• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

23 Neutral

About nazethc

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. P3D 4.1 CTD near Labrador

    Hmm i never tried to just restart couatl and try the flight. Going to test that later. So basically what you do is use gsx at the departure airport, and then reset it before departure thru the P3d menu?
  2. P3D 4.1 CTD near Labrador

    yea I won't hold my breath....I was once told to reinstall windows to fix the problem. Still laughing at that one. If it wasn't for Eric, Kyle, and Zinnertek bringing up couatl as a possible cause, I would have never wasted 2 vacation days to actually test the theory, so thanks guys. Hopefully, it is a "fix" for everyone. Did one more flight last night with HOIST FP/Couatl off at 1x just to be sure....landed about 20 minutes ago. There is a conflict somewhere, is it couatl's fault? Is it Vector? Is it something else we hadn't thought of? A combination? Can't really answer that until someone with much more technical knowledge than me can say for sure. What I do know is killing couatl in task manager works for me. Now we need more tests from others to confirm my findings.
  3. P3D 4.1 CTD near Labrador

    Well I have no idea. Those we're my findings from the tests. If someone else can answer that for you, great. What I know is now I can fly the pond westbound without the annoying crash. If anyone can figure out what the interaction is between the two would be the icing on the cake. I've run about 10 flights the past 2 days....couatl off Vector on no crash. Couatl on vector off no crash. Couatl on vector on crash. Reason? No clue.
  4. P3D 4.1 CTD near Labrador

    Ok, 8x to 150 dme HOIST, then 1x, Orbx Vector off, couatl on, just crossed HOIST intersection no crash. Now all we need is some more people to experiment with this to see if we all get the same results.
  5. P3D 4.1 CTD near Labrador

    8x to about 150 dme HOIST, down to 1x, now on the STAR for JFK. No crash. Next test i'm going to try will be with only Orbx Vector off and couatl on. Results soon.
  6. P3D 4.1 CTD near Labrador

    Just took off from EDDF with PMDG B77W to KJFK on the HOIST FP with couatl off. Gonna try what you suggested after I complete this flight.
  7. P3D 4.1 CTD near Labrador

    Yeah, Couatl is the scripting engine. It is installed with any FSDT product. Like you said, I don't think it is the airports themselves causing the crash, but the scripting engine. However though, like I said in a previous post, i never had this problem in v3 with the only difference being I had no ORBX products installed in v3 (was using the Flight1 stuff in V3). So maybe there is a conflict? Again, this is just a guess. I have done about 6 westbound pond crossings 3 with HOIST. One of the HOIST flights had couatl running and crashed, the 2 other HOIST flights were fine. The other 2 flight plans I tried were flown with waypoints just south of HOIST. One came in through ELSIR, one from RIKAL, the last, a bit more north through PORGY. All in the vicinity of HOIST and with couatl not running I had no crash. In total 6 flights 5 with no couatl all landed. I am starting one flight now gonna go thru HOIST again no couatl, results in a bit
  8. P3D 4.1 CTD near Labrador

    Im still on 4.1. I never had this problem in V3 though which is weird. Although, the difference with V3 was that I did not use any Orbx products. So maybe couatl and Orbx are interfering? Just a guess.
  9. P3D 4.1 CTD near Labrador

    Flew the HOIST FP this morning again with couatl running, 1x all the way....just crashed with ntdll error. Crashed about 110 dme HOIST i guess it is couatl, without it OK, with it crash.
  10. P3D 4.1 CTD near Labrador

    Flew the HOIST FP overnight 1x no crash EDDF-KIAD PMDG B744 last test will be HOIST FP again with couatl running.
  11. P3D 4.1 CTD near Labrador

    2nd Flight Closed Couatl.exe in task manager LFPG-KBOS PMDG B77W all Orbx, Activesky, no couatl FP EVX UT300 SENLO UN502 PIKOD N502 RATKA DCT ATSUR DCT SOMAX 5120N 5230N 5240N 5150N ALLRY N358A EBONY DCT AJJAY OOSHN5 (NAT J) 8x to 5150N 1x rest of way again no crash About to hit TOD... looks like couatl might be it....will wait to see if everyone else has same results will try one more FP with HOIST intersection after to be absolutely sure it's not just a fluke
  12. P3D 4.1 CTD near Labrador

    So I killed couatl.exe in task manager and started a flight with this FP EIDW-KJFK PMDG B77L all ORBX Activesky no couatl SUROX DCT ERNAN DCT KUGUR DCT BILTO DCT 57N020W 57N030W 57N040W 55N050W DCT MELDI N498C TAFFY DCT ENE PARCH2 8x until 5550N then 1x flew over the canadian coast no problem, crossing ENE now for the STAR.. might just be couatl First westbound crossing without a CTD....will test again with another FP after this flight is done, just to be sure. i had the route saved and have crashed on same exact route
  13., and

    yeah it's demoralizing to say the least. I agree, the name thing is something AVSIM should be rightly concerned about, but don't make false allegations that something nefarious is going on at the other site, with no evidence to prove it. That's all i'm saying.
  14., and

    Why? That's the point i'm trying to make. This statement alone can deter people from visiting the site for themselves, and getting some great scenery/repaints for Asia/Russia. one is disputing the name thing. What I am saying is that you are assuming that the site is dangerous when, in fact, there is no evidence to support this. If all you said in the first post was that is in no way affiliated with would have been perfectly fine. It's the subtle placement of those statements in that first post that I focused on, and others did also. That's all you had to say. Making the community aware of the similar names with no affiliation to your site is something everyone should know. Adding stuff like the first quote, does not really help anyone, when in fact there is no danger in visiting the site.
  15., and

    Suspicion does not give you the right to just make stuff up. You even go on to say that you have no idea what they do on those sites. If you don't know what they do on "those sites", what on earth gives you the right to make false accusations? I wonder, was it just a case of spreading disinformation to keep people away from those sites, just because they use "your" name? <--suspicion....must be true Comrade......funny. Love that midlife crisis mobile!