Pete Dowson

Not for FS weather, no. I can't get at any of that. I could filter it off if coming from an external program, but really I think it would be better to have that option in the weather program -- after all it would save it a lot of time downloding the stuff in the first place. Really? But surely if it idn't actually downloading winds aloft then the ones it generates won't be conflicting so much? If it does generate upper winds of its own volition I wonder what system it uses? That really is news to me. I have never actually experienced any such wind problems, but then I fly in Europe. I have reproduced them using FLT+WX files from FS downloads, supplied by others -- most noticeable around the Chicago area. I assume that this is down to conflicting reports from different but closely spaced WX stations, possibly derived from different times of day, but I really would have thought that FS's own interpolation would have smoothed these out. Certainly it should be possible to get smoother changes using external weather programs, but this does require pre-processing of the data before sending it to FS. I've suggested various methods to try to Marc, for FSMeteo, but I don't know if he's had time to consider these. Regards, Pete

Sorry, I really don't know. I only provide a window onto what's available. Try using the Monitoring facilities in FSUIPC (see the Logging page) and watching what they do. But I don't think they have worked since FS2002. If you do find out, please let me know and I'll add more data to the Programmer's Guide. I notice that FS2004 has added two new gauge variables: TRAILING_EDGE_FLAPS0_LEFT_ANGLE TRAILING_EDGE_FLAPS0_RIGHT_ANGLE so I could try to locate those and map them for 2A98 and 2AA8, assuming they don't work as they are ... I can't see any reference anywhere at all to Leading Edge flaps. Additionally there seems to be no way to define these in the AIRCRAFT AIR or CFG files, so I can only assume these are only simulated visually on your aircraft and in fact do nothing to the flight. I don't actually have a 767 for FS2004 so I am unble to check this for you. But from everything I can locate to do with FS's handling of flaps internally, for performance all it seems to care about is a flap position "name" and the corresponding effects on performance and limiting speeds. It doesn't appear to distinguish else. Regards, Pete

Okay, got it now -- it's SR2Z PO0O 5L56, I've added it to the list above now. Regards, Pete

Ah, so you didn't set any maximum at ground level for the graduated visibility to start from? It seems daft restricting visibilty to 60 miles at 35,000 yet letting it be completely unlimited at the surface. If you want to get the best from the facility, all the four values in the "maximum" settings should be LESS than your topmost level visibility, else you will get such an odd topsy-turvy effect. Regards, Pete

You have to apply to Customer Services at . I am not involved in this, I don't issue the keys.Regards, Pete

Sorry, I've absolutely no idea. That is surely a question for the IVAO folks. Seems like they have something wrong, doesn't it? Do they have a forum or group where you can ask questions? Maybe someone else here uses Squawkbox and can help you. I don't use it at all I'm afraid. Regards, Pete

I don't think it will. The spike suppression was specifically programmed to get rid of apparent software bugs in certain well-known popular panels -- they seem to deliberately sent maximum deflection controls on occasion. It isn't a hardware thing. If you are getting spikes with the default panels then it is likely to be a bad pot, bad connections, or some sort of interference. >> is there a way to check if the joystick produces a spike out of FS9? That way I can check if the spike is coming from panels (only in fs9) as you say or from the joystick. << If it is doing it in the default panels, then it isn't the panels. If it is frequent enough you should be able to see it in the Windows Game Controllers calibration. Regards, Pete

Your visibility increases as you descend, not decreases? You've not got graduated visibility enabled, then? It should be the other way around. I cannot imagine why you'd want more visiiblity at lower altitudes than higher? When you say "it goes from 5800 to 6000 when the visual change is abrupt", abrupt to what? The difference between 58 miles and 60 miles is not going to be a very visible change, that's a pretty small increase (less than 3%). So if you saw "an abrupt" change of some sort (which way?), and there was no abrupt change in that value, it was definitely forming or dissipating cloud, as I said. Regards, Pete

Sorry, the pics don't seem to arrive. What's the problem? Rather than pictures, wouldn't it be easier to describe it in words. Some folks say pictures can tell more, but I don't think that is always the case :) Pete

That's a thin cloud graphic deliberately laid on the top of the visibility layer (at the upper altitude for this as seen in the Weather dialogues). It was added by MS in response to copmaints with FS2002/2000 that after climbing up out of the fog when looking down the view is perfectly clear, when obviously you should see the haze/fog below, masking or at least fogging the ground somewhat. I assume that since visibility is a video card fogging mechanism, this apparently couldn't simply be applied only to the ground textures, so instead they added this cloud graphic. However, being effectively a cloud, it is only drawn to the distance set by the cloud "view distance" slider (one of the sliders in the Options-Settings-Display-Weather dialogue). For best results, set all the sliders in there to maximum, but beware of lower frame rates then. That's a personal choice. Depends whether you want more varied weather I suppose. Regards, Pete

Hi Daniel, I attach Esound 2.572. Can you try this and let me know? I couldn't find anything wrong, so I recompiled it and tried it here and it seems okay -- if it is okay with you I can only think 2.571 was some sort of mis-compile. Regards, Pete Esound2572.zip

Yes, I have seen this too, but I am pretty sure that this is some cloud phenomenon, even so. At least every example I've seen has been, so far. One way to check. Go to FSUIPC's Logging page and enter the offset "0E78" in the first entry, with a type of "U16". At the bottom select "AdvDisplay". This makes FSUIPC continuously show the value in 0E78 in the FS text display bar on screen. It is this value which FSUIPC uses to manipulate the visibility. The units are hundredths of a statute mile. When it happens, see if the value so displayed is low, matching the apparent visibility. If it is then I'll need to know how to reproduce this so I can deal with it. If it isn't, then what you are seeing is certainly related to cloud formation. As I say, every case I've come across has been down to the latter. Check whether you have the weather dynamics enabled (the slider for changes in the weather menu). If that isn't set to the very left, then you are quite likely to get cloud formation, and it can happen at the aircraft location. I think this is what is happening. Let me know, please, Regards, Pete

I don't know. I'd need some details in order to be able to generate one. I assume this is for FS2002? I think multiplayer has changed in FS2004 and you'd need an update. I don't know if Jose is making one yet. Regards, Pete

That sounds like cloud layers. I cannot, and would not even try to interfere with those. This sudden appearance of clouds at the aircraft has hapened in previous versions of FS, and it certainly also happens in FS2004. In the recent versions of FSUIPC, it works universally, with all weathers. But it is only the visibility. Clouds suddenly appearing or disappearing are totally different. I am not getting involved in that mess. Sorry. Regards, Pete

Yes. That's why I've not updated the "Latest Versions" announcement yet. I post the details when I distribute the ZIPs by Email, then I have to wait for the web site folks to upload them, then I'll update the Release list. Sorry. I expect everyone's enjoying themselves at the AVSIM do this weekend. That's why it's taking longer than usual I expect. Regards. Pete

Isn't this to do with multiplayer? I don't think FSUIPC is used for tranmsmission of aircraft image data in either direction. I know that the Multiplayer protocols are different between FS2002 and FS2004, so the same solution wouldn't apply to both in any case. Yes, it is. Which really points even more to the multiplayer side of things. I'm sorry, but I know nothing about that area, and FSUIPC isn't involved. Maybe other SB users here will be able to help. I'm afraid I am not one. However, I see this: ********* FSUIPC, Version 3.03 by Pete Dowson ********* There is one thing I think you ought to do, soon, and that is to update your copy of FSUIPC. There have been a lot of changes since your version 3.03. the currently available version is 3.08 and version 3.09 is released now and should be up on the Schiratti size within a day or so. It won't make any difference to multiplayer though. Regards, Pete

It certainly shouldn't, but maybe it was set up that way. Try restoring it, i.e. turn it off then re-enabling it. If that doesn't change the IP addresses back to automatic then it should be okay. I don't see why it should insist on them being automatic. If you don't get any luck, ask Katy Pluta over in the FS2004 forum here -- she is very knowledgeable on this stuff and has helped me a few times. Yes, it is BT's ADSL. It's good. I don't use the USB modem they supplied, but a Zoom Ethernet router. I had ISDN before, too. I changed in May when BT changed their pricing and when my main income stopped -- ISDN was costing me an arm and a leg and I was going to just stop it when BT brought out their special offer. Before May it would have cost me about £200 to change over, after May it was just £50 -- and that was for the modem which I told them I didn't want, but got anyway! The quarterly bill for ADSL is around half what I was paying for ISDN. I had to change over from Demon (who I was with ever since I had my first Internet connection) to BT for this advantage though. Demon aren't allowed to remove BT's ISDN so I'd have still had to pay BT over £100 to do that if I'd stuck with Demon. Regards, Pete

In short, yes. As it says in the FSUIPC documentation, all the user facilities -- that is all the facilities in all the options pages of FSUIPC except "About" and "Logging" -- are part of what you get if you register it. The problem of short battery life is an FS problem, it it not caused either by the aircraft you've loaded or by any other add-on. In actual fact, the battery life is probably quite realistic, what isn't realistic is the absence of ground power when at the terminal, and the total lack of proper APU simulation. I have been hoping and expecting one day for one of these new sophisticated cockpits to actually simulate these themselves, but no, they don't. And of course the battery runs down faster because of the large number of additional drains on it in modern cockpits. Regards, Pete

Hmm. Not sure. But I have a router on my Network, and I have to put its IP address in the 3rd entry -- the one below the Mask, called "Default gateway". I also have to set this in the lower section, "Use the following DNS server addresses". Maybe this applies? Maybe your Internet access PC needs its address here? Otherwise, sorry, I don't know. Maybe someone else who knows about this stuff might chip in and help? BTW, wouldn't it be better for FS to have the Internet access on the 2nd PC in any case? Regards, Pete

This sounds very much like the action of Windows when you have left the IP address for Windows to obtain automatically. Check that you've assigned a specific IP address to each PC. To do this go to Network Connections, Properties, select the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) and its properties, and choose the "Use the following IP address" section. Allocate something like 192.168.0.N (where N is up to you, a unique value for each PC) and a mask of 255.255.255.0. If it isn't this then I'm out of ideas already. I would say check what else is running in the background -- virus checkers and memory managers also exhibit this sort of behaviour sometimes. But you said it doesn't happen when there's no connection on the Network, so it seems likely to be something to do with that. Regards, Pete

But there are lots of people using FSMeteo, inlcuding myself, who don't get crashes. I really don't think it is either FSMeteo or FSUIPC. It is almost certainly related to the graphics system. When you don't run FSMeteo for your weather, what do you run. What weather are you using? For some reasonable comparison you will need to run with FS's own dowloaded real weather. Do you do this? Pete

The black screen problem is happening mainly when you change screen modes, right? Windowed to full screen, usually, or minimised to full screen, et cetera? Or possibly views? This has been discussed to death already in many threads here and elsewhere, and is mentioned in my Important announcement at the top of the forum. So far all the evidence points to a DirectX9 problem, and it occurs with other programs as well as FS2004. Please check out all the other threads here and elsewhere on this, and also these references: Games: The Screen Turns Black http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;813712 Black Screen When You Run a DirectX-Based Program http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;184541 Games: How to Troubleshoot Display Issues http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;263039 I have proven it isn't FSUIPC as I can make it happen quite easily with no FSUIPC installed and just one add-in -- Lago's ViMaCore2004.dll, which I have for their Venice scenery. Unfortunately, FSUIPC gets blamed first for everything wrong. :cry: Regards, Pete

Well, I just looked at the FS2004 Forum here, and there's a thread there about crashes with the new PSS aircraft. It may be more common than you suspect, so no doubt PSS will fix it soon enough. Let's hope so! Naturally, if they have any trouble with FSUIPC I will help them if needs be, but I've not heard anything from them. I really would be more likely to suspect their complex new code. Regards, Pete

Not specifically FSUIPC, no. As far as any aircraft panel is concerned, FSUIPC is just an interface into FS. And it is extremely unlikely that any aircraft will be using FSUIPC any more furiusly than many other applications which work well, like Project Magenta. Of course, any program can crash FS by writing wrong things to wrong places through FSUIPC's interface, but I think that is unlikely too. You need to remember, though, than an aircraft panel, especially one as complex as these, has lots of code of its own running inside FS. Why would you think the probably rather small and trivial use it may make of FSUIPC would be more likely to be responsible for your crashes than the huge amount of its own code? Regards, Pete

Scott, In your very first post in this thread you said "Note: I am a registered user of v3.06." Did you really mean this? I am suspecting that your FSUIPC is not registered. One glance at a Log would show me one way of the other. I tell you why I think this: 1. You complain of a slow down when running the PSS aircraft. I mentioned I found that, where an aircraft gauge persistently attempts to link to an unregistered FSUIPC, the retries are costly in performance terms. I have improved this action in 3.09, which was ready to go out tomorrow, but there's no change I can make to a registered FSUIPC because the retries don't even occur then! So it does seem as if your FSUIPC 3.xx is not registered from that standpoint. 2. You complain that the PSS Dash-8 is not acquiring heading (and NAV) hold correctly. In fact, from my experiments here, it looks like it uses FSUIPC's interface to manipulate this, and, of course, with an unregistered FSUIPC it isn't able to do so. I've just tried this. I removed my FSUIPC.KEY file, ran the exact same test as I mentioned in my previous post, andthe aircraft tends to turn away from the selected heading, not towards it. It certainly cannot lock to it. I logged what is actually does with a registered copy. It actually controls the aileron and elevator through using FSUIPC facilities! It cannot do this with an unregistered FSUIPC! Soall your symptoms seem to add up to an unregistered copy of FSUIPC 3. Which I would have suggested in the first place had you not specifically said that you'd registered it! Can you please, please clarify? This matter is driving me nuts. I have folks waiting for 3.09's release, so I think I shall have to assume my diagnosis is correct and go ahead. If you think you registered, but aren't sure, I can easily check from a Log file. Regards, Pete