominant? One easy way would be to check if the default gates on the north side of the terminal are now operational. In other words, will they now attach to an aircraft with the CTL-J command? The gates are part of the RJCC scenery but they only "appear" in the RJCJ scenery and thus are inoperative if RJCJ is still over-riding. Hope that confusing explanation makes any sense.

Thank you both for the good suggestions. The procedure outlined by cptawsom seems a bit complicated but I had come to the same conclusion as both of you, that the airports must be consolidated into one and I did briefly entertain the thought of rebuilding the scenery and runways for RJCJ into RJCC and then totally excluding RJCJ but any exclusion areas I attempted to put into RJCC seemed not to ever exclude RJCJ. It instead ended up excluding the north gates of RJCC but scenery for RJCJ was still visible and seemed to be over-riding RJCC in certain areas. I tried to reduce the AFCAD footprint of RJCJ using FDE but, again, no joy on that idea either. I have rarely ever flown in or out of Sapporo but now that I have discovered the issue, it is one I would like to resolve if possible. Based on Joe's suggestion I will attempt to contact Jim Vile on the developers forum. Again thank you both for your input. Cheers!

Yes, Dave. My point exactly. It is not a GSX issue! It is a problem with FSX, hence my post here in the FSX forum! If someone knows of a method to untangle these two FSX default AFCADs (RJCC and RJCJ) then I will graciously follow their advice and the issue will be resolved. The AVSIM library you recommended did not yield any results.

Hi Dave! Read this again. This is not a GSX issue. It is an FSX issue. The default AFCADS are conflicting with one another and I need to know if there is a way to fix that so I can use RJCC for arrivals/departures. FSX has blocked the south arrival/departures since they begin in an area that is being corrupted by the RJCJ AFCAD. Also the north gates at the terminal are non responsive due to the same issue. It just so happens that when there is such an issue with FSX it also affects other addons such as GSX. Should this be posted in scenery development forum? I thought it best to post here first since this forum seems to deal with FSX issues and this is a default issue so others must have experienced it.

This problem is still not solved!!!! Should not be marked as solved!

Thanks Dave! I checked the forum but didn't think about the library. I will check that now. Library had a freeware AFCAD for RJCC but it still has the same issue: overlapped by RJCJ rendering most of the north gates inop and GSX still thinks the whole airport is RJCJ which has no gates! Anyone else have any ideas? This is still UNSOLVED!

In using the default airports for Chitose, Japan (RJCC,RJCJ) I am experiencing an overlap that is interfering with the operation of several of the gates in FSX. I have tried modifying the AFCAD for RJCJ to reduce its scenery footprint but I have had no luck. I also tried applying an exclusion file to completely cover up unwanted intrusion by RJCJ but all that did was detract from some of the needed scenery in RJCC. It seems that no matter how I alter the Scenery-Addon files FSX is still grabbing the footprint from the original BGL and unfortunately, both airports share the same BGL file in the main default scenery. I am not proficient enough to attempt to disassemble the related FSX default scenery file. I am hoping there is a simpler way to fix this troublesome issue. I checked to see if any archive posts on this but found none. If anyone has an answer or a prescribed workaround for this, it will be definitely appreciated.

During the old FS98 days, I soon realized that spending money on a quality AFCAD design program was light years ahead of waiting for someone's payware or freeware upgrade. When I converted to FSX, I did the same thing. For me Airport Design Editor has fit the bill. If I want to fly to an airport, I first pull the most current charts (most of them freeware, now-a-days) and then slew a default 737 to each of the runways in the scenery and fix the VASI/PAPI positions and reset the localizer and glideslope to match the charts. I then modify the aprons/taxiways and add sufficient gates for the type of traffic that frequents the airport. I then close FSX and compile the scenery. When airports upgrade, it has become a simple matter to download the latest charts and modify the AFCADs appropriately. Now, of course, I am a real world pilot, so my concern is realistic functionality...correct taxiways, airdrome, gates, runway headings, etc.. I use ASN for the most realistic weather for the same purpose. Over the last several years, I have updated over 1000 of the default airports within FSX to match the real world charts and continue to tweak them as necessary to keep them updated before I choose to use them. I have never found the need to purchase any add-on scenery for FSX. As one of the previous posters had mentioned, those of us who are using the simulation for airline flying never have occasion to view much scenery, anyway. Most of us are concerned with the visual depictions of the instruments and systems since that is what we are mostly looking at. I find that FSX has done a reasonable job of depicting what I see from 35,000+ ft. up and the view during taxi is very limited from the flight deck of a tubeliner. Much more important to have less eye-candy and better performance during those high VAS demanding environments in my opinion. Though retired professionally, I still enjoy a little real world scenic flying around Florida in my Skylane, particularly now that fuel costs are coming down, but my simulation time is strictly for the big ones I can no longer fly. Cheers!

Sorry if I am posting this in the wrong place. I couldn't find an exact forum for my model. It is circa 2009 but for FSX and it is the normal aspirated model. My first flight was without incident. I was all thumbs trying to locate the screens I needed while enroute but all in all it was a successful flight and good landing. However, on my second flight while enroute at 9000 ft, level flight the throttle suddenly cut back to idle by itself. All gauges showed in the green and I was not in cloud. All attempts to increase to full throttle resulted in it automatically cutting back to idle again. I tried with autopilot engaged/ GPS tracking and and also with manual flying. The mixture was leaned properly for the flight. The Fuel was on both tanks and showed 1/2 full in each. The flight was perfectly normal for the first hour at cruise. There was no sudden change in weather. I find nothing in the manuals related to this. The autopilot doesn't have auto-throttle capability and I have no scenery issues (clocking 60-110 fps) with smooth flight and no turbulence. I tried with fuel booster pumps on...no luck. Tried Carb heat (even though no moisture present) and it still cut back to idle the minute I released the throttle control. I was flying with 2D panel. I hope I have given enough data so that someone can diagnose my problem. I cannot imagine what is going on. I have 100's of hours in the RW model and never heard of such a thing. There is nothing other than my hand that controls the throttle in the RW model! Is this just a bug in the simulation? I did a search of the Carenado forums and could find nothing similar. I am submitting this here first rather than in support hopefully to get a faster response. Any help or redirection will be greatly appreciated. Craig

Thanks, Tom. Certainly worth a try. I had tried setting the departure frequency after airborne but never tried the clearance frequency. Often the clearance frequency is the ground frequency and of course when I try that before airborne it just offers me a gate/stand. It is one of those situations that rarely happens but sometimes I automatically select the option that is displayed in the ATC window BEFORE it has changed and I get unintended consequences. Thanks again.

Hi Folks! I use FSX ATC modified with Edit VoicePack. Every once in a while I accidentally cancel ATC before I takeoff by making a selection before the display has finished updating It then immediately defaults to VFR, etc., and won't allow me to reactivate nor to takeoff if conditions are IFR. I have tried reloading the flight plan, changing to a different flight plan, etc. Nothing seems to allow me to get an IFR clearance again. While enroute, FSX ATC asks for confirmation before it cancels a flight plan and then gives the option of "flight following" but during taxi out if I accidentally click on the "cancel flight plan" option, it does not ask for confirmation it just permanently locks out IFR. There must be some way to restart the flight plan in FSX ATC without having to completely restart the flight from the gate or worse yet, restart FSX. Anyone have a work-around for this?

@ Jim: Affirmative. And I have now correctly formatted it and it works! I kept checking task manager at various phases of a flight with NGX and ASN. By using the '14' setting should keep FSX in first three cores but on task manager they seem to be in reverse order in the performance display. From left to right, FSX first was only in the 2nd core (which is probably Core 3 ? ) when the CPU demand was less than 25%. I checked during heavier scenery demand and it had gone to 48% with the 2nd core at 25% and the next one to the right (Core 2?) to 21% with the remaining 2% in the left core (Core 4?) When I got to an area of heavy thunderstorms I checked and I was at 72% with the middle two cores fully engaged and the furthest right core at about 20% and again the left core (Core 4) barely being used. I noticed no change in the smoothness of the entire flight from ground work to inflight and back to ground work at destination -- no stutters. I am able to leave my frame rate set to unlimited whereas before correctly setting Affinity Mask I had to switch to "locked" frame rates while on the ground with NGX VC panel use to mitigate the severe stuttering I was experiencing (only with the NGX, though). And BTW Jim, I have MSI 8400 motherboard with Quad Core @ 2.66 Ghz ea and I don't overclock. So yes there are many with much more powerful machines but I only use it for FSX and now that I have made these tweaks over the past week, I am getting nice smooth performance in all weather conditions with all of the aircraft I use: PMDG NGX, B744, MD11; ConcordeX; Level-D B763. And you know the saying, "If it ain't broke...."

Hi Jim! I did it again. I posted VAS when I meant VM. I set VM to 12.0 GB in Windows. I don't know how to set VAS directly. But it appears that doing so has increased my paging memory in Task Mgr which I assume is my VAS or related to it. When I monitor in FSUIPC for memory using the 024C offset my understanding is that it is displaying my unused, and still available, VAS while I am flying. Is that not correct? Anyway, in my case what I have done has eliminated MY lockup issues. On another matter it has just come to my attention that using the Bojotes utility to tweak my CFG file back in 2011 incorrectly formatted my "affinity' entry as: Affinity/Mask=14 instead of: AffinityMask=14. I probably was not masking at all and that is why I was not seeing the difference in core usage in the Task Mgr display. I now have corrected the entry so it may totally change the way things work and I may have to readjust everything.

Thanks, Mike.

I want to set Affinity Mask to 14. Should the format be: Affinity/Mask=14 OR should it be: AffinityMask=14 ? All posts seem to suggest Affinity Mask or AffinityMask is the correct format, but Bojotes utility set it as Affinity/Mask in the config file but uses AffinityMask in the instructions. Does it matter if the forward slash (/) is included or not? My config file has the / in the setting and I am wondering whether it is being recognized by FSX in that format.

Hi Alex! With everyone's system being different, there may just be too many variables for one simple fix to work for everyone. I did find that ASN has an error report menu and if you would try one more flight before you put ASN "back in the box", once the error clears, pause FSX and tab to desktop and into ASN. Under the 'tools' menu select 'debug window' and then click on 'throw error' on the bottom right column and it should give you the details of any hangups related to ASN. If everyone does that and then clicks on 'send', that will go directly to HiFi and maybe they can discover a pattern. It also might give you a clue as to what is 'hanging' it up for 8 minutes. Why this particular fix has proven to work for Daniel and me has always been a mystery but again the problem has disappeared on all of our flights with PMDG and FSL models and they are the most complex memory/cpu gobblers AFAIK. Good luck!

OK, Daniel. Results are in. NO LOCKUPS on ConcordeX 4 hour flight in complex weather departure flight across Atlantic with full ASN and FSX sliders to the right! This completes my testing and proof of your suggested fix, at least for you and me, anyway. My VAS available never fell below 2.1 GB and my frame rates during normal flight (2D cockpit) ran 45-60 and with accelerated flight (4X) they ran 35-45 so I am completely comfortable closing the door on this problem thanks to your find. I also am dispelling the theory that our lockups had anything to do with repeated menu access and UIautomationCore.dll. I am not using any different version than came with my VISTA SP1 install and on ConcordeX flights I access menu 3 times at each waypoint bringing me well over the dreaded 25 times and no change in VAS available, no stutters, and, of course, no freezes. And I use the affinity=14 in my FSX.cfg as I have in the past. Again, no issues. Have a great weekend!

Hi Folks! If you have been following these threads you are aware that Daniel Nilsson and I have been testing a possible workaround and it has so far been proving to prevent the 8 minute lockup. There may be other crashes and/or lockups with other causes depending on computer equipment but those having the 8 minute lockup all seem to be describing the exact same issue and is that issue that has been plaguing me since the advent of ASN. I just had a lockup on a ConcordeX test flight but this time there were some anomalies that I no doubt caused myself so it was not a true test. I did get a freeze, however, and again it cleared itself in exactly 8 minutes as they have always done. This time, however, I checked ASN tools window and pulled up the error report...something about not able to access a 'pipe' or something...totally beyond my understanding but I selected the SEND option on the report so I assume it went in to HiFi. I did note that ASN had disconnected at the exact same moment that FSX cleared and resumed. I hadn't ever checked before but maybe ASN is attempting something and the failure just times out in 8 minutes and that is why the lock clears. I will refly the same exact flight and see if I can again induce the error and this time I will be more careful to provide more information Hi Daniel! I was posting at the same time. Again, my freeze might be related to the fact that I had heavy thunderstorms at my departure airport and the ConcordeX just doesn't handle them well. I went out of control and opted to restart from my takeoff point but without restarting FSX so something may have given me corruption (ConcordeX sometimes does not reload correctly from a saved position for me) The 2nd time the flight went fine without much turbulence. I just assumed I had maneuvered around the cells but then the weather depiction just didn't seem right so I tabbed out to desktop and check ASN and the simconnect for ASN failed to reconnect when I did the restart. I restarted ASN at that point and resumed my flight. Withing about 2 minutes the lockup occurred. So, not a pure test. Need to redo the flight with a clean FSX and ASN. Glad to hear that you are having no incidents with the NGX. If it were going to occur, I am sure it would have in that 7 hours. Oh, BTW, notice that Vic seems to think it is FSUIPC related. What version are you using? As soon as I finish this ConcordeX test, I am going to deactivate its 'dll' entirely and try some flights. The version I am using is v4.8.4, much older than the one you are using, I am sure so the fact that we both have had experience with the exact same 8 minute locks and are now having lock-free flights seem to indicate that it is NOT FSUIPC related but Dawson should be back at work shortly so he can test it from his end.

I was hoping you would do that, but if, by chance, you get lockups on the 777 don't draw any conclusions because as I mentioned before they seem to be having lockup issues not related to ASN according to some posts on their forum. Again, Daniel, it was a stroke of genius. It was a real downer to finally find a weather program that does it all so realistically and then find out that you can't use it on any flights! Your solution has renewed my enthusiasm. Also, there are many on different threads that are having exactly the same problem using ASN that we had but Damian and Kostas have been conspicuously silent on the matter in their forums. Either they are secretly trying to resolve it or were waiting for one of us users to come up with the solution. Looks like you did. Thanks again.

Hi Alex! I have VISTA 64 so on my machine I pull up control panel and click on system and when the display comes up I select 'advanced system setting' and if you look closely you will see in the middle of the next display something referring to Virtual Memory. Just click on that and you have several options. I select to set it "manually' and since FSX can only access 4 GB paging (VAS) I set it to 2.5 x that or 12 GB. If you have Windows 7 the setup should be very similar if not exactly the same. As for the time to recover it you still get a "lockup", you will not be able to tell from your FSX clock since everything just stops for that 8 minutes and then resumes at the exact point it stopped. I just use the clock on my cell phone so I don't disturb the FSX display. The good news is that I just completed a long 3+ hour flight in the MD11 and again no lockups with frames set to unlimited so for some reason it seems to work. Daniel (in a previous post) came up with the idea and, last I checked, he is having the same successes that I am having, and believe me, every flight was locking up at about the 2 hour inflight point before so I think it may be the solution as mystifying as it may be. I guess we'll leave it to the Devs to figure out why it works. Cheers! @ Daniel: Completed the test for MD11: 3.2 hours inflight time with heavy weather departure and destination include Thunderstorms, and windshear and very heavy traffic for the first 2 hours and absolutey smooth performance with no stutters or lockups. Maintained a constant 2.2 GB available VAS throughout the entire flight. FPS was a little low first part of the flight (15-22 fps) but it was unnoticeable. As soon as I got out of heavy weather and low heavy traffic my frames went from 35-45 with occasionally as high as 70 fps. I have one last plane I want to run through the paces and that is the ConcordeX because next to the NGX and 777 it is the most resource demanding. As I mentioned in the above post...it is a mystery why this works, Daniel, but it is truly a stroke of genius on your part. We will leave it to the HiFi Devs to figure out why it works. Oh, yes, and no sudden aileron rolls this trip. Must have just been a fluke with the B744.