IUBrian

Sure, it's almost three years later, but I couldn't resist replying because there still isn't a quality KIND. That said, although it's a big FedEx hub, given that it's fairly down the list in terms of passenger traffic, I imagine it's not high on the list of developer priorities. It does have a sleek modern terminal and has been ranked as the number 1 airport in North America two years in a row.

As someone who flies almost exclusively airliners and owns about a dozen payware airports (and just bought kiah today), I am conflicted. On the one hand, in terms of value, is a payware airport "worth" about a third of PMDG's T7, in terms of return on investment, the time you will spend with it? Not even close. But then again, the primary reason I enjoy those sophisticated aitliners is the realistic immersion, and an ugly generic representation of an airport I'm taking off from or landing at is a distraction, even though I only interact with it for ten or so minites. For me, paying for an airport is basically buying an enhancement for an add-on. It's not worth it to me to go hog wild and buy everything in sight, but I'm willing to engage on long term mission of accumulating detailed airports representing the major airports in the area I fly (the U.S.). Then I'll move to Europe and Asia. There's really no right or wrong answer other than how much one is willing to spend on this hobby, both in terms of money, or time if you're going to try to modify a large number of airports yourself.

I use the fixer and REX4 textures with no problems, I don't believe that to be the culprit. I also have more than a few payware airports, GEX AND UTX, and do not experience any OOM's. I'm sorry I can't offer a solution, but I don't believe REX4 textures are the problem. I will say that the reason I purchased the fixer is I was experiencing OOM's at payware KDFW. I thought it would fix the problem, but it didn't - turned out I'd jacked up my .cfg somehow - I think that I had a double entry or a mispelling somewhere. When I did what they suggest - start with a clean cfg - my problem was solved. Not saying that's your problem, but it made a difference for me.

For what it's worth, I updated everything, but the problem persisted until I deleted the programming software. I would have attempted to program the controller through FSUIPC, but I couldn't find a definitive answer if the multiple modes could be programmed with it, so I reinstalled the Saitek software, and it seems to be working again, for anyone else who stumbles across this problem.

I did look at the Event Viewer to confirm. Thank you very much for your suggestions; I know I have the latest video card driver, but as to the rest, I couldn't say for sure, I haven't checked in a while, so I will try your suggestions. It's frustrating, because I'd reached a level of comfort with my set-up's performance for quite some time, and then this little problem rears its ugly head out of nowhere. The nature of the beast, I guess. Thanks again for taking the time to post such a thorough and helpful reply!

Recently I have been having the PMDG_737NGX.DLL crash when selecting the plane. After searching the forums, I saw that there is sometimes a problem with the Saitek X52 Pro, which I had been using without a problem (also using the saitek software without problem) for years with this add on. I've also had FSUIPC installed for months without problems, though I recently purchased the license - that said, I've still completed several flights in the NGX with the X52 and the registered version of FSUIPC 4 without a hitch, until today, when I couldn't even select the plane. I disconnected the controller, and upon restart was able to select and load the NGX without problem, so I think I've at least isolated the x52 as the culprit. I deleted and rebuilt the cfg and loaded the NGX without the controller, ok, then restarted with the controller, same problem. Although I have presumably narrowed the problem down to something to do with the x52, I have literally used it for years, without a problem, so I am at a loss for an explanation. Short of ditching the Saitek software and simply using FSUIPC to program the controller, which I was going to eventually do anyway, does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions?

I have nothing to add except thank you for your efforts - really impressive stuff, and I've been enjoying it thoroughly.

I apologize for not thanking everyone for the fast replies. I made have found a culprit - somewhere I came across a post about an airport installation (I'm not completely sure if it was this one) making a "usepools" modification. I looked through my .cfg file and found a usepools entry, 5000000, or something similar. I'm a 0 bufferpools guy, so I'm not sure how it got there, but I deleted it, and since then no problems.

I have both, but don't use them at the same time, e.g., if I have AES at a particular airport, I don't use GSX at the airport, otherwise you have two marshallers, and some vehicles overlap each other, but otherwise no worries. I have both for the same reason. Interestingly, having both and being able to compare, I find that neither is perfect - both have features the other doesn't.

Recently purchased KDFW, and have had severe OOM issues just trying to get off the ground, and was wondering if anyone else has had similar issues. I'm not asking about the typical "adjust your sliders," etc., suggestions - I'm aware of them, but I also have a number of other highly detailed add-on airports, and this is the only one where I've had this issue, (and I have tried some adjustments with no success), so I'm trying to identify first if anyone else has experienced issues specific to this airport. I'm not disparaging the developer - I know it's a huge airport, and my searches so far haven't led me to any complaints beyond what would be expected with every add-on. Specifically I'm using the NGX, FS2Crew, REX, MyTraffic Pro, AES, GEX, and UTX - I know I have a lot going on, but my problem has been specific to that airport, so before I start chasing rabbits I'm trying to see if this airport has been particularly troublesome for others.

I think some are WAY overestimating real-time visual and electronic surveillance capabilities - if they were as as effective and omniscient as some seem to believe, it would render the necessity of drones of varying sizes and capabilities obsolete, and they fly over hostile territory that's already under near constant surveillance, not a vast and remote stretch of ocean for which there would be little need to deploy assets. Even radar range is somewhat limited by the curvature of the earth, in particular if one is hoping to actually track an object.

I don't think suicide can be ruled out; someone with idiosyncratic motivations might not commit suicide in a way that makes sense to someone thinking logically. Depressurize the cabin, kill everyone, and fly off into oblivion - I think it perfectly consistent with a series of actions that don't seen to make sense because the motivations are potentially impossible to discern - there's no one way to kill oneself. There just isn't enough information to rule out any of the 4 or 5 plausible scenarios because there just isn't enough pieces of the puzzle to see the whole picture.

I don't believe the ascent to 45,000 feet is reliable, but even if it was, from everything I read burning valuable time to climb and starve a fire would be the last thing they would do. And if the fire/smoke was so critical that they were unable to communicate, or really any fire for that matter, their objective would be to get the aircraft down as soon as possible, not pick and choose runways that may be more "suitable" or "easier" but are further away - it seems that in the event of an airborne fire, the potential consequences of which pilots are very aware, your primary worry would be the fire and landing the plane. Secondary would be the potential difficulty of the terrain, and a runway that was a few thousand feet shorter than you'd prefer. I don't mean this sarcastically but would an experienced pilot confronted with a fire consider it anything other than a very serious, if not one of the most serious airborne emergencies, as opposed to a manageable problem where he can simply choose a more "accommodating" runway a greater distance away when other runways are closer? The idea of poisonous fumes from the lithium batteries being transported does intrigue me, though.

I'll give you a crazy one (this is in jest, btw) China is behind it, has it hidden, but stages a "fake attack" with the T7 from North Korea. Uses its outrage at the murder of its citizens to launch a surprise attack to take out North Korean leadership, and installs a provisional, Chinese friendly government. Simultaneously gains world stature for ridding the world of a menace, launching an attack no one can blame them for, maintains a buffer between South Korea and the US, which is likely the only reason it still puts up with their nonsense, displays its military prowess (and willingness to use it) to the Pacific region, firmly supplanting the US as "the" power in the region (and putting the fear of God into Japan and Taiwan), and like the US removing Saddam, portrays itself as a true "good" superpower, taking advantage of Russia's unpopular annexation of Crimea and fears of a renewed Cold War. And really, who would believe North Korea's protestations of innocence. I'm not making light of the situation, btw. I'm afraid everyone is dead, and that is a tragedy. But at this point the flow of new "information" has slowed to a drip from what was previously a trickle. There doesn't seem much to add to existing theories. (EDIT - until I found this - seems to be a fairly reasoned argument for an accident ) http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/19/how-flight-370-could-have-become-a-zombie.html

But wouldn't they burn a significant amount of fuel to climb again? And good point, 5000 feet isn't exactly "nap of the earth" radar evading flying.

Heck, they didn't just know it was in the North Atlantic, they had a rough latitude and longitude radioed of its position when it was sinking, so they had a relatively small area to search. Granted, for much of the time the technology to find it didn't exist, like side scan sonar and cameras that could operate 2 miles deep, but they also had an 800 foot long liner that sank in 3 large pieces trailing identifiable debris in a relatively small area, settling on a relatively flat sea floor.

People vastly overestimate the omniscience of satellites and underestimate the size of the planet. The incredible resolution satellites can provide are fantastic at identifying objects if you know where to look, but the narrow field of view makes that magnification an impediment if you're just scanning to find something. An anology could be drawn to the sinking of the Titanic, where there was initially some blame placed on the fact the lookouts didn't have binoculars, but the reality was that while they could help identify a distant object once it was spotted, they were virtually useless for scanning the horizon at night unless they happened to be pointed directly at an object at the right time in part because of the narrow field of view. The same is the case with MH370 - in particular if you're talking about scanning the ocean for debris much smaller than the size of a T7. Scanning the ocean with satellites (assuming there were even enough to provide coverage) over an area roughly the size of the US, at a resolution sufficient to distinguish debris???? Oh, and don't forget about cloud coverage. It's an almost impossible task, like finding a needle in a stack of needles. Even over land - I remember when I was young, the "Bermuda Triangle" was a popular subject. Interested in unusual things as well as being a skeptic, it was a subject I read about, and I recall reading that there were more aircraft that disappeared over the continental US than in the so-called Bermuda Triangle. Of course, this was before the spy satellites of today, and we were talking about private aircraft as opposed to an airliner, but by the same token the population density of the US is quite a bit greater than sparsely populated ocean. The point is that while I have great faith in our ability to locate MH370, that is largely dependent on the people searching having far more details about the last known position than has been revealed. Otherwise I think it will be an act of luck to locate it.

On the subject of lampooning the media... http://www.theonion.com/articles/families-of-missing-flight-passengers-just-hoping,35572/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

Knowledge is not the threat, the ability to apply the knowledge is; how to build a nuclear weapon is relatively well known, the ability to apply that knowledge is substantially more difficult. Flight simming is no different. Knowing how to fly a T7 isn't the issue, whether it's with the proficiency of an experienced pilot or a novice, it's the ability to apply the knowledge, which is useless without the ability to be in the cockpit. If this was an act committed by a member of the flight crew, the issue won't be whether he had a flight simulator or not, because he already knew how to fly the plane and was in a position to do so. The focus going forward will be is it possible to discern "warning signs" that someone is capable of doing this. And if it was someone outside of the flight crew, the issue once again will be how to prevent unauthorized entry, because you at least have a shot at barring a door, you have none at barring knowledge, especially when for the overwhelming majority of people who possess the knowledge the use is completely benign. I believe the fears of a negative backlash or attempt to ban this information are overstated, and aside from a few reporters and the flight sim community, most other people don't care about the flight sim angle, and even fewer will as time passes by.

Very true - when you're in the media cross hairs, it sucks, but the media in general has a shorter attention span than my cat. When they've pumped the well dry, another shiny object will catch their eye, and they move on. I see it in my line of work - someone is arrested for some "heinous" crime and it's a top story on every local station. 6 months later when he's sentenced, it doesn't even get a mention.

If they aren't answering questions, it's a wise move. As anyone who has spoken to the press could tell you, they'll misquote you, they'll selectivity "edit" your comments to fit their own agenda, and the reporters are dumb as stumps. On the rare occasions when I have had to, I'll take the call (so they don't say "he refused to return our calls), and politely inform them I can't comment - I might throw them a few "off the record" bones so they might think I'm "ok," knowing full well nothing is ever truly "off record," and it won't likely make a difference.

Yes, I understand that, but there is recent and unanimous Supreme Court precedent on this precise issue; this isn't a question of the exercise of executive power, which is a complex and ill-defined area of Constituional jurisprudence.

It's not going to be banned in the US - software is constitutionally protected under the 1st Amendment. The only real concern would be whether Boeing and Airbus would want to continue cooperation with software developers, or some lawyer tries to file a nuisance suit against a software developer, discouraging further development. But as others have said, my post 9/11 recollection was that attention was pointed towards flight schools and cockpit security. From a flight simming perspective, it's probably more favorable if the pilot or co-pilot is responsible, even if he practiced on a sim, because it will be harder to claim he "learned" how from a sim. I think there may be a little hypersensitivity to the flight sim angle here. Computer's are often analyzed to find some trace of intention or planning during any investigation, and naturally they would be looking for suspicious flight simulator files. But when we see stories, we see suspicious FLIGHT SIMULATOR files. I think most others see SUSPCIOUS flight simulator FILES. In the news cycle, the media is going to hype anything they can get their hands on, and in this case there is little information, so the flight simulator aspect to us seems disproportionately large, but some other "fact" will pop up, and the media and public interest will move to something else. I think the biggest threat to the hobby is its commercial viability generally, not this specific incident.

My questions regarding the theory that MH370 was shadowing SIA68: Aside from the obvious difficulty of knowing that it would be in the same area at approximately the same time, how easily could one T7 intercept another T7 traveling at cruise, without a military radar designed specifically for that purpose, and avoid detection while doing so? It's not like it can kick in afterburners; while it could conceivably plot an intercept course, given MH370 wouldn't have a lot of excess speed relative to SIA68, I'd think it would have to be almost perfect in its execution. Further, it's not a simple task for aircraft to complete mid-air refueling even when both aircraft are working in concert to achieve it. And how easy would it be to mange changes in speed and altitude quickly enough to mirror another large aircraft that's not working in concert. It seems that would be an awfully tall order for any pilot, even an experienced T7 pilot, especially at night. If there are any ex-military pilots on here, I'd be curious of your opinion.

When people mention submarines, etc., being able to locate the wreck from the pings, I think how it took two years to locate the Air France wreck, and they had a very good idea where it went down. The listening abilities of modern navies is remarkable, but the deep ocean is a "noisy" place, and for now, the search area is vast (as far as we know). On this subject I profess ignorance - I know sound can travel great distances in the ocean, but I don't believe the pings would be so powerful that it wouldn't be lost in the cacophony of the deep sea unless we're relatively close to the crash site. I feel like we will locate the wreck (if that's what happened), because it seems we always do, eventually, but when you reflect upon it, it almost seems ironic to place that much faith in technology when the fact the airliner "disappeared" demonstrates its fallibility.