Pete Dowson

It may be okay for that sort of application. Sorry, I really only glanced at it briefly when it first came out for FS2002 and I don't remember much about it. Pete

The "PM Elec ..." controls operate the bits in that word. See them in the drop downs for assignment in Buttons or Keys. Pete

Sorry, I've no idea. I don't see a general reliability slider in the menus. Is there anything in the Aircraft.CFG or FS9.CFG file for it? Well my default aircraft is the 737, and 0372 contains 100 when I load that, so I don't know what's going on there. Sorry. I'll put a question mark against it in the Programmer's Guide. Let me know if you find out what's going on! Regards, Pete

I'm not sure what you are seeing, but Microsoft have programmed in variations. differing haze effects and sky colours are actually intentional. They try to re-create realistic variations, usually on a date and time basis. But it is pseudo-random. Most folks don't actually notice, but those who did, during Beta testing, very surprised and pleased! Oh? How odd! I really love the dusk and dawn effects in FS2004. The sky colouring, the glint on the landscape, especially water, the underside of the clouds, the haze. To me it makes FS2004 the most beautiful sim experience ever. I even have a sunset screen-shot as wallpaper on my development PC! :) It is really strange how folks see the very same things and some love it and others hate it! Have you looked through any of the screen shots of all these effects - there was a whole gallery in the FS2004 forum, posted by Katy Pluta. Aren't your screens as good as those? I have never yet come across any bad looking view in FS2004 -- I've seen selected bad ones folks have posted here, but with most of the settings I've got obviously they just aren't occurring. Even if they did I suspect they'd be temporary. It was FS2002 I really hated for bad views. The visibility and stupid blue horizon, even in overcast dull weather, was really irritating. FS2000 was a lot better than that. Regards, Pete

Yes, sorry, AT LEAST 10 km. In the USA it's at least 10 miles. But that's only because they don't normally measure it further -- especially if it's an automatic station. From ground level (well tower level?) it's often not possible to have anything further away to measure by, in any case. Looking at it that way I should think that in central London you'd be lucky to have a visibility greater than 100 yards at ground level! :lol: BTW I don't know why the South East should be so much more polluted than the Midlands? Most Southerners seem to be of the opposite opinion! :) Regards, Pete

Yes. I can't fix that -- but depending where you are getting the weather, you can. Just raise the top of the visibility layer about the ground level of those hills. If you use an external weather program, FSUIPC can adjust it for you -- there's a value there, bottom left I think. Well when I was allowed to fly (my eyes prevent that now, I'm not even allowed to drive!) I don't think I ever flew in any visibility that low. That would look like fog, indeed. I could always see a good 10-20 miles from altitudes like 1500-5000 feet. On some days I could see clear to the Irish see off Liverpool, from a few thousand feet over Sleap. "CAVOK" has to have a visibility of 10 miles or better in any case. Sometimes there's a definitely thin haze layer in the air. There's often a big contrast between visibility above and below it. I'm not sure of the meteorological explanation now, something to do with temperatures and pressures. I really think that except on really murky (esp. wet) days, 20-30 miles is quite realistic for the UK. Regards, Pete

Unreal line? I don't see that. Have you got the top slider in the Options-Settings-Display-Weather dialogie fully to the right? The only ugly horizon thing I have seen was fixed by that. I now have all three of those top sliders fully right and I think the clouds are then far superior. The bottom (4th) slider I've put far left, it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference for me in any case. I think FS2004 still messes a bit with the weather. I've been doing some experiments with that recently -- see the item on "global weather" in the "IMPORTANT" announcement, top of the forum. Well, I keep messing about in any case -- for tests, experiments and so on. But I normally have my visibility settings (maxima, smoothing and graduation) enabled and set to default, and the sliders in the Options-Settings-Display-Weather dialogue set as mentioned above (top three full right, bottom one full left). In the other display settings I have most things maxed out. This gives me rather lowish frame rates (12-20), so I set the limiter at 20. I am using a P4 2.4GHz with a Parhelia video card running at 2400 x 600 (across 3 screens) -- no panel, only the outside view. I can run it at 3840 x 1024 but the frame rate hit is too much at present. I plan to upgrade to a 3.2GHz soon :D Regards, Pete

Ah, that's not quite the same thing as I though was being stated. So it isn't the EDGE of the drawing of the visibility layer, it's the level at which it is drawn? Naturally, if the layer ends at 3000' and there are mountains or hills sticking out above this, they won't be subject to the haze/fog. Isn't that realistic? Low lying haze or fog often stops abruptly at a specific altitude. It greys things out if it is a low visibility, yes, of course. That's what heppens in the real world too. All that you say sounds more realistic to me, not less. You can use the FSUIPC graduated visibility to make the change in visibility gradual. That's what it is for. Yes, there's a similar cut-off in FS2004 as there was in FS2002 - in FS2002 it was somewhere between 4 and 5 miles. Did you never notice?But in FS2002 when it was greater than 5 miles you ALWAYS got a blue horizon, no matter how overcast the sky. Awful. I do really think FS2004 is much better. 10 miles visibility is low -- I think it looks about right in FS2004 and wrong in FS2002. It sounds like you'd prefer 20 or 30 miles. Strange how opinions can differ so much? In my view the very WORST thing about FS2002 was the visibility implementation. I thought it truly awful, much worse in fact than FS2000. The changes in FS2004 rectify all that, IMHO. Well, that does actually happen in reality too. The thing that was wrong in FS2002 was that when that happened and you looked down, the ground was perfectly sharp and clear too -- the haze just vanished. That's wrong. FS2004 draws the haze below you now, which is much better. Anyway, if you don't like the sudden transition just use FSUIPC's graduated visibility. No! That is NOT "graduated visibility" -- that is the visibility smoothing option. You are evidently using the wrong facilities, or at least not enough of them! :) Enable the graduated visibility option, which is on the same page as the smoothing, but is a different check box. These facilities are very similar to those in FS2002's FSUIPC, but they are not defaulted on as they were in FS2002. That's probably what is confusing you. Regards, Pete

GPSout is not FSUIPC dependent except on FS2002, and that wasa not intended. See my previous message. There is nowhere on the 'net that I know. You could try writing a Gauge. Regards, Pete

Sorry, I really have no idea why you are having such a problem. It really does sound like GPSout is not actually installed in your FS Modules folder. Either that or you have a corrupted version. GPSout has been working quietly in the background on many users systems now for years, with almost no changes needed except for occasional addition of new sentence types. This is right through FS98, FS2000, FS2002 and now (with version 2.51) on FS2004. There is really nothing in it to go wrong, it is so simple! Maybe you should download it again, make sure you have a good copy? The current version is 2.51, not 2.5, and it works in FS98 through to FS2004. It only actually needs FSUIPC on FS2002, because there's a 'bug' in FS2002 which is fixed by installing FSUIPC. This 'bug' (actually an odd unexpected difference) doesn't apply to FS2000 or before, or to FS2004. Regards, Pete

You must type just "SquawkBox", exactly. No ".exe" part. Only Gauge and DLL registration uses the filetype. And the key must be correct. Please look at the Sticky thread in this Forum for correct keys and spelling. Pete

There's no such SDK, but the one to write Gauges (in the Panels SDK) is the closest. GAU files are DLLs but loaded by Panels.dll on demand rather than by FS on initialisation. The interface, the method to get FS load, the same. So write it as a gauge then rename it and move it. It's a little more complicated of course. To start with you need to write the code so that it runs without impacting FS performance. If you are only interacting with the user via menus or hotkeys, then that probably isn't a worry. There are no functions of FS9 to get into the menus. You use standard Windows API functions to determine when the menu is being drawn or created, and add your entries then. Regards, Pete

I don't think it will look like that if you set graduated visibility. What I think you are seeing is not the haze layer itself, but the graphic for a thin layer of cloud graphic deliberately placed at the top of the visibility layer by FS in order to answer very severe criticism of the way the ground was too sharp below when climbing out of the haze. I think this cloud graphic stops after a certain distance for the same reason cloud graphics do, and the main answer is to make sure the slider for cloud graphics is full right, in the Options-Settings-Display-Weather dialogue. I cannot fix or change graphics in FSUIPC, I don't know how to. If you don't want the visibility limiting at all when above the visibility layer, then this sort of view would have to be 'fixed' by adjusting FS's graphics settings. But I recommend you try FSUIPP 3.05 vis facilities, see what you think. Regards, Pete

This is exactly what I would expect to see if you had the speed setting wrong in GPSout.ini. Regards, Pete

Well, there's no other' magic' involved. If you've got a good COM port selected and the right speed (NMEA default is 4800 bps, but I use the highest supported by the receiving program). You need to check your cable too. If HyperTerminal or something similar can use it to exchange chat between the two PCs then GPSout can use it. The program is really very very simple, there is nothing to go wrong, and it has been in use now for over 4 years. Don't forget the cable, although it only needs 3 wires for GPSout, must have Rx to Tx and vice versa (i.e. 1-1, 2-3, 3-2). I didn't say it wasn't, but you are now trying to find out why you aren't getting the correct signals out of your COM port. There are only a few possible choices: 1. The COM port is dead or faulty 2. You aren't selecting the right COM port 3. The COM port is already in use by some other application 4. The speed is set wrongly 5. The cable is wrong -- faulty or not "twisted". 1-3 you could check by trying the other COM port. 4 & 5 should be ditinguishable by using Hyperterminal or something similar to see if you get any data, albeit rubbish -- if it is at the wrong speed it will be rubbish, which your NMEATOOL is probably not designed to recognise or even tell you about. Pete

Hmm. I can't reproduce that here. How do you do it? I'm not understanding something here. The options in AdvDisplay are really meant to be set as needed once, then left. Why would you need to keep changing them? If you do want to change them all the time, should they be hot-key options? You know there's already a Hot Key option in FSUIPC to hide/show the AdvDisplay window, don't you? Recent in what terms? Since AdvDisplay 2.11 you mean? The way it provides the menu facilities is pure standard Windows APIs and has never been changed. It has no control over when the drop down closes -- it cannot happen as far as I know till you select one of the items or click someplace else. Perhaps one of your add-ons is activating this sort of focus diversion? Regards, Pete

What is that? I don't see that here? I assume that's the edge of the visibility 'cloak' below you, drawn as far as the limit in the Display options or somewhere else? I still think the visisiblity effects in FS2004 are far, far superior to those in FS2002, which was awful in that regard. FS2000 wasn't bad, but the additional weather visuals in FS2004 make it much better. Regards, Pete

Got it! Thanks. There's a lot of "interesting stuff on that site! Phew! Pete

So far all a Google search turns up for me is the fact that IMAGECFG is provided in the NT SDK and in MS VC++. Well I've got the "Platform" SDK which is supposed to cover NT too, and I have MSVC++ 5 and 6, and I can't find this utility in either. I've also searched the NT DDK I have, and the MSDN disks. Looking up IMAGECFG in the MSDN it says it can be found on the NT 4 disk itself, in "Support\Debug\i386". Unforrtunately this doesn't seem to apply to the Win2000 nor WinXP disks. Evidently it's been removed. Any ideas, please? Regards, Pete

[quote name="arno_nl2000 I have no idea of they are 16 bit' date=' how can I find that?[/quote] Well, they can't be MORE than 16-bit as the offsets are at intervals of 2 (2 bytes = 16 bits). So they are either single byte or 16bit values. Most likely the latter, but the clue would be in how they are used, what they contain. If they never contain values other than 0 or 1 then they are just BOOLeans, and so the size doesn't really matter much. If they can never have values larger than 255 (or -128 to +127 if signed) then they are bytes. Since I don't know scenery design I couldn't even hazard a guess, but anyone who actually uses these variables should presumably know what they are used for and therefore how much they can contain. Great! Thanks! Pete

I know nothing about scenery, scenery design, or variables, but I would be delighted to add details of your findings to the FSUIPC SDK if I can understand them better. Is this list of yours understandable to scenery designers? Are all variables 16-bit signed or unsigned values? Is the list applicable to FS2000, FS2002 and FS2004 or only some of these? Just checking my mapping tables, I see that the whole range of offsets, from 0D0E to 0E49 inclusive are still "virgin" in that they remain unmolested from FS98 days, so presumably your findings may also even apply to FS98? I am planning (again!) to get to work on the update to the SDK next week, so I could add such details, when you verify. Thanks! Pete

Better to start off using something that checks whether ANY data is coming from the FS COM port -- something like HyperTerminal, for example. Sounds exactly like you don't have FSUIPC installed. If with FSUIPC installed and a valid (available) and working COM port assigned for GPSout, there is no way you can actually stop the output whilst FS is running and in normal flight modes. Regards, Pete

Not at all! I'm glad you got it solved. Very strange that it could have the effect of preventing the Modules menu from appearing though. I still don't understand why that happened. Regards, Pete

You can undock it too, move it onto a second monitor if you have one. Doesn't it remember the state of the ATC window if you save a Flight? I've not tried ithang on, I will now: ... Yes! If you re-size and move the ATC window, then save a Flight, next time you reload that flight, even in a different session, the ATC window comes back in its new position and size. In other words it acts just like any other FS window. If you want it that way by default, tell FS that the flight is the default when you save it. Well, the first part isn't needed as I've just shown. The second is near impossible as far as I can determine. The whole thing is not a "normal" window, as least when it is docked. I think it is all done by DirectX stuff, which is a tale of mystery and horror for me! :? I did spend quite some time in FS2002 trying to work out ways of trapping and diverting the ATC text (as I did with Adventures in AdvDisplay), but I failed miserably. I wanted to be able to move it all to another PC altogether (via WideFS and ShowText), as well as provide the opportunity for other applications to read the commands and be able to issue responses. I may have another look at this one day, but I got nowhere in amny many hours last time so I'm not hopeful I'm afraid. Really? aren't you using Version 3.05 then? The visibility facilities now for FS2004, in version 3.05, actually exceed the provisions in FS2002, quite substantially. You have the limits, the smoothing and the graduation all operating now much better and more consistently than in FS2002, and looking superb too. Please try them. Why do you think they are inadequate? :cry: It doesn't need fixing by me! What you are seeing is the drawing limit. Go to Options-Settings-Display-Weather and make sure you have all three of the top sliders fully right. The effects are FAR superior then! If this knocks your frame rate too much, apply the FSUIPC visibility limits and graduations to bring back the normal good-looking haxe to compensate. I find FS2004 has fixed just about all the complaints regarding dire visibility effects in FS2002. In FS2002 the whole visibility thing was a terrible step back from FS2000! FS2004 is better than FS2000 in this regard and I cannot think of a higher praise! :D Regards, Pete

Sorry, I don't know anything about any Elite controls at all. Have you contacted Elite support? Don't they provide a driver for their controls, and support it? I'm really not sure why you are asking me. If the only way the Elite controls provide reverse thrust selection is by calibration through FSUIPC, then they should also be able to tell you how to do this. In FSUIPC's "joysticks" page the only section which provides reverse thrust zones on the same axes as the normal throttles is the section dealing with 4 separate throttles. Have you assigned the separate throttles in FS first, and calibrated them in Windows? You should do this before you start using FSUIPC's calibrations. Regards, Pete