defaid

Hi. When you say 'don't show up', do you mean just the thumbnails or that they aren't listed at all in the Category and the Object to Place dropdown lists? If the former, is there an appropriate thumbnail in ../Rwy12/img/ If the latter, what were the files you downloaded? I've just done a quick trawl through my libraries and I don't have one called FS9Hangers. D

Thank you. It's a kind offer. If something I can't categorise catches my attention, I'll use your thread. D

Yes. It's my local. I've only just noticed that "Location" is no longer given under a poster's avatar. It used to say 'near EGCW'. The airport is one of Just Flight's British Airports series. The photoscenery (a bit dated) and the mesh are Horizon's VFR Photographic Scenery. I have some idea, recalling Garry Summons' old website, that the JF Airports are very similar to Garry's UK2000 VFR airfields for FS9. Here's Bob, the late owner as PF and Tony, PNF, about to take me, another engineer and a couple of French girls to Angoulême in a Gulfstream 695b. I absolutely adored that plane: zero to rippling face in a couple of seconds and what always felt like a vertical departure. Sometimes a vertical approach too, depending on the French controller's state of mind. The drinks fell out of the fridge on one descent (that was my fault...). Once he'd shut down, I asked Bob about the late clearance and he said something like, "No, it wasn't a problem. This thing falls like a stone." Enough. I'll shut up now - this is becoming a hijack.

I thought I'd have a slice of that random thing too. Big fish: Eclectic tail fins. I'll add anything that catches my eye to my AI. Oi mate! You can't park there. Typical London morning.

My default flight: a long way from Seattle.

I recall reading somewhere that the default flight has some settings that are applied to all other flights. I believed this to apply regardless of whether one loads the default flight first. I understood that it was to ensure that all systems are available even if not implemented in the selected aircraft. Thus if the newly-made Default flight's aircraft didn't have those systems then they wouldn't work in the selected aircraft, regardless of whether or not they had been implemented in it. My aging brain doesn't retain any real detail but I think the original comments applied particularly to things like the availability of certain electrical or fuel systems. Feel free to argue or to add details -- memory really has become hazy and I suspect it was something I read before understanding anything about how FS9 works. In any case, I interpreted that as requiring the default flight to be for the default Cessna so, many years ago I made a new Default flight with that plane and at my local, with better weather. I still use the Default flight so I may be keeping things current by chance, but I have never needed to load the Default flight before loading my selected flight. I think Flight1 recommended it for their C441 but I flew that for years as my Air Hauler beast of burden with no problems. (AH launches its flight directly so the Default was never loaded first). Thoughts, clarification and corrections would be most welcome -- I haven't thought about this for years. D

For reference, and in case someone else arrives here with a similar problem, the original 9.1 updates are still available through web archives such as the wayback machine. See this thread:

Beautiful portraits! The final shot took me straight back to my FU3 days.

I think it won't matter in this case because UT has no mesh so neither package will interfere with the other. As most devs use the same raw data, airport elevations should be pretty near the mesh altitude too. Some stock fields may need adjusting but I don't recall having done that for any in the Alps. My load order is, broadly, the following: "Default Terrain" - bottom layer duplicate afd files for AI "Default Scenery" stock continents stock aerial photo scenery object libraries (EZ Scenery, Runway 12 et c.) "Addon Scenery" (down here because I'm likely to want individual packages to supplant it) vector scenery Ultimate Terrain packs meshes landclass & LWM world photoscenery Playsims VFR Photoscenery JF British Airports series MAIW airfields lots of individual airports scenery objects (e. g. Millau Viaduct or New Year fireworks) UK2000 airports custom traffic bgls test layer for my projects - topmost layer Here are a few bits of eye candy. These are UT Europe with FS Global 2008, FScene landclass textures and HDE v2 skies tweaked with FSUIPC. That one of a road running straight up the mountainside is UT Europe's attempt at placing the Chamonix to Courmayeur tunnel on the surface... Engadin: Grenoble: Massif de Chartreuse: Mont Blanc tunnel!

Hi. I have UT Europe and FS Global mesh. As Ultimate Terrain is vector, landclass & coastline, the only incompatibility you're likely to see is the occasional vector stream running parallel to its topographical course but, having said that, the problem only really occurs where stock vectors are still in use because MS had some inexplicable offset in all their geography. If you have third party airports installed then some may end up on plateaux or in depressions but on the whole developers have worked from the same data sets and it's only stock scenery that has problems. I'll bet you'll want to repost those same shots when you see what a difference a good mesh makes. D

If it is not moved, renamed or in your Recycle Bin, you can find it in a cab file on the original installation discs. D

This is a fair comment and unarguable. I should have typed PFAF. Paro in Bhutan comes to mind, where there is (as far as I know) no published approach and it's normal to configure for landing at the top of the descent. There are videos around the web of some horrendously overloaded first-time pilots, even from that far out. Stritly in the context of FS9, (unless absolute fidelity to the real world is necessary) when modifying an afd by ading an ILS approach, PFAF is likely to be at the intercept altitude, as in the plate you posted above. If that fix has to be created, or if something else is required, then the easiest way of determining the intercept altitude is by deciding how far from the threshold you want to intercept, and then doing the simple trig for the glideslope angle to calculate the altitude. The modification to the afd will need some sort of waypoint at the intercept. The OM can be moved and will give the audible warning, easing the workload a little. D

Hi Andrea. You may not be able to get the altitude from the afcad. If there is no final approach fix in the afcad ILS then the outer marker should be at the same location. You can calculate the altitude where the glideslope beam intercepts the location of the OM or FAF from the runway elevation, glideslope angle and distance from OM to threshold. Alternatively, you could fly or slew around the airport before making your proper flight, to find directly what altitude the glideslope beam is at over the FAF or OM. D

Hi Ben. I'm currently not at home but I have Ultimate Traffic 1 running on my Win 10 Pro PC at home. I don't recall any problems with it but over the years I've used less and less of its functionality. Will it launch at all for you, or are there particular aspects that don't work? D

I was casually following the topic and I suspect some comments may have got a bit out of hand. Apparently I don't now have permission to view the topic, and my posts in that thread have also disappeared from my profile. I couldn't replace a foul-language screenshot in one of them; deleting the entire thread seems a bit overkill (Actually, I ended up deleting the whole post and recreating it using a censored version of the screenie). I guess that the thread is still there but now only visible to admin. A more informative "You can't... " notice would be a good idea. D

Here's another request for an extension of the editable period for new forum posts. Also, deleting an attachment in dropdown menus User > Content > My Attachments doesn't seem to remove it from a post. After 90 seconds, I can't change or remove a screenshot that shows foul language.

Yes please! D

I'm wondering too. The user guide refers to FSUIPC version 5 for P3d and v4 for the other sims. FS9 uses v3, so possibly not compatible. There is a free 10-day trial: https://pilot2atc.com/index.php/downloads

I'd love to read your impression of it. I've been using Radar Contact for many years. SIDs & STARs require a minor workaround but otherwise it works well for me. The only real downside is the lack of variety in voices: there are so few they've all become close friends... The reported regional variety in PF3 has me very interested.

Hi. In their own scenery layer, I'd guess. If the downloaded ./MHTG-TERRITORY/Texture/ folder is empty then you might benefit from deleting it, in case the ../Scenery/ folder has landclass bgls in it. D

I'll add don't be daunted by the size of the manual. ADE just has a lot of extra functionality. If you've ever used older software like AfCad 221 then ADE is pretty intuitive and handles in pretty much the same way, making the manual more of a reference than a text-book. If you're starting from scratch then as Aaron says, it's a steep learning curve but then, if you're starting from scratch, so is any other airport design program. D

Hi. That's not a familiar format for an airport identifier and I wouldn't have thought anyone would have uploaded a file with that name. What sim are you using (I don't mean to patronise but a lot of stuff does get posted in the wrong forum), what airport was the download for, and where did you find the list of must-have files? D

:D :D Mine too now. I had a play last night with a GPS direct route between MM0Y and SBCO. Conveniently they are at pretty well the equal latitudes but in opposite hemispheres. It's convenient because the track is symmetrical about the equator, which means, following the magenta line, I could leave MM0Y on 118°, cross the equator on 136° and fly over SBCO on... 118° 5025 nm So, thinking about paper, projections, cigars, eggs and rubber sheets, I reasoned that I ought to be able to fly a fixed heading of 127° and arrive at my destination. Seems logical, right? But I couldn't measure the track distance because the flight analysis Alt+O, A craps out every now and again. The data recorder AFSD only gives distance from a fixed point which I think is not the same thing. So on to Plan B. Fly a fixed ground speed and note the time. That would have worked. But... MS did something very odd with their 3d geometry. On FS9's map, that fixed 127° left me pointing almost directly east and with SBCO abeam with a track error of about 450 nm. Everything else still showed 127°. I had a similar result when flying 130°. I wasn't flying a gyro-precession spiral as all the realism sliders were down at the don't-mess-this-up-for-me end. So I'm thinking that the FS9 mathematical model for the surface of the Earth is probably some nasty lash-up that can't be recreated either in 2d or 3d. In any case, a "Direct To" on the GPS should give the shortest distance between 2 points. Whether MS made it so is questionnable. *** Incidentally, if you have a globe and a length of cotton thread, you can find the shortest route very easily by pulling the thread tight over the surface between PoD and PoA. D

A great circle route is the most direct on a sphere. On a panelled, truncated ovoid as in FS9, I'm not so sure. The maths is a long way beyond me... If FS9's Earth was a cylinder the answer would be obvious -- unroll the cylinder and fly the same heading along the entire route. I guess that's what you mean by a straight line track. FS9's Earth is actually ovoid and is cut off above a certain latitude, something that's clear from the fact that you do need to follow an approximately GC route to reach your destination directly. If it were a cylinder then a direct route planned in FS9 from LHR-LAX would have a departure heading 180° away from the opposite route LAX-LHR. In FS9, I think the "Direct" function on a GPS gives the shortest route. I always assumed that it was giving FS9's closest approximation to a great circle route. If someone can do the maths, I'd be very interested but I think it would depend on the specific shape of the ovoid. I use Super Flight Planner for my planning and find that it gives different leg lengths from a spherical distance calculator; it's made me curious about what geometrical model SFP is using. It seems to match FS9's GPS, which is half an answer. Do you know what projection Simbrief uses? How either Earth appears on a flat map projection depends on the4 projection and a straight line drawn on the map is not a good indication of distance. In the real world, planned deviations from GC routes are usually for land (rescue) and prevailing wind rather than for geographical efficiency. D

Certainly not to 9.1... get those correctly aligned bridges in there. Judging by the mod date, you're also still running off the CD. That deserves a toast! Since Peter's version number looked familiar, I thought I'd do a bit of digging. It seems I applied the LAA patch five years ago. I've been in & out of this folder possibly thousands of times, had forgotten I'd done it, and *never* saw this: Out of interest, here are the sha256 hashes for the three versions on my PC: Microsoft FS9.1 70B5DDA11568B4675EDD318680A03E400DB360698645506CC6CAD0A657229827 FS9.1 save-your-optical-media 1D54D424526A7476B5E9BB0642DD982CA03D27968794F5DC264B9D950AFE7281 FS9.1 save-your-optical-media 4 GB B3E404C7A6BC49D72A57F3A0F6411AFD83DA01E0D338786CC15F8350885011FA They all have the same version number so I guess either switching a single bit parameter doesn't constitute a software change or the version number is manually written into the file header: My mind must be slipping. Did I already say that? I'll shut up now. D