michaelkalinowsk

Absolutely no issues on my system. Running FS2004 under W11 since a year or so. Edition Windows 11 Pro Version 22H2 Installed on ‎30.‎01.‎2023 OSbuild 22621.1413 Performance Windows Feature Experience Pack 1000.22639.1000.0

Hope you are using this KGRR version https://library.avsim.net/download.php?DLID=224738. Original scenery by Dillon Rocque for FSX converted with permission for FS9 by members of FS2004.team.

FSP B787-9 / Repaint by Joel Branchu

Question: The screenshots showing Farnborough I guess, what scenery you are using? Thanks, great stuff you're sharing here. Michael

I guess it is FS9.1 update for Italiano that Andrea is referring to.

I really would appreciate a lot if you could add information on Aircraft model, texture source and scenery depicted in the screenshots. That would be indeed helpful if someone is interested flying same airplane or using same scenery for his or her FS2004 world. Thank you Michael Overland / Simmer's Sky B747-400, repaint by myself

Have you considered ADE (Airport Design Editor)?

Unbelievable, that those shots are showing FS2004 airplanes and sceneries - why should I invest in a 600 USD graphic card to fly MFSF2020 if FS2004 is still that good and runs on much more affordable hardware. Thanks for sharing ! Michael

Priorities are a very special issue. As far as I understood, for the same scenery category FS2004 takes care of prioritizing. But between categories the priorities must be considered. Mesh should be at a lower priority, landclass (just like Ultimate Terrain) should have higher priority. But priorities between the different LC sceneries are irrelevant. For mesh scenery the LOD (level of detail) plays a role. Take a look here for further explanation: https://calclassic.proboards.com/thread/506/scenery-file-priority https://scruffyduck.screenstepslive.com/s/help_docs/m/20268/l/199760-priority-matters Hope this helps Michael

Good to hear, hopefully you were able to keep your old files, like Add-on Scenery, Effects, Sounds, and all those folders were you had something installed before. But under all circumstances, when you have a setup that works with most of the addons you have !!! DO A BACKUP !!! Michael

Then I would recommend the following: 1. rename fs9.cfg to fs9.cfgbkp or somthing else. 2. Try to start FS2004 as a new fs9.cfg will automatically generated. If this does not succeed . . . 3. Rename your existing FS2004 folder in order to keep everything you have already installed. 4. Install FS2004 from your installation disks into the same path you had it in before. 5. Start FS2004 once and see if it works. 6. Then copy all the content from your old installation (now under the new filename you previously picked) to the new FS2004 installation folder and overwrite. Make sure not to copy Dem4km.bgl. 7. You may later restore the content of your old fs9.cfg if you made changes to it that are not done by selecting menu options within FS2004. Michael P.S. Run FS2004 with admin rights !

Peter, looking at your screenshots it is obvious that you have no mesh for the alps installed, which is a pity. With a good mesh the experience of flying into Innsbruck would be far more realistic and enjoying. There are freeware mesh packages available by Holger Sandmann and Jonathan de Ferranti (alpsw_fe.zip, alpse_fe.zip, alps_up1.zip). Michael

The ILS within FS9 (as in real world) is not determining the altitude at which the glide slope shall be intercepted. This is prescribed by the approach plates for every single airport and depends on terrain around the airport for instance. So what you need are approach plates (charts) for the airport that you are flying to. If you are flying with FS9 internal ATC the altitude to intercept the G/S is given by ATC instructions but in many cases are not representing real life data. Michael

The tutorial is contained in the c:\programs(x86)\Bevelstone Production\EditVoicepack31\Tutorial folder. It si an HTML file. Below please find a pdf version of that document. Cheers Michael EditVoicepack Tutorial.pdf

Here comes a top down view of the default Punta Cocos.

I don't have Ultimate Traffic but would recommend to try installation with admin rights if not already done so. Michael

What I like to see is an indication for what flightsim platform the add-on is applicable in the title. For instance as with Gap (LFNA) which is currently listed, you have to click on the link in order to find out for what simulator platform it is supposed. Camil Valiquette does a good job with this . . . download titles starts with FSX or else . . .

I have to agree with your critique, in part only. Sometimes, for reasons I don't understand the weather is injected to the sim and instantly changed back to standard conditions (29.92 inHg / 15 Deg C). Then, it sometimes takes minutes until the downloaded weather is injected correctly. But in my opinion the type of clouds I see after the weather is loaded into FS9 is better than with FSGRW. Perhaps this is only a matter of personal taste, but based on comparing what I see on the screen and what I see outside of my window. With the general weather phenomena like baro pressure, temperature, wind conditions and visibility there is no difference between FSrealWX and FSGRW and of course I never would regard FSGRW a bad add-on at all . . . Michael

I have both FSGRW and FSrealWX and found that the representation of the real weather conditions at a current location is better with FSrealWX compared to FSGRW. This is true for the clouds/cloud layers especially. The only thing I miss with FSrealWX is that it is not updating AI traffic to use take off runways in accordance with prevailing wind conditions. So you have to save the situation and re-start FS in order to have this corrected. But FSrealWX comes at a lower price than FSGRW and has some additional features like flight recording, load manager and flight planner - even though I I don't use those.

You have probably to use different products for cloud textures and real-time weather nowadays to make the most of FS weather. For cloud textures I personally use REX and REX soft clouds and for real time weather I have FSrealWX3.0 by Hanse-Coders.

If you are looking for an space flight simulation based on physics then Orbiter Spaceflight Simulator might be worth to take a look at http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/index.html. Unfortunately it seems development ceased with the 2016 version. It provides an open architecture so there are tons of free add-ons available. So you can re-create historic missions, like Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Mir, Vostok, Voshod, Soyuz as well as the Space Shuttle and ISS programmes.

BTW it is available as a download version at Aerosoft . . . https://www.aerosoft.com/de/shop/sale/weitere-angebote/2637/xplane-11-aerosoft-airport-pack

Joao, I would recommend XP11 over XP10 for sure. Besides FS2004 I am using X-Plane every now and then and I really like it. Of course the strain on your hardware is higher with XP11 compared to FS2004. Aerosoft has a boxed version including Lugano, Toulouse, Weeze, Manchester, Maastricht-Aachen, Svolvær airports on offer for 35€. I have no experience with the Steam version so far. Kali

Make a visit to FSDeveloper here https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/4gb-patch.437400/