Gabe_62

I may be getting STARS and Approaches mixed up a little as far as FMCs are concerned... but I am sure that STARS are not always programmed into the FMC at the departure airport. I am only going by Capt Mike's tutorials here, and he seems to ignore STARS at departure... as do a number of other tutorials I have read.I can only go by these as I am not a RW pilot. Some STARS are runway dependent. As such, you cannot always expect to fly the STAR you are hoping for.It would be ideal if you could program the whole plan into FSC, but there are maual workarounds - that was the main point I was making.As for Radar Contact, they always try to vector me from around 50-60 miles out, so many STARS are useless, unless I specifically ask for one.Again, I am only thinking in terms of how I fly FS9/FSX and the procedures I come across... so RC behaviour is certainly relevant to me and the type of plan I want to see in FSC. I also hear people constantly moaning about how VATSIM refuse to accept many flightplans. I would "imagine"... that much of that is to do with STARS/Approaches etc. being used at the time, and the flow and amount of traffic. But seriously... ##### with looking at my old posts - you hankering for a spot in Mi5 or something ? Get a life pal.

And how many pilots actually get their "intended" STAR ?Filing an intention to fly, is not the same as this is where I'm going.... Pilots of airliners will never activate a STAR in their FMC until around 50 miles out.Also, many STARS are runway specific (so depends on wind etc. (many aren't of course) - and many more still, have a common FAF, with hold, where everyone holds and awaits vectors.So, don't be too harsh on the program's inability to put the entire flight onto the flightplan automatically.

Having used the demo, I must say I actually like it.Right Clicking to add ad-hoc waypoints is very useful, and the full transition tkaing you from the end of the STAR to the localiser is neat.There is a workaround of course, for the fact that you can't insert both STARS AND Trannnies..... simply, add the STAR you want manually - by adding waypoints, and then insert the transition.STARS rarely have more than a few points so it doesn't take long. At least then you have something that resembles the plan in your FMC !So, do your basic flightplan... add the SID.... and then export the plan to your PMDG or FS plan folder. Import into your GPS/FMC and you're good to go.THEN... add the Transition, and manually added STAR WPs to your FSC plan and save again as for example "Full Version" in your FSC plan folder, and you have the full plan that you EXPECT to fly. In the RW, FMCs are usually only programmed with the basic course, as the actual STAR is not known until approach. Once you do - or IF - you add a STAR, it will hopefully match your FSC plan, especially if you request the full ILS in Radar Contact, or "know" that VATSIM are using a particular approach that day.So, yes, it's a little in-elegant, but you can create a full FSC plan including both SIDS and STARS, together with Transitions, but a little manual "intervention" or common sense, is required !As for other enhancements, like VATSIM integrations... not sure yet as I haven't tried them.But for $30, the extra features are probably worth it... the Transitions are very useful, as is the right-clicking to add temporary ad-hoc WPs... .in v8 adding User WPs was a royal pain !!! i know these are only temporary, but ... it's so quick to do it... who cares ? !!!

Problem is however, is that you cna only choose to show STAR/SID .... OR ..... transitions. It does NOT allow you to see both, as in a FMC, where you start with the runway, then select Transistion, then finally the STAR or SID.They "claim" they will try to fix this... Hmmm, yeah right, like all the bugs we'v put up with for 5 years that STILL haven't been fixed ?

Not received Brian I'm afraid.Could you try again ?Thnx.

I see. Thanks for that. Interesting that COMM values cannot be controlled. Guess it's to do with the inner workings ?I would really appreciate a manual before committing to buy... so I can assess the various functionality. I have sent you an email via your website with my email address.Thnx again.

Well that's very interesting as I am thinkin the same.I have client PCs with networked stuff... I would think you would probably have to rest the network paths. So, I'd delete the network paths from the clients, and recreate them once you've shared the relevant folders on the main server PC.I currently have a client PC using Vista, and my main server is XP. So, it's do-able.If yo have mapped drives on your clients, just dismount them, and delete the network folders. Then once you setup the home network on your new Win 7 install, then redo the network setup on your clients, remap the drives etc.You may need also, to redirect the RC and FSC programs to the new folders/drives... or possible reinstall them.It is a bit if hastle no doubt. Personally, I'd reformat all of them with Win 7 - the whole thing can then be automated and will work a lot better and be more stable... but of course you'd (officially) need seperate licenses for each PC...But, in essence, there will be no problem setting up a network with different operating systems.Of course, Win 7 does have it owns foibles... particularly all the security and protection stuff. You should follow Nick Needham's guides for installing FSX and FS2004 on Win 7. I urge you to study all his stuff, before committing... :(

When you switched to the 1 GB card you were introduncing problems... you should have set the switch to 3.2 - 1 = 2.2 (subject to multiplier). The GPU RAM is included in the virtual memory amount... so the 2560 is only good for a 768 GB GPU RAM !With the 500 GB card, 2560 is about right.As for not switching to Win 7 - don't take my word on RAM useage. Do your research... you may find it's better. Many people say win 7 is great with FSX. Have not read anything about FS9. Put it this way: with no limit on the amount of RAM taht the 64 bit O/S can use, the extra useage by Win 7 over XP, will be more than compensated for.With your system I think you'll get a real boost with a 64 bit O/S - you can utilise all 4GB of the RAM instead of around 2 GB - don't forget, the O/S will use 700 MB or so, so there isn't that much left for FS9 itself.By going to 64 bit, you will effectively, be doubling the amount of RAM available to FS9. As you actually have 4GB and a decent overclocked Wolfdale CPU, - with the "perfect" GPU at resolutions up to 1080p - you can't go wrong ! You can pick up Home Premium 64 bit OEM from Ebuyer for around £60.

I believe Win 7 does have a higher demand on resources than XP. However, if you have a 64 bit version, then you can easily stick in 4GB of RAM minimum or 6GB if you are on a 1360 motherboard. Some people have reported compatibility problems with some addons using 64 bit O/Ss... but many are a case of installation issues.Nick seems to think it's best to install FS9 and FSX on Win 7 systems, in a non-program files folder... this prevents many of the issues.So, switching to a 64 bit system may result in one or two addons being unuseable... I stress "some" and "may"... !Basically, it is the 32 bit O/S that restricts memory addressing. The 3GB switch sometimes works smoothly - I've never had it running well though, others say they have,A 64 bit O/sS simply allows the application to use 4GB of memory... so if you have 6GB RAM or 8GB, FS9 or FSX would be able to use 4GB... and as there is at least 4GB "free" after system useage, it can use the entire 4GB of physical RAM, instead of using the pagefile.See here for great post... and follow links for discussions of 3GB switch and virual memory etc.Nick needham's Post on Win 7 and FSXThere is a lot of discussion there about this issue.Basically, if you are having OMEs, you must upgrade to at least 4GB of physical RAM, and either use the 3GB switch or use a 64 bit O/S. Simple really,n/b Flew the Leonardo MAddog yesterday, and it never used more than 800GB in total. No OMEs therefore.Unfortunately, my Coolsky Super 80 is still reaching 1.2 GB after around an hour on finals, and crashing. So, it's back to the hangar until I get my upgrade.I've actually decided not to messa round with Core 2 any more. I've decided to go for a full 1156 H55 m/b, with a "i3 530" CPU (should reach 4GHz), a GTS 250 (1GB) with 4GB of budget 1333 DDR3, and a Corsair 400W PSU all in an Antec 300 case. - £ 450... !This should double my FSX performance. (FSX actually utilises "virtual quads' to about 85% the efficiency of a full quad like a i5 750 - yet the i3 530 CPU is a third of the cost !)(It should also increase my FS9 performance by around 50% too and I'll have no more OMEs)I can then use my existing Core 2 Duo PC as anetworked PC for Active Sky, Radar Contact etc. etc.

Is it possible to download the manual ?Thnx

Given that Fs2Crew is pretty hard work at the best of times, I am put off from trying this on the basis that with the added layer of frustration added by voice-activation issues, I can see this sending me totally mad !Any chance of a standard version ?Oh, and BTW, while I'm here, is it possible to set the COM and NAV radios, as well as the MCP data ?I use F! View in FS9, so the middle mouse zooms the ccokpit, making it impossible to set values in the MCP in the VC. I have to fly from the 2D cockpit much of the time. As such, it may be worth getting just to enable voice control of VS, Speed and LAtitude changing and arming.Thnx.

For the guy who is only getting 6 fps with FSX, there is something seriously wrong somewhere.For starters: TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=512 - should be set to 1024, or the sim has to resize textures.Also, "Bloom Lighting" is switched ON - this is a real framerate killer !!! You need to find Nick Needham's guide to installing FSX - it is very good.If I'd paid someone to create that file for me, I would sue them as being a danger to humanity.Did they also tell you that pretty much every time you get a "Crash" in FSX, it rebuilds it anyways - so you'd need to re-copy it across? - In fact if you are not aware of this, your current CFG file may actually bear little resemblance to the one that you "paid" for.The great thing about the Leonardo is that if you are on a old PC, it doesn't use much RAM - around 850 max in busy airport approaches. With the Coolsky, I'm getting 850 at start up - comared to just 600 with the Leonardo. By the time I fly 2 hours and approach a busy airport (Aerosoft Heathrow for example), the Coolsky is upt ot 1.1 GB - when it hits 1.15 GB - Out of Memory Error !!!!So, for me, although the Leonardo Maddog is slightly worse on FPS (although it is configurable via sliders), and doesn't have the built-in totorial stuff and panel-setting, it has zero OMEs. Perfick !!!

Yes, ther eis the 3GB/Switch if you have a 32 bit O/S and 4GB of physical RAM... but I have found that it can cause problems on XP.If you are lucky and it's stable on your system, then that will save you the hastle of installing a 64 bit O/S and reinstalling !If not, you have to go the whole hog and install Win 7.In fact I may try the 3GB switch on my new XP SP3 install and keep my fingers crossed. It will give me another 1 GB for the sim... would make a lot of difference. It would mean my OME would not kick in until around 1.8 GB.

Yes, I know this an old-ish thread but for anyone else looking for posts about FS9 framerates, thought I'd add my 2 cents worth.I've just started to look at the Maddog 2010 Pro, and must concur, it can bring FS9 FPS down pretty low.At the highest settings, most of the gauges use high levels of AA and where appropriate, refresh rates of around 18 fps - which for a gauge is not bad in the VC ! But, it does look very nice indeed !So, yes, you will need to pull back the sliders and get a better system.In fact this goes for all FS9 users today, using older hardware. Many of the newer sceneries such as the Aerosoft airports, REX v2 etc., when combined with the old stalwarts such as Ultimate Terrain (esp. at high settings), will cause you problems.Add in third party apps such as Active Sky and Radar contact, and you cannot expect FS9 to perform miracles. Yes, it looks 10x better than it did 7 years ago, but not on a Pentium 4 or dodgy old Core 2 Duo running at 2.4 GHz with 2GB of 667 RAM. Not gonna happen ! Don't forget, FS9 only uses ONE CPU core - so the benefit of an i5 or i7 system, is somewhat reduced. Clock for Clock, an i7 is only around 20% faster than a good Core 2 - such as the 7 or 8 series Wolfdales. So, if you clock a Wolfie to 4.0 GHz, you're only around 15-20% slower than an i7 at 3.6GHz. Clock it to 4.5GHz - which some do - and it's around the same. It 'aint rocket science: do the math.But, I'm surprised that our user above with the Wolfdale Dual Core (the E8400 or8600 above ?) gets away with a 32bit O/S and 2GB (max) of addressable memory. I'm getting constant OMEs with the Super80 from Coolsky - hence the reason I've tried out the Leonardo version. You really need at least 4GB on a 64bit O/S to get the most out of FS9 today.With my Super80 from Coolsky, I'm getting around 900MB of memory useage just sat in a complex airport with modest traffic and weather. By the time you fly for 2 hours and come into land at another complex airport, it quickly tips the scales at 1.2GB - then Bam !!! OME !Simply, with 2GB of RAM available to the system, including your GPU RAM, you only have aorund 1GB available to the sim. This is easily reached with todays modern FS9 scenery, utilities and complex aircraft.I find that the Leonardo gives me poorer FPS, but better memory useage - just !Still, I'm upgrading to a 64bit and 4GB of RAM, ASAP !!!I can fly anything at 30 fps in most situations with a 3.2GHz Core 2, but OMEs are very prevalent. RAM is the key to smooth FS9 flight with recent scenery addons.A minimum of a Core 2 Duo at 3Ghz, 4GB 800 MHz RAM, on a 64-bit system, with at least an 8800GT or GTS 250 (9800GTX) for resolutions up to 1920x1080, is all you need for good performance - as well as a decent defragmented HDD of course !To be honest, it is not worth any more expenditure if you're happy with just flying in FS2004. Of course that system would allow you to fly VFR low'n slow in FSX too... !I think that performance in FSX today, even with the best PC money can buy, is still lousy. And, it certainly 'aint worth shelling out the best part of a grand to do it either. Nah, I'll wait for the i9-series. Maybe 2 more iterations may give us the hardware nencessary to fly FSX how it was intended.

I hardly think that a framerate performance equivalent to the heavies - Captain Sim, PMDG, is "blowing things out of proportion". By not offering lower res. (ie. standard 1MB) textures, they have shot themselves in the foot.And judging by all the other problems, they seem to have bitten off more than can chew.I simply said that Carenado were no longer in their 'orginal market' - they will, as a result, lose a heap of customers after their last 2 releases. Not everyone is able - or prepared - to shell out the best part of a $1000 just to run FSX, particularly a "simple GA aircraft like the flippin Caravan... Jeeze !Tell me I'm wrong, and I'll show you one naive dude.

Well witohut getitng into a flame war - and I won't even read any more replies to this thread, I am quite justified in stating that Carenado have not become a "run of the mill" developer.Pushing the limits of FSX, stuff the performance, let's get it looking as good as possible. If you need to upgrade to an i7 920 with 16 GB of RAM and a GTX 480 card... tough !!!Yeah well, Carenado are no more the "FPS-friendly" developer. They now also, need to compete with the big boys, as their performance matches theirs.As such I will buy no more Carenado planes, expecting them to be FPS-friendly. They are now low down in the "performance charts", along with non-optimised PMDG, Level D, Captain Sim (especially), Eaglesoft and the Fligtht1 Mustang. All of these produce around 10-15% the performance of the default G1000 Mooney.Yes, that's "fine"... yes, they look great... but you need to be aware of ithe fact tha you pay for it in framerates !

No surprise at all when you realise the panel/gauges were coded by Bill Leaming - the same guy of Eaglesoft "fame"... In fact judging from the user names in the support forum, MilViz seems to be a new "branch" of Eaglosoft... !!!Eaglesoft FSX addons rank better than only the Flight1 'Mustang' Jet on my system, and most other people's from what I've seen.Nice aircraft, don't get me wrong, but run a little like 'an old pony on Valium' (aka Zantec):(

Those FPS comparisons are all well and good... but the beauty of Carenado has always been its very friendly performance - on a par with default aircraft.Personally, I feel that many people will be disappointed with the FPS performance... and not surprisingly. Yes it's a nice looking aircraft, but to me it looks like Carenado are becoming 'another typical developer'. Looks nice and all that, but runs like scmuck.As for converting to 1024 MB textures: it is very laborious but here goes:1. All textures need converting to normal bitmaps using something like: dxtbmp.exe. Google it.2. Once you have 'standard' bitmaps' that yo can view normally in say Compupic or any photoshop-type app, you can then resize them. Keep the quality and ratio identical.3. Convert back to original format.4. Replace old textures.Backup first of course.I think the bitmaps present are 24bit DXT 5, may be wrong. So, retain this format if you can. You may only be able to convert them to 32 bit initially, depending on the software you use, and may therefore end up with textures that around 1.3 MB. But that's still a huge saving on memory requirement..There may well be a quicker and better way... maybe some kind of batch processing. I don't know of one... but if anyone does, feel free to share !

Thnx All for the help.I'm finally starting to get it all sussed out - they say the devil is in the detail, and it's only now I've started using the heavies with an FMC, that it's started to matter ! I'm moving on to the "pilot discretion" stuff now..... look out. But, it does help to read the manual - unfortunately RC is the first addon that I've actually needed to read the manual cover to cover.

Thnx for the info.I had a particular problem approaching Milan from Innsbruck from the North.RC wanted me down 40 or so from airfield, but MSA there was 16200 ft for another 15 miles or so. So, I realised that I had to set MSA at 16500, or easier, set NOTAMS as well.They then asked me to descend to 16200 ASAP...... So then I relaised I could use a more relaistic MSA - nearer airfield - of some 6500 ft.In other words, NOTAMS seems to trump all else, allowing me to descend when ready, to the MSA - which was the MSA at the IAF.So, I guess you can either manipulate RC by using a fake MSA, or use NOTAMS.Does that make sense ?

+10....... come on JD, throw us some crumbs !

For anyone having this problem, the mouse starts to flicker when you plress shift + 9.There are only 8 2D panels that open when you press Shift + 1 thorugh 8. however, if you use a keyboard to assign keystriokes, it is easy to press shift + 9 . If you do, you must press it again.... the flickering will stop !Viola !

Hi,Surely if you level off using altitude on AP prior to intercepting GS, you wouldn't actually set GA altitude in AP until AFTER Alt has switched off when GS is captured.how come FS2Crew has these the other way around ?

There are detailed instrustions on ASE website/forums and in docs re: FSUIPC (reg'd) settings.It is not that simple, as some settings can be used in conjunction with, or instead of, certain ASE settings.This is further complicated by the effects of turbulence on the AP of some complex airliners. So you need to do your research.Also, ASE has different settings for FS9 and FSX.... global weather and smoothing effects can only be used in specific combos in FSX for example. So, FSUIPC settings in conjunction with ASE, must be considered seperately depending on which sim you are using.Read the manual and forums. The general consensus is that all weather settings are best turned off in FSUIPC to prevent any problems. They suggest that if you do use smoothing in FSUIPC such as turbulence, that changes are made in the .ini file to minimise the effects on some aircraft's AP control.This one on this forum is a good starting point:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=290996 and: http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=287359 The latter also talks - about halfway down - about how ASE can influence Radar Contacts ability to know which is the active runway.http://www2.hifisim.com/forum/12Good luck.

That's exatly how I understand it. So why are RC controllers yelling at him ? Is it because there is no final WP less than 30 miles from dest airport ?