Jump to content
The simFlight Network Forums

Pete Dowson

Moderators
  • Posts

    37,984
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    158

Everything posted by Pete Dowson

  1. The fix for batteries draining too quickly has been in quite a few releases now -- see the History document. Originally it was a fiddle which could also be invoked in the AIRCRAFT.CFG file ("electric_always_available"), but I changed that because that stopped electrical systems from being failed at all. The current way it does it is by allowing you to slow down the rate of change -- a parameter in the FSUIPC Technical Options page does this. This change was made in version 2.85, over a year ago now, as you will see in the History document. There's been no further change since then. What "new" version? There's been no new version for a good while now. It is frozen at 2.975 whilst I get on with work for FS9. You really must be more clear about what your "old" version is and what your "new" version is, those terms mean absolutely nothing to me. You need to refer to specific version numbers please. You say you are familiar with "read me" files, but there are none for FSUIPC, only several documents. I suggest you start by checking the Technical options section in the User Guide, then maybe peruse the History document to see all the changes between your "old" version (perhaps pre-2.85?) and the current one (2.975, released mid March this year). Pete
  2. The fix for batteries draining too quickly has been in quite a few releases now -- see the History document. Originally it was a fiddle which could also be invoked in the AIRCRAFT.CFG file ("electric_always_available"), but I changed that because that stopped electrical systems from being failed at all. The current way it does it is by allowing you to slow down the rate of change -- a parameter in the FSUIPC Technical Options page does this. This change was made in version 2.85, over a year ago now, as you will see in the History document. There's been no further change since then. What "new" version? There's been no new version for a good while now. It is frozen at 2.975 whilst I get on with work for FS9. You really must be more clear about what your "old" version is and what your "new" version is, those terms mean absolutely nothing to me. You need to refer to specific version numbers please. You say you are familiar with "read me" files, but there are none for FSUIPC, only several documents. I suggest you start by checking the Technical options section in the User Guide, then maybe peruse the History document to see all the changes between your "old" version (perhaps pre-2.85?) and the current one (2.975, released mid March this year). Pete
  3. That's odd. I only downloaded and installed the regular package. Within the subfolder "Docs" is one called EPICIO.DOC. That's all there is, and I think it is all you need. I've attached it in case somehow it didn't get installed in your package. No. VXD's only run on Win98/Me, not on any NT-based system, and the USB EPIC is most definitely best used on Win2000 or XP (I could not get it to work properly at all on Win98). Apart from that, USB drivers are totally alien to me, another world completely, and one I never want to get involved with! Ralph's solution to USB was to have a Windows Driver (the .SYS file you install) and a DLL at the user level to talk to it. A different approach completely to my VXD. Pete
  4. That's odd. I only downloaded and installed the regular package. Within the subfolder "Docs" is one called EPICIO.DOC. That's all there is, and I think it is all you need. I've attached it in case somehow it didn't get installed in your package. No. VXD's only run on Win98/Me, not on any NT-based system, and the USB EPIC is most definitely best used on Win2000 or XP (I could not get it to work properly at all on Win98). Apart from that, USB drivers are totally alien to me, another world completely, and one I never want to get involved with! Ralph's solution to USB was to have a Windows Driver (the .SYS file you install) and a DLL at the user level to talk to it. A different approach completely to my VXD. Pete EPICIO.zip
  5. You need to write to Ralph Robinson of R&R, who makes the EPIC. I really cannot undertake to support their products. In fact I don't really use an EPIC these days, though I can still answer some questions about my own software. You talk to USB EPIC via the EPICIO.DLL supplied. The interface to this is defined in documentation also supplied by R&R. I'm surprised you've not got it amongst the "latest EPIC software" you say you have. Have you looked through it all? Regards, Pete
  6. You need to write to Ralph Robinson of R&R, who makes the EPIC. I really cannot undertake to support their products. In fact I don't really use an EPIC these days, though I can still answer some questions about my own software. You talk to USB EPIC via the EPICIO.DLL supplied. The interface to this is defined in documentation also supplied by R&R. I'm surprised you've not got it amongst the "latest EPIC software" you say you have. Have you looked through it all? Regards, Pete
  7. If by "hex.address" you mean access values in FSUIPC, then I'm afraid you are out of luck. When programmers make panels like those they do their own thing, within their own code, and do not usually export it in any way accessible to FSUIPC. The only definite exception I know about is Project Magenta. The 767PIC version 1.3 does allow access through a DLL I think, but I don't know if they make it available. Certainly I've never seen any official documentation for it. For others I think you can really only resort to programming mouse clicks -- something like Luciano Napolitano's "Key2Mouse" program could be used to convert keystrokes to mouse clicks. Regards, Pete
  8. If by "hex.address" you mean access values in FSUIPC, then I'm afraid you are out of luck. When programmers make panels like those they do their own thing, within their own code, and do not usually export it in any way accessible to FSUIPC. The only definite exception I know about is Project Magenta. The 767PIC version 1.3 does allow access through a DLL I think, but I don't know if they make it available. Certainly I've never seen any official documentation for it. For others I think you can really only resort to programming mouse clicks -- something like Luciano Napolitano's "Key2Mouse" program could be used to convert keystrokes to mouse clicks. Regards, Pete
  9. Sorry, but there is really no way possible to use different parts of an FS panel on different PCs without an installation of FS on each one. Each part of an FS panel uses so much code inside FS that it is completely dependent upon it. WideFS can only link EXTERNAL programs to FS over the LAN. If your client PC is powerful enough for FS then you can try linking multiple copies of FS together, but this involves WidevieW (by Luciano Napolitano) not WideFS. Even then, from what I've heard, the panel parts aren't actually driven correctly on clients, so you'd need to run the panel on the server and use the Client for views. All in all you'd be much better off using multiple monitors on an single PC. You can undock panel parts and simply drag them onto the other monitor. Regards, Pete
  10. Sorry, but there is really no way possible to use different parts of an FS panel on different PCs without an installation of FS on each one. Each part of an FS panel uses so much code inside FS that it is completely dependent upon it. WideFS can only link EXTERNAL programs to FS over the LAN. If your client PC is powerful enough for FS then you can try linking multiple copies of FS together, but this involves WidevieW (by Luciano Napolitano) not WideFS. Even then, from what I've heard, the panel parts aren't actually driven correctly on clients, so you'd need to run the panel on the server and use the Client for views. All in all you'd be much better off using multiple monitors on an single PC. You can undock panel parts and simply drag them onto the other monitor. Regards, Pete
  11. For spoilers it is easy enough to assign an axis in FS's own Options-Controls-Assignments dialogue. Scroll down the Joystick axis assignments and you will see it. FS2002 does not provide such a method for Trims and Flaps. You have to "cheat" by assigning a different axis, one that FS does recognise but which you are not otherwise using. You can do this in the FS assigments too, but then you need to determine the NUMBER of that FS axis control -- there are some suitable ones listed in the FSUIPC Advanced Users Guide, but for a complete list you can download the FS controls documents from the Schiratti site. Then, armed with the numbers so assigned, you have to edit a couple of parameters in the FSUIPC.INI file, in order to tell FSUIPC which axis controls to intercept and divert to trim and flaps. All this is actually explained in the Advanced Users Guide. It isn't part of the normal user interface as it is an unusual thing to find enough spare axes for these things except on cockpit-builders systems, and these are "advanced users", at least in my book! Pete
  12. For spoilers it is easy enough to assign an axis in FS's own Options-Controls-Assignments dialogue. Scroll down the Joystick axis assignments and you will see it. FS2002 does not provide such a method for Trims and Flaps. You have to "cheat" by assigning a different axis, one that FS does recognise but which you are not otherwise using. You can do this in the FS assigments too, but then you need to determine the NUMBER of that FS axis control -- there are some suitable ones listed in the FSUIPC Advanced Users Guide, but for a complete list you can download the FS controls documents from the Schiratti site. Then, armed with the numbers so assigned, you have to edit a couple of parameters in the FSUIPC.INI file, in order to tell FSUIPC which axis controls to intercept and divert to trim and flaps. All this is actually explained in the Advanced Users Guide. It isn't part of the normal user interface as it is an unusual thing to find enough spare axes for these things except on cockpit-builders systems, and these are "advanced users", at least in my book! Pete
  13. Both WideServer and WideClient automatically produce log files, called amazingly "WideServer.log" and "WideClient.log" respectively. They are in the same folder as the INI files you provided. They are mentioned in the documentation and always contain the full story. Pete
  14. Both WideServer and WideClient automatically produce log files, called amazingly "WideServer.log" and "WideClient.log" respectively. They are in the same folder as the INI files you provided. They are mentioned in the documentation and always contain the full story. Pete
  15. these are only the INI files. I also asked for the LOG files. It is the LOG files that tell what is going on! Pete
  16. these are only the INI files. I also asked for the LOG files. It is the LOG files that tell what is going on! Pete
  17. It isn't here. Look for yourself. And I see no other thread. Pete
  18. It isn't here. Look for yourself. And I see no other thread. Pete
  19. Ahyes, I see. Sorry, I must have forgoten to take them out of the FSUIPC.FSI file before I released it in one of the SDK updates. Those were locations I used when developing the FS2002 code in FSUIPC, in order to determine how to drive the autopilot and recognise what modes it was in. All that stuff changed between FS2000 and FS2002 and it took me quite a while, and help from FSInterrogate (as you see) to work it out. As the comment in the FSI says, they are "For Test and Diagnosis Only". With "Extras" logging on in FSUIPC you may also see those values logged occasionally too. There's now nothing useful in those flags which is not available, as controls and indicators, elsewhere in the interface. Please stick to the locations documented in the Programmers Guide. Anything else is not guaranteed is any case. Sorry about the confusion! Pete
  20. Ahyes, I see. Sorry, I must have forgoten to take them out of the FSUIPC.FSI file before I released it in one of the SDK updates. Those were locations I used when developing the FS2002 code in FSUIPC, in order to determine how to drive the autopilot and recognise what modes it was in. All that stuff changed between FS2000 and FS2002 and it took me quite a while, and help from FSInterrogate (as you see) to work it out. As the comment in the FSI says, they are "For Test and Diagnosis Only". With "Extras" logging on in FSUIPC you may also see those values logged occasionally too. There's now nothing useful in those flags which is not available, as controls and indicators, elsewhere in the interface. Please stick to the locations documented in the Programmers Guide. Anything else is not guaranteed is any case. Sorry about the confusion! Pete
  21. Sorry, I'm confused. I just reply to messages as I see them. What is the problem you have? I don't think I've seen seen any Logs from you yet, have I? Pete
  22. Sorry, I'm confused. I just reply to messages as I see them. What is the problem you have? I don't think I've seen seen any Logs from you yet, have I? Pete
  23. No, you omitted the WideServer Log, which would actually show the Server name and allow you to set "ServerName" instead of the awkward IP address. In your WideClient.ini the ServerNode is irrelevant for TCP/IP, that is only used for IPX/SPX. This is NOT the error you said in your earlier message. I don't rightly know what "connection refused" means, Windows tells me that. I suspect you have Windows XP firewall enabled on the server. Check that sort of thing. There is absolutely no difference between 5.40 and 5.50 excepting (a) the internal flag to tell WideFS what to do if no "UseTCPIP" parameter is provided is changed to assume "Yes" instead of "No", and (b) the Shutdown facility uses a different parameter on Windows 98 to Windows XP in order to correctly power off the PC. This is only relevant if you use "AllowShutdown=Yes" and would need everything working in any case. There is most definitely no difference whatsoever in the Networking side. I suspect you've changed options in XP, or possibly recently installed, updated, or re-installed it, and haven't got the settings right to allow external access. Please check these things. Regards, Pete
  24. No, you omitted the WideServer Log, which would actually show the Server name and allow you to set "ServerName" instead of the awkward IP address. In your WideClient.ini the ServerNode is irrelevant for TCP/IP, that is only used for IPX/SPX. This is NOT the error you said in your earlier message. I don't rightly know what "connection refused" means, Windows tells me that. I suspect you have Windows XP firewall enabled on the server. Check that sort of thing. There is absolutely no difference between 5.40 and 5.50 excepting (a) the internal flag to tell WideFS what to do if no "UseTCPIP" parameter is provided is changed to assume "Yes" instead of "No", and (b) the Shutdown facility uses a different parameter on Windows 98 to Windows XP in order to correctly power off the PC. This is only relevant if you use "AllowShutdown=Yes" and would need everything working in any case. There is most definitely no difference whatsoever in the Networking side. I suspect you've changed options in XP, or possibly recently installed, updated, or re-installed it, and haven't got the settings right to allow external access. Please check these things. Regards, Pete
  25. Ah! Norton. Yes. Somehow I equated "NAV" with NAVigational Aid (as in Ted Wright's "NAV3" program for FS, and so though it was using FSUIPC in an odd way! I think NAV is a well know causer of stuttering and pausing problems in FS, and not just with specific panels. It has generally been recommended to disable active virus checkers when running almost any real-time sim type programs, FS especially, for many years. I find it best to have it enabled only for Email checking, and activate it occasionally to check specific files or folders. FS certainly runs MUCH smoother if you deactivate ALL unnecessary background tasks. I know many folks run "EndItAll" (a freeware program) to accomplish this. Alternatively use CTRL-ALT-DEL to look at the Task List. Generally, before running FS, all you should have listed is Explorer and the tray application -- that's on Win98 anyway. I think on XP you will find far too many odd-looking applications! Pete
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. Guidelines Privacy Policy We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.