Erups

I find that the surface wind limiting facility works very good in FS2004. Why don't you use it?

Thank you for your considerations. BR Claudio

I am developing a very complex fsbus interface. And i would like to have the opportunity to see the performance in two different setups: all on one pc fsbus on a client and fs on the server. Because i think that with all the things i'm putting in it, it may become a big cpu hog :D

I tried to test WideFS but unlike FSUIPC it does not have anything like a time trial. Would it be possible to provide something like that? Admittedly it's not a huge expenditure, but maybe there are cases in which the user may be interested in determining if WideFS is something usefull or not before purchaseing. Is anything like this possible? Thanks Claudio

You're everywhere!!!!! :D Will try, but may i know why does it work in one sense and not in the other?

Hallo :) I have a problem with wind smoothing together with ActiveSky 2004. I do not use AS own wind smoothing options. Only FSUIPC. The problem is that it apprears that when the changes are too big (like more then 100°) there are stutters in the wind, as if the smoothing does not work. For small changes everything works fine. I cannot say exactly from which amount this problem arouse, as i only observed this happening when flying. Thank you and good night since it's a bit late ;) Claudio

Pete, i think you haven't tested the radio facilities in FS. Whatever you write to them, they keep the BCD. Even if you use letters. So if you can do a "add/substract 1" i'm sure it will work. It is sufficient that the facility does the following: obtain actual value from fs add/substract pass new value to fs. It will work, i used fsinterrogate and it works. About the PMDG sdk thing: i only offered my advice because the original poster also posted on the avsim PMDG support forum. I read his post, and this which was linked, and i offered my advice. I'm sorry the discussion has shifted to a docile argumentation between you and me, my intent was only to help mike in obtaining his control. Best regards Claudio

Since the "normal" controls act upon the standby frequencies, now he is in need of the active frequency controls. About the hex vs bcd: as far as i know, writing in any offset any number in hex (like 2450) tunes the same frequency (so it would be 124.50). I don't bother how it is called, just that it works :D About the why is it needed: that plane is made this way, and he wants to reproduce it. That's just it i think. BR Claudio

Maybe some addon installed a "strange" version of FSUIPC? Reinstall latest and see if it changes. BR Claudio

It's just that i do not need that specific feature :) The ones haveing the same name of the others, so they do not work. The amount can be just 1 or 5 as FSUIPC already does (nav 50khz increments facility). The fact that it can or not write in hex is up to you :) BR Claudio

Ok, thanks. Didn't know that. Here it is what Mike needs. The controls are messed up, but the offsets are not (i've tested it with fsinterrogate, and both comm work.). So by assigning "increase/decreas offset" function to keys, Mike can overcome the problem depicted in the posts above. That's my idea.

No they didn't reinvent the wheel: the radio facility is just the fs standard, but they sort of remade the graphics ;) Surely this looks more real, with the changeing led, but the "behind" is the standard fs nav/com facility. Pete is there a way for fsuipc to assign offsets to keys? I do not know, since i use fsbus, but if so, Mike could solve his problem. BR Claudio

All i need, is the ability apply different reverse to different engine. If it is already possible, then it's all your gain :) That means that yes i can use what fsuipc already provides. Thanks Claudio

Peter i have tried a few times to dig into the panel sdk and gauge header file, but as you know it's not an easy reading, even with some programming knowledge on yous shoulders. What i meant above is that when i have an airliner with jet engines, i often see that piston engine variables are also used. That was my confusion. Thanks Claudio

Right now i'm figuring out a number of things to make working controls. I still haven't dived in the flight controls themselves (yoke, rudder, throttles...) so i didn't know there weren't separate axis for reversers. Now that i know, i join Kiwidave in his request. That's all :P BR

Thank you both for your replies. My questions arouse from experimenting with commercial products. Values for various offsets are strange in such cases. For example even if i'm on an airliner, i see the piston engine offsets be used.... :? Anyway thank you for your info. Best regards Claudio

It's on my list, but as no one has actually asked for it until now it keeps getting pushed down. I'll get to it one day. I haven't still looked into that, but now that i know, then please try not to push it further back :P

In the sdk i read that the multiple fuel pumps feature is a fs2000/fs2002 thing only. Is this confirmed? In fs2004 you can have only 1 fuel pump per plane? Now in the SDK what does the "reciprocating" mean? And what does the "number of fuel tanks used" offset do? Like the 3888. If you already use 3880 for selecting the feed, what's the meaning of 3888? Thank you very much

Thank you Pete, i really did miss that part. Sorry for bothering :oops: Claudio

Yes i too use FSI, but it is for reading, i need writing :( FSInterrogate is fine for what i'm doing, but i need writing capabilities. A couple years ago the same thing i need now, i had done myself. That was when i was studying C at university :P Now i don't even have a compiler, nor do i remember much of it... I just need a very basic facility to send FSUIPC customizeable data to write in the offsets.... Thank you Claudio

I'd really use a little (very little) program, that allows me to send data to fsuipc, letting me define the address, data and data type. This would be only a few lines of code. Is there anybody who has one? Peter Dowson, i'm sorry if you already provided this facility in the SDK, if so i completely missed it. Thank you Claudio