Robert McDonald

It's hard to know. I don't think it's the Creative card, I think more likely some kind of conflict with multiple programs all trying to send sound data to the PC simultaneously. Since adopting the 'fix' that I listed in my original post - I'm cautiously optimistic that I may have resolved the problem. I also rolled the nVidia drivers back to the latest WHQL-certified (Windows Hardware Quality Labs) driver. I will consider the case resolved unless the buzz re-occurs. Thank you for your idea, though.

Update: Flew 2+ hours flight with no crash, using the fix described in the original post. More testing underway.

Had this problem some time ago- tore my system apart - wound up doing a lot of cleaning and reapplying thermal paste. Problem disappeared. Now it's back. Anyone? See and hear it at YouTube (this is NOT my system, but it sounds pretty much like this) To HEAR this sound, click the "YouTube" icon in the lower-right of the player window. For some reason, I can't get the audio to play here on Avsim in the media viewer window. Thanks for any help. From what I know, this is a COMMON problem with newer PCs, not just those playing FSX. Note: nVidia GTX690 card w/onboard audio (HDMI) disabled. Onboard ASUS motherboard audio DISABLED in BIOS. Soundblaster X-Fi HiFi PCI audio w/ latest drivers. **The 'possible' fix was suggested by clicking on the SPEAKER icon in the Win7 taskbar, the the SPEAKER icon in the Win 7 MIXER, and then clicking on the ADVANCED tab in the Speakers Properties dialog box. Untick the Allow Applications to take Exclusive Control of this device and also untick Give Exclusive Mode Applications Priority. Then click APPLY and then OK. What my working hypothesis is (subject to testing) is that some applications "fight" with FSX for the sound card's time, and when these applications are switching back and forth, if they are given "exclusive" control of the speakers (and/or soundcard), then a lockup 'could' occur! This fits with what I remember in some past incidents, where all I did was swap EZ dok camera views from inside the plane to outside the plane. What happens when you do that? The sounds switch- because the EXTERIOR views involve supplemental ENGINE sounds that are not operating when inside the plane. So we will see. Testing on a 2+ hour flight that crashed earlier tonight.

The virtual airlines are all different from one another, and many require you to work your way up from the small planes to the heavy jets, so be prepared to ask questions BEFORE you sign up. Some of the 'homemade' VA's are more flexible, and thus may be a much better fit for you if you're starting out brand-new, in that these may be less rigid and allow you to fly whatever airplane you choose right off the bat. Most VA's are tied to VAtsim in one way or another, but not EVERY one is, so shop around. I would recommend you look at Southwest Virtual (only for the NGX, they ONLY fly 737s) JoinAVA.org (great organization, but you do have to work your way up) DeltaVA These would be the likely best fit for you as a newer pilot just starting out. Plus any of the 'non-brand' VAs, you could locate them online as well. If you want to learn best procedures for ATC in the shortest time, plan routes that are within Southern California area and give PilotEdge a free trial run. 15 hours a day of pro-level ATC, good enough it is accepted by the FAA for currency ratings for actual commercial pilots. Also used by US Military and other flight schools. You can try them without a credit card. They offer support for FSX -and- XPlane, and they do offer a 64-bit communications client that works with 64-bit XPlane. 737 Flights to learn on in SoCal might include: KSAN - KSFO (San Diego to San Francisco) KSAN - KLAS (San Diego to Las Vegas) KLAX - KSAN (Los Angeles to San Diego) just to name a few common commercial runs that are frequently flown in the 737. The first two are ok in the 777 as well. Truthfully, a short hop in a 777 is not cost-effective- the 777 is typically found in long-haul "International" flights.

Just as an aside, most motion pictures made nowadays and shown at your local theatre are shot at 24 FPS- which argues AGAINST your position. True, they have to pan slowly side-to-side to avoid the "blur" effect, but most people think MOVIES look GREAT, even at 24 fps instead of 30. Perhaps not as bu-----ty as you suggested, yeah?

Frames rate is different from monitor REFRESH rate, but I'm sure you knew that. Frames locked at 30 with V-sync or 1/2 Monitor Refresh V-sync (Adpative) is a concession to overall smoothness in FSX as you rightly agreed with in your statement that you use that yourself. In X-Plane 10 I am able to run at much higher frames. That said, the overall effect in FSX is still superior at this time, IMHO. I'd be careful with using emotive language. Your parents might not like it.

Many Thanks for that information, Dreagan. I actually discovered your point last evening and did use the PFPX fuel numbers inside the PMDG 777. Worked just fine, much closer to RW and was able to land at my destination with my planned reserve or very near it. Since I had de-rated the engines, I think that may have played a small role in having a little 'spare' fuel at landing. FuelPlanner.com was my prior site I used for fuel loading, better than nothing, but the 777 model they use there seemed like I always had way too much fuel at the end of my trip. Cheers!

Update: Word on the FSS website (makers of PFPX and Topcat) is they are hard at work adding matching profiles to Topcat that match the aircraft supported by PFPX. With that said, I have made a good-faith offer to FSS to assist them in any way I can to add the NGX and the 777 to Topcat, so that the people like me who purchased the PFPX and Topcat Bundle will have proper fuel load predictions from Topcat along with their Route Planning and NOTAMS/Winds Aloft/Weather from PFPX. While I am a VB programmer and don't know C++, I can't imagine it's too difficult (just using slightly different syntax) a task. The big thing is getting the proper data points. As "Tabs" (Ryan Maziraz of PMDG) has stated within this thread, PMDG has worked closely with FSS on the PFPX product development cycle to make sure their new airplane would be supported. My goal now is to get Topcat to match that same support of the new 777. I have put my mouth where my money is (because I already bought Topcat along with PFPX) and offered to do whatever I possibly can to help FSS get the 777 data points added to Topcat. At any rate, word is from FSS this issue is on their To-Do list and they expect things to get better in the not-distant future. I have heard recent word on their forum from their guy Pierre that they expect good news in the next 30 days on this issue, but nothing specific about the 777 itself. They ARE trying to add support within Topcat to match the list of aircraft profiles that ships with PFPX.

I use the Samsung Note 10.1 Android Tablet, which I have added a 64GB mini SD card. On this I run GARMIN Pilot (full subscription). For USA flights, Garmin Pilot is hard to beat. It shows real time moving weather maps, Hi and Low enroute Charts, your flight-in-progress on a moving map, and has 'safe-taxi' mode so you can see the airport layout and where you are in relation to the runways and taxiways (also a moving map). The downside is, pricey (about $170 a year) and only the USA is covered, so no help on International flights. That said, I totally love Garmin Pilot. It can run on either the iPad or the Android OS. FSX can transmit GPSOut (GPS Output) via FSUIPC (registered), and combined with Bluetooth on the FSX PC and Bluetooth on the Android, it's 100% wireless between the two. Apologies - this is off topic, just throwing it out there. I love the Note, because it's built-in stylus allows me to jot down my flight plan, appropriate frequencies for the flight, and other details. Other apps I use for FSX include realtime Weather app for all the airports I fly to, with winds, altimeter (in inches) and ambient temps in your choice of F or C.

Well, sad to say it, we are simply too small a demographic to appeal to the "big boys" in gaming. Microsoft had an idea with Flight that was poorly implemented. Microsoft wanted to take the Google or Apple approach whereby you buy 'apps' for FLIGHT through THEM, thus they get a piece of every single add-on through their online store. Smart business model, but the underlying simulation totally ignored the peeps with the Benjamins, namely US in the active sim community. They totally forgot about JETS, FMCS and complex airplanes. The concept of running a 'master' sim from their gaming server is actually a cool idea, but in their effort to make everything compatible with all manner of hardware (dumb terminal) PCs, they 'dumbed down' the graphics, in lieu of having 'levels of detail' that could be user-selectable. Those with overclocked and high-end graphics CPUS and GPUS could play at "maximum" detail whilst those with laptops or happy-meal PCs could play at minimal to average levels. All in all, it COULD have worked, they simply fumbled the ball. Now we look hopefully to Lockheed Martin, and once again, the deadly threat of backwards-compatibility means no 64-bit freedom in P3D, which is shortsighted. As the operating systems progress, you likely will soon see the 32-bit support dropped by future Microsoft OS'es, much as 16-bit support was dropped starting with Windows 8, one of the biggest DUDS in Microsoft history, on par with Windows Me and Vista. In their effort to be ever more apple-esque or Googley, Microsoft is leaning heavily toward icon-driven (read: "Tiles" or "Giant Icons") and touch-screen interface and going away from the smart user who is a heavy multi-tasker or serious PC enthusiast. Not all bad, because the average Joe doesn't know how to properly maintain or even defend his/her PC, so Microsoft is again leaning toward the lowest common moron level of competency. Those who can do, those who can't call Microsoft PAID SUPPORT. Ultimately, though I have returned to FSX exclusively at the moment, my true hopes lean toward X-Plane 11 or X Plane XII. Hopefully, at some point, the scenery weaknesses, lack of seasons, and views to the horizon will be trumped by higher levels of detail that take full and complete advantage of Direct X 11 and its successors. I recognize again, that with X-Plane also shooting to run on Linux and MAC, there are inherent compatibility roadblocks to my dream of CGI-level graphics, butter-smooth, with no hint of stutter, pause or crash at any time. This all probably could resolve with a CONSOLE based flight simulation game, and if only our numbers were substantially higher as pilots, we might command the attention and resources of companies big enough to totally revamp the flight sim experience. From a corporate marketing perspective, though, our future is guardedly dim. It's a numbers thing. If you're building video games, you go after the largest segment of potential buyers, the pre and teen-aged group, who have the money and time and gaming lust to invest in an unending cavalcade of shooter games. It boggles the imagination how "DOOM" has evolved to the titles for sale today. Regardless of your politics or 'ethics', whether or not you think shoot-em-ups are no worse than playing toy soldiers or a recipe for mindless RW violence, the truth is that violence SELLS. It sells movie tickets and video game titles, it fills seats at cage fighting and WWF matches, and keeps the NFL in business. At heart, humanity hasn't really progressed since the ancient Roman times, when people flocked to the Coliseum to view Christians versus the Lions on a regular basis. We, the flight community, generally operate on a higher moral plane, yet are confounded by the sheer smallness of our demographic. We just can't buy enough product to justify the capital investment. Therefore we pin our hopes on P3D v2 and XP 10.3 or XP 11 as pathways to ever-better flight sim experiences. It isn't simply inept or stupid corporate leadership that is hurting us, it is purely a diminished power position due to too few customers compared with the masses who play the shooter games. Truthfully, I have come to accept FSX for what it is, and deeply enjoy it. With REX Essentials and some nice payware airports, plus ORBX global and PNW using Orbx FTX Central's new "Hybrid" mode, I get some downright cool graphics and decent frames. I won't win any Academy Awards for my YouTube videos, but I enjoy the experiences on a daily basis. At times, I still have the "Gee Whiz" moments when the scenery is peeking out behind the thin wafting and scudding clouds on approach...that makes the investment of time, money and sweat all the sweeter. Toss in my 'must have' PilotEdge real-time end-to-end live ATC, and I'm a very happy camper.

Thank you Fabo. Good and informative post. I am curious about that instrument you recommended. Looks like Topcat may have been a mistake for my uses... Possibly they will put the new PMDG 777 in as one of the posters has said in this thread. Time will tell. Cheers and regards.

You're too kind. Thanks a million.

Hi Ryan, Thank you for your direct comment. It is much as I feared. They are simply putting some kind of spin on things. I'm frustrated because the 777 _IS_ supported by PFPX, but is _NOT_ supported by their older product Topcat. The 'excuse' is that PFPX uses simple text files for relevant aircraft information, while Topcat requires complex C++ DLL files specific to each aftermarket plane. I suspected it was a situation much as it now appears- a lot of extra work that they simply don't wish to complete in any kind of rush fashion, blaming the development of the NEW (and much more expensive) PFPX product as taking away time from Topcat. Other readers here in the forum can take this information for whatever it is worth to the individual reader. I didn't spend any time researching the "bundle" offer from Christian/FSS. I simply bought it on faith, seeing the 777 listed as supported in their brand-new product. Thanks again, Ryan, for clarifying the issue. Well, I don't know about the NGX. I have the NGX and the 777. Since I'm focused on the 777, I didn't test or even search further about the NGX. You might get more information by contacting FSS at the PFPX/Topcat website, and ask them point-blank. In reading their aircraft types page on their site, it does list the PMDG 737, I am only guessing that it may mean the NGX is supported. It simply says the 737, no "NGX", so I'm not positive. Here's the link to their supported aircraft list. http://www.flightsimsoft.com/topcat/?p=types

I have read that comment over on their forum. I also see their main developer (programmer) suggesting people in the sim community take it upon themselves to write the C++ DLL code needed for that airplane, and then he went one step further, saying they (the person who did that task) could even CHARGE MONEY FOR IT. That's a little different than the post you quoted by Judith. So the question arises as to 'when' this will happen - and until it does, the product remains useless to those who bought it only to use with the PMDG NGX or 777. If I'm not wrong, the NGX remains unsupported to this date- that's a plane that has been around for quite a while. My job isn't to bash FSS. It's simply to try to get their software to work with the 777 (and the NGX as well as long as I'm dreaming). Those are the ONLY 2 airplanes I fly in FSX. Cheers.

Yes, I do about as you do - except for pulling the throttles back to idle prior to Top of Descent. I shall try that and see how I do. Once again, many thanks, Kyle! You're the best :im Not Worthy: :im Not Worthy:

Again, many thanks to you, Kyle! I will read up more on the A/T modes in the manual. Meanwhile, it sounds like my throttles need to be in full idle position once I have taken off and switched to A/P, until I switch to manual mode, yeah?

Well, you certainly let me know YOUR opinion, and thanks for sharing. I would counter by saying that I got on to the purchase by reading that PFPX "DID" support the 777. Since Topcat is by NO MEANS a "new" software product (been around far longer than brand-new PFPX), I incorrectly surmised that because it was "BUNDLED", it would be on a par with PFPX. For 15 Euro, I also presumed that it would add a commensurate value proposition. Did I spend hours and days wondering about whether or not I should buy the "bundle"? No. Should I have made a big project out of a 77 USD add-on purchase? No. I am man enough to admit it's my fault I should have read the package closer - but on the other hand - Topcat has taken what I can describe as less-than-consumer-friendly approach to redressing the shortfall. Of course if Aerosoft is involved, I'm less than totally stunned. I recognize that the PMDG forum isn't the Topcat support forum. Other PMDG pilots may BENEFIT from this thread - if for no other reason than becoming more aware that if -all-they-fly- is PMDG, then they'd better take note. I only fly the NGX and the 777. So it impacts me, big deal, I blew 15 Euros on something that is essentially useless. I began this thread with the idea that possibly PMDG staff might elect to share performance data with Topcat. If not, possibly someone in this forum may have a workaround or be able to supply the performance data (say a Boeing employee or a RW pilot) on the 777 to FSS/Topcat. Since FSS claims this is a HUGE amount of WORK, they are trying to throw it on the user/pilot via a 'beta' workaround whereby the user has to enter aircraft profile data in lieu of adding the plane to their software. I might be wrong, but it's not as if a HUGE NUMBER of planes are being released each year for FSX, and clearly PMDG is regarded as a top-tier aircraft vendor. To omit their product from your product support is not smart business. For one thing the negative PR you generate when people eventually "discover" your deliberate omission will ultimately have an impact on sales. Shame on me for not making this a huge priority. On the other hand, shame on FSS for "bundling" and not having the forbearance to put PFPX + TOPCAT (bundle) along with "Note: Topcat does NOT support the PMDG 777, PFPX does". Then some folks who fly the 777 as their only or main airplane might have a second thought about the idea of buying the 'bundle'. What I don't get is how some people wish to mask the truth of this situation by announcing this isn't the appropriate place to discuss incompatibility of a 3PD product with a PMDG product. I submit that nothing could be more appropriate, sir. Thank you, and good day.

Sorry, Swen. I don't understand. Do you work on Topcat? What is the right place to discuss an add-on that ignores the 777? Since many pilot purchase PFPX BECAUSE it supports the 777, and like me, many pilots purchase the "bundle" of PFPX PLUS Topcat as well, only to discover that 1/2 of the "bundle" is useless - how would you feel if that was YOU doing the buying? I'm willing to bet you'd be unhappy, no? In my case, I purchased PFPX -because- it directly supports the PMDG 777. I bought the Topcat thinking it would support the 777 as well. I have seen the developer of the Topcat say publicly that it is the responsibility of the BUYER to discover the 777 is not supported by Topcat by reading a list of planes that ARE supported. Sounds a bit like tricky marketing, not honest...you think I am right? Of course not. You clearly have some kind of agenda and don't want people talking about a product that DOES NOT WORK with PMDG 777. This is the wrong place? Isn't this the PMDG 777 forum? You think??? Plain language: It's only FAIR that pilots 'realize' that a product being sold is NOT going to work with a specific 3rd party airplane, just fair warning, yeah?

The Topcat developer has publicly stated that putting in the performance profile for any 3rd party airplane is some kind of 'huge' task? Therefore the 777 has NO profile in Topcat (AFAIK) yet... which is annoying considering I purchased PFPX + Topcat as a 'bundle' and can't use Topcat AT ALL without the 777 support. I recognize this hardly is a PMDG responsibility, it really belongs squarely in the corner of the Topcat developer, who is hard at work trying to redo his software to totally AVOID entering new 3PD airplanes into his product. I recognize that Topcat is not "must own" software, I have lived without it until now. OTOH, it would be nice to have it integrate with PFPX and have the 777 speed data correct. Does anyone out there have an idea on how to implement this goal? I can't see PMDG doing it, as they are likely busy supporting their OWN products. But for those of us who are trying to get the hard data on a per-flight basis - it would be great if the products we bought all played well together whenever possible. Tabs, do you have any thoughts on this?

Thank you very much, Kyle. Your insightful and precise explanation is a Godsend. I totally appreciate the time and effort you put forth in writing it, and will implement your suggestions immediately. I have one other issue, that revolves around getting the plane to slow down and descend properly. I had previously found with the NGX and somewhat with the new 777 that both planes are a bit tough to slow down at landing time. Even using the ILS approach, quite often the plane does not descend properly and I have to manually fly it to get it aligned with the purple vertical diamond on the ND. Pulling back on the throttles does NOT slow the plane as you would imagine it should, particularly at touchdown time, I oft times must deploy the spoilers to get the plane to stop floating above the runway. I realize that slowing down while descending at the same time is a little much for a beast as heavy as the 777, of course I also know that if you have too much fuel on board that acerbates the problem. I use fuelplanner.com to plan my fuel loads, and have recently purchased PFPX and Topcat as well. I have to say that Topcat is annoying, it doesn't have a performance profile for the 777. Therefore it is useless to me. But I diverge. I have attempted to enter a dead zone for my throttle quadrant (Hotas Warthog set) in Windows 7 control panel, devices and printers. I thus far have avoided using the Thrustmaster T.A.R.G.E.T. software to enter a deadzone for the throttle because it's just one more bit of software to pile atop my FSX experience and OOM's are a definite concern. What I wish for is a way to gain greater control over the speed of the 777, especially at approach and landing time. If you have suggestions, I am open to them. I typically have to turn off A/T, A/P, and Flight Director and manually operate the throttles. I am specifically talking about problems coming in too fast with gear down and flaps maximum. Even with the airbrake/spoiler deployed at in-flight position, often I am still much too fast as I get near the threshold. Clearly being 'too high' and 'too close' can play a role, but it isn't realistic to be 1000' altitude at KSFO and 5 miles out. So I know something is not quite right. I hesitate to ask for further help after your wonderful post about step climb, but clearly your skills are considerably higher than mine, so if it isn't too much bother, a tip or two would be much appreciated. Thank you, Kyle!

Hi Kyle. I always set the MCP altitude for my initial clearance altitude from ATC. Must be that step climb feature. I wonder how I could have the plane step climb, but still go no higher than my planned cruise altitude. When ATC clears me to cruise, I dial that into the MCP and hit FLCH on the panel. As I get close to cruise, I flip on VNAV. Seems like about half the time the plane goes higher, and what's worse, all the cruise altitudes in my FMC are altered to the NEW higher altitude, all without ME doing so! Now that's convenient! NOT!

It did it again tonight, both engines derate setting #2, CI 66 lightly loaded from KSFO to KPHX. Planned altitude: FL370. At the end of climb, the plane was at FL400. This is embarrassing. It has been suggested "step climb" may be the culprit. Anyone??

Hey, I was only joking

When you boot your machine from being turned completely off, you can press F2 or whatever key is required to enter your SYSTEM BIOS (built-in operating system = BIOS). This is where you configure PC options, like the BOOT DEVICE ORDER (Typically CD/DVD first, then your Hard disk drive, some higher end machines have further boot time options as well), and things like OVERCLOCKING OPTIONS, whether or not you want RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Drives) or SATA operation on your hard disk drives, and so forth. There are basic setup options as well, things like NUMLOCK on or off, and of course, the SYSTEM DATE and SYSTEM TIME. PC's have a coin-battery that is designed to 'remember' the time and date whenever you power it off or even unplug the device from AC Power. Periodically, these little coin batteries run down and need replacement, be careful not to break the flimsy clip holding them into their mounting socket. Your system date and time, if incorrect, can cause licensing or other activation issues with software that checks against these values to authenticate different software products. The OP (original poster) in this thread apparently had this exact problem, and was remarking how sometimes the little things can blow long hours of head-scratching, and trial-and-error frustration attempting to resolve assorted PC problems. If all the lost manhours that have been spent on PC maintenance could be quantified at a minimum value of just $3 per hour, the sum total of money that figure would represent would be in the Trillions, worldwide. Put another way, if all those hours were translated into actual PC operating time, we could cure cancer, eliminate dependence on fossil fuels, re-invent the wheel, and send women into space. That last idea has a certain amount of appeal on several levels, particularly if it were a one-way ticket.

Nothing against Vatsim- but I too have had the occasional mysterious irate supervisor blast me for not responding during a long flight, come to find out my Squawkbox text window was obscured by my virtual cockpit. Most times the 'supervisor' was not from the specific airspace I was flying in. I personally prefer to pay a reasonable sum to PilotEdge.net ($15 a month for unlimited ATC 15 hours a day) and have FULL end-to-end ATC throughout my entire flight. They never suddenly 'close up shop' after just giving you clearance for your initial takeoff/taxi. They love the VFR pilot as much as the IFR heavy jet. They will teach you more in one month than you might pick up in many months with the Vatsim hit-or-miss approach. If ATC is MUST-have, your call is PilotEdge. If ATC is simply "nice to have" (if it's available), you likely can be happy with sometimes-there, sometimes-not Vatsim or IVAO. I started with Vatsim two years ago. Once I discovered PilotEdge, it is VERY challenging for me to revert to Vatsim. Yes, Vatsim is "free", PIlotEdge is not. Yes, Vatsim "covers the world", but good like flying from KSFO to NARITA Japan and having continuous ATC the entire flight. Even KSFO to KJFK, same issue. Controllers pop on and offline throughout your flight (if you're lucky), or else you might fly 2, 3 or 4 hours with NO ATC. That's a buzz-killer, I'm just saying. Even though Pilot Edge has a limited service area (Southern California, Las Vegas and San Francisco), you can do myriad flights just in their airspace and have fun doing it. They are professional at all times, and will hone your radio skills. As I said, it really depends on what your goals are. I regard ATC as "must have". So giving up HBO to have it 363 days a year for 15 hours a day was not a difficult decision. I've seen every movie that's on HBO already, and while I do enjoy the HBO series, I can't justify $200 a year just for those. You may feel differently, and it's nice to have the 'free' option of Vatsim.