LecLightning56

I have reluctantly decided to postpone all further flight sim activities. Unfortunately the problems of the Humberside region in the United Kingdom preclude the safe enjoyment of the hobby and is further hampered by the lack of local contacts in the form of a definite and active flight sim group or society in the area. I hope one day that I can return to this enjoyable pastime in a better world and where perhaps more local support is available. Highlights to me have been FsiPanel to practice approaches with the heavies and seeing the continual improvement of Prepar3D. I am sure for those of you who pursue this hobby and consider yourselves lucky to enjoy it will continue to benefit from what will hopefully be an exciting future for PC-based flight simulation. So, signing out for now and wishing the community all the best in the future, Paul Hermon

I agree that the costs of new tooling seem prohibitive, particularly since the initial proposal was merely to serve Eaatern Airways' interests rather than a serious attempt at selling more airframes. All such proposals have largely been ditched for the time being, as I understand it. Paul Hermon

I have heard that the Eastern Airways boss was even thinking of resurrecting the now defunct J41 production line somewhere in Yorkshire, so popular and reliable the aircraft has proved to be in passenger service. Paul Hermon

Yeah, Eastern Airways J41s buzz over my head regularly from Humberside Airport to Aberdeen so very much still operating. Paul Hermon

Same here too. At least another 10fps for the PMDG 777. It would be good to know exactly how this quantum leap occurs. But for me with my modest system, this is life-changing in terms of what P3D can do for me now. Paul Hermon

Thanks Ronzie for your advice and instructions. I am now using RC comfortably for landing and departing aircraft, albeit with AI aircraft only from my lofty tower position at Heathrow. For Heathrow, I have managed to assign different tower frequencies for arrival and departure to cater for the volume of traffic involved. One thing I have noticed which seems odd, is that RC only gives advice to AI aircraft to continue the approach but no clearance to land. Similarly, go-arounds are not seemingly handled by RC for AI aircraft. Is this a limitation of RC, or are there other settings or considerations which govern whether RC provides rather more extensive interaction with AI aircraft?

Thanks for your advice, Ray. Yes, it is a little unusual but I do like to plane spot a bit! For anyone reading not familiar with what I am trying to do, in FSX there is a capability to setup a tower view position in Multiplayer, with a selection of controls to change airport frequency and even a radar screen of approaching/departing/overflying aircraft. This is unusual in the sense that no aircraft has physically been loaded into FSX, only the tower itself. I am experimenting with replacing the default ATC with RC since the messages in the latter are very much more accurate in trems of ATC standards. I shall carry on playing around a bit and see if I can perhaps 'fool' RC into enabling frequency changes outside of control of a loaded aircraft and if successful I shall report back. Paul Hermon

With a little experimentation, I have succeeded in listening to tower departures, departure frequency and approach with RC from the tower itself. Note that I have only created a flight plan for a nonexistent aircraft, since I only have the tower loaded. What does not work is handover from approach to tower whereby I do not hear any incoming flights being cleared to land and handing over to ground upon landing itself. So, some progress and I do prefer the more realistic voices in RC compared with the default ATC. If anyone else has any comments to add, please let me know. Paul Hermon

Hi, I would like to watch AI aircraft from the tower in FSX. I would also like to listen to the airport ATC frequencies. This is possible using the default FSX ATC but I am wondering if there is any way that RCv4 could also act in this capacity. It would appear that RC requires the loading of a flight plan before it starts so one may be limited to departure frequencies, not incoming traffic. At Heathrow there are two tower frequencies: departure and arrival. Does anyone know how I could use RC to listen to arrivals, even if a departure flight plan has been filed? (It should be noted that the arrivals are on a different frequency from departures). Paul Hermon

Further testing has indeed identified mono sound files which use sound cones in the external view (viewpoint=2) entries of the jet whine components of the custom sound sets which I have been using (you will find these in your customized, e.g. Turbine Sound Studios soundai.cfg files which you have to use for AI aircraft using UT2). If I convert these mono files to stereo, then the intolerable noise disappears. This seems to be a permanent fix. For reference if you are using TSS sound packages, the sound files concerned typically have names such as WhineAX, FanAX etc. for the external sounds associated with jet whine. If they are mono files (check using the Audacity freeware software), then convert them to stereo (again using Audacity) and you are done! Happy plane-spotting with AI aircraft in the meantime!

Thanks for your advice and for the link to the sound configuration definition from Microsoft. With a little experimentation, I have found that the probable cause of the issue is the use of mono wav files when sound cones have been used, in the soundai.cfg: this is particularly the case for the TSS sound package that I am using, and with the engine fan sounds associated with it. If you convert the mono fan wav files to stereo using the audacity software (great tool), then the problem noise disappears. I need to do further testing to confirm this, but it seems AI aircraft are intorerant of mono wav files when sound cones have been defined for such files.

I believe that I have now isolated the reason for the deafening noise in FSX with the use of AI aircraft and custom sound packages. I have tried UT2 and World of AI and the problem is repeatable thus eliminating issues with UT2. I have installed British Airways at Heathrow with both these AI packages and, to add some realism, decided to substitute the default sound files in both cases with Turbine Sound Studios substitutes, but only initially with the A318/319/320/321. It would appear that the AI A318/319/320/321 do not operate effectively with the 'FanAX' and 'FanAX2' .wav files in the TSS sound package when the aircraft are taxiing at slow speed (I would have thought that the fan sound should be minimal if at all when taxiing). If I comment out FanAX and FanAX2 entries in the soundai.cfg file (and similarly FanBX and FanBX2) for each of these aircraft, the problem is eliminated but I lose the fan sounds for the engines which is somewhat self-defeating to get the full benefit of realistic aircraft sounds on takeoff. I am looking for some assistance from somebody with knowledge of the sound configuration files in FSX to rectify this issue so that the fan sounds do not contaminate the AI sounds at slow speeds, but still operate effectively when the engines are throttled up on takeoff (which is clearly when you should experience such sounds at their best). I believe that that there is nothing unusual with my installation of FSX and the AI packages, and indeed I have just about flogged to death every avenue with my sound card. Your help here would be greatly appreciated and I feel that others will benefit from any solutions that may exist.

I believe that I have found a solution to this problem. When you install Ultimate Traffic 2, the soundai files are aliased improperly to B737_800\soundai instead of SimObjects\Airplanes\B737_800\soundai. Hence, if SOUND_LOD is set to 0 in the fsx.cfg file (telling FSX not to use the default sounds for AI aircraft but user-defined ones instead), the terrible deafening noise is activated about 4-5 minutes after UT2 has injected the AI aircraft. This problem is overcome by installing a sound package such as Audio Environment which places sound files in all the soundai folders of the UT2 aircraft types. Instead, a more natural background noise is experienced in FSX which does not seem too unrepresentative of a major airport such as Heathrow. If you endeavour to use your own sound files instead for specific aircraft types in UT2 then beware because I tried to use the Airbus sound files from Aerosoft's A318/319/320/321 and the bad noise returned again. However, other sound packages from e.g. TSS seem to be alright for this purpose (with a little simplification) and it is certainly good to watch an AI British Airways A380 taking off from Heathrow with what sounds rather more like Rolls Royce Trents! So the injection of the terrible deafening roar seems to be function of poor aliasing in the UT2 soundai folders combined with issues relating to user-defined sound files for specific aircraft types which may cause problems. As it happens, I quite like the default background noise which FSX injects for Heathrow - a little over the top but at least sounding like an airport bustling with activity. Out with the deafening roar now and back to some serious plane spotting! Paul Hermon

Hi, I have been experimenting recently with AI aircraft and flight schedules in Ultimate Traffic 2, at Aerosoft's Mega Airport Heathrow addon. Indulging in a little plane-spotting and using EZDOK to position myself at a convenient location close to a runway, I find am subjected to a continuous, unbearable noise which in no way represents the level of activity injected into the sim by either the airport addon or the AI aircraft of UT2. Has anybody else experienced this problem, and if so have you found a way to lessen or remove it? It seems a shame that, if this is hard-coded into FSX, it detracts from enjoyment of the general ambience of an airport environment. Your help here would be greatly appreciated

I have tried the various tweaks as suggested but there is no significant improvement. I am beginning to think that a lack of optimisation for P3D may be, in part, the issue with a number of products which are themselves marketed as P3D versions but may possibly be, as Mike W has put it, straight ports over from FSX. Whether or not we shall see any upheavals of certain products to improve their performance in P3D remains to be seen, but I suspect for a lot of us we may have to continue to use FSX to enjoy something better than a slide show. Thanks for all your inputs thus far.

I have done a back-to-back comparison of the iFly 737-800 in both FSX and Prepar3D v2.4, with the same add-ons (ORBX), at the same airfield (Barkston Heath AB in the UK) and I must confess I am very disappointed with the frame rates in P3D. Whereas I can achieve approximately 38-40 FPS in FSX, I am only really getting half of this at 18FPS in P3D. This to me is almost a show-stopper for serious use of P3D with my current rig. I understand that FSX is predominantly CPU-based whereas P3D does allegedly make more use of GPU. Even turning the sliders down in P3D (as some have suggested) seems to have little effect in improving the situation. I am using a GTX 970 graphics card which I would have thought would be more than adequate, short of major expenditure otherwise. My CPU is a little dated (an i7 875K with boost to 3.6 GHz), but the exercise with FSX suggests that the CPU is certainly up to it where CPU-dependency is concerned. Is this typical of other peoples experiences of P3D, or are you faring better in this respect? The impression is that for serious P3D applications, a particularly capable rig is required with a CPU far in excess of my own perhaps meagre 3.6 GHz, despite the fact that P3D makes better use of the GPU. If this is the case then not all of us are prepared to venture into such expenditure merely for the sake of comparatively inexpensive flight simulation software. It is perhaps a pity that, in achieving what they have with P3D, Lockheed Martin has apparently sacrificed so much in the process, with what is essentially an improved version of FSX (and I cannot deny that they have progressed things very significantly), albeit for academic and professional use. Your thoughts and suggestions here would be most welcome, and I most certainly do not want to ditch P3D completely at this stage on account of its poor performance relative to FSX, in terms of FPS. Paul Hermon

Thanks, Torsten, The download file has now cured the stuck at clearance problem. Paul Hermon

To break myself in gently, I am following the PMDG 737NGX tutorial from EGKK to EHAM. I did switch the coms on the radio and, by typing in 1, the flight menu appears from which the flight clearance is actually given. No acknowledgement of the clearance is given by the pilot and no further mention of start and push back given by the controller. A link has been given to rectify this problem elsewhere in this thread but the forum is down.

Itching to get up and away but stuck at clearance. Unfortunately the forum is down. Will some kind soul explain why I can't progress beyond clearance? I think ATC just gave up and went home for the day! Paul Hermon

There have been no further contributions following the results of my investigations so I shall mark this thread as solved on the basis of these results. Paul Hermon

Thanks 777simmer for pointing out the error of my ways!

At last some progress. It would appear that the problem all along has been the setting of null zones for the controller axes. In particular, it would appear that the setting of a null zone for the aileron axis is the main culprit. My yoke centralizes accurately in the roll axis, so upon removal of the null zone for the aileron axis I am now getting acceptable results in my 'test' conditions whereby the 'drift' is minimised to an acceptable level (with minimal control inputs and no aileron inputs whatsoever, the PMDG 777 now touches down approximately 5 feet to the left of the centreline, which is very much better). So, just to recap, this appears to have been a controller calibration problem associated with the setting of a null zone in the aileron axis which is largely to blame. There is no further need to disconnect the primary flight computers as previously reported. I shall now go away and experiment with non-FBW aircraft (outside the scope of this thread). I wish that there was a more authoritative guide to best practice with controllers where the use of null zones and sensitivity is concerned with application to FBW and non-FBW aircraft, but perhaps it is left to the individual to determine for himself to adjust accordingly to achieve the best results. I think that I can discount FSiPanel in terms of the weather settings since these have always been set in FSX after FSiPanel has positioned the aircraft for the landing. Thank you all for your contributions and if anyone has anything further to add then please send in your comments as you see fit. Paul Hermon

I have tried the Level D 767 (non-FBW) by setting up the approach with FSiPanel and ensuring the weather is completely cleared to zero wind. Lo and behold, if I disengage the autopilot at about 400-500 feet and fly manually, this simulation has the tendency to drift port or starboard slightly in the absence of aileron inputs. Personally I find this behaviour annoying in a sim, particularly having to make corrections at such low altitude, and suggests that something is not quite right somewhere. I have checked yoke calibration and I would have thought that setting null zones would eliminate issues with poor centralisation laterally of the controller, where the ailerons are concerned and similarly with the rudder pedals. I have heard stories of very large aircraft handling 'straight down the bowling alley' in the real world and it seems strange that my only experience with this in FSX is with the baby Airbus. I have also had an abortive attempt with the PMDG 747 and again the drift is present (how can you correct with rudder if no wind is present?). I shall continue to investigate and see if I can improve on the current situation by some means. Paul Hermon

Hi Rob, Yes, in the absence of clearing all weather in FSX by the procedure detailed above and disconnecting the PFC the drift always happens irrespective of airport. Please note that the drift occurs in the complete absence of setting a crosswind in the landing by whatever means, either through use of the FSiPanel tool or weather-injection software such as ActiveSky Next. To reiterate my earlier messages, the issue does not occur with Aerosoft's A318/319/320/321. The drift is quite small but sufficient that, unless corrected for with a little aileron, will result in touchdown well to the side of the runway. Thank you anyway if you manage to try it out. I shall be interested in your findings. Paul Hermon

Quote from above: 'A search on the internet has revealed that this may be referred to as a secondary mode on the 777, akin to the alternate law in the Airbus'. Correction to this quote before I get my knuckles rapped by PMDG. I believe this is referred to as 'direct mode' in the 777, whereby no commands are processed by the PFCs and hence is probably not akin to the alternate law in the Airbus.