Pete Dowson

Hi Thomas, I don't understand. It works the same way in FSX here. I simply copied over the same INI file sections to my FSX installation. Can you tell me what you are doing, exactly, and I'll try to follow it here to see why it isn't working for you? Regards Pete

Hmmm. I did delve into DirectSound way back when I did my Esound package. Although I did get it working it was quite a lot of programming to do a simple thing and it put me off for life! ;-) Certainly that's possible. I suspect the enormous VB libraries provide wrappers for you to make it much easier. I'm not going to use VB in an FS module. I expect it is also made easy using MFC, but again it relies on wrappers in large libraries. And compared to the extremely simple (and fast) way I currently do it (one "joyGetPosEx" call for each device, and that's it) I still think it will be a messy and larger job. I'll make a note to look for an example in plain C or C++ when I have time. Thank you for the suggestion. Regards Pete

Actually a way was discovered quite recently. I've not been able to do it in FSX yet, but in FS2002 and FS2004 the currently selected view can be changed by directly writing a value to a particular location. This would involve using the "Offset byte set" control which you will find in the dropdowns for both Key and Button assignments. When you've selected that, fill in the Offset field that appears with "x8320", and the Parameter with one of these values: 1 = cockpit 2 = virtual cockpit 3 = tower 4 = spot plane 5 = top down Five assignments to five keys or buttons and your done. Regards Pete

I think you can open your account (user name/password?) and create a "problem ticket". Or something like that. Regards Pete

I think you misunderstand something quite fundamental here. Just because PMDG aircraft make some use of FSUIPC doesn't mean they ONLY use FSUIPC to interface to FS! The PMDG747 is an aircraft. Aircraft, scenery, other DLLs, Gauges, are all examples of bits that although classed as "add-ons" are really made part of FS -- they have to be made to fit into the version of FS they are intended for, and they are dependent upon the features in FS itself much more than whatever little they ever used FSUIPC for, if anything. Almost no scenery, few gauges and fewer add-in DLLs use FSUIPC. With the few aircraft and gauges the predominant use of FSUIPC was to obtain AI aircraft positions for TCAS radar displays. That started with FS2002 -- but Microsoft provided a direct way in FS2004 so many used that. PMDG used FSUIPC for quite a few more things, and, indeed, during FSUIPC4 development they were a great help in testing it as their code used a lot of things in FSUIPC which I would not have otherwise even understood fully yet alone been able to test. They most certainly could still use FSUIPC in their updates for FSX, if they so desired, though I think that there will be so many other changes that they will want to (and in some areas need to) make that I think they will be moving over to drive SimConnect directly rather than indirectly. I hope that clarifies things for you. Incidentally, there are add-ons, such as FSNavigator, which have never used FSUIPC. Obviously any compatibility FSUIPC4 might provide to FSUIPC3 clients cannot apply to those at all. FSNavigator for FSX is predicted to be available mid-2007 I understand. Regards Pete

What does your receipt say? It should be clearly marked as FSUIPC3 or FSUIPC4. Keys for one won't work in the other. I don't have anything to do with the issue of Keys so you may need to take it up with SimMarket if you thing they got it wrong. Regards Pete

It isn't (cannot be) caused directly by FSUIPC4. The instruction address is actually in FS's TERRAIN.DLL. Unlike previous versions of FSUIPC, this one doesn't hack about inside FSX itself, it uses SimConnect. It is quite possible there are still bugs in the SimConnect interface, but, again, a crash in the Terrain DLL is not likely to be due to that either. Have you by any chance been applying any of the "go faster" tweaks for FSX, involving replacement texture and other files? Possibly one of those isn't right? I see you've also got Ivap (and maybe other) add-ins running -- have you reproduced the problem without those? Just adding in more things for FSX to do subtly changes memory arrangements, timings and so on, and can often show up problems which may otherwise pass unnoticed. Please submit full details of the crash to Microsoft. Emailing them to tell_fs@microsoft.com should be enough. Regards Pete

Ah .. I replied to your email before seeing this here. Sorry, some things conflict in that case. Please read this, not that: Done. I'm afraid it wasn't in the INI you sent and the Server Log therefore doesn't show any extra information. Done. Okaythat's useful. There are now two other tests that we can do: First please add the Log=DebugAll line to the [WideServer] section of the FSUIPC4.INI file. And remove the "AdvertiseService=No" line now -- we know now that this isn't responsible one way or the other. Then the two tests are: 1. Run as it is, no change to Client end. Send me both Server and Client logs. I want to be 100% sure the mailslots aren't arriving -- because if they are and the Client is not acting on them, or acting incorrectly, I have a problem in the Client code. On the other hand if the mailslots are simply not arriving, then (seeing that both your systems are WinXP I see now) there's something amiss, something stopping them. More about that below. 2. Second test. Add the line "Protocol=TCP" to the client's INI file (in the [Config] section). Re-test. If it works, it works despite lack of mailslots. If it doesn't, please send me both logs again. Okay, good. Now, are they both in the same WORKGROUP? I seem to remember that someone had a problem, only with the Mailslots, and it turned out that WinXP may not be sending these messages to other workgroups, only the PCs within the one. You can read (and I think change) your workgroup name by right-clicking "My Computer", selecting Properties then the Computer Name tab. I'd like to know this, please, even if you did get it working in (2) above. If different work group names do stop the broadcasting I will have to document the correct work-around. If they are different it would be even nicer of you if you could try making the two the same and retesting without the "ServerName" and "Protocol" parameters in the Client INI, just to prove whether that was the reason or not, but I realise that may be inconvenient. Regards Pete

Sorry. no. I really am rather ignorant of most of the aircraft design and control file areas. You may want to post questions in a forum where aircraft designers hang out. Try the AVSIM FSX forum, or fsdeveloper.com -- the latter seems a good place with plenty of activity. I help out there in the SimConnect forum now and then. Regards, Pete

Hmmm. Shame. It was quite a few hours work. I suppose it depends on many factors, though. Apart from rewriting quite large chunks of it to bypass SimConnect and either go direct to the PANELS interface (like gauges), or actually hack the values out of FS as in previous versions (ugh), I'm afraid I can't see anything else that can be done -- excepting of course hoping that Microsoft can make some improvements. Personally I don't see why SimConnect couldn't provide a "fast track" route for clients which are internal to FS's own process -- DLLs and Gauges -- as it seems such a big waste of space and time going through TCP/IP stacks. I'll try to press this argument when they've got some way towards solving the security problems we've already hit and reported. Regards, Pete

I honestly did not take it as criticism. You are right in most if not all of what you say. Why are you taking my honesty in such a way? There's nothing sarcastic there, it's the truth. I am merely stating what I know and what I feel. Why are you taking such a nasty attitude to me? I try to be honest and up front and you come back like this? Sorry, I don't understand you at all. It is not a "couldn't care less" attitude. I care very much about the quality of my programs and about the support I offer. But at the same time I want FSUIPC to be made gradually redundant I really do! This is why I visited Microsoft last year and tried my best to make sure SimConnect would (eventually) make this possible! I have been working for such an interface in FS since FS2000! I only wrote FSUIPC in the first place so I could develop my own cockpit, which was started with FS98 and used FS6IPC. When it was offered as freeware it was taken up by so many it became a full time job. As a result I'm not actually often able to do the very thing I wrote it for in the first place! Fly! The only reason it went to a part-payware product was because I came to a point where I couldn't otherwise continue with it as a full time "hobby". It had to earn money or be shelved. This was over three years ago, in the Beta of FS2004. I was persuaded to carry on (obviously). But it had to pay its way. I did do, and it still helps a lot, but I am looking now to working out my pension payments to compensate for its eventual redundancy, as you well predicted. It's just that the longer that takes the more I can put off my pension and so the better my retirement will be. Yes, for the above reasons, and whilst it is still wanted or needed, whichever. But I don't know what you mean by "clear things up". Sorry. And as for the rest of your message -- I never once thought you were attacking, and only thought to give an honest reply. If you would have preferred glib sales talk and lies, I would not have answered at all as I am not that way inclined. Sorry. Regards Pete

Yes, it looks like it is a function local to the gauge. I don't know the Airbus so I've not tried, but possibly, like in previous versions of FS, you can only do it by specifically selecting Mach or Speed hold when setting it. The "sel" button on FS9 (and way back to FS98) cockpits was never directly accessible by a control. Instead there are separate sets of controls for setting and selecting the two hold value types which also switch the display. Regards Pete

If you need it you need it. If you don't you don't. Just install FSX itself, and run it. You don't "need" anything but a really fast machine and video card and FSX. You don't "need" anything else. If you want to learn more about FSUIPC, download it and look at the documentation. If you want to see what it does for applications which use it, download the SDK (there's a part for FSX in the announcement above). If you don't use any applications which "need" it, then you don't need it for those. If you don't "need" any of the other facilities it offers, you don't need it at all. It's your choice, I cannot decide for you. And it's free for the applications interface in any case, so part of the decision isn't terribly hard, is it? Regards Pete

Okay, that's good. I'll be able to give it up and go fly for a change! When do you think folks will stop using it so I can plan for this? Only in two types of role: 1. As a compatibility layer for existing applications written for FS98, FS2000, FS2002 or FS2004. This was the whole reason it was written in the first place -- not to provide facilities that FS didn't but to provide features which were (and still are) compatible across FS releases. There have always been programs written direct to FS interfaces. FSNavigator doesn't use FSUIPC, and there are many others. The choice is the implementor's. The less that use FSUIPC and instead move to SimConnect the more pleased I will be, as it will be less hassle, less support, and best of all no need for continuous development and hacking into FS code. Note that users do not purchase FSUIPC for any of this -- the interface for applications is either free or, for the majority of applications, paid for by the implementors or publishers. 2. The utility functions of joystick calibration, aircraft specifdic assignments if axes, buttons, keys, and so on, have actually become the predominant reason for folks actually purchasing FSUIPC. Yes, and the weather filters too, originally, but they've been made redundant already really by superb programs like Active Sky. I don't see any reason at present for this sort of use of FSUIPC to stop, though I think it may be quite possible that someone else might do some utilities with similar functions. Since it doesn't take much "inside" knowledge of FS to do so I'm actually quite surprised there's been no real competion in this area in any case. I know individual hardware makers produce some sophisticated button and axis programming utilities, but nothing that quite covers so much nor that allow the same amount of flexibility. It's only a matter of time (and demand) I suppose. Great! I look forward to it! ;-) You shouldn't. If you would only be using FSUIPC in its compatibility interfacing role, then don't buy it. There's really no point, you don't get a "better" interface by buying it. You get that for free. You only get the user facilities, and if you aren't interested in any of those you certainly shouldn't spend any money on it. This isn't new. It's always been that way. Why did you buy it last year? It sounds like you wasted your money then, doesn't it? Oh, right. If they suit your needs why bother with FSUIPC? Save your money by all means. If you are coming here expecting me to try to sell you something you are beng disappointed. I'm sorry. I really do look forward to the day when everything FSUIPC was needed for has been taken care of properly elsewhere. I'm not going to be doing this forever. I'm 63 now and look forward to some time flying for fun, maybe, and more holidays I hope! ;-) Regards Pete

Aha! Here is the reason: Version 4.00 was only available for a few hours because it was discovered that SimMarket were issuing keys with invalid expry dates, due to mistake in the new automation system. By then they'd issued rather a lot of such keys, so rather than ask them to re-issue new ones I modified FSUIPC4 and got it out on the website by on the release Saturday afternoon. That was version 4.01. I put announcements here for folks to re-download it. Since then 4.02 has been released, nearly a week ago, and yesterday 4.022 was made available here, in the FSX bits and bobs above. Please please, whenever you get any sort of problem, please first see if there are later versions available! In case you aren't sure there are always announcements here telling you which versions are current and supported. Regards Pete

Okay, thanks. That error number should help. I'll see if I can get a list of them. Did you not try any Simconnect clients, like FSUIPC4, during the Beta test phases? Regards Pete

There is the reason! Simconnect won't let it connect. "-2147467259" is a horrible error number, isn't it! In hex this is 80004005, which presumably is meaningfull to the guys in Microsoft. The failure of SimConnect to actually allow the connection to be Opened has been reported and as far as I know is being worked on by Microsoft, but it wouldn't hurt to report all the details of your problem too. This may well be indentical to the failures reported and discussed at length in the other threads, notably http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?t=56507 below. It is only since 4.02 that I log the error -- here I've never had an Open request fail so it didn't seem necessary. Anyway, to save you reading all through that thread, the most probable cause is a firewall or privacy problem. To quote several cases where the problem was fixed: "All sorted - it turns out it was indeed a firewall issue! I had blocked FSX from both the trusted and internet zones when it initially asked me what to do (I'm on a bandwidth limited connection, and didn't want it downloading things and using up my allocation!). I have now allowed it in both zones, and the addons menu now appears. " (from Splodge, Oct 15th) "After a lot of test, with an other developer, we find a solution. We are desactived McAfee version 10, and the addon menu work correctly. Mcafee block the SimConnect.dll. SimConnect_Open returns E_FAIL whatever you do.Now I change McAfee by AVAST Familly. This is a free antivirus. " (from Galaag, Oct 17th) "Well after some long testing I have found out the problem. McAfee Privacy service is the problem. I have Mc Afee Secuity centre 8 I un-installed the lot and reinstalled one at a time Firewall Virus and left Privacy service unistalled and hay prestow , Your Program apears in the menu and Trackir 4 work a treat. " (from spv1, Oct 17th) There have also been some similar problems talked about on the Beta Newgroups, if you still go there. With SimConnect blocked (it uses TCP/IP protocols to talk to FSX) no add-ons using a SimConnect connection will work. Please report your specific details (antivirus, firewall, etc) and problem to MS at tell_fs@microsoft.com too, just to add to their database of problem programs. Regards Pete

Rightthanks! Has anyone reading this found better frame rates with the interim version 4.022 I posted above? I only streamlined some of the data requests I weas making to SimConnect, but it seems to have lessened the impact of having FSUIPC4 installed measurably here. Regards Pete

Ouch. That's something you'd think FS would spot and report. I'll need to remember that one. Thanks for letting me know! Regards Pete

If they are both running WinXP you shouldn't need that. But show me both the WideServer and Wideclient Log files and we'll go from there. They can't do otherwise Windows would report a clash of IP addresses. If you've not assigned IP addresses yourself (which I would strongly recommend) then one of the PCs must be assigning them automatically. Let me see the Logs first, and both INI files. Regards Pete

If you mean the program by Jose Oliveira, then, no, it shouldn't -- it was issued with a Key back in July 2003. Jose builds them into his programs so it should get access automatically. Regards Pete

Okay, I managed to rig up my quadrant with the Baron style twin prop quadrant, and tested it with the FSX Baron, and all the levers operated the correct controls just fine. There's really very little difference between the FS9 and FSX versions of the PFC DLL -- just the interfacing to FSUIPC has changed, and FSUIPC4 handling the menu call itself to save PFCFSX being dependent directly upon SimConnect. All I can suggest is that you Zip up your PFCFSX.INI file so I can try exactly the same here. Regards Pete

Thanks, but some things were wrong. 1. I wish you had said you were talking about FSUIPC4 and WideFS7 (i.e. FSX). There is no "WideServer.INI" file needed or used for FSX -- as documented (presumably obscurely for you) the WideServer parameters are in the [WideServer] section of the FSUIPC4.INI file, now that WideServer code is built in. So please use or change that line in that INI file and that section. 2. Also add (or change) the "Log=Debugall" line in the [WideServer] section of the FSUIPC4.INI file too. 3. In the WideClient.INI file, instead of the parameter "Log=DebugAll" as requested you have put "Log=Log=Debugall". Can you edit that (remove the excess "Log=") and try again, please? 4. You supplied one Zip with two INI files, one of which isn't used for FSX, and another Zip with the WideServer Log and another copy of the same Wideclient.INI file. Please, next time, there are 4 files needed: (1) The FSUIP4.INI (now we know you are talking about FSX) (2) The WideServer.LOG with the full debugging. (3) The WideClient.INI (4) The WideClient LOG Please also describe the two PCs a little -- what versions of Windows, mainly. It is getting late here so it may be morning before I get to these now. Pete

Yes. And ...? Pete

The PFC driver doesn't treat any axes differently from any others. Have you checked them in the PFC quadrant calibration dialogue? I'll try to re-check them here -- I normally fly jets -- and get back tyo you. Regards Pete