yycvor

I've done the above, no change

I am too. I've reinstalled pretty much every addon, disabled then enabled everything, reinstalled 4.1 etc. etc. However my problem seems to be moving the aircraft in general. Seems I am stuck, the aircraft only skips forward about 1kt at a time. Slewing airborne the aircraft(s) still do not move. My animations for flight control surfaces are bang on as are the calibrations and control settings. (no fsuipc controls). It seems that I'm frozen. And yes, autopilot, parking brake and the obvious stuff are off haha

For what its worth I spent a fair bit of time reading this thread... I ended up updating P3D to 3.3.5 and it solved my issue. Cant use the pack obviously but I appreciate the dev's hard work for people who successfully used it on earlier versions.

Hello everyone I recently installed RSP in to my W10 P3Dv3.2 install. I have a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti BOOST. It has turned everything within the sim black. No ground, no sky no clouds.. just a black screen. The only thing that I can see when loading a flight is the PAPI lights on the runway, trees and AI aircraft lighting. The aircraft preview window is solid black as well. This is not a issue of deleting the shaders folder allowing the shaders to rebuild.... Ive left the sim running for over a hour at one point. I don't have the energy or will power to reinstall P3D and my addons yet again (suffered a hard drive failure a few months back, and one the year before as well). My setup which I have spent well over a hundred hours setting up and getting to its most perfect and enjoyable state is rendered completely useless at this point. I don't want this too feel like a attack on the developer in anyway as its obvious the enjoyment this pack creates for user speaks for itself but I just hope someone can appreciate the weight of my situation and can offer some advise. Does anyone have any ideas how I can get my P3D back with or without the RSP?

Thanks! Works good

Just curious if anyone knows the location of the datalink/ACARS chime file. Id like to convert it to .MP3 and use it as my text message sound on my cell phone. Thanks

I think its been long enough....so I'm doing it lol BUMP!

No I was not, I was in App data. I found the correct cfg in the folder you specified. Highest it goes is 260 now. And that specific 248 error I was able to eliminate due to looking at the correct .cfg now. Unfortunately It does not solve the main problem of the missing cities in the FSX world. Thanks though

I'm at my wits end with this issue. I'm hoping someone who is more familiar with the background workings of scenery within FSX can shed some light on this headache causing issue. I installed and uninstalled various sceneries one day trying out new products. It eventually led me to a "invalid Remote scenery path in area.241" error upon FSX startup. Where the head scratching begins for me is when I look at my scenery.cfg's I have nothing near 241 areas, my last entry in the .cfg is area 124, and would never have pushed any higher then 130-140 at any given time. The main issue and I have no idea if this is related to the above is that I no longer see small towns, or large cities. I have roads, rail, water and buildings associated with default FSX, UTX, FTX Regions, and FTX Global but the ground textures and autogen for cities are non existant. Areas appear either as forest, desert, or farmland depending on what would be specific to the area. NYC is a forest in my FSX..... Did something core to FSX get removed during a scenery uninstall? Would area 241 be specific to this? Is this a layering issue? Is it possible to fix this? I'm open to any and all suggestions, anything that will prevent me from spending weeks getting FSX reinstalled with my 1000s of addons would be appreciated.

There are plenty of climates in which all types of aircraft operate in temperatures much colder then -25C on a regular basis. The US might not be used to the cold conditions, and as a Canadian I gets some enjoyment from watching CNN having to explain the concept of frostbite to Americans. But in CYYC its not uncommon to have few weeks a year of -25C or below and we hardly concider ourselves "northern". Being at 51N there are plenty of large cities and countrys in the world even more north (Russia, UK, Denmark, Sweden, Finland etc etc) The current conditions that the US are experiencing with the polar vortex is actually in fact quite normal for northern climates. "Extreme cold" (If you concider -25C extreme... ) doesnt by itself effect airline operations 99.9% of the time. What is currently hurting the airlines during this "Polar Vortex" is the heavy rain and snow that proceded the rapid freezing, turning airports and cities whole into giant skating rinks.

I dont worry Your opinion is just as valid as mine or any other human being. Its not for everyone I agree, however the workmanship and level of detail is something to be admired though with out a doubt.

As discussed above, we have touched on the fact that autobrake achieves same braking distance with or without the use of reverse thrust as autobrake applies a specific deceleration rate between the different settings. However and for what it’s worth; When you talk about MANUAL braking landing distance calculations with real world 737NGs, reverse thrust is not factored in to the distance used as well because its effectiveness is subject to the amount of thrust applied. That amount applied is always a unknown variable and thus cannot be considered as a factor when calculating distance. Anyways, Use both however you feel fit for the situation. who really cares about the NGX's brake and engine wear, its not like any of us pay for maintenance. B)

http://youtu.be/k7ydFkmukdI #Magicplane being unveiled Heavy hitter... You talk like your part of TAC Careantee needed to go as it no longer was a representation of the companys current marketing strategy. Remember careantee'ing Live TV for every flight? Remember careantee'ing no charge for second bags? I never met one employee who liked that tail (including myself), more or less what it stood for as a failed marketing strategy rather then the livery itself. I am biased being a employee but I was a life long aviation geek long before my days at WJ however this has to rank pretty high in all time special liverys. BTW I already made a about this in the offical repaint request thread. (lets be honest about it though, concidering this ranks about 18 on a scale of 1-10 for difficulty of a repaint, I doubt we will ever see this created for the PMDG NGX... I mean where are the alaska disneys, those have been flying for years and no one has been able to paint one for the NGX) Your joking right....... Surely you can at least appreciate just how in depth and complex this livery is though. I would love to see someone be able to keep up with the layering thats going on in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZGzaDexRYE&feature=share&list=PLmd8TjO5YJs4Z9fEbd6IG0bvDLTDsj1hB&index=2

Me too, This just got unveiled today C-GWSZ Tail 812, formerly the "Careantee plane" Time lapse of it getting painted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZGzaDexRYE I would settle for this one too though

Airborne as DAL284 for the last 8h18m RJAA-KLAX. Hoping the current ZLA controller sticks around for another hour for my arrival.

DISREGARD POST, specific issue I had and posted about, has been solved

Craig, I havent the time to try and test it, but Its just a matter of matching the true NGX, OEW weight, combined with the NGX weight for passengers and telling PFPX that. Poke around the NGX's .cfgs to find the OEW weights and modify PFPX aircrafts profile with that OEW. Also you need to ensure that PFPX is using 175lbs per passenger. That "should" make everything match, however I cant confirm that at the moment. However Jeff seems to have been able to confirm this. Also, Im not at all concerned about fuel burn figures being off, since they should be off, its not a perfect science. And PFPX is very accurate to say the least. One only needs to make sure they are meeting min fuel requirements, and that the fuel is not trending downwards consitantly through out the flight (fuel leak). Solid work guys!

No way its GTA V. It would be good to know that a flight simmer has placed his mark on that game concidering all the aircraft in the game. However there is no way the 777 compares in a anyway to the hype of a GTA game. Perhaps less then a hundred thousand foaming at the mouth flight simmers vs millions of everyday people from teenagers to video game generation adults like me worldwide. Anyways, here it goes. Based on his location and a google search of game devolpers in that city. Im going with Killzone Mercanary

Charlie, You and Jeff have arrived at the same OEW using different methods. Either digging in the .cfg or using your FMC method would have been my next step. Although I cant sim for a few days due to work, so you guys certainaly saved me some messing around time in the future. As per his post Jeff is going to test and see if PFPX and the NGX both arrive at the same ZFW/TOW weights now that the OEW is corrected in PFPX. If you have done so already, please let us know! Should we perhaps inform PFPX that the OEW of their NGX profiles are not correct? Does it matter to most? I havent been in their forum at all.

If you dont mind, can you post the results of such here. I wont be simming for a few days due to work. Im not sure why I didnt think to check the .cfg (been flightsimming for over a decade). But that would be the obvious way. Im with you in the assumtion that using the .cfg weights in PFPX would infact correct the difference.

As a real world 737NG Load Controller, I am determined to get accurate and seemless data transfer between PFPX and the NGX, expecially with OEW weights. When I flightplan in PFPX and get a passenger count/baggage weight, Im am off by a few hundred pounds in the ZFW/TOW So I suspect that the OEW is differs between PFPX and the actual NGX as you have determined yourself. Where and how did you determine the -800 OEW's was 94700 for NGX?. I would be curious to find out what the OEW is for the NGX -600, and -700 as well. For now my work around to compensate for the missing weight is to bump up the belly weight to get a matching TOW. Again as a real world load controller, this bugs me and makes me feel like I am doing something not fully accurate. However with this all said, and some may find this interesting. PFPX is just a IFR dispatch generator. In the real world, weights and such are just a estimation by a dispatcher made somewhere between 2-3 hours before departure time. With people still checking in baggage and cargo still being accepted. The actual weights of the aircraft at departure time almost always differs from the release, sometimes by a few thousand pounds. Depending on the airlines setup/operation either the ramp lead will provide belly load figures to the crew, or like at my company a centralized load control area, where the true weight, balance, and performance is calculated and sent to the flight crew via ACARS and populates the ACARS takeoff page. Which for most carriers is a more indepth multi page version of the TAKEOFF REF page that we see in the NGX. (You can see one of these pages in my avatar) In Canada as long as the actual true TOW does not excede the planned release weight by more then 2000lbs, the release is still valid for use. Under weight is ok provided you can determine why (missing baggage, lots of children, overplanning by the dispatcher), if you are over 2000lbs, a new dispatch release legally needs to be generated.

What weights are used for PAX in the NGX?

Great update, and I thank you for it. I personally don't set my self up mentally for failure/disappointment. I always plan for the worst, hope for the best (RSR mentioned that anything that could hold up release, will in fact hold up the release) so I told myself that they would find something to hold the release up in the release week thread, and thus I'm not at all disappointed over this. This sounds like its up to the beta testers once again, get flying! Guys there is much more to worry about in life then software!

Well as a employee of WJA, the whole company is in fact celebrating. This will happen, and the only reason this is a letter of intent rather then a firm order right now is with that WestJet Encore is in its first quarter of operation its too early to commit to the 737MAX financially just yet. Boeing and WestJet both know if will be firmed up considering the long standing partnership between the two once Encore is stable a few quarters down the road.

Sold!