FloG

For CLB:
First value=speed below 10,000ft,
Second value=speed above 10,000ft before transition to Mach
Third number=Mach number*100 (so in your case Mach=0.84) for climb
Reverse order for DES.

Sorry to hear that, Gtristain..I have one more idea, because I just came across this thread at the Aerosoft forums. That guy seems to have had the same problem as you had, and the cause for his problem was a faulty FSX Acceleration install, so I'd suggest to try a repair.
If that doesnt work out, I'm afraid I've run out of ideas, but you could also ask over at the Aerosoft Support forums for help, the AXE developers are quite active there, so they might have more ideas on how to solve your problem.
 
Best regards,

For Airbus there's either Project Airbus (freeware), who has excellent models for the A32x series, and IIRC there's some great modifications to the VC as well avialable in the AVSIM library, or Thomas Ruth's A330/A340 family, which also feature a VC. Note that both mentioned models do not have any detailed systems or so (pretty much default, maybe a bit more enhanced). Also. there's the excellent Aerosoft Airbus X Extended, but that's payware, again.
For Boeings, you could do a search for Project Opensky/Free Sky Project, which is similar to what Project Airbus does, but with the focus on Boeings, or the "ultimate Boeing addon" the PMDG 737NGX, or the less expensive but also quite good iFly 737NG.
The freeware solutions are nice, and an enhancement in terms of visual quality, but they do in no way reflect the procedures required to actually start and fly the real plane. If that is waht you're interested in, there's no way around some qulaity payware addons, and yes, that step can really be rewarding. It will, however, take most likely more than 2 weeks to master such sophisticated addons.

I wouldn't dare saying that one or the other is better - it's simply two different approaches.
The main advantages of GSX are that it works on any airport, default or addon, as it simply reads the AFCAD file of that airport, and it is rather inexpensive in comparison to the price for AES coverage of all supported airports. the main downside of GSX is that there is one default layout, and if the parking facility you're currently using looks different in real life (e.g. "taxi-through" parking positions, which FSX does not actually support), you'll need to manually adjust that.
AES on the other hand allows you to use otherwise static jetways (e.g. in FlyTampa sceneries), and you can customize the movement of the jetways to fit your used aircraft very easily. It also has each parking position on every supported airport customized, so that those reflect real life as close as possible - but that comes at a higher price!
 
Apart from that, I have to say I use GSX nearly exclusively, and except for a few not ideally positioned pushback trucks (which I am always too lazy to remove), I really like it very much - it's a great value for rather little money. But back in the days when AES was the only offer, I enjoyed that program very much, too.

Is there a folder called model.vc in the aircraft folder? The entry "model=vc" calls for that folder, but if it's not there, the paint won't show up in FSX of course.  In this case you could simply put the line "model=" (without quotation marks) in stead of the current line "model =vc".
Also make sure that the ANZ livery is indeed named texture.ANZ

This is very well possible in Portland, but I can't comment on KEUG. PDX is a rather detailed airport by default already, plus there's downtown Protland quite close which is modelled in similar detail, hence a FPS loss is possible. In this case, your scenery settings, especially autogen, might be of interest to solve this problem, too.
 
 
 
That's possible, too. Just record at, say, quarter speed and speed the video up afterwards, and voila - you got the impression of great performance, although you may actually have no more than maybe 15 FPS!
 
I would recommend you to reduce your traffic settings, even though you say it will have no effect. From what I remember even WOAI flightplans were programmed to show some flights at very low flights and the amount increases with higher settings.

Are you running UTX as well? In that case try if running the configuration tool can help, it usually does.

Out HIGHMEMFIX=1 in the [Graphics] section of your FSX.cfg, that usually fixes that problem.

That's probably due to the maintenance the Avsim administration is doing right now, and it seems to be back as it used to be(i.e. you have to click the tabs). I had the same issue this morning, and just before I wanted to ask the very same question as you did, I stumbled over this message explaining the issue.
 
Regards,
Flo