llivaudais

Ideas? sure... 1. read that "Help us help you" sticky just a bit above your new post. ( you're not a nooby anymore) 2. Have you checked your windows error logs to see if windows documented the failure. If it were me, I'd flush all the logs and then create the problem again... should be easy to find the log entry. 3. Have you tried the most common fixes (other than the reinstall/repair which you already did): rename or move your FSX.cfg and your Logbook.bin (to the desktop perhaps) and try to startup again. 4. Valve/Steam did a few modification to FSX. Have you searched for a solution on the Steam site and sought assistance there also? 5. "nothing new has been added", you said - perhaps something is missing.. like the C++ runtime files. 6. what are you running on - 7, 8 10? Perhaps it doesn't matter. Probably doesn't, since FSX runs perfectly well for most people on all platforms, but... 7. I infer that you've been running it ok and that the problem is new. This isn't your first STEAM install that's failed is it? If it is, does your equipment meet the minimum requirements for cpu and video? Help us help you... Loyd

Welcome Tex, to the sometimes wacky world of FSX. Sometimes it's more frustrating than wacky; crazy frustrating when something breaks and you find yourself going "wha...?" Then drop in here and get some sympathy and some support BEFORE you just decide to uninstall and reinstall because that doesn't always work. Actually, stop in daily. I learn something almost every day and this Flight Simulator franchise has been my hobby and passion for a quarter century now. There's literally hundreds of years worth of experience with FSX available at this site - almost at your beck and call - don't fail to take advantage of it! How about a "30 second" biography: how did you come across FSX; what aspect(s) appeal to you the most; preferred aircraft type; what AC type are you training in? what's your home apt? Are you flying the disk version or Steam Version? I fly 'em both but the Steam version is still still pretty default while the older disk install is pretty loaded down with scenery and extra AC. For a lot of us, this ain't just a hobby, it's a 'lifestyle'. Welcome. Loyd

my mistake - I haven't used it lately L

and has been for years.... there is a "sticky" up at the top of this page that describes the issue a bit more. This one and the others are there for a reason: this question keeps getting asked and the answer is never going to change. MS quit supporting the game. You will need an after-market app for your real world weather. Loyd

First off, if you put the files in Addon Scenery, is that folder active in the scenery library list? Secondly, at the moment no one else can test this scenery for you because you're the only one who knows what you installed. Thirdly, unless this scenery is a new airport in the sim, I wouldn't think you would see anything 'listed'. Lots of scenery doesn't show up in any location list because it's just for looks and not an airport facility. We need a bit more information about what you downloaded, please.... Loyd

My philosophy for years has been "if it's goood enough to improve FSX, I want it ALL the time". So I don't think a special boot-up is worth doing JUST for FSX/P3D. Do it all the time because it will improve performance for everything, yes? You have Kostas' guide in the sticky above and Nick's guide (that I found first) here so read, understand and make your OS streamlined for everything. For those of you on Win 10, be aware that many features that you can't simply click to disable can still be disabled with Powershell - that is not a subject for a quickie how-to; do your research and proceed with care. Loyd

For what it's worth, I have a friend in the UK who's been a big VR fan for the last couple of years. I recall him using Fly Inside ( I understood it being more as a VR utility for flying P3D) but he seems to be saying now that the P3D product has now got VR in a much better place and (quoting now) "It just works". I'm not a VR person yet and hardly even remember to include my Track IR either. Perhaps a little more research is called for. Loyd

From scratch you say? Impressive! Congratulations. Loyd

thanks for the quick reply. I suspected that was a limitation. Minimal inconvenience - since I "live" with Plan-G, I'll just grab a 4-letter code in the area until the 3-letter is within the nearest 16 and then select it. Good work nevertheless. I appreciate your efforts. Regards, Loyd

I'm lovin' it! My first two flights selected from the Nearest list (KEDW to KRIV with and without an intercept point) worked fine, but then I tried to set up a flight to Kern Valley L05. When gauge failed to accept that direct entry 3-character ICAO code I tried Mariposa-Yosamite O68. No go also. How do we enter a 3-character code? Trying to start or end with a space doesn't work... If there's something in the instruction PDF, I surely missed it. Thanks, Loyd

My suggestion would be to try other speed settings. What I found when first using recorder: I thought that the more frequent (smaller record intervals) would give accurate/smooth replay but it was actually the worst with bad stutter/jitter. For normal flight the 1 or 2 second record interval gave a very smooth replay. It seemed as if the fast recording required the plane to be 'yanked' to each new position while the lower rate allowed the plane to "fly" smoothly to the next point. Different styles of flying may require differing record speeds. Loyd

Greetings all; I've been a "follower" of this thread for quite a while and have enjoyed and been stimulated by it to do some things and go some places that I might never have otherwise. I've never contributed until now because my list of interesting things is years long... So I've just joined the group over at the MSFS Flight Videos forum to begin sharing what keeps me interested in flight simming since the FS4 days. Just posted the 9th in an on-going series of "Why I Fly". Drop in there to see my multiple answers to this question of keeping the interest level up. Actually, please try some of the other contributers' videos also. I think an important aspect of maintaining the interest level is the awareness that others want you to enjoy this sim too. Community support is a big motivator. Loyd

kin3, well, first off, I'm a newbie to Tile Proxy and still experimenting with every flight. I'd like to think that once the source images are collected and the scenery tiles made, perhaps some processing power will be freed up and the actual finished tiles will load at a usable rate. As a rule of thumb, I fly the ultralight in the 40-50kt range. The .ini file has max_lod set at 17 (30cm resolution); all the services are ranged from 9 to 17; the sim resolution is 60cm and I do have to pause from time to time to give the tiles time to load. Sometime if it seems very slow I 'drift' along in slew mode at 40kts. Right now, this is less about flying than seeing if the photo scenery tiles are worth the trouble; for the most part, I'm liking what I'm seeing. This is ultimate eye candy for me and speed is NOT an issue (yet). This whole thing was sorta prompted by the Colorado photo scenery for FS9 that I finally tried. Even at 4.7m, I'd say it was useful and I think I'd elect to take the whole world at that resolution if it were available (in FS9). In FSX, however, the bar has been raised. I keep scenery resolution at 60cm most of the time and I am usually within 500' of the surface. I'd rather fly slow (between and under trees) at 60cm than faster at 1m. Asking for 30cm source images might be insane, but I'd like to know what's the best it can do on my machine. Cpu is running at stock 3G. I put 4G of DDR2 1066 in it (timing 5-5-5-15 at 2.1v) with the 3GB switch so the system reports that I have 3.25G usable memory. Video runs quite warm but with an extra fan on it, so far nothing has 'exploded'. At some point I'll change the sim resolution to 1m and see if I can fly a little faster. I really don't know this early in the trial if I'll keep it or not but it's so 'next step' that keeping it is more likely. If I gotta fly faster I can always fly without it. I hope this gives you a little more perspective.

8/27/2008 The fringes of the hurricane from Florida spun across the mid-south last Monday, drenching us at evening rush hour. About 5 minutes after I got home and fired up the box to check e-mail, a near-by transformer went sizzle-pop and the prospects of an unpowered evening flashed across my brain as everything went quiet and dark. Adapted to the loss with a 90-second walk across the street to my son's home where we had dinner and watched about half of the Battlestar Galactica pilot on DVD. By then power was restored to the home front and FS life resumed. With fingers crossed, I engaged Tile Proxy and began a flight at Taos, NM (KSKX). I didn't visit the airport when we vacationed out there a couple of years ago, but there was some awesome scenery along the way and I wondered how well it would look with photo scenery. Quite nice, in fact. The Rio Grande flows past Taos having dug a signifcant canyon through the plain along there and carved (or found) its way through the hills just to the south. Impressive place to drive through; it's known as the Grand Canyon of the Rio Grande. Somehow, I never thought of this famous river beyond the context of "the border with Mexico"; never thought about where it came from. It was a bit of a surprise to see it in a canyon context. ---- Reporting on places that others might also be interested in seeing from the virtual skies of Flight Simulator will be one of the more frequent offerings in my commentary. I spend most of my FS time as an aerial tourist, VFR-ing my way back and forth across the country. I think what got me started was the release of USA Roads for FS9. This allowed one to do pilotage with nothing more than good road maps and I started exploring right then and have never looked back. One day I realized that some of the roads I was following were highlighted on the maps...duh! the publishers had marked scenic routes already and scenic almost always involved TERRAIN: mountains, hills, canyons - something more to see than wide vistas of "FLAT". But not all terrain is accessible to cars and one way to find some of those areas is noticing where the contour lines bunch together on a contour map. I found them online first using the NASA World Wind viewer and Google Maps also has a terrain view mode. This comes in especially handy while using the GMap utility linked to FSX. I still use the FSMMovingMap a lot because it doesn't depend on continual internet connectivity. Though the maps are getting 'dated' they're good enough for most purposes and can be edited with notes etc. I'm not quite up to 'adding user content' to Google Earth yet to document my travels, but that day will come. More from the Taos area another time. Loyd

8/25/2008 First acknowledgement: Thanks to xxmikexx for the blog location; I'd been looking for it just a few days before... In the last few days I've finally gotten around to doing a couple things that were on my FSX "to do" list: downloaded and ran benchmarking flights and spent two evenings getting Tile Proxy running. Benchmark: first off, I was curious how my stock 2-core E8400 would compare to the 4-core Q6600 (to start with) and others' systems as well. When you spend a grand or so to upgrade, you want to feel that it's money well spent. My results were satisfying - slightly better than the Q with SP1 and medium settings. When all settings were at max the performance was so minimal it doesn't matter who is 'better'. Then I added my nearly maxed out Ultimate Terrain and the marginal performance sank to an unplayable average of 5. It must be noted that 'max' includes Bloom which I turn on only if a screen shot would be improved - I don't fly with it. The great result is that I spend most of my time out in rural regions exploring canyons and following roads and rivers. There my average is 57 with fairly high settings and I DO smile about that. There's still the issue of how fast textures can load at the 60cm level of resolution. That's still not great but I just have to stick to the 100kts range. To go faster I have to give up a little of the detail, gain a little altitude and settle for 1m texture level. Good trade off to cruise in the 300-400kts range. Tile Proxy: a little tricky to get everything set correctly on the first try but once it's pulling down images the results are sometimes awesome! The 'problem' is the varying coverage and the level of detail and coloration in that coverage. Some areas have great detail - more than you can use - while other areas are wholly lacking in any fine detail. One thing that I noticed pretty quick: The alignment of default airports with the imaged photo airports... a lot of discrepancy here, particularly with the small GA airports. I'm getting the feeling that I'll be firing up the airport editor and becoming a roving airport mover. If I recall correctly, when I added the photoreal Oahu textures for FS9, it took two or three evenings to move/adjust all the runways and taxiways to align them to match the photo scenery at PHNL. Great fun! At some point, I'll surely come in from the countryside and find out how well some of the major FSX airports line up with the photo scenery. First attempt was the Florida Keys and I had mixed results there. Sunday evening I wandered all over the extensive aircraft storage areas at KDMA (Tucson) set at 30cm image resolution - quite a lot of aircraft types can be identified from their distinctive shapes. Next stop, Honolulu. So much to see! So little time! ------------------------------------------------------- Yesterday was my and my wife's 40th wedding anniversary. I spent more time with her than with FSX. Otherwise she'd be a widow and I'd be her late husband and a former Flight Sim enthusiast. ------------------------------------------------------- Loyd