Jump to content


Registered Users
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Posts posted by johnhinson

  1. 1 hour ago, BONDENO said:

    Thanks also wanted to know that question also ,John would you know if prepar 3d flightplans would work in fs9 ?

    No idea . . . I've not been there.


    But at the minimum there would be a slight difference as FS9 and FSX flight plans vary slightly, in that their week starts on different days.


  2. 10 hours ago, BONDENO said:

    Hi guys getting back into this again am i right in thinking you can have only 100 aircraft in one cfg file for ai to show for that paticular aircraft file , or is it a myth and is there a limit in traffic tools for how many aircraft thank you

    The limit in the aircraft.cfg file is a myth.


    There is a limit of around 65000 (probably 65536) entries for aircraft in Traffic Tools. You can exceed that number but not everything in the way of error checking works.



  3. 5 hours ago, chris_eve said:

    Not sure this is totally correct ... from a brief bit of research it would seem a "real" DC-3 has a lockable free-castoring tailwheel, used in conjunction with differential power and braking for taxing manoeuvres, then locked for landing and take-off.

    This corresponds to my recollections of watching these aircraft when they were still in current use at our local airfield.

    I don't know if the feature has been implemented (or could be implemented) in FS9.

    You are correct, Chris, perhaps I could have been clearer. It is an un-controlled tailwheel that follows the aircraft around when you apply power/brakes to steer. It is as "articulated" (to make it follow) and has a castor angle of zero (i.e. a vertical kingpin) so is, in technical terms not castored.

    What you describe is exactly how the DC-3 is implemented in FS.


  4. 5 hours ago, jgf said:

    Ah, I remember the default DC-3;  MS had set the tailwheel to 0.0, so it was locked.  Turning was by differential braking ...which drags the non-castoring tailwheel sideways.  This is probably where we all first learned of this adjustment.

    Castor angle has been around for longer than that. It is worth reading up on it generally - it is what self-centres the steering of your car, if you have one.


    So the figure people are fiddling with here is the angle the wheel stands stands longtidunally on the ground, too far in one direction will cause the wheel to not centre automatically and too little will cause the vehicle to fail to turn sufficiently.

    Whilst castor can be the issue with FS aircraft steering poorly, it only fixes the specific castoring issue. Another common fault is the actual position of the wheels - (not visually, but in the aircraft's settings) and moving the nose wheel setting out by a couple of feet can make a dramatic improvement to steering ability.


    Real DC-3s do have a non-castoring tail wheel, by the way, steering is achieved by differential power and braking - but this is poorly implemented in FS unless you have additional throttle and pedal levers to work with.



  5. 1 hour ago, Skywatcher12 said:

    I'm happy to buy products so that sounds great. I'm just not happy to rent till I'm thrown out by the landlord. haha

    Not at all unreasonable! I've probably already had my money's worth, anyway, as I bought it many years back.


    But do try the free trial first.



    • Like 1
  6. 9 hours ago, Skywatcher12 said:

    Ok, thanks John. Just thinking long term for when the developer disappears. Not keen on anything requiring online activation unless it's super good.

    Hi Mark,

    Just had a quick exchange with Dave, the developer, and he confirms that arrangements are provided for to disable the on-line activation system when the time comes. As a backup against unexpected surprises, a few selected other users hold the necessary info too.

    Best regards,



    • Like 1
  7. 1 hour ago, Skywatcher12 said:

    Do you know if it requires online activation?

    Hi Mark,


    If I remember rightly, the code you are issued allows a number of re-activations (ten, maybe) but you have to de-activate one before re-activating another so I guess that is a form of on-line activation. If you run out of activations, the developer willingly resets the allowance.


  8. It is quite different to the default ATC system so I would hesitate to use the word "easy" for a new user. Nevertheless, it is a very advanced piece of software with a zillion options to suit all users. It works with default or custom AI traffic. I'm not aware it keeps AI planes separated but it might.

    There are a huge range of voices and accents which link to parts of the world and airlines it recognises. The only issue there is that the voices were recorded many years ago and don't identify with newer airline callsigns.

    I would recommend visiting their support forum OnCourse Software - Index page (ocs-support.co.uk) and also taking advantage of the free trial to get a picture of things. I have never seen a piece of software anywhere that has such incredible levels of support to help users on their way.

    Even if it isn't your cup-of-tea, your original ATC and AI traffic will still be there and won't have been interfered with.



  9. If you double-click on TTools in the screen shot of the file system above, is TTools.exe present? If not, it looks like it should be.


    Currently, you do not have file type suffixes turned on. This is no crime, it is the Microsoft default but it makes identifying detail when you start working on files more difficult. For instance TTools.exe will not currently show as such, just as TTools, as would other files with the same name. I would recommend doing so - described here: How to turn on hidden filename extensions in Windows (autodesk.com)


    Hope this helps,




  10. Yes, it will almost certainly be an invisible collision object. This is not an unknown issue, especially in add-on sceneries where removed buildings often seem to leave their collisionability*.

    The only solution I have ever seen suggested is to turn off crash detection in Settings > Realism. Mine has been "off" for over 20 years!


    The only thing I can think of that could have changed for you is that it has accidentally been turned "on".



    * - no such word, of course, but it rolls off the tongue nicely!

  11. 12 hours ago, JSMR said:


    Same thing happens in Edge...it will still mention its a file that was blocked as unsafe. 

    Like I said, it works fine here. So it must either be Edge settings or whatever your Anti-Virus might be that is forcing this. I think the settings are likely to be the offender.


    Unfortunately everybody developing browsers and anti-virus goes way too far in their namby-pamby protection, covering their backsides in case you sue them I suppose. Anything they aren't 100% certain of gets marked as dangerous whether it is or not - they don't check or analyse. Which then teaches people to ignore warnings and then it makes the whole flipping exercise a waste of time.



  12. 2 hours ago, jgf said:

    It isn't just google, it has something to do with the download section of this site.  Firefox also blocks downloads, claiming they have a virus ...but they do not.  I override the block and get the download, it passes all local scans, even an online scan (sadly, no longer virustotal).  This is something those behind the scenes need to address.

    I think there is more to it than that. Edge downloads files here for me just fine, so I think maybe an exploration of the settings area might be productive. Over a lengthy period I have fine-tuned quite a lot in Edge, the default settings are not ideal.

    Another, and generally quicker, way to download a file from this site is to right click on the "Download this file" and select "Save link as". This also works in Firefox.



  13. I do not think there is provision in FS2004 for AI helicopters, and generally they will use a runway like other aircraft.


    I believe various modifications have been made to make take-off a little more realistic but I doubt they would cope with something as small as an offshore platform realistically, if at all. Search the libraries and see what you can find.


  14. 8 hours ago, MIKE MOIR said:

    What you guys are saying is all absolutely correct.  In the real airport, landings are always on the ILS to 02 and take-offs are always on 24, although heavier aircraft can request landing on the ILS for 06 which apparently has a higher load-bearing capability.  Even with the star technique, ATC don't play game....  What ATC system are you using, John, which allows you to close runways?


    I am using PF3: https://www.oncourse-software.co.uk/pf3_details.htm .



  15. I can confirm that no airports in FS use real-world data for runway usage - the software programming is entirely based on runway length, and wind direction, plus a few other quirks which I don't really understand - it is those quirks which sometimes prevent us from achieving what is desirable. It does not take into account nearby high ground either.


    If I remember rightly, the default ATC will let you get away with landing at the opposite end of the given runway and still give you instructions after landing. I can't be certain I have remembered that correctly as for many years I have used an add-on ATC system which will let you close or open runways as required (or indeed request a specific runway) for the player aircraft although AI will still operate the way FS2004 intends. That avoids the need for the "STAR" runway system, though.



  16. 4 hours ago, jmie said:

    It looks like down. What I did is to modify as your suggestion. But remaining the rest of contact points from 6 to 21 as they are. if I delete such contact points the image enclosed remains equal. I suppose that contact points from 6 to 21 must be also modify. Don't you?




    Only the first three lines concern you here, leave the others untouched.

    In the example given, you need to adjust the vertical position, e.g.:
    point.0= 1.000, 82.930, 0.000, -9.350, 1181.102, 0.000, 3.349, 78.000, 0.500, 2.500, 0.500, 15.000, 15.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000
    point.1= 1.000, -3.341, -12.000, -11.383, 1574.803, 1.000, 2.188, 0.000, 1.072, 2.500, 0.498, 17.000, 17.000, 2.000, 0.000, 0.000
    point.2= 1.000, -3.341, 12.000, -11.383, 1574.803, 2.000, 2.188, 0.000, 1.072, 2.500, 0.498, 17.000, 17.000, 3.000, 0.000, 0.000


    These will be different for every aircraft, those figures are the distance between the defined centre-line of the aircraft and the ground. It sounds like you need to reduce the figures in your aircraft (not this example!) by a couple of feet - start there and fine tune. Re-load the aircraft after saving each change.


    Only when you have that perfect, you may need to finely adjust the following:
    static_pitch = 
    static_cg_height = 


    Getting this right takes patience, but the results are satisfying.



  17. 4 hours ago, MIKE MOIR said:

    I suspect AI aircraft will be sent to the nearest runway for landing?

    Yes, that's typical. There are other factors, such as runway length. 


  18. File > Compile Airport

    or Control-C


    Best regards,




    PS - Aircraft usually are sent to the nearest runway to their parking spot.

  19. Hi Peter,


    Not ATC, but ATIS - but I expect a lot of people don't use it.

    I have had my nose taken off by an AI aircraft taking off whilst I was landing, but that shouldn't happen at Sochi as I don't think the runways conflict.

    Best regards,



  20. 6 hours ago, beroun said:

    It is great, because ATC offers you all the connected runways and AI use all.

    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This method is "great" until an aircraft using a conflicting runway to you hurtles into you . . .

    And listening to ATIS taking its time reciting dozens of unusable non-existent runways sounds bizarre.


    Each to one's own taste, but users should be aware this method is not perfect.


  21. I doubt if commercial scenery payload is directly connected with this, it is just trying to pack high amounts of detail into a small area. But I must say with modern computers I don't think much in FS2004 bothers it.


    The sad thing is that all of the data for roads, rivers and railways is cheaply available from SatNav developers, so they could be easily corrected today but we are playing with twenty year-old software of course. It has been done for FSX, so that they then blend perfectly with accurate mesh, but unfortunately FS2004 roads, rivers etc are generated differently and are not backwardly compatible with those in FSX.

    Trying to change the world manually, like ViperPilot2 has is a challenge too large for me! I choose to turn a blind eye to things like that.


  22. 8 minutes ago, NMLW said:

    Erm, landclass is not mesh!


    If I remember rightly, FSX mesh works with FS2004 just fine - I may be wrong but it is certainly worth trying. Here is just one free offering found with a web search:
    FreeMeshX Global Terrain Mesh Scenery 2.0 for FSX & P3D (flyawaysimulation.com)


    What you will find, though, is that with accurate terrain you will discover the Microsoft put many roads and rivers in the wrong places. They won't change, so things sometimes look a little daft on that front.



  23. On 3/8/2024 at 10:26 AM, johnhinson said:

    another issue that has cropped up before has been faulty Terrain Mesh files. If you use add-on mesh, check with the supplier for updates as I believe the issue was fixed. 

    . . . and you didn't take any notice?


    If you search the web you will find lots of references to this problem and the need to update, here is just one a mere thirteen years ago::


    The page linked to for the updates has vanished in that period but the Wayback Machine is on your side. Go here:


    I have not checked every one of the files concerned, but one I plucked out of the air downloaded fine. If what you want isn't available, try a capture from another date.





  24. And . . . another issue that has cropped up before has been faulty Terrain Mesh files. If you use add-on mesh, check with the supplier for updates as I believe the issue was fixed. Otherwise, you should test with it disabled.


    Also, remember that some add-on sceneries include files to install elsewhere to Addon Scenery - often in amongst your default files so you may need to investigate there too.


    It is unfortunate there are so many different possibilities for the cause of the problem, it can take a lot of patience and time.

    Best regards, and good luck,



  25. 4 hours ago, leuen said:


    Whatever is your name, this link is still working.  See Tom Gibson's post.





    That is a bit of a questionable tracking link and not all browsers seem prepared to respond to it. Or maybe it is Internet Security software that limits it. 

    It is possible the link http://calclassic.com/Temp/Bretagne.zip  will work better.


    4 hours ago, mrzippy said:

    That link isn't so much help, it is just textures for a livery and the page says:

    • First of all you need the original model of the Sud Ouest 30P Bretagne by J.R. Lucariny.

    That's probably the door the tennis player arrived through!


    Best regards,



  • Create New...