karlh

HAHAHAHAHA. Supposed to. Oh that's funny.

I think what you are getting at is the camera point, how close the camera is from where it zooms from. Those points are defined in the aircraft.cfg file. Settings can be found with a search either here or Google.

Couldn't agree more! Other than occasional test flights, I don't ever fly single palyer. In addition to VATSIM, there are a number of Multiplayer networks that are available via the in-game multiplayer function. Most of the "sessions" are listed at http://www.fsopen.co.uk Boston Virtual is more focused on IFR ops. Despite their name they do not limit operations to Boston. FSFlyboys also does a lot of ATC and some off of the cuff stuff. MSFlights is my home and personal favorite. Group flights and random flights involve a little of everything with ATC ops being the least common type of activity. The big advantage of the multiplayer is community. Every network has a system of communcating via voice. TEAMSPEAK 3 is free software and used by almost 100% of the networks. A microphone is of course useful but text comms works to some degree as well. It's available at http://www.teamspeak.com Enjoy the automated ATC for what it's worth. But don't think that all that FS is.

The latest C-27 from Iris is shareable!

Comparing the two is not exactly apples to apples. The Drzewiecki Designs attempts to model all of NYC, whereas Aerosoft's Manhattan X limits itself to the island of Manhattan. They use different approaches to model the many, many buildings and features of this urban area. The differences will be apparent soon. Which you prefer will depend on the purpose for which you intend to fly the area. Manhattan X does a much better job of modeling individual buildings and 3D features. For instance, the WTC memorial in Manhattan X looks at any altitude, whether at 3 feet or 30,000. In Drzewiecki Designs the memorial looks a little better at altitude because it's photo real. But close to the surface it is a blurred 2D image as with most photo real scenery. While Manhattan X is limited to only Manhattan, I found it to be more appealing visually and accurate in color and details. Drzewiecki Designs models the whole metropolitan area, not just Manhattan. Accurate buildings are visible everywhere. For overflying the area at 3,000 ft. and above it is very appealing. I saw no moving traffic in Drzewiecki Designs on the roads or water. The buildings are gray in appearance and details are blurred when close to them. I thought that The Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island look okay though the colors aren't as vivid as Aerosoft's Manhattan X’s depiction of the islands. There are 3D people on the Drzewiecki Designs version which made it look a bit more alive as it usually in in real life. Overall the area just didn't "pop" for me as it did for Aerosoft's Manhattan X. I activated both in the scenery library placing Manhattan X above Drzewiecki Designs' New York City X. It seems to work to give Aerosoft's Manhattan X and the rest of the metro area with Drzewiecki Designs New York City X. For me, I like the advantages of having both products and will likely keep them both active. Aerosoft's Manhattan X is $24USD and Drzewiecki Designs New York X is $33USD. If flying NYC is really you're thing then $57USD is not too bad of a purchase considering the immense amount of work that had to be done to create these products. I give kudos to both companies for their work and effort. No matter which option you choose you shouldn't get that ripped off feeling that we all get sometimes from FSX purchases. Finally, in the images below are a couple of comparison screen shots. The first is from Manhattan looking east towards Queens. Conversely, the second is taking from Queens looking west towards Manhattan.

I fly primarily online in a relaltively large group. Many use Vector. I'm told that Vector places roads in their real world position. But they almost always are at different elevations when at airfields. I know one instance where the Vector elevation is incorrect and the FSX elevation is correct. I do own UTX, though I haven't installed it for a few years now. I use the Orbx US regions except Northern CA. My question is, whether or no I can use Ultimate Terrain with the Orbx regions and local airports installed. Are there any advantages to having Vector that outweigh the elevation issues? I thank you in advance for your input.

1st: Remember who's reading what you write. You may have pulled your hair out for the past day trying to install FSX. But we haven't. We don't know you asking about FSX. You could be asking about some add on. We had to read most of what you wrote before we could deduce that. 2nd. Go use you favorite search engine. Mr. Google is you friend. For example: https://www.google.com/#q=fsx%20error%201722 3rd: Read with purpose. You've placed this in the "multiplayer" area. You will get better responses by placing a question like this in a more general forum than a specific forum such as multiplayer. Best of luck!

Now I'm an inactive user? I don't feel like I'm inactive:) Actually just making a note to bring this topic current. Having similar issues with ASN and want to be able to find it when I choose to work on it

Sounds like a rehash of the FSHost software that has been working okay for years. What different about this?

Backup the config files for each of the items you mentioned. I think that would be the easy answer. To avoid this in the future I have been using a reliable backup program. In one daily backup task I make a fresh "full" backup of the OS every couple of weeks. In between it just backs up files that have been changed. I have a similar task for FSX and P3D as well. With those tasks the folders included are the main one of course, the one in AppData that contains the main XXX.cfg file, and the FSX/P3D folder contained in C:\Program Data. I selected Acronis originally because I found a couple of boxes of older versions of it at a book store. I've upgraded it since. I have used the backups to restore the OS to a computer that was a twin of the the original source. I've also used it to undo changes made when I improperly added some scenery and messed everything up in FSX. In both cases, the restore process was virtually pain free and appeared reliable. The FSX was a lot slower than I would have thought. But I didn't have to sit there during the process. I just started it and came back to a fixed FSX later in the day.

How does weather behave on clients when the weather is being injected into the mulitiplayer host machine by Active Sky? Thanks, Karl