stweaver321

Thanks for all suggestions, guys. Most appreciated.

 

Do i understand correctly that either with RC4, PFE, or Vatsim you cannot, or atleast 'better not' use AI traffic ?...

 

With one of the RC4 demo vids at Youtube AI traffic IS used but now your hear both RC4- AND FSX ATC together ! I don't know if i should laugh or cry about that...

 

I would rather fly without any kind of ATC than give up on AI traffic.

 

That's one big pro for me too in favor of FSX ATC : it works perfectly together with AI traffic.

 

I love to fly the A2A B-17 every now and then. I really get a kick out of hearing ATC say : "KLM375, hold position, caution the Boeing B-17 on the taxiway " and then see the big 767 abruptly putting on the brakes. I could swear i've seen the co-pilot wave at us on atleast one occasion... B)

 

It's completely normal to use AI with RC4. You just need to "turn off" FSX ATC first. Setup instructions are in the RC4 manual. Flying online with VATSIM I believe you can keep AI enabled, but it would be disruptive as the AI would, obviously, not be under the control of VATSIM ATC. I'm sure AI are used with PFE also althought I've never used it myself.

FYI, there usually is 2 or 3 error logs created when FSX crashes and often only one of them will identify the faulting module.

Alex,I think your best bet at getting help with CTDs is to include the application event log showing the crash. If you're running Win7, type "Event Viewer" in the Start menu lookup. In the Event Viewer, go to "Windows Logs-->Application" and find the FSX entries. There should be a Red icon next to the log entry showing that there was an Error. Often times there will be more than one, so find the one that contains Faulting module (e.g., ATC.dll) and copy the contents in your post. If it's always the same module causing your crash, it's easier to narrow down the problem. if you're seeing a variety of modules causing the CTD, then it's probably unstable hardware (e.g., bad RAM or unstable Overclock). There are other common causes of CTDs that can be addressed if you provide the faulting module.

Wow! That's one buggy piece of software. Apparently just downloading it is enough to cause problems! Emi, you may not have intended on blaming the SP1c patch for your problems, but the subject of your post sure does suggest that. If it was your intent to blame SP1c, I suggest you're looking in the wrong place.

$5000 on a computer! That's a bit crazy mad.

If he purchased about 4 high quality, large displays along with 2-3 high end graphics cards, I can understand that amount. Otherwise, that is hard to imagine spending that much.

RC4 works great.

I use RC4 for offline ATC, but not because I think it's great. It's just the best available as far as I know. There are quite a few things that really annoy me about RC. However, it's far superior to FSX ATC.

To the best of my knowledge, I have eliminated the ATC.DLL crashes by not having a web browser open during my flights and ensuring FSX is always in focus. The other day, I accidently left FSX out of focus and had the FSX crash (due to ATC.DLL) for the first time in a long time. Hope this helps.

One thing that I've found helps quite a bit is right after you begin your decent, reduce your speed to around 0.70M or so. Up at the higher altitudes, I've found that it will slow down much easier than if you wait to slow down until lower altitudes.

To say that pirates would never have bought the product is flawed logic and obsurd. I don't know why some feel the need to say such things. There are those who want the product and will check if there is a cracked version before actually buying it. So yes, piracy absolutely does cost companies money. Those who steal software are leeches of society. Anyone who claims otherwise is just dillusional or dishonest themselves and looking to rationalize their own behavior. Stealing anything is wrong...period...end of story.

I've been reading quite a few comments from posters who are being critical of Microsoft because of the direction they've opted to take MS Flight. I, too, had high hopes for MS Flight and hoped that it would eventually replace FSX (and it might do so at some point). However, I feel the criticism is, for the most part, baseless and unfair.1) Microsoft is one of a handful of companies that has standardized the PC environment to a point where we can enjoy things like FSX, FS9, etc. Want to know what things might look like without Microsoft, just take a look at Linux...endless distributions with many different GUIs, etc. I use both Windows and Linux in my home. Windows is much more polished and standardized and allows users with very little technical knowledge, to do the basics with small learning curves.2) Microsoft does not exist to do charitable and benevolent acts for the niche that is the flight sim community. It is a business and it is the responsibility of the leadership team to use their limited resources in a way that will maximize their returns. Microsoft has made some decisions as it pertains to MS Flight that, although not ideal for us, is a business decision for them. It's not personal, it's not corporate greed, etc. It's business pure and simple. Many will have their own opinions about the merits of those decisions, however, it is their decision to make.3) Microsoft has become as large as they are because they are meeting customer needs. Although it may not be evident by my comments, I am not a Microsoft cheerleader. Honesty, however, compels me to acknowledge that they do a good job at what they do. Part of the success is due to making products that satisfy real needs and part of it is the business model they use. Like it or not, they have earned their success over many years and our lives as a community of PC users is enhanced because of it.So you might want to think twice before jumping on the "evil Microsoft" bandwagon. There may have been some individuals within Microsoft who did a poor job of managing their relationship with PMDG, but that certainly does not implicate an entire organization that is comprised of 10's or 100's of thousands of people all over the world.

In a lot of ways, this is exactly like Occupy (or shall I say, "Crockupy"). A bunch of people get together to complain for the sake of complaining. Most of them can't even tell you what they are so worked up about. The ones who try to conjure up some justification sound so ridiculous that they make their oblivious comrades look somewhat enlightened. It's all very amusing.

Hear, hear! Well said!

1. Is it windy? 2. Have you properly calibrated your rudder?3. Are you using FSUIPC, CH Control Panel, or FSX for the rudder calibration?4. Is this unique to all of your A/C or just the NGX?

Yes, UT2 works fine with Radar Contact. The only odd thing I've noticed at times is the callsigns. Instead of "United 123", for example, I'll sometimes hear "Uniform 123". Same is true for other airlines as well. I assume it a result of how the UT2 traffic database is coded for a given flight, but I'm not sure.

How did you get around the issue of needing the file called Cessna208.gau from FS9? I just extracted it from the CAB on FS9 CD #2, but if you don't have FS9 CDs, you won't have that guage file and your VC will be incomplete.

"Why are there so many posts telling them to take their time? Do you honestly think they would rush otherwise? " pertinent remark !

From the updates we get from PMDG, it's quite obvious that they "feel" or at least acknowledge the types of comments being posted here. Seeing numerous comments that encourage them to take their time and get it right will have a positive effect on the developers and quality of the product. It's basic human psychology (as mentioned by Jigsaw in the previous comment). On that note, I'm totally fine with PMDG taking as much time as they need to get their releases in order. I'm enjoying the NGX as it is currently.

I'm not surprised !! That is not the way to use TO/GA !!!

Indeed! Thanks for pointing that out. I went back and reviewed the Normal Procedures. Auto Throttle is armed prior to taxi. When ready for TO, advance throttles to 40%, let stabilize, and then press TOGA. I can't recall where I learned to do it that other way, but that's been my SOP for all Boeing airliners I fly on MSFS.

I also think the performance has incerased. The whole thing runs now much smoother on my rig. :)

I can't say for sure, but my first impression was that performance was a bit better as well. Also, it almost seems a little more slippery (i.e., harder to slow down on approach) than it was previously. Maybe my approach was just mismanaged??

I've just made my first flight using HF4 and thought I'd share a couple of observations. Would love to hear comments from others about what you've noticed---good and bad. 1) Auto-Throttle is no longer disengaging during engine run-up right before take-off. Before HF4, I would engage AT, increase throttle to about 70%, click the hidden TOGA spot, advance throttles to full. At this point, the AT would disengage. 2) Landing gear are now operating with my FSUIPC assigned axis control lever (had to press G before). Those are the only things that jumped out at me. Definitely a step in the right direction.

Thanks Damian.

Dear PMDG, Will you please consider giving us the option to change the seating configuration in the FMS? Thank you!

I am trying to reinstall ASE without XGraphics and Texture Snapshots. Here's what I've done: 1. Uninstall XGraphics from Control Panel2. Uninstall ASE from Control Panel3. Delete the "\Program Files\HiFi" folder4. Delete the "AppData\Roaming\HiFi" folder5. Delete the HiFi registry hierarchy at HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\HiFi6. Delete the "Snapshots" folder from inside my FSX program folder.7. Reinstall ASE After all of that, I still get the prompt "Install Graphics Snapshot Textures?" after importing and processing a flight plan into ASE. How can I get rid of that prompt? It shouldn't give that prompt when there are not installed snapshots should it? Thanks!

Other than setting "Two Class" or "Single Class" in CDU settings, is there a way to specify the number of seats? For example, American and Alaska both have a 16 (First) + 144 (Coach) arrangement, but the CDU Payload screen is set at 12 max for First and 150 max for Coach. I've scanned through some INI files and didn't notice anything. Thanks!

How about you post your system specs? I run the NGX fine on Windows 7 64-bit.

It seems that PMDG are really pushing the limits with the NGX. Not only have they ran out of animations within FSX, but it appears FSX just can't handle all that data being passed back and forward by the NGX, with or without HIGHMEMFIX. It's like taking a Volkswagen Beetle and putting a 7 liter V8 in it. It would appear that the NGX really is as real as FSX gets.

Keep in mind that not everyone is having CTD issues. Seems to be plenty of users who are enjoying the NGX with out any significant issues. That includes me. I absolutely agree that eliminating OC should always be one of your first steps when encountering a CTD in FSX as a troubleshooting step. I've settled on 3.6GHz for my system as going over that results in random CTDs. Also, I never use full-screen. I have had one CTD with the NGX. I had undocked the CDU, moved it to a 2nd monitor, and then was dragging it back to the 1st monitor when I got the CTD. Now, I just don't undock the CDU and I've not had any other issues. During my NGX flights, I have the following programs/add-ons active:-ASA (networked laptop)-RadarContact (networked laptop)-REX-EZDok-TrackIR-UT-FSBuild-Firefox browser with 6 to 12 tabs open-Navigraph Charts-Ultimate Traffic 2-Super Traffic Board

Here's how I fly using the NGX, TOPCAT, and FSP: 1. Use TOPCAT to come up with payload and fuel numbers (loadsheet)2. Load payload and fuel from TOPCAT loadsheet into the NGX using the CDU3. Start FSP with both Fuel and Payload settings disabled I don't worry about the discrepancy between the number of pax and P/L weight specified in FSP versus what's on the loadsheet. FSP doesn't care either. You're FSP income will be based on what you indicate in FSP however. Performance data is what matters to me and that comes from TOPCAT so those are the weights I actually set. Stacey Weaver