lmeirose

Members
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No
  1. Hello Everyone, I recently purchased the Area51 Simulations U-2S for FSX about a week ago and I CANNOT get it to exceed 60,000 feet without great difficulty. I have only been able to do so when I set a.) both the fuel AND payload to “0” and b.) the weather conditions to “clear skies”. In all cases, I have used the autopilot to reach these altitudes. I completely understand that the aircraft requires a great deal of time to cruise-climb to altitude, but other users of the product claim that they are able to reach altitudes in excess of 70-80,000 feet. Is there anything I can do? I have attempted to contact Area51 about this problem, but responses have not been forthcoming. I have also looked into modifying the aircraft .cfg, but I would rather not have to do that unless it is absolutely necessary. As I understand it, from researching posts on Flightsim and SOH, the problem appears to lie with the updated .air file for this aircraft in FSX. Originally, Area51 released two iterations of this aircraft several years ago for FSX (circa 2010?); the second version containing an updated .air and .cfg file. Users encountering this altitude problem in the newer version swapped out the updated .air file for the original one, which solved the issue. Unfortunately, Area51 only sells the updated version for FSX. Is it possible to somehow obtain the original .air and .cfg files at this time without violating payware regulations? What procedures should I follow? If there is any way you can help, I would greatly appreciate it. I promise and assure you that I have no intention of illegally selling or profiting from this information; I’m just trying to enhance and enjoy my own personal experience of flying this amazing and unique aircraft as close to the actual U-2S performance envelope as possible. Thanks very much for your help!!
  2. Thanks again! I didn't realize that you could examine/edit the effects in that manner. Definitely good to know!! Oops! I meant rename the effects texture as "fx_Aa-Con.bmp".
  3. charliearon, thank you your suggestions! They proved extremely helpful! As per your advice, I opened and viewed the SR-71's effects (.fx) files via Notepad. As it turns out, the problem was that the effect "fx_Glowingheat_SR71_vapor3.fx" effect that controls the nose vapor was attributed to the effects texture "fx_Aa-Con.bmp", which doesn't exist in the FSX "Effects" "texture" folder. The other two vapor effects are attributed to the "fx_1.bmp" (which is one of FSX's default effects textures for smoke/vapor trails, right?), and they appear to work fine; so here's what I did to fix the problem: - I copied the "fx_1.bmp" effects texture to create a second copy of it - Next, I renamed the "fx_1.bmp - Copy" effects texture as "fx_Aa_Con.bmp" Problem solved!!
  4. Hello All, I just had a quick question for all of you. I recently purchased, downloaded and installed the Glowingheat SR-71 V2.4 for FSX (I'm running it on a Windows 10 operating system) and I've really been enjoying flying it. I've noticed, however, that when I perform steep climbs or turns with the aircraft, the vapor effects on the nose appear to be displaying black squares (implying that the effects files might be corrupted or missing): From what I know and have seen with previous iterations of the model, the nose vapor should be white, just like the vapor that comes off the inlet spikes. From what I can gather from the .cfg file, the nose vapor effect is indeed separate (it's labeled as "fx_glowingheat_SR71_vapor3.fx"). I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling the product, as well as trying to replace the effect from the previous GlowingHeat/Alphasim Blackbird iterations, but I haven't had any luck thus far. I contacted GlowingHeat via their website on their support forum, but haven't heard anything back yet... Have any of you run into this issue? Is there a fix for this? Is there anything I can do on my end to resolve the problem (perhaps in the .cfg file)? Thanks very much for all of your help!!