Jump to content
The simFlight Network Forums

Bill Casey

Members
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Bill Casey

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 01/01/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  1. I know that Volker but as we say over here "belt and braces" so if you change anything then run it again. It's a good habit to get into!
  2. Eytan, One of the reasons will be that European airways are far more restricted than in the US. Far more airways over here are 'one way' or altitude restricted, also any time you venture near London or Frankfurt (as examples) then you will find other constraints on such things as to which SID can be used for what for traffic management purposes. These aren't Vatsim constraints, they're real world ones. Lots of DCT in FPs might be frowned upon as well since they're rarely used across Europe wherea in the US they're very common. Also in Europe it tends to be very important to be flightplanning to a relatively current AIRAC. As an example, as of last month any flight over Sweden using an Upper airway (e.g. UN623) would get rejected because they don't exist anymore, they have dropped the difference between Upper and Lower airways so UN866 becomes N866. Also this month, all the airspace around Oslo Gardermoen ENGM has changed dramatically with all the SIDs and STARs being replaced. Last year all the upper airways that crossed Ireland were scrapped so to transit Ireland is now just direct entry waypoint to exit waypoint. So, there's a lot to keep up to date on but if you're on a current AIRAC (having run FSC dbmanager of course!) then you have a much better chance of success. Of course, using a database of valid flight plans is the safest method.
  3. Hi Sascha, No that isn't the case with Vatsim. The Vatroute database is just a selection of valid flight plan routes for people to choose from, it isn't compulsory to use them. Provided one's route is valid then you can use whatever route you want BUT you must use correct sids to join it and hence your suggestion of picking the SID first should work, provided you pick a SID from the correct runway in use as per the Vatsim ATIS.
  4. I must admit I don't use FSC to show me who is online, I run Vatspy on separate machine.
  5. The data used by Vatspy/Servinfo is created specifically for each program by kind people who set up the lat/long co-ordinates for each airspace. There is no central Vatsim database of all airspace and its dimensions so there is nothing for FSC to access unfortunately. I should imagine there is a way of defining all airspace for FSC but it would be a massive task for anyone to do, Vatspy for example relies on each country providing their own definitions in Vatspy format. Not everywhere has done this so quite often the airspace you see on Vatspy is not the area actually being controlled, as an example if a CTR is online then the default in Vatspy will be to light up the whole FIR, but that CTR may not be controlling the whole FIR.
  6. I have now found that on the rare occasions that this uncontrollable deviation from path occurs that by dropping your next waypoint to the scratchpad then re-inserting as the next waypoint (then Execute) your a/c will recover and LNAV can be resumed. You have to be quick before the deviation has gone too far but it does work (for me anyway!).
  7. Sir Peter - this may be a red herring but last week PMDG released a major update for the 747 and since then some users have been reporting some aircraft instability flying-wise. It may be coincidence but thus far those reporting problems are all Vista users (and most of their names begin with J fwiw). It might just be worth checking if you and this user are using the same 747 version and OS when testing this problem? While I'm here, since I'm running ASX SP3 and the latest 747 version I'll bung the latest FSUIPC on (I'm currently on 4.26) and see how things go pour moi.
  8. Maybe I should change my Installer to check for FSCopilot, and put FSUIPC4 before it if it is there? Doing that would certainly make sure that people didn't suggest that FSUIPC had broken FSInn! It wouldn't solve everybody's dll.xml issues though since if they subsequently installed other add-ons then they'd still muck up the order of it anyway but at least they'd being addressing the issue to someone else! MS really did create a monster with dll.xml although I guess it's one that was difficult to foresee as becoming an issue until the various FSX add-ons hit the marketplace. Another "lesson learned" from FSX for when FS11 arrives one hopes!
  9. It is indeed a strange one Sir Pete. Copilot likes to be the last entry then FSUIPC after things like PMDGs. Some people find Leveld below FSIUIPC works. On my system I find Copilot last then FSUIPC second last works best, after LevelD which is after PMDG. Some people find a different mix works BUT the common thread is always Copilot last.
  10. Sorry, only just spotted this one! It's quite a simple fix. Firstly, in your DLL.XML file make sure that Copilot is the last entry. It must ALWAYS be the last entry so if you ever install/reinstall aything else in FSX you'll need to move it again. You can also achieve this by deinstalling and reinstalling FSInn/FSCopilot. Then open FSX, launch FSInn from your Windows START menu, the programme you want to run is FSInnUI. This will launch the FSInn Control Panel. Now click on the Chat button. It'll open fine. You only need to do it this way once and after that you can run FSInn as previously from you ADD ON drop-down menu in FSX. Pete - it's simply because the FSUIPC install pops it below Copilot as do all other add-ons. It's a quirk of FSInn/FSX not your installer. It's a PITA and the most FAQ'd "feature" of FSInn!
  11. Pete Yes the advice with ASX is to load that first, let it do it's stuff downloading and setting itself up, and then launch FSX. I've always done it that way then, as I mentioned, things tend to be a bit more stable if one uses the "launch FSX" button inside ASX. Now this, to answer your quessie earlier, I do on the same PC. I have no idea if any of this applies with a remote PC because I've never run that setup. Jim S at ASX may be able to furnish you with the techie side of this when he's back from hols.
  12. Yes, I made Jim aware of it a week or so ago but I mentioned it here just as piece of general info since everything seems more stable if FSX is launched from within ASX.
  13. ASX SP3 Beta was released to the public last night, John might like to try that and see if it makes a difference. Note that the advice is to use wind smoothing in FSUIPC and not ASX if using both. One thing I have discovered in trying to recreate John's prob is that ASX is more prone to crash if launched outside of ASX rather than using the "launch FSX" button inside ASX, that might be worth trying although when I had those crashes it was xengine that crashed rather than FS itself.
  14. FYI Peter - my testing was done with SP2 not Acceleration. I wasn't however running ASX on a remote machine.
  15. Michael One thing you havn't mentioned is whether or not you have ASX Wind Smoothing option on or not. I achieved my best results with 4.241/ASX with ASX Wind Smoothing OFF. Which way do you have it set?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. Guidelines Privacy Policy We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.