All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. Ok understand, thanks again. Have to dig up my old programming knowledge a little bit because that's long long ago. But think many examples can be found on Internet. Leo
  3. No. If anything, because the plug-ins run in their own, separate, threads (not in the main thread like your Button programming), it would tend to be less. And you can have plug-ins loaded once (eg via an [Auto] entry in the INI, of using ipcReady.lua to load them), and just responding to events just like the button assignments. Of course it can be easier just to assign a Lua to a button so it loads and unloads then, but considering there's a limit on how quickly you can press buttons that's pretty neglibible too. Pete
  4. Hi Pete, inrementing or decrementing 66C0 between 0 and 7 but only using value 0 and 7? Why not just have t toggline between 0 and 1? No, i am using all the values for Incrementing and decrementing the Scale of the ND Display as you can see from the linenumbers, I just didn't want to clutter the post with all these lines. Doesn't loading and executing a Lua plugin cost extra performance? The PMDG 737 eats already a lot of the performance of my system. Anyway thanks for your time, maybe i will start experimenting with Lua.
  5. Okay. Here: Is these any reason you delete the INI? It would mean re-making all your settings. Also you don't need to delete FSUIPC4 when copying in the new one, just confirm to "overwrite". If it makes a new INI it will make a new LOG file ands also a file called "FSUPC4 JoyScan.csv". Could you show me both of those please? They are most important. The latter would also show me how to tell you how to edit your INI to make 4.966c work with the X55, which you could therefore use until we sort the 4966n problem out. Oh dear. I do wish you wouldn't delete files. Now it means doing it all again to make those LOG and CSV files. There really is no need to delete anything. It just makes things harder. From your list of steps i would say that the previous session to the CTD one actually crashed and disappeared rather than terminated normally, though it may look like that. I know you said there were no FSX events in the Windows Application Log in the Event Viewer, but could you please just check again immediately after it all looks to be closed correctly? I know crashes can occur without being recorded there -- i've had them myself, many times, when developing with Beta versions of FS and P3D. But still. Also the FSUIPC log will hopefully show whether it whought it closed cleanly. The Installer will make a new DLL.XML with only FSUIPC4 loading. Well there you are. Proof that it's a crash on the preceding close, not 4.966n crashing on start up at all. 4.966c does too after a previous crash on close. There is a positive aspect to that -- it means it is far less likely to be due to initial timing conflicts with the other DLLs being loaded. I'm likely to be avay from the PC for most of the rest of this evening. My wife tells me I shouldn't be working all my waking hours at my age (74) and Sunday afternoon and evening have traditionally been "lazing about" periods (especially on a holiday weekend). Pete
  6. Hi, no. Please i.e. rename the existing dll.xml to _dll.xml so it will be ignored. Then run the Installer of FSUIPC4.966c, that will create a new dll.xml file with only FSUIPC4 to load. Now run FSX and close down to make sure it runs OK. Then paste and overwrite, as before, the installed version with the latest interim FSUIPC4.966n version and run FSX to see if it runs still OK, without any other loaded add-ons from the original dll.xml. That is just to test if the latest interim version already causes FSX to crash on its own or in combination with one of the other add-ons. If FSUIPC4 produced a log file with the latest 4.966n version on this test, please copy and paste it into your message. Thomas
  7. Pleased clarify. Do you want me to start with dll.xml completely absent?
  8. I will help as much as I can . I've done everything you asked and I have been very respectful. I am sorry that you are taking it this way, but you must understand that I do not have any magical information. If there are logs I can give them to you. If there is any configuration, I can give it to you as well. There is no "moral high ground here or anything else", and I am not sure what you are taking as " disrespectful and obstinate ". It is certainly not intended that way. There are simply facts. Let me try to explain the "confusion" describing a series of steps: I get back to my stable configuration (with the c version). Everything works except the X-55 is not visible to FSUIPC Exit FSX, wait for everything to stop (i.e. AS16 indicates that FSX has exited, there is not fsx process running etc) the machine is not restarted Delete fsuipc4.dll Delete fsuipc4.ini Replace fsuipc4.dll with the n version Start FSX A new fsuipc4.ini file is created I can see the X55 Exit fsx again. Wait for everything to exit delete logs etc. Start fsx again: DTD on load no new fsuipc log file was created no crasg reported on the windows system log (application) Restart the machine Try to run FSX again. same: CTD, no logs Tried again to remove fsuipc4.ini file Start FSX again: no cigar: CTD as before. No logs Replace the fsuipc4.dll with version c Try to start fsx again: same result. CTD Run the production (version c) installer again replaced fsuipc4.ini with my backup copy (that was stable before) Restart the machine Run FSX: works like a dream. No problems (except for X55 not visible to FSUIPC). But everything else stable and running. This is as accurate as I can be... I am attaching my fsuipc ini file as well, if that can help you with it. If there is something special about my system with respect to controls it may be the fact that I have a Brunner yoke attached to it, which certainly connects to the system in some special way. The axis mapping is somehow direct (cannot be controlled by the sim or by fsuipc), and the buttons are exposed to the sim (as fsuipc) via vjoy. I don't know whether this information helps, but not that many people have a Brunner yoke - so you may have not encountered it otherwise. FSUIPC4.ini
  9. I've had a look at your DLL.XML and EXE.XML file. I think you need to carry out a process of elinination. To start with rename the DLL.XML, or save it elsewhere, then re-run the FSUIPC installer. Make sure 4.966c works so we know there's no registry entry stopping the DLL later. Then copy in 4.966n, and test it. Let me know the result of that. If it still crashes, then try with the EXE one renamed too, though that's more of a long shot as EXEs aren't in-process and rarely cause conflicts. We'll proceed from there, assuming you've decided to be cooperative. Pete
  10. It means COM3 is taken. No point if COM5 isn't the device. It stretches my memory, but don't you have to run it separately to determine the correct COM port. Don't use FSUIPC in any case, or at least not with any VRI lines until you know which COM port your device is connected to. The Windows Device Manager may help. idplay the COMs devices whilst unplugging it and plugging it in. See which entry changes. Don't VRI suply setting up instructions? You must be able to use the device without FSUIPC' too, There must be a way to determine where it is connected. I don't know VRiSIM at all. Pete
  11. Today
  12. Yes, it happens. most of those things are matters of timing -- the occurrence of one ecent juxtaposed to another. Those happen in different orders on different systems, with different add-ons and with different updates of the same programs. Additionally every change to FSUIPC creates a different memory pattern and depending what the interaction is which is the problem it may have a serious affect or no noticeable affect at all. It is all in the nature of complex programs in ever more complex systems, and most of every developers support time is occupied by trying to reproduce these things so they can be nailed, but that turns out to be more and more difficult becase of the huge number or variables. I have solved many problems over many years (I started programming in 1963, when things were just starting to get complicated), and very many of these were never reproducible on my development systems. To re-create what you have set up here would be well nigh impossible. can only try to gather sufficient information to assist you in either overcoming it, or help me to work out avoidance action. A combination of the changes in 4.966n AND other things on your system. If there were a definite bug in this version which is independent on everything else in the systam I could reproduce it as could all other users. Sorry, but honestly you don't know what you are talking about. You are assuming some moral high ground and stating your thoughts as if they were facts. It is becoming tiresome. I will try to help,but you aren't helping at all. I don't care whether you paid, you haven't got any right to treat me in such a downright disrespectful and obstinate manner. If I can find out what is wrong I will do. But you will need to help. If you want to continue the way you are instead I will personally refund you and revoke the license. As well as asking for the files you attached I also asked "if you can please clarify the earlier confusion (difference between an iNI file creation start and subsequent ones), ..." Pete
  13. Thanks Pete for your help (a Sunday!) Written on the front, is "Instrument Radio Stack (c)2008 VRinsight" It is surely a COM problem. I just noticed that (1) I cannot set VSPE to COM3 (it is not even present in the pull-down menu) (2) but I can set VSPE to COM5-COM6 (and the corresponding line in FSUIPC4.ini) (3) However, when SerialFP2 is fired (by FSUPIC, thanks to the [Programs] line in FSUPC4.ini), it displays COM3 as greyed out, so that I cannot set it to anything else. (3) i also tried to run "VRiSIM" instead of SerialFP2: same thing: the field COM3 cannot be edited...
  14. No: you are correct. No such facility exists. You are inrementing or decrementing 66C0 between 0 and 7 but only using value 0 and 7? Why not just have t toggline between 0 and 1? No, not in my opinion. I wish I hadn't added any button programming features to the INI as it is, without making it even more complicated and arcane. I added the Lua plug-in facilities specifically to avoid all that complication. what you want to do would be far cleaner and easy to understand in a simple plug-in. Pete
  15. Exactly what I said and it shows in the document. I don't understand what you mean by If you added exactly the same to both assignment lines, then both assignments will do the same at the same time -- which is what you said you wanted, no differeerantial braking! It's only a few characters to add to two lines. where's the problem, please? Pete
  16. Here are my dll.xml and exe.xml. Respectfully, you keep saying that I have a crash "because of something else". The reality is that there is no crash with version c and there is a crash with version n. The only thing that changed between the configurations is FSUIPC. So it is abundantly clear that there is something in version n that causes a crash which is not present with version c. Regardless of whether or not something else is wrong as well, there is something in this version that causes instability. FSX is never perfect. There are lots of addons and any one of them (typically more than one) has some bugs or does not "play well with others". But you simpl;y cannot lay all the blame on some unidentified other culprit. There is somethis positively different between c and n that causes n to crash the sim in this case. dll.xml exe.xml
  17. Hi Pete, Thanks for your wonderfull program. I have a (maybe dumb) question. In my FSUIPC.ini make use of the Cyclic Byte Increment and decrement functions to incr/decr. user offset, which i then use as conditions in Button assignments. But is it not possible to send the Value of this offset directly in FSUIPC.ini as parameter to the control assigned to a button press instead of using it as a condition which would save a lot of lines in my .ini file because i make extensive use of it. Also I don't like using LUA scripts, seems to me that this is at the cost of Performance (one more thing to load and execute). Fastest way is directly in the button assignment in my humble opinion. As example: 350=CP(+64,4)(+Y,8)(+Y,16)Y,2,Cx510066C0,x00070001 -{offset byte cyclic inc, offset 66C0 (Incr=1, Limit=7)}- 351=CP(+64,4)(+Y,8)(+Y,16)Y,3,Cx610066C0,x00070001 -{offset byte cyclic dec, offset 66C0 (Decr=1, Limit=7)}- 352=B66C0=0 CP(+64,4)(+Y,8)(+Y,16)Y,2,C69993,0 -{Custom control: <69993>}- ;EFIS ND Scale 353=B66C0=0 CP(+64,4)(+Y,8)(+Y,16)Y,2,C70049,0 -{Custom control: <70049>}- ..... 366=B66C0=7 CP(+64,4)(+Y,8)(+Y,16)Y,2,C69993,7 -{Custom control: <69993>}- 367=B66C0=7 CP(+64,4)(+Y,8)(+Y,16)Y,2,C70049,7 -{Custom control: <70049>}- 368=B66C0=0 CP(+64,4)(+Y,8)(+Y,16)Y,3,C69993,0 -{Custom control: <69993>}- 369=B66C0=0 CP(+64,4)(+Y,8)(+Y,16)Y,3,C70049,0 -{Custom control: <70049>}- ....... 382=B66C0=7 CP(+64,4)(+Y,8)(+Y,16)Y,3,C69993,7 -{Custom control: <69993>}- 383=B66C0=7 CP(+64,4)(+Y,8)(+Y,16)Y,3,C70049,7 -{Custom control: <70049>}- Wouldn't it be nice to replace it with: 350=CP(+64,4)(+Y,8)(+Y,16)Y,2,Cx510066C0,x00070001 -{offset byte cyclic inc, offset 66C0 (Incr=1, Limit=7)}- 351=CP(+64,4)(+Y,8)(+Y,16)Y,3,Cx610066C0,x00070001 -{offset byte cyclic dec, offset 66C0 (Decr=1, Limit=7)}- 352=CP(+64,4)(+Y,8)(+Y,16)Y,2,C69993,<VALUE OF B66C0> -{Custom control: <69993>}- ;EFIS ND Scale 353=CP(+64,4)(+Y,8)(+Y,16)Y,3,C69993,<VALUE OF B66C0> -{Custom control: <69993>}- Hope you can help me out here. Thanks anyway for your time and great program!
  18. I am starting this thread to note primarily small (hopefully easy) fixes that would improve the KATL add-on. I am happy for others to make their own observations, but please do keep to the subject. If you see something wrong in the add-on, note it (preferably with a screenshot). I just wanted to make it easy for Vic to see. -Tower height needs to be raised a bit. See my other post with photos/screenshots about this thread: -Planes approaching Runway 8L clip the trees off the end of the runway just before touchdown. This is very hard to get a good screenshot of because it is so far away (really needs to be a video), but I will try when I get a chance. -Downtown Atlanta appears to have been nuked! The Atlanta skyline really needs to be present north of the airport for things to look right. I assume that this was a performance sacrifice, but I wanted to make a suggestion. The city is about 8 miles from KATL as the crow flies. It does not look nearly as large from here IRL, as it does in many pictures/postcards that you may have seen, which are usually taken with a telephoto lens zoomed in all the way. There just needs to be a smallish clump of distant skyscrapers along the horizon. The shot below (from the tower looking over the North cargo ramp) should give a good idea, and even this view would be the view at full zoom in the game. Maybe it is asking too much (I do understand that you have to declare it finished at some point), but it would be a nice touch, just to offer a hint of human life out there ;-). What do you think VIc? Would it affect performance much? If so I understand.
  19. Question is there a way to place a j ring or halo around targets on Tracon? If not is that a feature you can easily add in the midst of all of the Tower 3d work?
  20. YES i would like have differential brakes + brakes if i push the left and right together like my Logitech rudder pedal do. Actualy with that changes i made, only differentials brakes works. For example, If i start initialy brake with the left and i want to additionaly brake with the right one after for a straight braking, it cancell all. that means the left pedal come back to Zero position if i hit le right one. i tried many many things, it's like a riddle i'm anable to solve... i'm realy bad in mathematics. please tell me what should i write in the FSUPC.ini Peter, i surrender. Thanks in advance Greg
  21. Ah, you DON'T want differential brakes? So just adjust the values to run 0-16384 for both assignments, from -16384 to +16384 that means ,*0,5,+8192 added to both assignment lines. Pete
  22. Many devices have a setting which splits the axis into left and right for you. Doesn#t yours do that? Otherwise, you can't have the same axis assigned to both left and right brakes without doing some "fiddling" with the values. Both sides will need 0 - 16384 (brakes off to full brake) and the other the same. However, your single axis will want to send -16384 fully pressed one way to +16384 the other way. Making changes like this can be done in the FSUIPC4.INI file -- see the section entitled "Additional parameters to scale input axis values" on page 46 of the FSUIPC4 Advanced Users guide. You will have to adjust the values on the problem assignment to make it run from +16384 There's an example of that. The calibration will need setting to ignore values below zero on both sides. Pete
  23. finaly this solution is not good because i can only use as differential brakes, but not left and right together... Still need a solution :)
  24. i found the solution all alone. RightBrake=0,16380 LeftBrake=0,16384/16 the 2 values are positive, no minus, only "Rev" ticked for the LeftBrake Not logical for my brain but it works! Think it can help somebody....
  25. hello Pete, i use to fly with one X-BOX 360 controler and it's pretty good. I have a G940 and Saitek pro flight yoke too, but i prefer the pad cause it's lighter to use and carry... i would like to use the Z axis from the pad (LT and RT) as the brakes axis in the flight Simulator. So i assigned the Z axis to RightBrake and LeftBrake but it don't work. Right brake is ok, but Left brake is not because it's alrady braking down. I ticked the box "Rev" but it don't seem to work too. I gone into FSUIPC.ini and change values like this : LeftBrake=-16380,0 RightBrake=0,16380 i tried too LeftBrake=0,-16380 RightBrake=0,16380 but don't work. Please help, Thanks in advance, Greg
  26. That's cool, John. Yep, KBOS will be neat. Also coming up (based on Vics comments) are KLAS, KSFO, KLGA(Simulated Designs), and probably EDDF (strongly hinted at by Vic, but not confirmed that Nyerges is working on this). All five of these airports have some level of cross runway action, but each in very different ways. With these releases, I think it is safe to say that Tower3DPro will be coming into its prime, and it will gradually begin to have something that is reminiscent of the vast playing field we now have with Tower2011. Andrew
  27. That is good news! Looks like you've got yourself a job.
  1. Load more activity