FSUIPC on FS9 with ASA and Radar Contact

[Iain]

In FS9, when using Radar Contact and Active Sky Advanced on some flights, after about 30 to 40 mins I'll notice that RC has frozen. By going to Window mode and minimising FS I find a message which reads "fsuipc_wait can't get D008 to change from 24032671 always 24032671." The number is always 8 digits but not always the same. If I ok the message it goes away but re-appears about 30 seconds later and will keep doing this. However, RC cannot be re-started and the only way to continue the flight is without it.

This has happened with version 3.8.1 and earlier. I haven't tried it with 3.93. It only seems to happen when using ASA.

I have posted about this on both the Active Sky and Radar Contact forums but neither programme maker wants to admit being the cause and both blame FSUIPC.

Can you tell me what the problem is, please and advise any known fix?

Iain Smith

[Pete Dowson]

In FS9, when using Radar Contact and Active Sky Advanced on some flights, after about 30 to 40 mins I'll notice that RC has frozen. By going to Window mode and minimising FS I find a message which reads "fsuipc_wait can't get D008 to change from 24032671 always 24032671." The number is always 8 digits but not always the same. If I ok the message it goes away but re-appears about 30 seconds later and will keep doing this. However, RC cannot be re-started and the only way to continue the flight is without it.

It is a protocol error in an older version of RC. I'm pretty sure it is fixed now and has been for some time. I use RC and ASA for every flight and haven't seen this error for a couple of years. Mind you, I am now using FSX only, and ASA isn't using FSUIPC with FSX..

This has happened with version 3.8.1 and earlier. I haven't tried it with 3.93. It only seems to happen when using ASA.

Well, sorry, I do not support old versions of FSUIPC in any case. 3.93 is the earliest supported version.

I have posted about this on both the Active Sky and Radar Contact forums but neither programme maker wants to admit being the cause and both blame FSUIPC.

When did you post on the RC Forum? I visit there regularly.

[LATER] I found your post -- back at the beginning of September. none since. There were several suggestions made for you to follow. I've also checked al the references to this error on that Forum, and not one of them blames FSUIPC, so I don't know where you can get that from. It is well within the RC developer's capability to fix this once and for all, and I thought he had done so.

Can you tell me what the problem is, please and advise any known fix?

No. Anyway, not with 3.81 for sure. The problem is that RC thinks it is not seeing a timestamp update when it is reading information about AI traffic, but in fact i think it gets out of step and has got the ocrrect timestamp but missed the one before -- but that was fixed, I thought. In any case, it shouldn't be a critical error, RC should be able to continue regardless. Having it stop on a Message Box is a bad idea, and I've told the developer this. As I say, I thought it was fixed.

Please make sure you are using a supported version of FSUIPC before posting again.

Thanks & Regards

Pete

[JSkorna]

Ian,

And i will beg to differ about your statement that HiFi Simulations EVER stated that FSUIPC was to blame. In fact, here are your 2 threads and you will see that we never posted a single comment in either.

Pete, I will copy and paste the links so you can take a look.

http://download.cnet.com/Mouse-as-Yoke-70206.html

http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showar+Contact

[Pete Dowson]

Pete, I will copy and paste the links so you can take a look.

Thanks Jim!

Pete

[Iain]

Right, as I'm now using the current version 3.93 I assume that it's all right to post this - especially as it's registered and paid for?

When I did a search on the Radar Contact forum for "FSUIPC_WAIT" I found eight threads, excluding my own, relating to this issue going back to 2006. In five of those the response from John Dekker was to ask which version of FSUIPC was being used and if it wasn't the latest he advised going to that. The implication here is that he believes FSUIPC is the key to this problem. Also, a respondent to my post said he had believed this problem had been solved as it hadn't happened to him for a long time but he had just gone to FSUIPC 3.93 and it had then happened on his next two flights.

So forgive me if I got the impression that FSUIPC was regarded as the culprit but I think many people reading what I had read would think the same.

After all this I still do not have a means of solving this problem - the suggestions made in response to my post didn't work. Others seem to be able to ok the message and RC carries on. Not in my case as the message keeps coming back - unless I've got to be a bit more patient and keep ok-ing until I've cleared a backlog?

Anyway, don't you worry about it Mr Dowson - after all, it's only Flight Simulator.

Iain Smith

[Pete Dowson]

In five of those the response from John Dekker was to ask which version of FSUIPC was being used and if it wasn't the latest he advised going to that. The implication here is that he believes FSUIPC is the key to this problem. Also, a respondent to my post said he had believed this problem had been solved as it hadn't happened to him for a long time but he had just gone to FSUIPC 3.93 and it had then happened on his next two flights.

The question as to whether the latest version of this that or the other is being used standard. I do the same. There's no way to support folks with the extra unknowns from different versions. We have to know you are on the same version as the one being used "in house".

It is also interesting, is it not, that in the main after receiving JD's response that in most if not all cases the user has not returned with either confirmatory or other reports. I suspect this indicates, maybe incorrectly to him, that the problem has been resolved.

So forgive me if I got the impression that FSUIPC was regarded as the culprit but I think many people reading what I had read would think the same.

I forgive you, but that doesn't mean it is true. Because FSUIPC is at the centre of so many applications it is the target for all kinds of abuse and accusations, but that doesn't make it any more true. In this case I know what is happening and I know it is recoverable and shouldn't need a stop with an error message. I have no idea why JD hasn't done anything about it, but I cannot do anything in FSUIPC.

After all this I still do not have a means of solving this problem - the suggestions made in response to my post didn't work. Others seem to be able to ok the message and RC carries on. Not in my case as the message keeps coming back - unless I've got to be a bit more patient and keep ok-ing until I've cleared a backlog?

There is no way I can solve it. If it still occurs in the current RCV4 release it remains a bug in RC. I thought JD had fixed it, but perhaps all he did was tighten up his timings a bit and managed to make it less likely, that's all. Unfortunately as far as I know he hasn't done anything with RC4 for some time as RC5 has been in the pipeline now for a couple of years. Maybe he'll let you into the Beta group and you can use that, if you have constructive things to offer and not merely criticism.

Anyway, don't you worry about it Mr Dowson - after all, it's only Flight Simulator.

Is that meant to be a cheap and nasty sarcastic snipe? It might be "only" FS to you, but it is my life and has been now for many years. I don't get around much any more.

If you expect me to be able to fix other people's code you are sadly deluded. there is nothing i can do about bugs in other folks' code. I have managed to make workarounds in the past for some of FS's own deficiencies, but i'm not about to try to hack into JDs code to "patch" his.

[LATER]

I've asked JD, author of RC about all this, and he wants you to contact him. I've PM'd his email address.

Pete

[Iain]

I posted my question on this forum, not intending to upset anyone and certainly not being critical of FSUIPC, nor indeed, any of the programmes involved. I was merely seeking information/assistance and explaining what I had done so far. I apologise if, inadvertently, I raised anyone's blood pressure.

The question as to whether the latest version of this that or the other is being used standard. I do the same. There's no way to support folks with the extra unknowns from different versions. We have to know you are on the same version as the one being used "in house".

Ok I understand

It is also interesting, is it not, that in the main after receiving JD's response that in most if not all cases the user has not returned with either confirmatory or other reports. I suspect this indicates, maybe incorrectly to him, that the problem has been resolved.

This could be down to the occurrence which is random and unpredictable. I know from my own experience that one can go for several months without it happening and then it can occur several flights in a row.

I forgive you, but that doesn't mean it is true. Because FSUIPC is at the centre of so many applications it is the target for all kinds of abuse and accusations, but that doesn't make it any more true. In this case I know what is happening and I know it is recoverable and shouldn't need a stop with an error message. I have no idea why JD hasn't done anything about it, but I cannot do anything in FSUIPC.

Understood and accepted.

Maybe he'll let you into the Beta group and you can use that, if you have constructive things to offer and not merely criticism.

I'm not clever or knowledgeable enough to criticise other people's programmes. If I ever make any suggestions I try my best to ensure that they are constructive. Although I've been a Radar Contact user for nearly four years, my knowledge of RL ATC means that I would not be a useful member of the Beta team.

Is that meant to be a cheap and nasty sarcastic snipe?

No not when I wrote it but having re-read it I can see that it looks that way and I apologise. I was trying to say that life is too short for adversarial postings on something that in the context of life's problems that we all face, is not that important. I realise that your view of FS will be different as would anyone's view of their own livelihood. My intent with that paragraph, not very well constructed, was to acknowledge that you were not in a position to help and to leave it there.

I've asked JD, author of RC about all this, and he wants you to contact him. I've PM'd his email address.

Thank you, that is most helpful. I will do that.

Iain Smith