samisahusky

After excluding the World of Jetways folder from LNM scenery database, and excluding 3rd party airports from GSX config, LNM is showing correctly now (only checked KHOU and KDTW). Thanks to both of you for the replies and help!

My understanding of this note in the user manual is that World of Jetways could make itself a higher priority than the addon scenery thereby overriding the jetway placements. Since most of my addon airports still use the default jetways, I do not want to disable those from GSX, as I DO want GSX to generate jetways for those airports since they are usually not part of the addon scenery. If I purchased a 3rd party airport that had custom jetways, then I would want to disable GSX from overwriting those. That's my understanding of it.

Sorry for the late reply. I've got work and school I'm up against lol. I'll try excluding the GSX folder with the new LNM update and see what that looks like. Thanks!

@albar965 I did reload the scenery database after every addon installed (I generally add a new airport every week either freeware from Flightsim.to or payware from the developer and never from the store in MSFS). Additionally, there is nothing excluded from the scenery library options. Here is a screenshot of what KHOU shows for me for the data sources: https://prnt.sc/9_nr_H3qyO_v

I had taken a break from FS from about mid December until mid March. I made sure everything was updated for all the addons, mods, etc for MSFS which included little nav map. I am now noticing that the gate/parking info showing on LNM is not matching what is actually in the AFCAD files for the addon airports. I do not recall this issue with the version of LNM I was running in December. All other programs (GSX and PF3 used mostly) are reading the files correctly, but LNM is not. For an example: I have downloaded a freeware KDTW from flightsim.to and rebuilt the scenery database in LNM. On arrival to KDTW, PF3 ATC instructs me to taxi to gate A54. I select gate A54 and a follow-me from GSX. Follow-me arrives and leads me to the gate, with PF3 giving proper call-outs to the taxiways including "turn left to gate" when gate A54 was just slightly ahead and to the left. GSX vehicle pulled into the gate clearly marked as A54 on the scenery. LNM, shows that gate as gate A39. I have come across this same issue a couple of other times with other airports, but cannot remember which ones exactly aside for also KHOU. Is there some setting that was changed in this version, or what is causing my addon airports to not be displayed correctly anymore in LNM? Older versions of LNM showed the parking and gate information correctly for all addon airports. Here is a screenshot of KHOU showing the AFCAD file installed in the community folder (which is read fine by everything else) for gate 41 according to the AFCAD, but LNM shows it as gate 10 and is also missing gates that are in the AFCAD -- https://prnt.sc/OCs_RuejDDsP

It deletes Oceanic Tracks on its own and puts in waypoints that are not even on the scheduled/published flight route once "Fly Now" selected. It does not recognize waypoints that are coordinates (ie 57N40), And lately I've noticed that in the airport database, it is not saving the preferences for preferred runways under X knots winds, or closing runways to landings/takeoff. So for example, with calm winds at KLAX ProATC-SR wants to use the 6s and 7s but in real life the 6s and 7s are almost never used (I lived in LA and can say that for a fact) because of noise ordinances in place. Additionally, at KBHM there is a small runway of just over 3,000 feet that ProATC-SR wants to use, but again, that would never be used by commercial traffic because it is too short. Because ProATC-SR is not saving these preference changes, the only way to fix it is to modify the original scenery folder which is far more work than needs to be done, if it can be done at all. And at least 1 of the default ATC voices does not even read the full instruction saying something like " D A L 123, 14.7" or "D A L 123, 22R" when it should be "Delta 123, contact center on 114.7" or "Delta 123, taxi to and hold short of runway 22R via..." I've been saying since the early ProATC-X days that the program is flawed. With -SR all they did was take the latest -X version (which was highly flawed), slap a new coat of paint on it, add in the voice capabilities, and call it new. As I said before regarding this product: you can't take a car out of the junk yard, slap a new coat of paint on it, change the radio and call it new - the underlying problems that were broken are still there and still broken. What upset me most about -SR was the promise of more frequent updates that never manifested. We were promised an update in August that was supposed to fix the ATC phraseology and the Oceanic Tracks and coordinates waypoints issues. Well, it's the end of October and that update never came, and its been silent from the developer and even the biggest supporters of Pro ATC like Mike Collins have gone silent and stopped promoting the word not allowed out of the product - likely because they have now realized just how much they contributed in scamming people into buying this product with the lies of updates and improved/fix functionality. However, and with great sadness, I still use Pro ATC only because it is the only ATC program out there that offers random SID and STARS, STARS and runways can change with updated weather, and it talks to AI traffic throughout the flight, amongst a couple of other features that are not available from another ATC program at this time.

I've tried PF3 and Pilot2ATC. I'll need to look at PF3 again. I do like P2ATC, but don't use it because it doesn't interact with AI. The developer said that was being looked at bit it's been a while and not implemented as far as I know. Both PF3 and P2ATC have excellent support for the programs. Overall, ProATC has offered everything I've needed and wanted with ATC bit the update last year had a lot of bugs. I'll have to see how this new platform/version does and what it supports/offers.

I didn't hear about any accident either and I view the forums regularly. And @MaVe64 i had (still have) all your voices installed and love them. Sadly, that is all the forum support focused on however - if you had installed the voices they would only focus on that and never the issue at hand that had nothing to do with the voices. They would say to remove the voices, uninstaller and reinstall into a new directory, and then would still ignore the issues and sometimes point out their own voices causing errors! I have accepted the product for what it is now, but all of this interaction with forum support was over a year ago and you can clearly see how their poor support has still left an impression. Just goes to show for the developers, be careful who you put as the face of customer service to your users because it can and will hurt your product for a long time - I'm currently having the same discussion with the developer of A Pilots Life Ch2 and the mods on the discord being astoundingly rude, threatening, and overwhelmingly unhelpful to many users who post there. Back to the topic tho - there was nothing wrong with the voices that MaVe64 made, it was all the voices, even the default ones, and the lack of support (or willingness to even acknowledge that a problem existed) was what left a bad mark on their reputation.

For ATC I use ProATC - I can ignore the bad commands to start descent early and aside from that there really isn't much wrong with the product. It can be updated with current airac cycle and reads add on scenery well. For AI traffic I use AIG AIM OCI with all traffic installed and traffic setting to 75% in P3Dv5.3 Because of the issue listed above with FSHud, I have the product but do not use it until the situation with AI traffic is resolved. Regardless of what traffic add on you use, it takes those files and then makes its own so that it can "control" the AI but the injection is poorly executed thereby leaving everything but the departure airport very empty. Also, as stated previously, this is all with P3dv5.3 because there is not enough aircraft out for FS2020 yet for me to be able to fly with my VA there. Also, no GSX for FS2020 yet either. There is just too much missing from FS2020 for me to be able to use it fully. When I do use FS2020, it is to do some of the Bush trips so I don't care about AI traffic or GSX or have to worry about doing a perfect flight in a specific aircraft on a specific route for the VA. I'm sure FSHud and FS2020 will both be great in time, but neither are what I need them to be at the moment.

In my opinion, while better than default ATC, FSHud has some issues around how it injects traffic. It can use bgl traffic files so programs like AIG AIM can be used, but after doing 10 flights with FSHud, I found that 100% of the time on approach, arrival, and at the destination gate there was hardly ever any traffic despite having traffic set to 60/60 in FSHud. The developer states it is because of the amount of time to process the traffic and inject it so aircraft will not just appear at the gates, but rather have to fly in. This was an immersion killer for me especially seeing only 3 other aircraft at KATL and only 5 at KJFK. That would never happen in real life. I have AI traffic for a reason and it is not to NOT see them around.

In my opinion, while better than default ATC, FSHud has some issues around how it injects traffic. It can use bgl traffic files so programs like AIG AIM can be used, but after doing 10 flights with FSHud, I found that 100% of the time on approach, arrival, and at the destination gate there was hardly ever any traffic despite having traffic set to 60/60 in FSHud. The developer states it is because of the amount of time to process the traffic and inject it so aircraft will not just appear at the gates, but rather have to fly in. This was an immersion killer for me especially seeing only 3 other aircraft at KATL and only 5 at KJFK. That would never happen in real life. I have AI traffic for a reason and it is not to NOT see them around.

Despite its problems, I still use PATC with P3Dv5.3 with the biggest issue being that on some long haul flights, ATC will instruct to desend to FL230 while still thousands of NM from destination. I produced about 3 log files with the problem and the forum support focused on the voices instead, even in a freshly downloaded and unmodified version installed into a totally separate drive. They never even touched the early decend problem and at one point told me they "have more important log files to look at" while numerous people were reporting the same issue. To this day, over a year later, it was never properly addressed, acknowledged, nor corrected. This has been my experience with PATC as a whole from the hit or miss development, the lack of updates, and being dismissed as irrelevant by forum support. Really makes me think long and hard about considering to buy this new program. I don't even know if it will work with P3D as I have not done anything more than kill time in FS2020 due to the lack of aircraft I would need to fly for my VA (they check and log the airframe files to ensure you fly an aircraft you say in the flight plan and that you are certified to fly). It will be a while before I'm fully on FS2020, perhaps a year or more.

Anyone?

Yes, I have EA on. However, prior to installing Envtex, the night sky did not look like this, so clearly it must have some effect. EA alone does not cause this or I would have seen it already.

Everything is its latest version for reference. I also posted this on the TOGA Projects forum, but from the looks of their forums, its all gibberish and spam replying to posts (one person trying to sell a house in France? ) I am hoping this forum can help me resolve the issue I am having with the night sky brightness using Envtex (just got it yesterday as a result of one of my other posts here). The sky in the middle of the night looks too bright. Here is the post I made to TOGA forums: I just installed Envtex and now my night sky looks like the sun is constantly in late stage setting or early stage rising. Here is a screenshot over the Red Sea at 04:00 (it is not brighter or darker in any camera pan direction, so not the moon which is also not visible at this time): https://prnt.sc/wi8KEhDn6A03 I tried with dynamic 24-hour random, and custom "dark" for the Envtex night sky settings and I see no difference. Does installing changes while in flight actually take effect immediately or does it require a restart? I can provide whatever settings are needed to help isolate and fix the problem. I don't want to list them all here since there are so many between Envshade, Envtex, and P3D lighting settings. For reference, sunrise today (29 June 2022) in Jeddah (flight is from OEJN to DTTA) is 05:44, so I am still an hour and a half away from sunrise - the sky should not look this bright already. It was the same when flying DTTA to OEJN arriving in OEJN at 02:00.

Never mind, I found it! It always seems I find the answer just after I get tired of searching and post on the forum for help lol.

Is there a way to remove the user aircraft flag that shows my altitude and ground speed on the map? Its usually not an issue having it on, but on this current leg of my current flight, it is covering some other info I need from the map. Here is a pic of what I am looking to remove: https://prnt.sc/7eMh2MPTzWfQ

I have REX Texture Direct for when I had P3Dv4, but the website says it is not compatible with V5 which I fly now, so I've never installed it. I loved the ability to change the textures of the runways and aprons. Is there something like this that is compatible with V5?

My issue was that it had installed it twice so they were conflicting with each other. Once I found the second installation and removed it from the scenery library, everything worked well. I did however also have default buildings showing through, which was easily resolved by opening the ADE file, importing default scenery objects and then deleting them and recompiling. I have since had no issues in P3dv5.3

I can't even get it to work correctly. installed and seen by everything (scenery add on, GSX, little navmap, etc.), but no aprons, no buildings, nothing but the runways base layer and scenery base layer will ever show up. https://prnt.sc/v8nXG9a3d2X_

Just for updates, I did the affinity mask change listed above, and also upgraded my ram to a higher processing speed. Those changes got me slightly above 20fps in the a330 (average 21.8). However, I've been tracking my average fps for each aircraft I fly and this bird ranks 2nd to last with the capsim 757 being worst (phasing it out sadly). Aside from the a380 all my aircraft are payware. Even in FSLabs a320/1 I get close to an average of 40fps. The average fps is from each flight report shown from my VA. Bottom line, the aerosoft a330 is very heavy on fps, and when FSLabs releases their a330 sometime after year 2953 I'll be switching to it. It likely was not my set up but rather the huge fps demand on this particular aircraft. Still, who codes an aircraft to not give reverse thrust when fps are low when historically fps are always lowest at landing? Seems to be a huge oversight on aerosoft that they have been aware of for years and have no intentions on resolving.

@blaunarwal While I don't truly mind the FPS at a lower number if it is smooth and looks good, the Aerosoft A330 will not activate reverse thrust if FPS is below 20. This has been a known issue to them for a long time and they have done nothing to fix it, so I don't think they ever will. Until FSL releases their A330, I need to be able to keep FPS above 20 on approach and landing at all times. Therefore, setting FPS limit to 21 would not allow enough of a buffer. For me, it would be best to have the sim set to maintain as high of FPS as possible (while still having some good looking scenery and addons) at all times, regardless of what aircraft I use or location I am flying in.

@blaunarwal I have an MSI MB that does easy overclocking of CPU. While my base is 3.8GHz I think, enabling Game Boost bumps the clock speed at about 4.5-4.75GHz. I've just installed the faster RAM (now 3600MHz) and applied the [jobscheduler] changes listed above. My last flight landed at WSSS (addon by ImagineSim) and I was getting 14-20 FPS on approach and landing with traffic and weather turned on. With the changes, weather and AI still on, a circuit around WSSS showed FPS about 25-35 flying low around the city (1,500 feet) and would occasionally drop to mid teens as I looked around (using Track IR) and with some undocked windows but then back up to 20-35 a second later. On the ground at the gate after landing, I'm showing about 25 FPS. This will have to do for now. I'll play around with some settings later on, but getting 25FPS on the ground at an addon airport, with Active Sky live weather on, and 71 AI aircraft around me, I'd say thats good. It's an improvement from the 14-20 I was getting before the CFG change suggested and the upgrade of RAM speed.

@SteveW I'll take a look. And to clarify, should I try the affinity mask setting first, or disable SMT if active first?

@SteveW I'm not sure about the SMT setting. Where does one find that?