hjwalter

Tom, When thinking further about this thread I must now assume that when the SAMM program is used, not only to create a static aircraft but at the same time to position it somewhere, that the end result will be a combination BGL file as you describe and which cannot be un-geolocked via the "geolock" program. This problem now seems to be what the initial poster in this thread was trying to make clear. Hans

Tom, You are absolutely correct in saying that when both placement and model data are combined within a single BGL file it automatically means that the related scenery objects are in fact "Geo-Locked", something which the geolock program seems not to be able to undo. However, what this geolock program then CAN or should be able to do, remains unclear, at least for me. The only way to un-geolock such BGL files is to firstly disassemble such files into XML files, to then manually separate the placemant and the model data and finally to re-compile each separately, thereby creating un-geolocked library scenery files. I've in fact already successfully done this a number of times and can now place these objects anywhere ..... but .... only for my own use. Hans

Hey Guys, Some scenery (or scenery object) developers protect their created library type scenery objects from being pirated by "geo-locking" them within certain geographical areas, outside of which these objects cannot be positioned, e.g. via the (payware) Abacus EZ Object placement program. As far as I know the SAMM program can furthermore only be used to create static aircraft, preferably based on existing AI aircraft and I have used it successfully many times for this purpose. The in this way created statics can then be positioned as un-geolocked scenery objects anywhere in the world, e.g. via the above mentioned Abacus EZ program. However, in the meantime I've understood that the SAMM program can also be used for positioning such self created static aircraft but I've never used that function. The question I have now is what the relation is between the SAMM and the Geolock programs in this thread but the possibility does exist that the static aircraft concerned has been made by a scenery developer and in order to protect it from piracy, has in fact geo-locked it, as in my first paragraph above. However, if one tries to use the Geolock program for un-locking (or to pirate) a gro-locked static scenery aircraft, failure is guaranteed because it just doesn't work. Regards Hans

I've had this problem before as well and it was definately wind direction/strength related. Taking off from the opposite direction on the same runway confirmed this. I changed the wind direction to come from dead ahead on the runway and re-saved the flight concerned. Hans

The big remaining question is if anyone has actually managed to get this program to work because I certainly havn't, with or without long paths to the (scenery) BGL(s) concerned. It could be that I've been doing something wrong during the past two years or so but in the meantime it's become my opinion that this program just simply doesn't work. I'm using Win7 64 bit. Regards Hans

Hey Guys, Does an OOM mean that you simply do not have enough memory or does it mean that because of a programming error in something which is programmable, e.g. a cockpit instrument and which error is then trying to access an area outside the area alotted by Windows to software, like FS9 ? I've always been lead to believe that the latter was the case because substituting the whole panel usually solved my OOM, while only later, when I had more time, the culprit instrument was routed out and replaced. However, it's been years since I had my last OOM. Regards Hans

I installed this "patch" quite some years ago but as an advice found somewehere on the internet. Did not perform any before/after frame rate tests though but I've been using it without problems ever since. Hans

Glad that you were able to solve you problem. Must have been quite some surgery though. Hans

Mark, Because you say that your airport scenery is an Aerosoft product I must assume that it's a payware one and that I therefore cannot just download it only in order to help you. However, you can quite easily find the offending BGL file by deleting a first group of these files to your recycle bin and to then test to see whether or not your offending blast fence has disappeared. If not, then you restore this first group from your recycle bin and you then delete the next group, test again and so on until your blast fence has disappeared. You now know that the BGL file responsible for displaying your blast fence is one of the group now in your recycle bin. You then restore single BGL files from your recycle bin and carry on testing in the same way until your blast fence appears again. You then know that the last restored BGL file is responsible for displaying your offending blast fence. However, you're now not completely finished yet because there remains the possibility that this BGL file does not only see to it that your blast fence is displayed but also other (possibly important) parts of your airport as well. If this is the case then it will become necessary to de-compile the BGL file, to then remove only those parts which display your blast fence while leaving all the rest, and finally to recompile your now edited file. If the BGL file in question is responsible ONLY for displaying your blast fence then a simple permanent delete of the file or a rename of it's .BGL extension to e.g. .XXXXX will solve your problem. Good luck. Hans

Nebojsa, Oops !! I must have pressed a wrong button somewhere and which evidently resulted in a double post. At my PC club where one of the active groups is FS, we still use the same CH yolk as you are using but the club is still closed due to corona, so that I cannot look into it there, at least not yet. However, I seem to remember from many years ago and when we were installing this yolk, that we did not need a specific driver for it in our Win7 setup. I also vaguely remember that there were a number of choices for yolk/stick types and that calibration actually took place somewhere in Win7 itself as part of the "properties" related to the connected yolk ? Could it therefore be that you have selected an incorrect yolk/stick type in your Win? and especially because you say that your aileron positions can only get worse from their now incorrect center position. Hans

Nebojsa, To me it sounds like a "crackling" or dirty potentiometer, especially when your yolk is already some years old and that your little calibration "+" is very unstable without you even touching your yolk. You may therefore need to install a new potentiometer, to adjust it's center wiper position and internal yolk mechanics so that it coincides with level ailerons, a centered adjustment position and horizontal yolk grips. No easy task though and I can speak from experience !! Are you able to get your ailerons to move beyond their now incorrect position via your yolk ? Are you sure that your yolk's internal mechanics are correctly connected to the potentiometer in question and so that it's center position is at all adjustable ? Do your ailerons move when you try to adjust their middle position ? If you have the possibility to test with any other yolk before trying to dig into your existing one, then that would be your best way to go initially but I must assume that you have already thought of something like that yourself. To me, the contents of your post do not sound like a driver issue. A new yolk all together maybe ? Good luck. Hans

Nebojsa, To me it sounds like a "crackling" or dirty potentiometer, especially when your yolk is already some years old and that your little calibration "+" is very unstable without you even touching your yolk. You may therefore need to install a new potentiometer, to adjust it's center wiper position and internal yolk mechanics so that it coincides with level ailerons, a centered adjustment position and horizontal yolk grips. No easy task though and I can speak from experience !! Are you able to get your ailerons to move beyond their now incorrect position via your yolk ? Are you sure that your yolk's internal mechanics are correctly connected to the potentiometer in question and so that it's center position is at all adjustable ? Do your ailerons move when you try to adjust their middle position ? If you have the possibility to test with any other yolk before trying to dig into your existing one, then that would be your best way to go initially but I must assume that you have already thought of something like that yourself. To me, the contents of your post do not sound like a driver issue. A new yolk all together maybe ? Good luck. Hans

Bernard, I downloaded both files (itacoast and Pietro's mesh) only to find that I had already installed them both some years ago. So, I searched for signs of your problem all around my Italian coasts and around those of Sardinia but everything seemed fine, therefore also at Elmas (IEEE). I then had a good look in my FS9 to see how I had organized the files and this is how I had done it. The mesh files were all included in my single dedicated and much larger mesh/scenery folder with a very low scenery priority, i.e. directly below ALL my addon/third party sceneries near the bottom of my scenery.cfg file. This (mesh) scenery folder may not have a texture folder. In fact, every mesh BGL file I have and which could be recognized as such, is included in this single folder. The same for ALL my Land Class (LC) files in their own single dedicated folder. My full Italian coastlines scenery folder, again without a texture folder, is positioned at the lowest scenery priority level of all my addon/third party ITALIAN sceneries. Therefore, at a higher scenery priority level than my mesh/scenery folder. The only residual problem I have around Elmas is the very abrupt water color difference on both sides of a more or less straight line between the harbor entrance arms. On the one side, the blue Mediterranean sea and on the other a drab greenish/brown looking inland water texture. Maybe I need to get hold of hgschnell's UT Europe as well because his ground and water textures certainly look a lot better than mine. Well Berbard, I certainly hope this post helps you to solve your problem. Regards and good luck. Hans

My first impression is that your mesh scenery does not fit exactly with your new coastlines but that is only based on your posted pic. In the meantime I have downloaded the itacoast.zip and italym04.zip mesh files and will try to install/combine them during one of the coming days to see what happens in my own FS9 coastal Italy scenery. However, it remains my personal experience that exact fits between coastal mesh and irregular (new) coast lines, can be very difficult to achieve. I'll report my findings in this thread during the next week or so. Regards Hans

Alex, First of all, the TTools program uses three basic and interrelated folders, the AI Aircraft folder, the airports folder and the AI flight plans folder. Each aircraft included in the TTools aircraft folder must have it's own unique number, it's cruise speed, which should be the same as that specified in it's aircraft.cfg file AND a description which MUST BE EXACTLY THE SAME as the titel in the same aircraft.cfg file. Any inconsistency between these three linked data elements will cause problems and especially the last one will result in the AI aircraft not being activated and consequently not appearing at the airports specified in it's TTools flight plan(s). Also take into account that AI aircraft are normally not selectable for viewing, like the user flyable aircraft are. This is because the "aircraft type" specified in an aircraft's model file can be "0" (zero) = non selectable AI or "2" = selectable and user flyable. Also, do not forget that an aircraft's model file is always directly linked to it's dedicated texture files and therefore cannot be used with any other aircraft's texture file(s). Furthermore, AI and flyable model files cannot be interchanged. I hope this helps you to sort out your problems. Regards Hans

My standard first question with these types of (strange) problems just after (re-)installing FS9 is, did you do a default install instead of a so called "custom" one ? A "default" install automatically installs into a controlled Widows area where completely normal FS9 functions are then regarded as being security attacks on your system, which consequently results in totally unexpected and unpredictable issues within you FS9. A "custom" install then becomes necessary whereby it's most important to install into C.. "Program Files" or preferably into a non "C" partition and therefore outside of the Windows's security controlled area. Regards Hans

What is a "KBT" original ? Hans

I have downloaded and have installed The Natural World (TNW2019) scenery quite some time ago and klicking on your above link immediately initiated the beginning of a new (test) download, which I obviously cancelled after a few minutes. Downloading this file therefore seems to progress without problems, at least for me. Can you please eleborate further about what your problem then seems to be. Regards Hans

Tony, I assume that you installed your FS2004 as a "default" install, which in Win7 and following versions, means that totally unpredictable and unexpected problems will then occur. I therefore advise you to uninstall your FS2004 completely, followed by deleting any residual files. After that you should re-install your FS2004 but this time as a so called "custom" install, the most important being that you install it in a HD partition outside the one (usually "C") in which your Win7 lives. If your ATC sound problem then still persists or you had in fact already done a "custom" install, then I'm afraid that I cannot help you any further because as far as I know, ATC sound files are technically not different than any other default FS2004 sound files. Good luck and regards' Hans

I've tried two of Camil Valiquette's AI/AGS aircraft, of which I had expected at least some AGS activity after they had landed and/or during their parked periods but no AGS activity was ever observed. They are in fact both user flyable aircraft and therefore also very "texture heavy" whenever they came into view (= stuttering), even with their panel and sound folders removed. It therefore seems that AGS activity can only take place when these aircraft are set up as normal user flyable versions. However, as a final "fling" and before finally deleting both these "AI" aircraft, I tried converting one of them into a static to see if AGS would then appear but ..... no spontaneous AGS there either. Great pity but the possibility does exist that I have done something wrong myself and/or that I ran out of patience too early. Regards. Hans

Dorian, Yes, I meant "Animated Ground Servicing" but the single AI B737 I have is most probably a far older and more limited AIS version. In the meantime I've downloaded a few (test) AI aircraft, said to have AGS, will test them out one of these days and will report back in this thread. However, in the "Readme" files I've already read something about them not having AGS in their AI versions. Not only that but their textures seem rather "heavy" for AI use. Anyway, I'll try one of them out to see what happens, otherwise the AIS option will remain. Thanks for your reactions. Hans

Hi All, I have a single AI B737, which I found by pure chance some time ago and which has a very simple form of AGS. I'm now searching for more of these so that I can create different and more AI flight planned apron movement at selected airports/airfields but these very specific AI aircraft remain very difficult to find. Statics with some form of AGS would also be very welcome but that would most probably be asking for too much. So, can anyone please point me in the driection of any downloadable AI aircraft file names, which have AGS in any form. Thanks in advance for any trouble taken. Hans

Judging by the wording and the basics of your initial post, you sounded very much like a total FS9 newbie who needed help with the basic FS9 installation procedure. As a result, some of us with many years of technical experience, have in fact tried to help you but your style of answering and especially your totally uncalled for final reaction, has made it clear that you have a very short non-simmer fuse. Pity. Hans

What you need to do is a so called "custom Install", preferably to a HD partition outside the one in which your Windows lives. Installing FS9 into the default (x86) folder will cause unpredictable problems later on because FS9 does many routine things, which Windows then regards as being a threat to it's security. I would therefore want to advise you to uninstall your FS9, to delete any residual files and to then perform a "custom" install, After that you should download/install the FS9 update and the "NoCD" enhancement. Good luck. Hans

Joop, Ik heb een privebericht aan je gezonden, een z.g. "Private message" of "PM". Groetjes Hans