Pete Dowson

Sorry, you'll have to address that to PMDG. There's no graphic's programming at all in FSUIPC. It sounds like there's a problem loading the background bitmap, which should be easy enough to resolve, but I am no panel expert. It certainly works fine here. Regards, Pete

Version 3.06 of FSUIPC is out of date and not supported. The current version is 3.129. I'm sorry, but I've never heard of ACRAD. Does it use FSUIPC at all? If so it will need a key to access any unregistered version 3.xxx FSUIPC. No one has contacted me at all about this. Maybe all the other users have registered their copy of FSUIPC? Regards, Pete

It isn't a "great" program, it was written merely to test the facilities in FSUIPC, and as an example of the data it provide. It is provided as a useful utility, perhaps, but it is not intended as a developing application. I only enhanced it recently to add tests for the new data FSUIPC provides. As to your requests: 1. The data shown is whatever is opted for in FSUIPC. The default is airline+flight number for airliners, and tail number for GA. If you are not seeing flight numbers you have the option wrong in FSUIPC. Note that Flight Numbers are not assigned until clearance is obtained. Those aircraft 'sleeping' at gates do not yet have valid flight numbers -- the one which FS provides me for those is the default one from the AIRCRAFT.CFG file, so they all look the same! 2. What for? There are other programs that do that. TrafficLook is not meant to be a timetable viewer, it is a test program for the facilities in FSUIPC. I think you will find TrafficBoard more what you seem to be looking for. 3. If you want a text version of it use the Printing facilities and print to a file. Regards, Pete

Nothing more since last time I wrote. no. Sorry. Regards, Pete

CD? No, it isn't worth it. Just go to http://www.schiratti.com/dowsonand download it. It isn't very big. All my software is there. FSUIPC is also available from AVSIM, but the Schiratti page, as referred to everywhere, is complete with all my stuff. Not sure where you think you are "not getting a straight answer", it seems pretty clear to me where you get the programs. Where have you been looking? Just check the announcements at the top of the page, or any of my documents for the past few years. They all point to the Schiratti page. Regards, Pete

Not at all, don't worry about it. Of course I would rather you were a paid-up user of FSUIPC 3 :wink: , but it isn't too busy here at the moment, so feel free. Jagged lines which are supposed to be straight come about because the pixels needed to perform a perfectly straight line at that angle don't exist. You'll find that when the horizon is perfectly level it looks fine, and it will look fine at certain other angles too. The higher the resolution the less exagerrated the effect becomes and less critical angles occur. The same improvement can be obtained by moving yourself a lot further away from the screen, of course, until the eye no longer discerns the lack of straightness in the edges. Anti-aliassing is a way of using pixels of differing intensities along the line to fool the eye into thinking it looks straight. It gets a lot more complicated than that, and there are many different methods of doing it which have different effects and different impacts on performance. I tend to be quite happy on an 18" screen at 1280x1024 without AA, but I suspect at 21" I would find it more annoying. But even in the old cruder graphics of yester year never would I have found it bad enough to warrant aborting a flight as you say you do! I'm not understanding this again, I'm afraid. How are you setting the weather? Do you have a save flight + WX file which illustrates the lack of FSUIPC's visibility limits taking effect? All I am seeing is the results of FS setting unlimited visibility. If you never want to see the horizon then the imposition of limits in FSUIPC should work. If you'd like to send a saved FLT + WX to me, along with your FSUIPC.INI file, I can try it here (I do have an FS2002 installation still, somewhere here ). Zip them and send them to petedowson@btconnect.com. Of course I will be using FSUIPC 3.129 or later, but the visibility control for FS2002 won't have changed. You can use global weather without forsaking "real world" weather settings by using an outside weather control program such as FSMeteo or ActiveSky. These programs improved the weather implementations in FS2000 and FS2002 immensely in my opinion. Only with FS2004 has Microsoft's own weather download facilities caught up. This is only my opinion of course. Well I've looked, and these don't look bad at all to me, I'm afraid, but then I've never been upset by lack of anti-aliassing. I know some folks won't ever fly without it, but I prefer the higher performance I get without. To me it just isn't worth the lost of any frames per second just to smooth a few edges now and then. Good job we all have different tastes, though, else the world wouldn't be so interesting, eh? :) Regards, Pete

Sorry, they're all supposed to be self-explanatory. Which ones are a puzzle? TrafficLook is only showing the data FSUIPC is providing, it isn't examning any traffic files as such. I did TRY to find the ETD and ETA -- and in fact I got close, but the code is very convoluted and it would have involved going through two additional FS modules in assembly code to work out how to decipher what I could find. It took many hours of hacking just to get the airport and runway data. I think what you want may be better served by TrafficBoard, which uses both FSUIPC data on traffic and decoded traffic schedules. There's a separate Forum near here about that. Regards, Pete

Okay. Was the previous version of FSUIPC, the one which you had successfully registered, 3.00 or 3.01 or similar? Only in the first few days of FSUIPC 3's release were there any difficulties with accented characters. I thought we'd replaced all the invalid keys long ago. Is this your first FSUIPC upgrade since the end of August? Anyway, I will check therm and take appropriate action when I see them. But I do need the original email. Thanks, Pete

Looking at those two pictures, what is it you are complaining about? If it is the "jaggies" on the horizon, that is merely because it is supposed to be a straight line and your resolution is too low to show it as a straight line without anti-aliassing switched on. You either need to go to a much higher resolution, or enable AA on your video card. Neither picture show anything wrong with visibility as such. As I already told you, the "327.27" shown in WeatherSet is an error of representation and was fixed some time ago. If you upgrade to new versions of my programs that won't happen. But it doesn't indicate anything wrong, it just means that the FS weather you are using is set to "unlimited". No amount of fiddling with visibility or texturing or scenery distace will fix the lack of straight lines at angles -- you need AA. That's what it is for. All the preceding exchanges are really null and void, having seen your 'problem'. Sorry to have misled you. I was picturing something really awful from what you were saying. This is not 'awful', it is just a normal symptom of low resolution. Regards, Pete

The 90 miles upper limit in FSUIPC should be taking effect, not the 110 default you've allowed. -- but if not, I think this must be some interaction with your weather source. Are you using FSMeteo, ActiveSky, or FS's own downloaded weather. If the latter then most of FSUIPC's facilities for weather filtering don't work in any case! In that case your solution with lie in reducing the FS visibility and trying to extend the graphics detail distance. There are two parts to that I think -- terrain radius and texturing radius. But I don't remember what the parameters are in the CFG. If you get nowhere, I'll check into my own settings, which worked fine (but I was always an FSMeteo user with FS2002, didn't like FS downloaded weather at all). Regards, Pete

There's no such thing as "infinite vis". The -1 I mentioned is FS's way of denoting the "unlimited" setting in its dialogues. However, "unlimited" means limited only by your graphics settings -- which I think you said were 110 miles or similar? What is probably happening is that your scenery isn't being drawn as far as that. Try reducing the maximum in the FS options first (NOT the weather, the graphics options). Or else find out why your scenery isn't being drawn far enough -- probably something to do with maximum texture sizes and other things. There are also heaps of parameters in the CFG file which change all that stuff. There should be hints and tips some place -- forgive me. I've been working mostly on FS2004 this year so I don't remember all of FS2002's ins and outs any more. It would simply mean that the graduation effect would still be in operation at your cruise altitude. The more important value is the "upper visibility" you have got set for the graduated visibility. Have you set that to 110 miles? If so, reduce that until your horizon looks okay. The default of 60 miles should have been good. There is no "infinite" value. The -1 is FS's internal representation of "unlimited" in the weather dialogues. It tells it to set it to the maximum allowed by your graphics settings. Regards, Pete

The 327 comes from the value "-1" which FS2002 represents to indicate "unlimited visibility". -1 if FFFFFFFF in hexadecimal, which with older versions of FSUIPC and WeatherSet get truncated to 7FFF which is 32767 (1/100ths of a mile). The visibility isn't really that much, it is just a representation error. It has been fixed in newer versionso of FSUIPC and WeatherSet. I really can't support the old versions. I don't think the visuals are really to do with this - unlimited is just limited by your maximum you set in FS. It can't get higher. Certainly a combination of the maxima and the graduated visibility settings in FSUIPC can stop this. .... ah, except in Localised weather. I really can't imagine what you are seeing with this "awful horizon", unless in FS you have your max visibility set higher than the distance the scenery is being drawn. I would restrict the FS maximum in any case if I were you. In all the two years I was using FS2002 I don't recall problems as you have described, though the whole visibility implementation in FS2002 was atrocious compared to both FS2000 and FS2004 in my opinion. Regards, Pete

In that case, take it from me, my code would look like complete gibberish. The names are just that, easy names to remember instead of the numbers they represent. Look in the .h file, you'll see the names defined with hexadecimal values. Really, I am a terrible teacher, and the last thing I can do is show a new programmer how to use such a complex interface. I would really advise sticking to the easy FS98 interface until you move on to FS2004 and use the NWI which is nearly as easy. Regards, Pete

Are you writing for FS2000/2002, or FS2004? If FS2004, don't waste time on the AWI, you need to move to the New Weather Interface. It is much easier to use in any case. I'd be glad to answer questions if there are things you don't understand. Well it realy says it is an example of the USE of the interface, not how to program it, and it is provided in the FSUIPC.ZIP for users, not programmers. It was originally written only as a test, really. Not WeatherSet, maybe WeatherSet2 (which uses the NWI), but not until I have a lot of spare time to make it presentable. They are not good programming examples so I would not push them forward. They were written quickly and cheaply as test programs for the interfaces. To make them presentable as programming examples would take me a lot of time, unfortunately. Regards, Pete

If you use exactly the same NAME and KEY the registration will work. Both parts must be absolutely the same as originally notified to you and as you must have originally entered into the registration page. The program doesn't care what your name is, only that you enter what you are told to enter in the message giving you your key. I do not want screenshots. If you forward me a copy of your original notification, to petedowson@btconnect.com, I will check it here. But please first just enter the same details as you did originally, even if you don't like that spelling of your name. All SimMarket did was use the spelling you gave them when you applied. I thought you said, just a bit earlier, that "my name is Schnädelbach and not Schnaedelbach.", so why do you sign off differently? Maybe this is the problem with registration? Please use the same name, exactly, each time. Computers are stupid, they don't interpret what you mean only what you say. Regards, Pete

So what's this update timer and how do you control it? Pete

No, sorry. FSUIPC at present can't get inside the engine to be able to affect clouds nor winds. So far it's only the visibility I seem to be able to play with. I don't even know the exact cause. I thought it was to do with nearby weather stations not always having specific weather supplied and so making do with the "global" weather. Global weather is based on sea level, so any "global" clouds would tend to be too low -- cloud bases in METARs are AGL. However, others who have apparently spoken to Microsoft about this say that it is due to bugs in the downloaded METAR data (and that they are trying to get it fixed). However ... ... I've not heard of that. Others seem to say they are wrong on the download too. Maybe your low clouds are realy blowing in from other parts? Regards, Pete

Well, it shouldn't be a "trouble" as such. Just copy in the DLL. Keep your 2.975 safe elsewhere if you like. Unless the panel programmer has provided extra controls or keypresses for the operation of these things, no, it isn't possible. Well, there is a "Key2Mouse" program or module which might do the trick -- it accepts keypresses and converts them into mouse movements and clicks I think. That sort of thing can be done, but it isn't easy. Unfortunately the FS gauge design tools seem to make it easy for the panel maker to provide user control using the mouse but not keyboard or button. Regards, Pete

Well you can get an idea of the applicability of the assorted fixes and improvements over recent updates by reviewing the History document you must already have. You'll see that quite often there are changes and fixes applicable to more than just FS2004. Naturally as we discover more about FS2004 then more additions will be made for it, just as there were for FS2002, but it is not exclusive by any means. One small recent example is the addition of the auto-feather arming switch access through FSUIPC, which was operational in FS2000 but not FS2002 or FS2004 until now. I cannot promise anything specific for FS2002 in the future, but then I don't promise anything specific for FS2004 either. So really it is up to you. You can review the release notices I put in the first announcement in the forum each time, and make up your own mind. One thing to consider, though, is that if you have a problem and want some sort of assistance I will expect you to update to the latest version first as I really cannot investigate problems in old code. Regards, Pete

Glad you are making progress! I've not got 0360 and 0368 documented. Can you explain those for me, please? This is the "update timer", is it? I really didn't know about that. It may be very interesting for others, especially those who wish to use FS not to simulate flying so much as replay the recoding of a flight elsewhere, maybe a real one. Regards, Pete

Please check the Release details above. FS2004 access to the first 5 such variables (0DD6-0DDE) was first provided in FSUIPC 3.128, by actually patching the FS module in which they now reside to move them back to Globals where they used to be. From what I've seen none of the other user variables are supported in FS2004 in any case. The tables in the FS modules don't list them. Regards, Pete

The user access keys for FSUIPC and WideFS are yours, you can use them on any and all your PCs. I don't like the "one computer one license" system, mine are per user. Regards, Pete

There's something else going on there, then. I don't see that happening here. The instant the Zulu hour is changed, the "loading scenery" progress bar comes up. Try it with FSInterrogate to be sure. You can change it as many times as you like, it is exactly the same each time. Regards, Pete

But having a variable effect for the same control is going to be very misleading during flight. What you want really is less sensitivity (more movement needed) around centres and higher sensitivity towards the extremes so you can still get to the maximum deflections. A sort of "S" curve". I provide these in the PFC driver for the main flight controls, and was planning to include something similar when I eventually get around to producing the analogue axis assignment program I have had planned for ages. Yes, you should never use those for trimming as such, they are not intended for that and certainly will produce asymmetric results. Surely FS's own trim is okay -- not the elevator axis, the trim axis? You should be able to calibrate that to get what you want, as you don't need to reach extremes with the trim (though FS allows the trim the same latitude as the elevator itself). If you have it as an axis, make its FS sensitivity low in comparison to the elevator axis itself. Also, of course, the keyboard trim method is dual-action -- one press is a very small trim change, two quick presses gives you much greater effect. I use a yoke rocker switch as a sort of electric trim, and this is only using these standard controls to good effect. Well, when I do get time I shall be looking at moving all the analogue stuff into a separate package (DLL or EXE, not sure yet) and extending it greatly, with user-designed response curves and many other things. As I mentioned, something of the sort has been on my list for a while but I've never had the time. Regards, Pete

The maximum allowed in total for reads and writes in one Process call is something near 31000 bytes I think (see the library code, I think it's defined in there someplace), but I wouldn't advise that much. thart includes all the red tape and stuff. If you are using WideFS at all you want to keep it smaller in any case. There should really never need to be any large numbers of writes to do in any case, surely? If you are only talking in a few hundreds of bytes, or even a few k, don't worry about it. Pete