Pete Dowson

Currently the facility to limit the surface wind speed is simply trying to do this via the METAR settings at the nearby weather stations, the system which has proved fairly ineffective for wind smoothing. If the wind smoothing changes made recently look to be reasonably effective, and with no unwanted side effects, then I will continue and try to implement facilities such as that one. I would like to implement FS9 "taxi wind" facilities which operated by only limiting side wind, not head and tail wind, but I'm afraid the variables for that elude me in FSX. In other words, thank you for this feedback but it doesn't actually relate to the current changes being evaluated. Not yet. Can you tell me what sort of sudden wind changes you are getting, because this is contrary to other reports. Are you sure they are not caused by actual Wind Turbulence, Gusts and Variability, possibly set by the incoming METAR specifications? In FS9 my wind smoothing suppressed all of that, wrongly in my opinion. In FSX I simulate it. Possibly my simulation is excessive, but by all accounts so far not unreasonable. If you are getting big wind changes with the "Suppress" options set for turbulence (on Wind and Cloud pages) and gusts (on the Wind page), then I need some saves Flights (FLT + WX files) to find out why. They shouldn't happen ... ... though there is one exception. If the simulation stops for any reason, for instance you visit the menus to display the map or do something else, then I cannot smooth winds in this period, When you return to normal flight mode there may be sudden changes to whatever FSX thinks the winds should be by then. See the answer above. This is the same point. I'll get to that soon if it is easy, or else if and when I am reasonably happy that the current wind smoothing changes work well enough. They are a pretty awful "hack" into FSX code and I don't want to retian this if it isn't working, as you seem to think. If it doesn't work then it gets withdrawn completely. However, most feedback is opposite to yours, so I need to know why yours is different. Meanwhile, I will look at how to make the surface wind limit work using what I've learned so far. Regards Pete

How do you know they do not "connect", as opposed to simply don't receive any data? Your log is as before, it simply shows FSUIPC is working fine, and this time you have decent frame rates! The local interface is identical to the WideFS interface, so I cannot imagine what is preventing it on your system. Well there's really not much else it could be, but it is certainly odd as in this case the performance is okay anyway. But why not do as I asked, enable IPC read and write logging. Try that, briefly (just long enough to see the problem), then close FSX completely and show me the FSUIPC4 log. If any requests at all are arriving at FSUIPC this will show it. The FSUIPC interface doesn't use any Windows services as far as I'm aware. It uses "memory mapped files" for passing data, but that is a fundamental facility in Windows, not an optional service of any kind. Of course if you have FS2004 you could try that, with FSUIPC3, as the interface is identical. If something is preventing it working in the FSX case it should also do so with FS2004 and FSUIPC3. Either way, please do as I asked and get a log with extra information, if possible. Regards Pete

Well none of those would make any difference in any case -- if SimConnect were affected by that at all it would prevent the WideFS application and your joystick calibration. Since version 4.224 is a very very recent update, what were you using before, and did that work okay locally to FSX? Are you sure it isn't just a matter of processor time, that on the FSX PC the applications you are using are simply not getting enough time to run properly? You say "nothing happens", but what does that actually mean? The programs don't appear, or they appear and hang, or they appear and don't run correctly? To see if applications are managing to interact well with FSUIPC you can enable IPC read and write logging. Try that, briefly (just long enough to see the problem), then close FSX completely and show me the FSUIPC4 log. Please also tell me what FSUIPC application programs you are trying and what they are supposed to do (if that isn't obvious). You could also try a couple of programs I know work fine on the same PC, with FSX in windowed mode of course so you can see them. WeatherSet2 and TrafficLook. If you've not already got them, look in the FSX Downloads announcement. You'll need to scroll down a bit. Regards Pete

Hmmm. That is very strange. As far as I know ASX is just setting the weather via SimConnect, using the METAR setting facilities, effectively just like FSX's own download weather updating system. I think its superior weather effects come from clever massaging of the data before it is submitted, careful selection of the weather stations being updated, and the generation of interim increments between real world METAR changes, all things not done by the FSX simplistic downloads. When you say "unregistered version" I assume you mean the normal version but with the FSUIPC4.KEY file removed? There aren't separate versions. What about trying it with the current main user release, 4.20, before I added the new smoothing options? That might be more telling. Regards Pete

Well, you could enable IPC read and write logging (nothing else please), and let me see the log to find out what it is trying to do. But from the logs you supplied already it looks like FSUIPC4 is working fine. Do the suppliers of VAFS say it is compatible with FSX? Have they tested it? My guess is that this "VAFS" program is not getting much of a look-in on your rather overloaded PC and is simply timing out its responses from FSUIPC. The machine is obviously struggling to cope if your frame rate barely reaches 10fps. I wouldn't have thought it was flyable in any case. The processor speed is the limiting factor, not the video card (unless it is a pretty old unsuitable model). Try improving frame rates by moving a load of sliders to the left in the display settings. Regards Pete

First off, please turn off the extra logging. It isn't needed unless I ask for it. Second please note that 4.16 is too old and unsupported. 4.20 has been the current release for months, and there are later ones available from the FSX Downloads Announcement above. Third, I'm afraid I have no idea what "VAFS" is so you'll need to explain yourself rather more, please. [LATER] Your second posting at least shows you've turned the additional logging features off, but you are still using an out of date and unsupported version. It shows nothing wrong except for a prretty abysmal FSX frame rate. I tend to think you need to go back to wherever this "VAFS" is from and ask them why it doesn't work. Best to try with an up to date FSUIPC first, though. Regards Pete

Just uploading now. Be there in a couple of minutes ;-) FSUIPC 4.224 (also includes experimental pressure smothing mentioned elsewhere, INI file only) FSUIPC 3.783 Pete

I've done that too. But please also try 4.222, just in case, and make sure also you do have the latest TRC driver. Regards Pete

Sorry, found it! Typo in that change I mentioned. It was bypassing a piece of code which dealt with the change in the flaps range needed by FS2004 and FSX, differently to FS2002 and before. It applies to all aircraft, not just the PMDG one, and it doesn't affect you if you use the FSUIPC flap detentes facilities. That was my problem. When I re-tested this are after the changes I omitted to clear down my detentes and check it in "plain" mode as well. Apologies. I'll get a new update in the Announcements soon. Maybe not till the morning now. It also affects the latest FSUIPC3 increment! Regards Pete

Okay, so not in FSUIPC. Whilst that may well be true, in the past they have had problems because they've implemented some things in a undocumented and unsupported way. This may well be something I've already discussed with them and sorted out, so also make sure you have the latest version of their driver. Without knowing how they are trying to control these things I have no idea where even to look, or how to ask you for more information should you even be able to supply it. There's a 4.222 available in the FSX downloads announcement above. By all means try that. But if that is the same I think there's no alternative but for you to go back to TRC and insist they talk to me about this. You should not have to act as a go-between, and it is up to them to get their products working, not yours nor mine. I will help them sort it out, and if it is something I need to do in FSUIPC I will do it, but I cannot do that in a vacuum. You can quote me if you like. Regards Pete

Nothing's been deliberately changed in this area except for the provision of a facility to disconnect the flaps axis altogether. For me to investigate further I need to know a little more about how you've set up the flaps please. Do you use the detentes facility? And can you show me the Falsp entries from the Calibration section of the INI file, please? I'll try and set up a test here in the meantime. Regards Pete

But that was the problem with the original implementation of my new wind smoothing which everyone so far, except you, has said is now working perfectly with the latest improvements. What is deflecting the A/P off the heading, can you tell? Can you give any more information? I don't understand how you have this conflicting result, especially when you are only really checking the pressure smoothing at this stage ... ... unless it IS somehow due to the pressure smoothing? Are you saying it was okay before you enabled that? If so, then I will just have to remove the pressure smoothing, or at least publish strong warnings. Are you saying the PMDG 747 works fine without ASX? I don't get any noticeable hit from ASX at all, so I'm surprised by what you say. There seems to be quite a bit more of a hit from the PMDG 747, but I have only tried it on my test PC in any case. It won't be any good in my cockpit where I don't use any FS panels at all. Regards Pete

Calibrated them where? Sorry, I don't know TRC stuff too well. Are your controls run through this driver, or is that just for instrumentation? No idea what that is, I'm afraid. Sorry. Do the suppliers offer any support? I would need quite a lot more information to assist I'm afraid. Like how you calibrated and where, how these things are assigned, and what they are supposed to drive in FS -- axis controls or some direct connection to offsets? Regards Pete

They are made simply in agreement, individually, as needed. The users of FSUIPC are too diverse to be covered by one unless it gets as complex as those EULAs of MS. I am not overly in favour of excessive legislation I'm afraid. Write to me privately at petedowson@btconnect.com with your needs and maybe a suggestion as to what you want worded, and I'll see if it is acceptable. We'll take it from there. Regards Pete

I searched for the program and found this in the description: "Created virtual serial port can have any name (COM by default) or can have the same name as real serial port. In this case virtual serial port overlapping happens. Applications may reach virtual serial port via real serial one and vice versa." So it appears it is a (clever) deliberate action. Okay, thanks. I shall make a note of it and recommend it to others if they have difficulties with MixW. Regards Pete

Good! Thanks for letting us know! Pete

Great! Strange. I've been using it successfully on several different computers, both lap tops and tower PCs. They are all running WinXP though (SP1 and SP2, a mix). Maybe you are using Vista? Hmm. It must override the default hardware-specified COM1 and 2 then. They have been defined with fixed hardware addresses ever since PCs were invented, and the same assignments are still normally made even if there's no actual hardware port showing. (Most motherboards have them as a set of pins sticking up awaiting a connector). Well, MixW isn't mine of course. It was just the only freeware one I found. Like you I looked at other, payware ones. In fact I did buy one and try it, and it didn't work as well as MixW -- slower and with corrupted sentences if you ignored its throttling. I complained and submitted bug reports but never got any answers other than stuff like "reinstall Windows, it must be corrupted"! So I couldn't recommend it. It was money wasted for me. Regards Pete

Well, ideally I'd have 3 projectors and a wrap-around view, so that through the windows I could see everything you could see from a real aircraft of the type I model (a 737). However, my room isn't big enough. :-( As it is the 10 foot forward screen does have a really good width of view. I just need direct side views on occasions, so, for checking for traffic and working out where to go, especially when taxiing, I use a pair of self-centred rocker switches to select a fixed view - forward right and right on one, forward left and left on the other. i.e those views I should be able to see out of the side windows. The "incorrect" view only stays whilst the switch is kept pressed, returning to the "real" forward view on release. This way there's never any loss of orientation, I always know where I'm looking. Panning in a cockpit with a fixed real panel is very disorienting, but I never really liked it even when I flew using just a screen with a normal FS panel on it. I've always used the fixed view options instead. I suppose with the onset of decent "virtual cockpit" panels in FS the panning is a little more useful, but it still makes me a little disoriented. I am trying TrackIR on my GA setup (which also has a hardware panel) and I find I can use it with a VC setup, but having a real panel and a virtual one at the same time is a little annoying. However, I can see something like TrackIR would be marvellous for helicopter and microlite flying. Regards Pete

FSUIPC merely lists the FS controls it finds in "CONTROLS.DLL". These are mostly also assignable in FS's assignments, but not all. FSUIPC just lists them all by their internal names. There's also an AXIS_PAN_TILT for the third axis of rotation. All AXIS... controls take a parameter running from -16384 to +16384, as from a calibrated joystick. Whether the PAN axes values are related to the actual angle of view or the rate at which that is changing I don't know, but I would have thought that they directly relate to the angle, otherwise you'd always have to return the axis very smartly to 0 to "stop" panning. The easiest way for you to find out what they do would be to try them, assign them to a joystick. Sorry, I don't know how to do that. However, if those AXIS values pan at a rate proportional to their parameter you have a ready made solution -- just plug in another joystick dedicated to panning. Even if they don't operate like that it would seem to be a potential solution. A joystick with twist could control HEADING, PITCH and TILT angles or speed, whatever. In my jet cockpit the outside world is on a projection screen seen through the cockpit windows, so panning would be wrong, it would sort of destroy the orientation. I don't use any FS panels so there's no reference. I do have a smaller set up for GA flying, but I use TrackIR with that, and of course it controls the panning at the rate you choose with your head as the "joystick". Regards Pete

This is with the LevelD 767, is it? Thanks. I need someone to test with the PMDG 747 now. Regards Pete

What are you using for "panning" -- what controls, where assigned? I don't use panning at all myself, so I'm not really aware that there was a variable speed available. Pete

Check that the speed is acceptable to the program as well. Most need that specifying. If it doesn't, it probably assumes 4800, the NMEA standard for GPSs. At slower speeds like 4800 don't try sending too many sentences -- there just isn't time to send them every second. If you want to test all sentences set the interval larger, but best really to stick to 2-4 at most. Pete

Only two possibilities I can think of. Either the virtual port COM11 isn't actually created (go look in the Device manager under Ports), or the map program you are using cannot handle COM port numbers above a certain range. There are a few (older) programs like that. Pete

I've added some code to FSUIPC4 to see if the variables I found for pressure and temperature can be used to smooth these things. I am rather worried that I'm only seeing part of the story and that by smoothing some values others may be incorrect and upset finely tuned aircraft like those from PMDG and LevelD. So, for now I am not publicising the facilities, nor are they accessible through the options, only in the INI file. If you want to test these, please download 4.223 using this link: http://fsuipc.simflight.com/beta/FSUIPC4223.zip Then you have to add these parameters (or change them if you find them there) in the [General] section of the FSUIPC4.INI file. PressureSmoothness=0 TemperatureSmoothness=0 With these zero values the options are off. Otherwise set the number of 1/100ths of an hectoPascal (hPA or mb), or degree Celsius, which you wish to allow changing, at most, each second. For example: PressureSmoothness=20 TemperatureSmoothness=50 sets pressure smoothness at 5 seconds per hPA, and temperature smoothing at 2 seconds per degree. I am rather dubious about temperature smoothing and might not keep it in. After all temperatures can drop and rise considerably in and out of clouds and, obviously, with changes of altitude. For the latter I don't smooth a change if the altitude changes by more than 10 metres in the same checking period. I'm not sure if this is good enough. I won't have time to do much testing this week I'm afraid. The smoothing shouldn't happen when the aircraft is on the ground. Please try these facilities, especially the pressure one, and let me know how you get on. Regards Pete

The options in FSUIPC (Winds and Clouds) normally try to enforce themselves by changing the weather set at the surrounding weather stations, so this may be a bit variable depending on which stations are changed when and how long FSX takes to "morph" these changes to your aircraft location. But certainly, overall, they should help to suppress them. If you have FSUIPC's wind smoothing enabled, then since 4.219 (I think, certain 4.222) these options are performed as part of the smoothing instead. So if they don't seem to have any effect then you are actually saying the wind smoothing isn't working at all and I might as well throw it all away (?)but that seems contrary to most every other report so far. Well if you have gust and turbulence, you have gust and turbulence allowed I think. Did you really go to the Cloud options and ask for them to be suppressed??? Pete