ConstVoid

The only time I've seen anything like this was when I had a menu open in FS - the aircraft selection menu or settings menu. I noticed FSMeteo's status line wasn't updating,closed the menu and everything was OK after that.Ian

Also check out the Geezer Guide: http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~speedy/pmd...%20Version5.docI found this very useful.Ian

It just gets better and better!

Cypilot,The updated wav files that you install as part of the update to 3.1 will fix your speedbird problem. See the post at the top of the forum entitled 'Build 2269 - Uploaded May 9, 2004' for details.Ian

Re: your FL350 problem. See the section in the RC manual called 'ATC Airspace Structure'. When you're flying between FL240 and FL330 you're under the control of the 'High Controller'. When you request FL350, the high controller will clear you to his maximum altitude (FL330), and will then ask you to contact the 'Super Controller', who controls all airspace at FL350 and above.Hope that helps.Ian

Excellent :-)

Thanks Michael & Scott.I'm not sure about the 'no accent' though, Scott. Michael definitely sounds American to me ;-)Ian

Just as an addendum to this topic - the Traffic Toolbox SDK has now been released by Microsoft. Not only does it include the 'tactical display' (now called Traffic Map), but also a utility called Traffic Explorer, which seems to allow a fair a amount of control of AI aircraft.I'll still be looking forward to RC V4, but until then it looks like there's a manual way to avoid conflicts with the AI.Ian

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I was talking about the AI tactical display (I think this was known in FS2002 as AIview) not Pete Dowson's traffic look.The tactical display in FS2002 had an option to selectively delete AI aircraft, which was useful to remove aircraft which were about to encroach on your airspace/groundspace.If the predictions are correct (that a version compatible with FS2004 will be included in the AI SDK) then this can be used to avoid conflicts. JD says that RC v4 will prevent AI traffic from causing conflicts by vectoring them around the user's aircraft and/or forcing them to hold short of the runway on which you're about to land. Until then, the crude method of deleting the AI aircraft using the tactical display program will be one way of avoiding the problem.Hope that's more clear.Ian

A number of reliable sources have said that if/when MS release the AI SDK it will include the AI tactical display that some may have used with FS2002 (in that release it was MS debug code that could be enabled via a third-party module).If this is the case it should include an option to delete an AI aircraft with a few clicks of the mouse/keyboard, and should enable us to zap those b******* that taxi onto the runway and cause so many go-arounds.This will have to do, until jd and team have v4 ready.Ian

Sounds good - thanks jd

It looks like v4 will be great!Just one comment on: "i will not clear you onto the runway for takeoff until all the arriving ai planes have landed, and all planes are off the runway"I think it's fairly normal (at least in the UK) for aircraft to be told to line-up after the landing aircraft - ie they don't have to wait until the landing aircraft has left the runway, just until it has passed the aircraft waiting to enter the runway. Of course this is assuming there's enough spacing between one landing aircraft and the next.I think this would decrease the delay in getting away from busy airports. MS ATC always waits for the aircraft to leave the runway before clearing the next aircraft to position and hold, and I'm convinced this is one of the major causes of the long lines of aircraft waiting to take-off at places like Heathrow.Ian

I agree it doesn't happen too frequently. It's probably best to leave things asis, rather than make the altimeter calls more frequent.Ian

No - that option is not available when using FSMeteo. I don't think it would do anything here anyway, as I was within the FSMeteo destination lock distance which I've set to 42 miles. Within this distance FSMeteo only sends the destination airport data to FSUIPC, not other airport data. KJFK's pressure was constant at 30.35 throughout this time.What I think was happening was that while I was further away than 42 miles FSMeteo had set the weather for various airports around KJFK, and the effect I was seeing was due to FS2004 interpolating the weather between KJFK and these other airports.If I understand previous comments made by Pete Dowson, FSUIPC can only affect the weather data as it is sent from external programs (like FSMeteo), not the way FS2004 interprets/interpolates that weather once it has it.To be honest it's not a major problem (I tend not to listen to the critique these days), but it would be nice for RC to tell me about the pressure changes before I get busted :)Ian

I guess it's too late to change now, but perhaps since it's still in beta ;) Yesterday I was flying into KJFK, being vectored by Approach. I had FSMeteo running and I was getting some very strange altimeter calls - the pressure was ranging from around 29.95 to 30.35. I've no doubt that this was due to FS2004 and/or FSMeteo (possibly one of the nearby stations had out-of-date weather), but RC didn't handle it too well.Every time the pressure changed, RC first accused me of busting my altitude, then afterwards it gave me the "your assigned altitude is ..., altimeter ..." message. I would have thought RC should have advised of the altimeter change first, giving a chance to avoid the "you've busted your altitude again" calls. After all it's ATC's responsibility to give you the new altimeter settings, isn't it?Perhaps something you could look into for RC4?Ian

Phil,The problem may not be due to RC. The PSS aircraft do not react too well to reloading from a saved flight. I believe the problem is that none of the gauge data is saved/reloaded, so the aircraft is left in an indeterminate state.Unfortunately I don't think PSS intend to fix this.Ian

Ray,Just to let you know G-BOAC was in fine form on Monday when she visited Birmingham.I was listening on approach frequency as she arrived, and the controller asked the crew how they wanted to play it - would they like to overfly first? They readily agreed and were instructed to overfly the airport at 2500 ft, before being vectored west over the city and then downwind for a landing on 33. She then taxied all the way round the airport past quite a few airside spectators, and between 8-10000 of us standing in the 11 knot northerly wind in the viewing area. It was a magnificent experience (but bitterly cold!).I wasn't able to stay for the takeoff, but I was listening to tower as she was given clearance, and although I live about 4 miles from the airport I swear I could hear the roar of those 4 Olympus engines from home.Ian( Edit: east changed to west - bearings are so much easier :-) )

Scott,OK - you got me there! In fact I'm full of admiration for the time and effort you guys have put into recording these voice sets, and to you in particular for pulling them together. I don't think I'd ever find the time to record one - in recent weeks I've hardly even found time to fly!Just a few final thoughts on the matter though:There are an ever-increasing list of new airlines that people have requested. Add to this the request to have real airport and waypoint names, and as you say it puts an impossibly onerous task on all of the voice artists to record.If instead each voice artist recorded a syllable set (I'm guessing less than 100 wavs) then these could be compiled programatically to form the wav files for the new airlines and airports. In fact, if this were extended to include the existing airlines and center names, then future voice artists would in fact have fewer wavs to record, and you might have more volunteers.Of course I'm not sure how the process of combining the syllables into wav files would actually work, and the program to do this would take quite some effort, but as with Lars's EditVoicepack it must be do-able.Anyway, I think I've written enough on the subject, so I'll get off the soap-box now. :-)Ian

Couldn't a hybrid solution be used? Continue to use wav files for often-repeated phrases, but use synthesis based on syllables for airport names etc.EditVoicePack seems to do a reasonable job using this method for extra airlines with the default ATC. Couldn't RC do something similar?Ian

When starting FS9 you could place your aircraft at the airport and gate you're going to use as the start of your FSNavigator plan. Then create your plan and when you load it into the FS9 planner you could tell it not to move the aicraft (because it's already there) and you would avoid the second scenery load.Ian

BC,We're discussing the PSS A330. I guess this should really be in the PSS forum.The 'LDG INHIBIT' message is a perfectly normal message during the landing phase indicating that certain informational messages have been suppressed from the display so that it is not cluttered. It does not indicate that you are prevented from landing.Ian

I think this has been mentioned before, but I get 'turn left/right x'. There's no 'degrees' mentioned. I think I even looked for a 'degrees' wav file but never found one - should I have one?Ian

Your EW/D seems to indicate that you never completed the take-off configuration check. I'm not saying this is the true cause of your problem, but it implies you're not following the correct procedures. Have you tried the tutorial flights? These will guide you though all the important stages of flying the bus.Ian

A 40 GHz hard drive must be quite something - that's up in the infra red somewhere!

In FS2002 there was an add-on (I can't remember the name) which enabled the AI Debug code left in by Microsoft, and opened a window which displayed all the AI in the area around your aircraft.One of the nice features of this was that you could select an AI aircraft and hit the Delete key to remove it. This was very useful if the AI was getting in the way.I wonder if the equivalent code is in FS2004, and if someone can enable it?Ian