FSX-- Opening the Default Aircraft-- If I choose the white 1, can't choose others

Hi,

Only so much I can list in the title before I run out of room, but trying to be as brief yet descriptive as possible. I don't always mess with the default aircraft but when I do, I notice one semi-annoying thing, and I was wondering if it's fixable?

Within each default aircraft usually tends to be various liveries with textures labeled texture.1, texture.2, etc. But then there is usually one plain white one, just labeled "texture". It usually has the '[aircraft_name]_bump.dds' file and the extra doo-dads that are aliased to the other liveries' texture folders via the texture.cfg file.

But something very odd happens. So long as I avoid that plain white aircraft, and just toggle around the selections of the other liveries it will change liveries just fine. But if I select the white livery, and then try to pick another one, the white livery will get stuck no matter what other livery I try to select (within that aircraft).

The only solution is either picking another plane altogether, and then going back to an alternate livery of the plane I was originally stuck in (but this sometimes doesn't always work). Or exiting the simulator altogether and starting from scratch.

Does anybody know what causes this phenomenon and how to stop it from happening?

Thank you,

-- John

Hope you like a lot of reading! https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?286520-Texture-loading-on-the-default-172

This should give a good explanation of how they screwed up the default texture packages on some models.

Well Mr. Zippy, I like a lot of reading just so long as it offers a means to an end and a solution to the problem. In this case I saw a lot of guessing and food for thought, but the side link that Jim Robinson directed to...

----

dead ended with a "non-permission-to-view" notice on what looked like an ORBX web site. So no ultimate solution.

But I did find interesting when Jim Robinson said-- -- to rename the "master white aircraft" 'texture.common' instead of just 'texture'; and then change the name to that in the texture.cfg file. Though in essence, aren't you just winding up with the same issue, the only difference being that the problem now has a different name?

I think the only practical solution is to treat the white default aircraft in each section as merely a "place-holder" that is not to be selected to fly, but rather as a repository or storage space for the additional texture files that are *NOT* included in the other (more colorful) liveries of that given default aircraft. The white aircraft livery is simply there to alias the contents of its texture folder to the other liveries (via the texture.cfg file), since those other liveries do not have all the same files in their texture folders. They just have enough to make their colors/logos/liveries different. And I guess the logic there would be, "Who in their right mind would want to fly a plain white aircraft anyway?" So that should be my first clue that it's merely there as a functional place-holder for data. I'm guessing it's not really meant to be flown! LOL (At least if I wish to avoid the problem I described).

I believe another possible solution would be to simply ignore or forget the aliasing of the texture.cfg file and manually copy and paste all the extra files from the texture folder of the white plane to the alternate colorful liveries ('texture.1', 'texture.2', etc)-- (minus the main .dds templates that distinguish one livery from the other). I mean the global texture images that were given to the white aircraft, but not given to all the alternate liveries. Then texture.1, texture.2, etc. each have the full array of textures in their folders (just like the white plane does), without having to alias the white plane. Then store the texture.cfg file in a safe place (in case I need it again), and see if I can successfully toggle between the white livery and the other liveries, without it getting stuck on the white one.

At the end of the day though, not really sure just how worth it, it is. Many folks I talk to simply don't worry about the default aircraft all that much.

-- John

Nag nag nag.

The solution works just fine. 4800 people used it without issue.

40 posts in there to write it down. Sounds like you only read the first 10.

Stop complaining about fsx all the time will you.

If you had just typed "white aircrtaft" in the search box, arranging posts by date, you would have seen this was the 9th on the list.

5169 views.

that means around 300-400 views to fix this, and 4800 views since then.

Since then only 8 posts asking about this.

Meaning everyone was able to find the solution, and fix it, on their own.

You need to ask, and you still don't get it.

Then you start nagging that fsx is no good, planes are no good, etc.

Why? No idea.

I think you should stop being so negative.

If you don't like it, change it. FSX is fantastic in that it lets you do that. You might even learn something.

Nag nag nag.

Nag? Who's nagging? I'm hardly ever on here these days. Look at my post history and see when was the last time I posted on this site before this. And if I do post, it's usually on the FS9 forum. I hardly ever post on FSX.

Suggest you look up the dictionary definition of nagging. Nagging implies constant and repetitive comment on the same subject. I asked for the first time EVER last night, and have only made one comment to my own post (which as the OP, I have every right to). And the vast majority of my comment was my own attempt to try to "self-help" and come up with my own solution, while "thinking out loud".

The solution works just fine. 4800 people used it without issue.

Well good for them! I'm the 4,801st and I haven't found it yet; And your point is?

Big deal! Care to string me up and drag me through the village square for it?

40 posts in there to write it down. Sounds like you only read the first 10.

1. Write it down? Write *WHAT* down? I thought I'm reading, not writing.

2. Your point about there being 40 posts on the original link may be your only valid point. If they were spread out over 4 pages, and I only saw the first page, then my mistake and I apologize. But that doesn't give you the right to go all gang-busters on me.

Stop complaining about fsx all the time will you.

Complaining... who's complaining? I asked a simple question, and you made it out to be more than it was. I have nothing against FSX. Where do you see a track record of my complaining about FSX? Look in my user profile. I defy you to find anything where I blatantly put down FSX. If anything my questions might be borne from confusion, and an overall misunderstanding of the platform-- compared to FS9-- but never once have I ever created a post, just to blatantly complain, without there being a constructive question to ask.

Overall, I'm a little surprised by your verbal attack, and why you choose to misdirect your anger at me. Last I looked we don't all work for a firm and get paid money to do this. You're not my boss or co-worker. This is a hobby. It's supposed to be fun. Attack or accusatory language has no place in here.

The default aircraft are just fine.

The method explained in the thread works fine. make a Texture folder as instructed,

make a texture.white folder as instructed.

Then put only the texture.white folder in the aircraft.cfg file.

But you did not even try it out. You decided to complain about the default aircraft instead.

Angers me that. You ask. Many people have put a lot of time into a solution. But you don't even try it out. Don't ask a follow up question. You just start complaining.

I think the only practical solution is to treat the white default aircraft in each section as merely a "place-holder" that is not to be selected to fly, but rather as a repository or storage space for the additional texture files that are *NOT* included in the other (mor...

No reason to not fly them. Wasn't that what your question was asking for... Also, very usefull for repaints.

dead ended with a "non-permission-to-view" notice on what looked like an ORBX web site. So no ultimate solution.

That was explained in that thread.

Many folks I talk to simply don't worry about the default aircraft all that much.

Well, ok then. I thought you did.

Nothing wrong with liking fs9. I like it too.

I just don't like people getting negative about default fsx. It's what everything you do like about it was based on after all.

Sorry if I overreacted.

If you had just typed "white aircrtaft" in the search box, arranging posts by date, you would have seen this was the 9th on the list.

5169 views.

1. First I only know how to do simple searches in the search box, not all that versed at arranging posts by dates and counting how many places down on a list a post is and how many views it got. I tried a simple search, it got me no where, I wasn't going to waste another hour trying to search endlessly, so I created a new post that took me all of 10 minutes. If you don't like it... sue me! Not everyone is into the search box. For me, going on a forum is not just about extracting raw information. It's also about being social and talking to people, and asking new questions. Not extracting an answer to a question that's 10 years old. Nothing terribly social about that. For me, sometimes asking questions is my way of being social and communicating with others. It's my style.... learn to like it, learn to love it.

I have a theory about people who are constantly harping on the search box. It's people who feel they are "above" helping others who have questions. Well, I don't cow-tow to other people's snobbery. If I have a question, I'll bloody-well ask the questions, whether the search box is there or not, and you as a member, can either choose to politely ignore it, if you feel I should make a better effort to search myself, or you can offer the answer or a link to the answer, if you know where it is.

And in the time it took for you to berate me, you can have provided the link. And speaking of which, which link are you talking about? The one Mr. Zippy offered me, or are you talking about a whole new link? You speak so generically about all this, your overall tone come across more as criticizing then as an actual attempt to help me.

that means around 300-400 views to fix this, and 4800 views since then.

Since then only 8 posts asking about this.

And again... your point is? That you're far superior to me at extracting statistical data out of the search box? That's pretty pedantic and elitist... don't you think? And all of it at my expense. And all I wanted to know was about white planes! And I get my head bitten off. How ironic is that?

Meaning everyone was able to find the solution, and fix it, on their own.

Well and maybe I will too if and when I find that piece of information within the 40 posts, if in fact we're still talking about the same link that Mr. Zippy offered in post #2 of my thread. Now if you're referring to the link that Mr. Robinson offered (within Zippy's link), then as I discussed, that is a closed ORBX link with no access. So again, before you accuse me of laziness and wrong doing, I hope you have your facts straight. And if you do, then that will be readily apparent when I dig through the post and find the answer.

You need to ask, and you still don't get it.

Yup! Some learn faster than others. Again, I'm not paid to do this, I never said I was an expert. And if I'm one of the old fashioned type that prefer to use this forum like a social hang-out to be friendly, talk to people, and get my answers that way, instead of using some cold, calculated, and statistical "search box" that can waste my time and lead me any which way.... then that's my choice. And you need to respect that.

Then you start nagging that fsx is no good, planes are no good, etc.

Why? No idea.

And there you go again with that nagging and complaining thing. I thought we sorted that out in your previous post. How many times have I complained about anything, other than being confused at times and asking a lot of questions (some of which could theoretically be answered in the "search box" notwithstanding)?

You act like I have it out for FSX, and I don't. I began my flight sim experience with X-Plane 7, found it was limited in scenery, then moved to FS9, and have enjoyed its stability-- perfect for my hit and miss experimentation on things without totally crashing the computer. Then got curious about FSX-SE, bought it, it was buggy at first with quite a few crashes, but Dovetail has since fixed a lot of it, it's currently running smoother than ever on my computer, and quite the opposite: I'm actually quite impressed with FSX and am ready to sing its praises. Just I had this one question about the default aircraft, that I had meant to ask for years, but it never seemed important enough, so I didn't get around to asking until now.

And for that, I've earned the title of "Nagger" and "Complainer"? You my man are unfair!

Oh really? Now you do have me thoroughly baffled. I totally have to question where you're coming from with that comment. Is there a section in the "search box" for that?

 

If you don't like it, change it. FSX is fantastic in that it lets you do that.

I'm sure it does! I've already learned that on my own... thank you very much.

 

You might even learn something.

Yes... learned not to ask you for advice. You don't answer questions. You ream people for not finding the answers the way *YOU* think they ought to be found. And that my friend is snobbish and elitist.

 

Now excuse me, while I scan the 40 posts and try to solve my problem... myself.

Yes, stil same link.

Glad to see you're going to try it now.:)

It's well explained, I'm sure you'll get it.

Yes, stil same link.

Glad to see you're going to try it now.:)

 

It's well explained, I'm sure you'll get it.

Well... our personal jabs aside, I'm happy for your vote of confidence. I'll let you know what I come up with. Thank you for a little clue on what exactly I can expect to read in greater detail. Even that was a help.

Sorry if some of my comments were uncalled for. I guess I got you riled up, you got me riled up, around and around we went. Best we let it go.

-- John

Well... our personal jabs aside, I'm happy for your vote of confidence. I'll let you know what I come up with. Thank you for a little clue on what exactly I can expect to read in greater detail. Even that was a help.

 

Sorry if some of my comments were uncalled for. I guess I got you riled up, you got me riled up, around and around we went. Best we let it go.

 

-- John

yes.

Well, glad I stayed out of that one!:eek: I was hoping, John, that you would have started at post#1 and read through them all. That's why I said "a lot of reading".

Yes, for some odd reason it never dawned on me that it extended 3 additional pages. Once I read the rest of them what 'il88pp' had to say made a LOT more sense. He basically went through the whole darn thing and answered all my questions in exacting detail in his #19 post in your original link. I have since copied and pasted his entire explanation onto a Word .doc file that I will save on my hard drive, and I plan on printing and implementing all his suggestions.

I now have a better understanding as to why he was so irritated with me earlier today. He was probably under the presumption that I had read the whole thing, chose to ignore all the carefully laid out explanation, and just chose to say it can't be done and to ignore flying the planes. I guess I would be kind of irritated too if I were him... now that I think about it with the shoe on the other foot. My fault for not finding pages 2-4 before stating my reply in #3 of this post.

In reading all the other people who replied to the January 2015 post, I see there were many people who had different ideas as to how this was going to get done. I guess whatever works for one in order to stop the white plane from appearing when selecting other liveries, is what is best.

I will have to read up a bit more on the purpose of the 'texture.common' folder and what its function really is supposed to be. My argument (after having read through all four pages of that post) is once you've gotten the white livery textures for that white plane out of the "texture" folder and put it in its own "texture.white' folder, why call the master texture folder (with the shared textures) 'texture.common'? Why not keep the name 'texture' (without any suffix after a dot)? But I'm sure 'il88pp' explained that well. I will just have to give it a read once more, which is why I often prefer to print and read stuff off of paper, instead of off the computer, while I'm trying to fiddle with the files on the screen at the same time.

Thank you again, and sorry if I made an as* out of myself this afternoon. I think I falsely perceived a verbal attack against me, and reacted stronger than I should have. At the end of the day, I believe the man was only trying to help, but had already discussed this ad-nauseam back in January 2015, and he probably felt little need to get into it again in March 2016. I reckon I don't blame him. My ineffective use of the search box should probably be my bigger concern.

That analysis was spot on!:)

no hard feelings, happy flights,

il.

YOUR PROBLEM IS CAUSED BY THE COMMON TEXTURE FOLDER HAVING A (stupid oversight) **THUMBNAIL** IN THERE. IT DON'T BELONG THERE. REMOVE IT.

It's not only the default airplanes that use that 'common' texture method. I hate that method. So I extract those to a temp folder and 'fix' (read on).

What I do is look inside each paint variation folder (ie: 'texture.xx) and will change the name of the 'texture.cfg' to 'texture.cfg.bck' (and say YES to warning of changing extension). You won't be needing it as you will see.

I copy the individual folders (model, panel, sound) over to 'Sim Objects' folder. Now you have an airplane. Now all you need is the texture(s) (with thumbnail).

So then I copy over from temp the 'texture.xxx' folders (but leave the 'texture' (common) folder. Then go into 'texture' (common) folder and copy CONTENTS (xx.bmp or xx.dds files) into each 'texture.xxx' folder and say NO to overwrite warning. When you get done you no longer NEED any of the files in the 'texture' (common) folder so delete or ignore.

Now you have all the textures you need in each folder and have no need for the 'texture.cfg'. Now you can do anything you want to any texture folder and nothing is 'lost' (due to that (phoney and bogus) 'alias', or, 'texture.cfg' method). I like to keep it simple. This is a LITTLE work, but it works.

So, if you do this to your 'problem' default airplane you will find that you have solved the problem, did not have to read a book (books?), or get attacked by vicious and toxic plants (ie:string beans) (hehe).

Chuck B

Napamule

Not the best idea, ormaybe I just don't see it.

If you do that, and copy all files from folder "Texture" to the other texture folders, and then delete folder "Texture", you will cause some issues.

-1- you lose the white plane.

-2- the texture.cfg file poins to three folders, not just to that folder "Texture". delete the texture.cfg and you lose the last fallbacks.

(This is the contents of a texture .cfg file.)

[fltsim]

 

fallback.1=..\texture

fallback.2=..\..\..\..\Scenery\Global\texture

fallback.3=..\..\..\..\..\..\Scenery\Global\texture

-3- You will need to add those files from folder "Texture" to every addon paint you install. So deleting it is not a good idea.

-4- You will have many copies of each file, where only one is needed. I have 45 repaints of the 737 installed. each folder contains only 6 files. Wih your method each would contain 44.

Napa Mule,

Thanks for your input and thoughts on an alternate method. However, I had already implemented 'il88pp' 's method as outlined in his instructions. It seems to have worked and yielded the results I was after. What's more, I was able to find the "phantom" red & gold C172 livery (for which the default white plane had accidentally been labeled)-- inspired by Mr. Zippy's mention of it-- (in a separate flightsim.com library search); and now I've also added that to the list. I can freely toggle into the white plane anytime I want, and toggle to any other livery in the aircraft-set, and it will not "stick me with the white plane". Problem appears to be solved.

I will however, also save your suggestions on hard drive .doc file, in case I ever need to refer to your methodology in the future. Thank you again. Nice to hear from you... it has been awhile. I myself have recently moved from the San Francisco Bay Area, to the California Central Valley. A little more laid back atmosphere, less traffic, and quite frankly the real estate prices are a bit more to my wallet's liking. ;-)

-- John

IL88PP,

Well... to make a long story short, your 3 page instruction in Post #19 of that January 2015 link worked. Followed it all from stem to stern and yes... that's what it took.

I'm still not entirely sure the theory behind it and why having the white texture linked or anchored to the "shared" texture folder created all the hoop-lah that I was having problems with. But if it's fixed I'm not going to complain about it or question it. The matter has an answer and that's the important part.

What's more I plan to save your instructions and use them to implement the same solution to all the other default aircraft that nest one livery's texture into the master "shared" texture folder. And there are probably many of them. The b737, the 747, the Mooney this, the Piper that... etc etc etc. I haven't even considered all the possibilities that share the same issue, but I'm sure I'll find them. The important thing is now I at least know the formula for fixing it.

I was even successful in "backwards-porting" (is that the right word?) the "IRIS T-6A Texan II SP2" aircraft from my P3D setup into FSX, and notice that, that aircraft too exhibits the same white texture nested in the "shared" texture issue. Now I know how to adjust that one too!

Thank you again,

-- John

That's way too much credit. Jim Robinson and StringBean:) played a huge part in that thread too. :)

Glad to hear you got it working, enjoy!

That's way too much credit. Jim Robinson and StringBean:) played a huge part in that thread too. :)

Glad to hear you got it working, enjoy!

Well then, my apologies for not applying credit to the others too. Thank you StringBean & Jim Robinson!

You're welcome (hehe).

I live in Visalia for 2 years and Exeter for 3 years and couldn't take the 'Thule Fog' where you can't see 2 ft in front of you. AND the heat in summer. And the mosquitos. And the flie and nats. But I had a good time fishing Kaweah Lake every weekend. Camped out there too. Lots of memories. Now I can enjoy the weather in Prunedale area.

Chuck B

Napamule