edgarvsfreitas Posted February 9, 2016 Report Share Posted February 9, 2016 MOVED FROM "FAQ" SUBFORUM TO SUPPORT FORUM Hello, I have a MADCATZ FLY 5 Joystick, with 2 throttle levers, and I want to make those 2 levers, control the 4 engines of the pmdg 747. I know I can do it with FSUIPC, but the problem is that the latest version of FSUIPC doesn´t record my data very well, because with KLM Virtual's ACARSng, I get very very low landing rates, so I know it´s related with the last version of FSUIPC. (When I got back to the previous version, problem solved!) My question is. Can I purchase the previous version of FSUIPC? If yes, how do I do it? Thank you very much. Kind regards, Edgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Dowson Posted February 9, 2016 Report Share Posted February 9, 2016 MOVED FROM "FAQ" SUBFORUM TO SUPPORT FORUM the latest version of FSUIPC doesn´t record my data very well, because with KLM Virtual's ACARSng, I get very very low landing rates, so I know it´s related with the last version of FSUIPC. Information provided by FSUIPC is obtained directly from SimConnect. There will be nothing FSUIPC is doing which will change any value related to flight, and certainly nothing in the FS data set has changed in FSUIPC or in FS for years. So you have something else going on. Rather than trying to avoid it, don't you think it would be better to solve it? Tell me first what exactly you mean by "landing rates". do you mean vertical speed on touchdown? All any program can do to provide that is to try to detect the moment the aircraft does touch the ground -- indicated by an "on ground" flag in SimConnect -- and at that moment make a copy of the current vertical speed. Of course, if the sim is overloaded in any way, such that the one event gets separated from the other, the value could be way out. It could even register a climb instead if there's an immediate bounce. FSUIPC does try to get atound both such problems by some complex coding, recording the last few vertical speeds and taking the most previous descent one, but it isn't foolproof. Let me know what you mean and I'll advise on how to use FSUIPC's logging to determine what is happening. Oh, and for all support requests please use this, the Support Forum. The subforums are for other uses, and FAQ especially is a reference place, for common answers. BTW what "previous version" do you refer to? I always need the actual NUMBER. The current version is 4.949e (see the Download Links subforum). Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgarvsfreitas Posted February 11, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Information provided by FSUIPC is obtained directly from SimConnect. There will be nothing FSUIPC is doing which will change any value related to flight, and certainly nothing in the FS data set has changed in FSUIPC or in FS for years. So you have something else going on. Rather than trying to avoid it, don't you think it would be better to solve it? Tell me first what exactly you mean by "landing rates". do you mean vertical speed on touchdown? All any program can do to provide that is to try to detect the moment the aircraft does touch the ground -- indicated by an "on ground" flag in SimConnect -- and at that moment make a copy of the current vertical speed. Of course, if the sim is overloaded in any way, such that the one event gets separated from the other, the value could be way out. It could even register a climb instead if there's an immediate bounce. FSUIPC does try to get atound both such problems by some complex coding, recording the last few vertical speeds and taking the most previous descent one, but it isn't foolproof. Let me know what you mean and I'll advise on how to use FSUIPC's logging to determine what is happening. Oh, and for all support requests please use this, the Support Forum. The subforums are for other uses, and FAQ especially is a reference place, for common answers. BTW what "previous version" do you refer to? I always need the actual NUMBER. The current version is 4.949e (see the Download Links subforum). Pete Hello Pete, Thank you very much for replying. What I meant with landing rate is the fpm(feet per minute) that Royal Dutch Virtual ACARSng records from flight data. I updated from version 4.943 to the latest one 4.949 and I got around -30 fpm, instead of the normal (around) -250 fpm, that I got with version 4.943, that´s why I kept version 4.943 until now. So, it´s like you say, the vertical speed on touchdown. I also need FSUIPC to assign 2 throttle controls to 4 engines, so I´ll get the full version of FSUIPC, but first I would like to solve the vertical speed issue if possible. Thank you very much for your help. Kind regards. Edgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Dowson Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 I updated from version 4.943 to the latest one 4.949 and I got around -30 fpm, instead of the normal (around) -250 fpm, that I got with version 4.943, that´s why I kept version 4.943 until now. So, it´s like you say, the vertical speed on touchdown. Well, there's certainly been no change in FSUIPC which would make any such difference. The vertical speed is continually updated in offset 02C8 as a 32-bit value containing the V/S in metres/sec times 256. This is copies to offset 030C on touchdown. Please try monitoring both of these. To do this: 1 On final approach go into the FSUIPC options and select the Logging tab. 2 Enter both 02C8 and 030C in the 4-entry table on the right hand side, selecting type S32 and leaving the "hex" option unchecked. 3 Check at least the "Normal Log" option below -- if you want to see the values in real-time as well you can select FS Window. 4 OK out and perform the landing. Take a look at the FSUIPC4.log (in the Modules folder in FS). Compare the two versions of FSUIPC. Paste the logs into a message here if you'd like me to examine them. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgarvsfreitas Posted February 13, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Ok Pete, I´ll do it next week. Then I´ll post the results here. Thank you so much for your help. Kind regards, Edgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgarvsfreitas Posted February 15, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 Pete, just a question, when you say "Enter both 02C8 and 030C in the 4-entry table...", what do you mean with this? The 4-entry only has room for 5 characteres, meaning that I can´t write 02C8 and 030C on the same entry. If you could explain me this I would appreciate it. Thank you, Edgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Dowson Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 Pete, just a question, when you say "Enter both 02C8 and 030C in the 4-entry table...", what do you mean with this? The 4-entry only has room for 5 characteres, meaning that I can´t write 02C8 and 030C on the same entry. If you could explain me this I would appreciate it. The two values I gave you represent two different offsets, containing different values! They are not joined as a long name! There are 4 entries in the 4 entry table so you can enter up to 4 values! That's the point. You only need to use 2 out of the 4! Up to 4 different offsets can be monitored, but not bundled together! Offset monitoring is documented in the section on Logging in the User Guide. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgarvsfreitas Posted February 15, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 Thank you very much Pete. I've done 2 different landings with the versions 4.493 and 4.949. Since both have a big amount of data, I decided to paste on a notepad document and upload on onedrive. FSUIPC 4.943 LANDING : https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=3B1C60983A1C8BFD!2287&authkey=!ABn_hGeRlaGf3Ak&ithint=file%2clog FSUIPC 4.949 LANDING : https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=3B1C60983A1C8BFD!2286&authkey=!AGqMGSSFKDvYLkk&ithint=file%2clog Could you please examine the results and give me some feedback when you have time? Thank you very much for all your help!! Kind regards, Edgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Dowson Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 Since both have a big amount of data, I decided to paste on a notepad document and upload on onedrive. FSUIPC 4.943 LANDING : https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=3B1C60983A1C8BFD!2287&authkey=!ABn_hGeRlaGf3Ak&ithint=file%2clog FSUIPC 4.949 LANDING : https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=3B1C60983A1C8BFD!2286&authkey=!AGqMGSSFKDvYLkk&ithint=file%2clog Could you please examine the results and give me some feedback when you have time? Okay. 02C8 is the current V/S, and 030C is a copy of that until the moment of touchdown, at which time 030C is no longer updated. In the 4.943 log the touchdown detection appears to be here: 6488472 Monitor IPC:02C8 (S32) = -911 6488472 Monitor IPC:030C (S32) = -911 6488488 SimRead: 02C8="VERTICAL SPEED" [also 0842] [also 030C] FLT64: -3.56170797639 because 030C is not updated later than that. In the 4.949 log the same point is reached here: 1991446 Monitor IPC:02C8 (S32) = -149 1991477 Monitor IPC:030C (S32) = -149 1991477 SimRead: 02C8="VERTICAL SPEED" [also 0842] [also 030C] FLT64: -0.584607480251 So, yes, when touchdown is detected the V/S is lower in the later version. Now the V/S figures after both of these occurrences are very low indeed. In the 4.943 log it decreases to -0.55, -0.13, -0.10, -0.09 .... remaining very low for the rest of the time, though still changing. In the later version the same applies: -0.35, -0.10, -0.01 etc, also remaining very low for the rest of the time, though still changing. The place in the 4.949 log where comparable touchdown speeds are seen is here: 1983459 Monitor IPC:02C8 (S32) = -911 1983521 Monitor IPC:030C (S32) = -911 1983521 SimRead: 02C8="VERTICAL SPEED" [also 0842] [also 030C] FLT64: -3.56359434419 which is a full 8 seconds earlier, and the aircraft is still descending at a decreasing but similar sort of rate thereafter for quite some time. So it really isn't as if the detection of the touchdown is being delayed by an inordinate amount. Now all this is directly using the V/S figures being provided by FSX-SE via SimConnect. There's really no way I know of that FSUIPC can actively change those values. So it is rather inexplicable. Something else is different too, though, looking at the log. In the 4.949 case you appear to be running ASN. In the 4.943 case it looks like something different, because these lines indicate a different weather control in operation, one using FSUIPC I suspect: : 5928943 NWI weather clear actioned 5928943 External weather discarded ASN's hooks are definitely there in the 4.949 log: 3541 ASN Running? Smoothing is by ASN Perhaps you need to make things more equal in order to get a comparison. It looks like with ASN the aircraft is floating very gently down to touchdown. Try with no weather control program at all. In fact no weather (clear it before the test) to ensure conditions are identical. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgarvsfreitas Posted February 15, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 Thank you for suggesting that Pete. I did changed from ASN to FSREALWX. A bad decision! I've remade the flights, this time with no weather engine, and trying to make them exactly the same way. Hopefully, this results will clarify us now. FSUIPC 4.943 : https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=3B1C60983A1C8BFD!2289&authkey=!AKcexNIxbdqNK7E&ithint=file%2clog FSUIPC 4.949 : https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=3B1C60983A1C8BFD!2288&authkey=!ANf4JIhCwyEqt3M&ithint=file%2clog Could you please tell me if the most recent version has lower feet per minute of vspeed? That´s what I used to notice on the records from ACARSng after using the last version. Again, thank you so much for your help, and I´m sorry for all this work. Kind regards, Edgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Dowson Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 I've remade the flights, this time with no weather engine, and trying to make them exactly the same way. Hopefully, this results will clarify us now. FSUIPC 4.943 : https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=3B1C60983A1C8BFD!2289&authkey=!AKcexNIxbdqNK7E&ithint=file%2clog FSUIPC 4.949 : https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=3B1C60983A1C8BFD!2288&authkey=!ANf4JIhCwyEqt3M&ithint=file%2clog Could you please tell me if the most recent version has lower feet per minute of vspeed? That´s what I used to notice on the records from ACARSng after using the last version. Ah, this time it is very different. here are the two places with the touchdown: 4.949 log: 2538760 Monitor IPC:02C8 (S32) = -175 2538760 Monitor IPC:030C (S32) = -175 2538760 SimRead: 02C8="VERTICAL SPEED" [also 0842] [also 030C] FLT64: -0.688175557532 4.943 log: 2067980 Monitor IPC:02C8 (S32) = -61 2067980 Monitor IPC:030C (S32) = -61 2067996 SimRead: 02C8="VERTICAL SPEED" [also 0842] [also 030C] FLT64: -0.240790455818 So now the 4.943 log has the lower v/s recorded on touchdown. I think this shows conclusively, it isn't any difference in FSUIPC. I suspect it is just your aircraft handlind. Maybe it is better with the smoother weather provided by ASN. ;-) The equivalent fpm values are: -0.688 m/sec == 129 fpm -0.240 m/sec == 45 fpm Very smooth landings! You want to try dropping the aircraft harder just to show higher values! ;-) Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgarvsfreitas Posted February 15, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 This time I did full ILS landings, so that both values on the different versions could be similiar, this proving that both are giving the same data. :) Can we confirm anything with this results? Because if version 949 gives more fpm than version 943, that´s different from the results I got with the klm acarsng, and should be the opposite. I use PMDG 747, which is an older software, so I don´t know if it´s related with it. On the pfd vspeed was showing 800ft per minute in both landings. The flights were really similar. I even used the same speeds on the same locations (at least tried). ;) Anyway, I´ll try one more time to use ACARSng on a flight, with the recent version of fsuipc and I´ll let you know about the results, Pete. Thank you so much for your help!! :) Edgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgarvsfreitas Posted February 26, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 After using KLM's ACARSng with the latest version of FSUIPC I´m happy to say that it´s working properly. I don´t know why I had problems before but now it´s working properly. Thank you for all your help Pete. Kind regards, Edgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now