hjwalter

Hey there Mr. Zippy, Where there's intelligence, hair cannot grow !! Hans

After a heck of a lot of further testing and trying I finally admitted defeat and downloaded what seemed to be a Mooney Bravo repaint, which also included it's model, aircraft.cfg and AIR files. A lot of cutting and pasting followed, especially in the aircraft.cfg file and eventually I was able to fly a "normal" Mooney Bravo again, including making "normal" approaches in it. The only thing I can afterwards think of, of what was wrong with my problematic Mooney, is/was a corrupted AIR file. How, why and when this could have happened I have no idea but I will now try to use the same procedure for the other aircraft, which have more or less, the same approach speed problems. Regards Hans

pzl 104 Yes, the flaps are fully extended, both visibly and according to the panel gauge. Not only that but the gear is down and the engine RPM is at idle according to it's gauge and audible sound. There's now quite obviously something very wrong with my default Mooney Bravo, so in the meantime I've downloaded a few complete third party versions from the library here and will test those to see if they have the same problem, something which I don't really expect. I have some other flyables with the same problem but not half as bad as that of my default Mooney. Anyway Guys, thanks for all your reactions and if I find out what caused my problem, I will certainly report back in this thread. Hans

Jeroen79, The aircraft in my example is the default Mooney Bravo. The VFR approach altitude is an almost flat 500 ft AGL already from a long distance in my efforts to reduce the plane's speed before touchdown. The speed is then between 70 and 80 knots, nose high. The load is 30% fuel. All further loads are default. The descent rate is not fixed, e.g. via autopilot and is as low as possible to avoid increasing speed. The distance from the runway touchdown point can be as much as 6Nm. Power setting: Idle. Configurations: Full flaps and gear down. Times: Day, VFR I've initially made a change in the plane's aircraft.cfg file (flap drag entry from 1.0 ----> 2.6). The "Spoilers Available= FALSE ----> TRUE" edit in it's AIR file, seems to help as well. Could this "FALSE" entry have been an original AIR file error ? Can any of you guys confirm this seemingly original entry ? Am I the only one who had this Mooney Bravo speed reduction problem ? Regards, groeten. Hans Netherlands

Thanks guys for all your reactions and yes Mr. Zippy, the default Mooney does in fact have visible spoilers/speed brakes but seemingly with no effect when deployed. I went into the Mooney's AIR file and found an entry "Spoilers available = FALSE" ?? I changed it into TRUE and this now does seems to have at least some effect. However, what I learned from this is that even although most (light) aircraft do not have visible spoilers and/or speed brakes, these can in fact be installed anyway and used to further reduce approach speeds when full flaps and extended gear have little or no effect. However, this will not become my standard practice but only for those aircraft with which I need to dodge hills and trees during already very flat approaches. Thanks again. Hans

Mr Zippy, Thanks for your reaction but most of the aircraft I was referring to do not have speed brakes. Take as an example the default Mooney, which seems to be so streamlined that only extremely flat and unrealistic approaches are possible. My feeling is therefore that this kind of rather basic problem just must have been addressed/solved somewhere, either in their aircraft.cfg and/or in their AIR files. Anyone, please. Hans

Hi Guys, The approach speeds of some of my aircraft are extremely difficult to control, even with full flaps, gear down and engine(s) at idle. I've tried to increase the drag entry figure in the flaps sections of their aircraft.cfg files but this only seems to partially help, if at all. Maybe this only works in combination with something else, hopefully not with something within their AIR files because I'm certainly no AIR file expert. Any ideas or fixes anyone ? Thanks in advance for any reactions. Regards Hans

Looking forward to your post. Hans

Hey guys, It seems logical that when one's FS9.cfg unexpectedly and for whatever reason, automatically gets replaced by it's default version, any previously existing user custom keyboard combinations, along with any other custom edits, will have been replaced by the now problematic default ones. Just a shot in the dark here but could this possibly have something to do with wireless keyboards ? I would like to test this myself but I ditched my wired ones quite some time ago. Regards Hans

O.K. I added alpha channels to all my flyable aircraft textures but after doing a lot more testing the initial problem is (as yet) only partially solved. Furthermore, I no longer believe that the problem can actually be solved for the full 100% because, when switching to external view, the related aircraft's model file gets involved and there are many different aircraft model files, some more simple with relatively few related textures but there are also others with far more and more detailed texture files. Hence the different loading times between different aircraft. At least, for me this now seems the only remaining possibility. Hans

Hey Guys, Always remember that after you have opened a previously saved flight or have created a new flight, you cannot just change the wind direction and expect ATC to immediately send you to the now new wind dependent runway for take off. Nor will any AI planes react correctly to your new wind direction. You need to change the wind direction at your departure airport and you then need to SAVE THAT FLIGHT. Only after re-opening that same saved flight, will ATC now know to which new wind direction dependent runway to send you for take off and will AI planes react correctly to the new wind direction. Also, ATC will always send you to the closest runway for take off, taking your (new) wind direction into account and along the shortest possible taxi route. Approaching AI planes will, depending on the direction from which they approach, always choose the nearest runway with the for them correct wind direction. It's for this reason that some but not all, AI planes will land on other (parallel) runways than the one ATC has sent you for take offf. Hope this helps. Happy New Year Hans

At the moment I pressed the "send'' button for my last above post in this thread I realized that all my scenery textures already had alpha channels and mips. Oops !! Regards Hans

Mark, I took the trouble of adding alpha channels to the textures of my whole flyable fleet, took me around five hours via a program called MipMap Manager. Via another program called Alpha Searcher I could randomly check (before and after) whether or not the alpha channels had in fact been added where they were missing before. Loading times are now a lot faster and the same holds true for each separate paint (texture folder) belonging to the same model. The MipMap Manager program can add or delete mips but other than it's name suggests, it also structurally adds alpha channels to all texture files which it finds within each texture folder that it gets pointed to. In hindsight however, the original problem was not really a serious one but having learnt from it I'm now considering testing some scenery textures as well, e.g. to see if stuttering can be positively influenced by also adding alpha channels to those. Anyone else have opinions on this ? Merry Christmas to all. Hans

Quote Try this, do EXACTLY what I say: Create a new folder in the problem aircraft folder. Can be named anything, just "New Folder" will be fine. Copy all your texture/livery folders to the new folder. Now delete all your original texture/livery folders. Cut and paste the livery/texture folders from your New Folder back to your aircraft folder. You can now also delete the empty New Folder. Let me know if anything changes. Unquote A far better solution is to go into your back yard on a dark night under a full moon and wiggle your toes for half an hour or more, while thinking strongly of the issue !! LOL. An even better solution and possibly the only real one, is to add alpha channels to ALL flyable aircraft textures. The main reason why different DXT3 paints belonging to the same model have different loading times when switching from cockpit to external view, is that some textures within each different paint have alpha channels, while others do not and this can vary strongly per paint. Ideal is that ALL textures, (no exceptions) within each flyable paint, have alpha channels. Hans

Mark, "-----then try my fix". Where can I find your "fix" ? Hans

Mark, Like I said I was going to do, I deleted all texture folders but one from one of my "problematic" flyable A-320 folders, together with their related references in it's aircraft.cfg file. I then made several test flights over third party photo/LC and mesh areas but the aircraft texture loading delay remained. I tried different altitudes ranging from 30,000 to 10,000 feet, with and without clouds, but the problem remained. However, a remark by 3Green, a bit further up in this thread, about (all) flyable textures needing alpha channels, almost immediately got me going down that path and after adding alpha channels to all my test A-320's textures, it certainly made big a difference. The aircraft's texture loading delays in external view were suddenly very much faster. Almost in a flash every time. After this was done I restored my complete A-320 folder with it's 8 liveries from my backups and then proceded to add alpha channel to all of them, even to internal textures of e.g. floor carpets, passenger seats, etc. just to be absolutely sure. As far as I've now learned, the problem had nothing to do with my so called "heavy" background sceneries but most definitely with the evidently necessary alpha channels, with which many flyable aircraft "developers/painters" seem not to be too concerned about. Only 3 of the 8 liveries from my backup A-320, had full alpha channels and the rest were unpredictably varied. For the form and as per your suggestion, I tried moving all the liveries from another of my flyable aircraft to a new folder and back but during a number of following tests I found no differences. I would now want to suggest to you that you "alpha channel" ALL textures related to one of your own confirmed problematic flyable plane liveries as I have done and to then perform some test flights of your own, to see whether or not you can confirm my findings. Regards Hans

Quote 1. Do all your aircraft liveries load slow or just certain aircraft? 2. For slow loading aircraft, does every livery load slow or just certain liveries? 3. Do you have multiple texture folders/liveries in all your aircraft? Are there any aircraft you only have the one texture folder/livery and this still happens? Unquote Mark, Your questions: 1. It's just my larger high flying (non AI Boeing/Airbus) types of aircraft, which initiate the problem. Probably because the higher they fly, the more ground scenery needs to be spontaneously loaded (or rendered) into view every time I switch from cockpit to external view. Once it's all loaded there's no further problem. 2. All liveries/textures belonging to the same model have the problem. 3. Per model file I have multiple liveries/folders, all containing exactly the same texture names. DXT3 compression, no mips and all have alpha channels. Tomorrow I will temporarily delete all but one texture folder from a such a problematic B737-800 model to see if the problem remains or whether or not there are any differences. However, I doubt it. Hans

Mark, I'm burning up with inquisitiveness. Could you please, please, please, at least give me/us a hint as to where your bug might be hiding and/or what it looks like. Regards Hans

Hi Guys, This is just a shot in the dark but here goes anyway because I've had this same problem many years ago but in another part of the world. My specific crash problem was caused by a faulty start position in the Afcad data of my destination airport and it was a previously planned flight controlled via ATC. The airport scenery itself was a third party addon and was easily fixed. Maybe this information will help you to at least narrow down the cause of your "look alike" problem. Good luck Hans

A small addon program like AI Smooth will solve most of your problems by keeping AI aircraft out of your way, at least the ones flying near you and when approaching your destination airport. However, even then the default FS9 ATC will never be perfect. I've been using this program for years and I love it. Hans

Hey there Mark, With me it's exactly as you describe but there's a great positive difference if the background (ground) scenery is default or addon. I would want to suggest that you try to temporarily de-activate any mesh, LC or other background scenery, then fly the same route and when about in the same area as you previously were, you (test) switch from cockpit- to external view and report any aircraft texture loading delay differences. Also please see to it that all your aircraft's textures are DXT3. Mips are not necessary because you never externally view flyable aircraft from large and/or varying distances, like you do with e.g. AI aircraft and scenery in general. The effect of "heavy" background scenery can also be demonstrated by slewing at maximum slew speed across quite some distance in external view. You will notice that towards the end of your slew the background scenery will be blurry but will become normal again after a few seconds, depending on the power of your rig. This is because FS9 itself and/or your graphics card, cannot keep up with correctly rendering the scenery as you (speed) slew over it. It needs some time to catch up, so to speak. Hope this helps. Hans

Hey Guys, I've been having this same problem far as long as I can remember. However, it's my theory that when you switch from cockpit view to spot plane view, very many, e.g. ground, sky and cloud textures, suddenly need to be displayed and only after those are done are the aircraft's textures given the chance to be displayed on top of the rest, at least that's what it seems. "Heavy" aircraft textures also do seem to play a roll, so all my flyable aircraft textures have been converted to DXT3 without mips and this does seem to help ...... but only a little. Hans

Yes, the 9Dragons Kai Tak/Hong Kong scenery can be quite demanding on older and not so fast systems. However, Larry (above), has posted a picture of a CalClassic version, clearly also showing the checker board. So maybe you could download and try that one instead, a version which I myself did not know even existed. Good luck and happy landings. Hans

You need to search for the extremely well made "9Dragons" Hong Kong/Kai Tak scenery here on FlightSim because that also includes your checkerboard and even a flashing light VFR approach. A great "must have" scenery indeed but you will also need Jim Vile's AI approach file so that approaching AI aircraft do not approach through the mountain. A truly great scenery. Good luck and happy landings. Hans

Hey guys, may I add another possibility here, for what's it worth. Such OOM (out of memory) errors are, in my experience, caused by something which is programmable within FS9, e.g. a cockpit instrument, an effect, etc. and which contains one or more programming errors. In such cases the OOM error message means that something is trying to access a memory area outside that which is allotted for normal user use by Windows. It's in fact a Windows error message and does not mean that you have a shortage of memory. Maybe this can help to narrow down your search for the culprit(s). Good luck Hans