Pete Dowson

Ahem. Yes .. I replied in the other thread. Pete

There isn't one, at least not until you install FSUIPC4. Targetting tomorrow (Saturday), as early as I can. I'm hard at it. My FSX DVD's arrived three hours ago! I am finishing off some documents (no time even to proof-read! :-( ), and I need to install FSX from the DVDs for final verification. No, it won't install, or run. The Beta3 is a different animal. Regards Pete

I'm sure they'll all come good, but I am dependent upon SimConnect developments. This is not an area I want to try hacking into again as I've had to with previous FS versions -- it was horrendous to do in FS2004 and it took six months of 100 hour weeks to get to a position I was never that happy with in any case. With FS2004 I at least had those six months of Beta testing and three Beta versions. This time it's all been too short for my liking. Regards, Pete

YesFSX needs Windows XP or Vista. It won't run on anything earlier. Regards, Pete

You cannot, it has not been released yet. The only FSUIPC4 I released was a Beta for the FSX Beta. Please go and read the announcements! Note that I changed the subject of your message to avoid misleading other readers. Regards Pete

I am working as fast as I can. I don't even have a proper DVD-based version yet except for the 9Gb download that us Beta testers put up with, and I've only had that a few days. I'm currently on target for a first release on Saturday 14th October, three days ahead of my original schedule which was based on what MS told us. I don't think you will want to use many if any of the weather facilities yet. Most of that part of the SimConnect interface isn't working very well. We are desperately hoping for an update to fix much of the weather stuff. I have included some facilities, but they are for experimental purposes rather than serious use at present. Regards, Pete

Not FS. It's actually nothing to do with FS. With this manifest system it seems that unless the DLL has a manifest present which matches at least one of the side-by-side installed versions of SimConnect, then the DLL will simply not get loaded. I embed the manifest into the DLL as a resource with a specific ID -- there are different specific IDs for DLLs and EXEs. I think a simpler alternative is to install a .manifest file alongside the DLL or EXE. However, apart from being one more file and one more thing to go wrong, that system seems precarious. I can't see any way to be sure that an external manifest file represents the true dependencies of that specific version of the DLL or EXE. It makes no sense to me doing it with a separate file. The installer has the SAME manifest embedded, but with a different ID which stops it being subject to any version checking. This manifest is used to test out what would happen if the check on loading were really to take place -- a "probe manifest" (apparently). The probe takes place by using those Windows API functions I mentioned. This all took me ages to sort out (time I would much rather have spent doing more interesting things with FSX), and that was with plenty of help from the SimConnnect author himself. Write to me later, when I'm over this hump, and we'll sort something out. Maybe by then you'll have resolved all this for your DLL in any case? I can explain as much as you like, and/or return different codes for different problems in the 'silent install'. But I am still inclined really to try to keep control over the actual FSUIPC4 install. But I may change my mind. Let's see. Regards, Pete

You misunderstood something I think. If it is a DirectInput device then it can provide up to 64 buttons -- Windows and FS9 should be able to see a lot more than FSUIPC, which doesn't use DirectInput. If Windows, FS9 and FSUIPC all see the same handful of buttons, then that is all their driver is emulating as a game type device. It sounds like they intended it primarily as a keyboard emulator not a game device. Regards, Pete

Does it emulate a joystick game device, or come with its own drivers? FSUIPC only handles standard Windows-recognised joysticks, and not via DirectInput, only via the original joystick API. That supports up to 16 joystick/game devices each with 32 buttons, 6 analogue axes and one POV (Hat). DirectInput can I think support up to 64 buttons and two POVs. not sure about the axes. Does FS itself see more of your buttons? It uses DirectInput since FS2002. Specific drivers for specific devices can of course support whatever they like. EPIC, PFC and GoFlight are all examples of implementations which have their own driving software. If the makers don't supply drivers to emulate game devices then really I can't do anything. From what you say it sounds like they designed it to work with their drivers as a keyboard emulator. They could provide a HID (Human Interface Driver) for windows to make their device look like one or more standard game devices, each with up to 32 buttons. This is how it is done in the EPIC. Regards, Pete

Ah, yes. Fine. That's cool. Acually, looking back up the thread I should have been clearer. My comment "I honestly cannot see why you are objecting to spawning my installer" was really aimed at LukeK, who I hope is still following this. Don't forget you can have different versions of FS installed simultaneously. On one of my PCs I used to have FS98, FS2000, FS2002 and FS2004 (oh, yes, and CFS1 and CFS2) all installed and operational. you can only run one at a time of course. On my current machines I only have FS2004 and FSX installed, excepting one remaining still with FS2002. ;-) Regards, Pete

I think it more likely that most folks who've purchased and installed WideFS generally run FS with client PCs running Wideclient too. Once you have at least one client happily connected and remaining connected the "RestartTime" parameter is irrelevant. Your 13-second periodic stutters wouldn't have occurred on systems actually using WideFS even if they would in the circumstances you are presumably flying -- i.e. with WideServer installed but no clients running. Regards, Pete

For FSX there is more to it I'm afraid. SimConnect uses side-by-side installation, with multiple versions possible. FSUIPC4 needs to match at least one of those (preferably the latest, as that would give the best service/facility). Furthermore, SimConnect uses the Manifest system to be sure that it only loads programs compiled to run with one of its installed versions. My installer does these checks using manifest probes. It all seemed rather complicated to start with, but was simplified immensely by upgradng to MSicrosoft Studio 2005 -- the 2003 version I've been use for FSUIPC3 (and still am) does not handle manifests much if at all. All in all these are the steps my installer goes through: 1. Finds the path to FSX via the Registry -- asking the User to locate FSX.EXE if the Registry is not correct in this regard. 2. Checks the Version number of FSX.EXE is adequate. 3. Via the assorted probe manifests built in as resources, uses the CreateActCtx and ActivateActCtx/DeactivateActCtx APIs to make sure the SimConnect part will 'mesh' okay. These manifests are, by the way the Installer is compiled as part of my FSUIPC4 project, always inclusive of the actual run-time checked manifests built into FSUIPC4 itself. [This is where I'm not sure how your installer, built separately from FSUIPC4, could reliably cope. If MS had no plans for any interim updates to SimConnect it wouldn't be such a problem, but I don't think it is the case -- at least I most certainly hope not!]. 4. Checks whether there is already a Modules folder with a later version of FSUIPC4 already installed. 5. Creates the Modules folder if necessary and copies FSUIPC4 in. 6. Finds all of the user APPDATA paths which have an FSX.CFG installed, for each one found either checking an existing DLL.XML file to see if it already loads FSUIPC4 (otherwise inserting the appropriate lines), or, if no DLL.XML yet exists, creating one with the sole purpose of getting SimConnect to run FSUIPC4. 7. Finally copies some documents and other files into the Modules folder too. Now, whilst I am not saying that your installer can't do all these things, I would be concerned especially about steps 3, 6 and 7. I honestly cannot see why you are objecting to spawning my installer, just like most of MS's own installs spawn DirectX and other installers when they are run. If you wish to run it invisibly, with error or success codes returned, that can certainly be done via some command line switch. Why not think about it and say what you need, rather than rush in and complain about the fact that I need to have a little more control on installation with FSX? Regards Pete

Separate packages. The current FSUIPC will stay as it is now, with development slowing down as we concentrate on FSX and the future. I will still support FSUIPC 3 in terms of answering questions and fixing bugs, but I cannot see much in the way of new facilities and especially not new FS data being added when there is so much potential in new FSX products. Regards, Pete

Should this be the case in 3.709? I was assigning the trim functions to two joystick buttons with this version and found them listed as "Elev Tr" and "Elev Trim" in the list. Ooops! Good catch! In my haste (I've had so much to do for FSX of course) I didn't change the lengths from my previous names. They'll be okay in the formal release, 3.71, which I'll get to as soon as I have the first FSX version (FSUIPC4) out the door. Thanks, Pete

If the only relationship it has with FS is the data it gets from FSUIPC, then the answer is yes. If it interacts with some part of FS directly, like, for instance, the scenery files or something, then that depends -- most of the scenery files are different, are named differently and are placed differently. Even a small and silly thing might stop it -- if it actually checks that the version of FS is "FS2004" then it may not like to run with "FSX" simply because it isn't FS2004, even though possibly everything else is okay. I cannot tell these things in advance for programs I don't know. I use a lot of FSUIPC-interfacing programs and FSX + FSUIPC4 works with all of those. Regards Pete

Are you using Squawkbox 3, as if so I don't think that needs AIBridge. Otherwise, there were at least two versions of AIBridge -- one for FS2002 and one for FS2004 I think. The MP stuff is different on each. I think the latest was from Jose's own site -- the link on Enrico's "dowson" page should get it. But the SDK is for programmers. Were you thinking of programming it yourself? Well, either this means he's looked at the facility provided for this in FSUIPC and decided he doesn't want to do it, or he's not really inclined even to look. It certainly isn't complicated at all. Again, this indicates he hasn't really looked into the matter. I don't think Avsim is an on-line flying ATC service in any case ;-). Tegwyn is probably a very busy man and is not interested in finding a solution for what is presumably a minority need in any case. It seems you are not even reading the thread properly. The solution has been in FSUIPC for years and has been in use by Squawkbox and other programs for years too, certainly since FS2002 days. The solution is clearly documented. There is nothing else I can do from the FSUIPC side -- I cannot write Tegwyn's code for him! Please make some sense in your thread contributions! Pete

Lucky you! Wish I had an official version. I am a little worried it may be different from the last one we were allowed to download, a few days ago. The official release date we were told was October 17th, and it looks like that's when us Beta testers and developers will get our copies. All you users getting it so early are vey lucky. I don't know why Microsoft have chosen to do it this way. :-( I am trying to get versions of my software ready for release this week, but it is an awaful rush and a change from the planned schedules. I am not getting much sleep I can tell you! That's the whole idea. There's not much point in me working like this otherwise -- the whole point for the last seven or more years of FSUIPC has been to provide application compatibility across FS versions. But until it is tested on it I couldn't say whether it will work 100% without more tweaks in FSUIPC4. I will need feedback on these things and tweak it until it is 100% compatible. There's no way that has been possible with the couple of Beta versions of FSX we've had I'm afraid, and, as I say, I've only had what may be the Released version of FSX for a few days. Regards Pete

Er .. are you saying that these indications were in the FS panel DME display? Sorry, I thought as you were mentioning FSUIPC in this context you were talking about a Project Magenta DME display, or some other FSUIPC-fed one. I'm afraid FSUIPC has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the displays in any of the standard FS panels, and only a few of the displays in some of the add-on aircraft --- mostly just the TCAS targets for AI aircraft. Please confirm. Regards, Pete

I've deleted your private details from your message. Never show such info in public, please. I know you hid part of the Key, but the other details are private to you too. As described in the FSUIPC user guide, both registrations need to be under the same name and email. It also says that if you state this need when you order then SimMarket should be able to oblige, but if you face difficulties (they are automating things so this is a possibility) you can always send me details of your original FSUIPC purchase (privately, not here -- send to petedowson@btconnect.com) AND your new WideFS purchase, and I will change one or the other so that they match. Regards, Pete

Sorry, it means little to me. most crashes in WEATHER.DLL are a result of corrupted WX files in my experience, but they are few and far between these days on FS2004 after the 9.1 update. One thing that would concern me, though, and may well be a contributory factor: This appears to indicate that you have an original issue 9.0 version FS9.EXE being used with the WEATHER.DLL from the 9.1 update -- you can see this clearly from the version numbers, and of course the dates (30612 = 12 June 2003 compared to 40901 = 1st Sept 2004). I'm wondering how many other mixes between the two versions you have. I wouldn't trust any of it with such a mixture. Possibly this happened because you used a No-CD hack for the FS9.EXE which therefore wouldn't be updated by the FS9.1 update? I think you might wish to consider uninstalling it completely, then installing the original from the CD's, after which applying the complete FS9.1 update. Alternatively, if you check ALL the FS9 DLLs in the Modules folder, and they are all dated 1st Sept 2004 or later, maybe replacing the FS9.0 EXE with the no-CD version of the 9.1 EXE might work. I'm not sure where you'd get it though. Obviously it isn't an officially sanctioned file! Regards, Pete

I never thought you did. The way of getting MP targets into the TCAS tables in FSUIPC has been available now ever since soon after the TCAS tables were added, for FS2002 I think (?). The documentation in the FSUIPC SDK explains how it is done. Programs like AIBridge and Squawkbox has been doing it for a long time, and they work with MP traffic showing in PM's TCAS. I don't see why it cannot be fixed by the VoxATC author if he wants to do so. Why don't you report the problem on the VoxATC support site, if there is one? Maybe he is simply not aware of what he needs to do. Regards, Pete

It doesn't change on the paper clip, but on the word below the paper clip "download". That's the 'button'. Pete

It isn't a button in the usual sense, there's a paperclip symbol with the word "download" below it. When you move your mouse over the word the pointer changes to a hand and the "download" word gets highlighted. THEN you press your mouse button. If you don't see any of this, maybe you have some security options set to hide them in your browser? Regards, Pete

Sorry, where? None intended I assure you -- sorry if you mistake my English. I am glad you brought up the problem and found the cause. As i said, I think I will change the default value for the RestartTime as a consequence. So it has been useful, thanks. 99M is provided when there's no reception as well as when too far away. I really don't understand where you are coming from with this attitude, but if you don't like the way I phrase things I am sorry. Have a good life and enjoy flying. Bye. Pete

Ah! you found the documentation! Good. ;-) Hmm. Never seen any stutters caused by that. Sounds like the drivers for your Network have a lot more to do than most -- I wonder what happened in the SP2 update. Also, if that was the cause, the stutters should have disappeared as soon as you have an active client -- the restarts only apply whilst nothing is connecting. Well, only if it won't connect. If everything behaves itself you should have no problems. A lot of those "sledgehammer recovery" techniques date from times with Win98 and WinMe or mixed protocol networks, where clogging up seemed to be more common. Maybe I'll assume systems are better behaved now -- in FSX I think I'll set the default for that to 0. Regards, Pete