brian747

Hmm, mine could be a fairly long list, headed up by Concorde, of course.But if I had to choose just one, in all fairness I guess I'd have to go with my first love — the VC10. Sheer grace!Cheers,Brian

Hi Dan!Great to hear from you, as always. B) That's cool — many thanks indeed. :( I do think that limiter is a great idea: it makes it so much easier not to destroy the illusion by suddenly finding yourself outside the cockpit sitting on the wing.: <rueful grin> I know exactly what you mean. Having posted everything from tutorials to voice sets in various forums over the years I have to say that the number of follow-up emails I've replied to as courteously as I can (when the real answer should have been "Why the **** don't you just try it and see what happens?") is fairly huge. I'm always happy to help anyone who is genuinely lost, but strident demands for hand-holding in spite of the fact that the question has already been answered in what I originally provided do make me begin to wonder why I bothered..... That's fantastic: I very much look forward to seeing the results of your expertise. :( I'm happy to hear it gets easier! But I can see that the mappings must be critical (and also have to work nicely with the mappings you have already set up). Ahhhhhh..... Is *that* what's going on? I thought it was something I did (or, more likely, didn't). Thank you for that, too! Don't hold your breath! B) Yes pretty please, Dan — as you know, I'm not looking for something that's immediately usable without any modifications, it's just that an example has to be a whole heap better than no defined cameras at all (which is all I've currently got)! That sounds great!Many thanks for the tip about world views, too: it could have taken me a while to work out what was happening in that scenario!I look forward to receiving your camera positions whenever you're ready, my friend. :( Every good wish,Brian

Hi Brad! Hmm, well there's something of a mystery about that. Someone did post a few months ago saying that they had developed such a panel and would seek permission from PMDG to release it. Since then, nothing, nada, silence.....Such a pity, when so many of us are now using widescreen panels. :( Yes indeed, I use one with the DA (now supported by Flight1) Fokker, and it really is a big improvement. Best wishes,Brian

Hi Dan! Wow - fantastic! If (pretty please) you could share it, I'll buy EZCA instantly. Even with the b***** Flight1 wrapper to contend with at installation time! Mind you, having read the EZCA manual, taken some headache pills, and read it again, I think EZCA could definitely be the biggest challenge. So your camera set would certainly give me a flying start. :( <gulp> OK, Maestro, I'll take your word for it. But as we all know, a good example is worth a ton of theoretical descriptions in manuals. :( I reckon I'm more in the "gain a lot of grey hair and/or go bald from ripping it out at the roots" category....Best wishes,BrianP.S. If you don't want to post it generally yet, I believe you <hint alert> know my private email address.....? :(

Hi Markus!Do you by any chance have an EZCA camera set for the MD-11 that you would be willing to share with us? :( Best wishes,Brian

Hi Dan!<sigh> Reading this thread has brought me to the point where I'm seriously thinking of joining the TIR+EZCA club. Doing some preliminary reading on both TIR and EZCA, though, inclines me to the belief that whereas a Track-IR profile such as Bojote's will be fine for most aircraft, profiles for EZCA are something else again. Am I right in thinking that it installs cameras for only the default aircraft, so the list is initially empty if you're flying PMDG? :( That rings a bell with me, too. Was it Markus, in the MD-11 forum? (I've just had a quick look, but couldn't find the post I had in mind).[Later edit] It was on the MD-11 forum, in reply to the "Will the PMDG team will release a custom EZCA profile in future?" topic back on August 9th. Hmm. If Markus hasn't cracked it in over two months, maybe I'm right to be worried? :( But I'm getting the distinct feeling that tried and tested EZCA camera profiles for PMDG aircraft are likely to be in high demand, soon. :( (Incidentally, I second your thoughts about the EZCA forum — it's a very different experience to being here, that's for sure!).Cheers,Brian

Ahhhhh - thank you for that, Dan. I think you may well have just resolved something that has puzzled me occasionally (but quite a lot, when it happened!)! :( Best wishes,Brian

Robert, thank you.Most sincerely,Brian

Hi Adrian!Yes, I well remember their post, since I was very keen to try it out. The poster said he was going on holiday and asked for patience, which he duly got. The odd thing was, when I came to look for that post again a few weeks later, it had mysteriously disappeared (at least, I spent quite a while searching for it with no success). So I posted asking for news, and now that post seems to have disappeared too. Hmm. Conspiracy theorists will make of this what they will... But I don't remember reading that permission had been refused (and, as you pointed out, there's a precedent for this). Furthermore, it's obvious that a widescreen implementation would be a big improvement, as well as being a fairly simple update that seems somewhat overdue.Cheers,Brian

You're at EGCC, according to your profile. So these ought to keep you happy for a while..... :( They're often prettier than the ones from Navigraph, too. But I couldn't fly without them, let alone do the flight planning..... Cheers,Brian

I'm not fundamentally disagreeing with you, John, but Jersey (EGJJ) is part of the UK, and if I remember correctly the TA there is 3000 ft? :( Cheers,Brian

Hi Eddy!Thank you: I'll certainly check out the videos on that site (and also the use of Sony Vegas — I guess that's something of an improvement on Microsoft's MovieMaker, huh? )Cheers and thanks,Brian

Brilliant video, Eddy! Any chance of you producing a tutorial on video making, for those of us that are just beginners? :Praying: Cheers and thanks,Brian

Hi Qas!I can recommend the PMDG Type Rating tutorials 1 - 4. Get them hereCheers,Brian

Looks like a fun add-on. Download and installation were flawless, given PMDG's excellent documentation. Rather than leaping straight in to carrying big lumps of cargo (although I configured the Shift-C keystroke, ready to go), I first took the lady on a gentle spin from Heathrow and back, with an autoland at the end so I could watch the external views.She bounced! :o I've never seen that (well, not on an autoland, anyway) before, so I'm wondering if I mis-configured something, or whether I've missed something in the docs that tells me not to try an autoland?Next time I'll land the enormous beast the old-fashioned way!But I look forward to getting to know her better — and perhaps treating her more gently! Cheers,Brian

I'm 2 nm from rwy 06 at EGLF (and just to one side of the glidepath, which doesn't stop them from taking off right over my roof, but you know what these pilots are like....). :( Farnborough is probably best known for the bi-annual International Airshow, of course, but what is less well known is that it is now a private airfield owned by TAG Aviation (see this link for info and pictures) who have spent a great deal of money on it, including providing full ILS and other state of the art additions.Its space-age looks led to it being used in a recent Bond film, but the real attraction is its close proximity to London, and the fact that it is mainly used for business jets and the luxury end of the market — although one does also see a few freighters going in and out from time to time.If you're looking for a different destination that's easy to find, give it a try! Mind you, given its close proximity to London Heathrow, RAF Odiham, and Blackbushe, it needs to be approached with care..... :(

Hi!Maybe my brain's fried with too much simming, but I seem to recall a post a little while ago from someone who had developed a version of the 2D panel for widescreen monitors. He was awaiting permission from PMDG to release it and then disappeared for a fortnight, urging patience.But here's the odd thing

Hi Dan!Further to the above (and YMMV and all that jazz) I was scanning through this thread from NickN to see if there was anything new, and noticed that he says: In which case, using 14 instead of 84 would be the preferred way to go

Hi Dan!I feel I should enter a Minority Report on this AffinityMask business. I use this -[JOBSCHEDULER]AffinityMask=84Be aware that I have never seen this figure quoted by anyone else (so regard it as simply my two cents' worth), but there is a reason why I choose to use that number. If you follow this brief explanation, though, it might help you to figure out what to use in your own case.I have a core i7 processor, in a machine whose BIOS doesn't give me the option to shut down hyperthreading. So effectively I'm dealing with 8 processors (which is what I see in Task Mangler), consisting of four real cores and four virtual. Hence my affinity mask of 84.Here's my logic: 84 = 01010100 So (reading backwards from the right, as required, and taking into account suppressing those hyperthreading virtual cores): 0 OFF 1st core thread 1 (But still runs fibers (terrain)) 0 OFF 1st virtual core thread 2 1 ON 2nd core thread 1 (Main scheduler) 0 OFF 2nd virtual core thread 2 1 ON 3rd core thread 1 (Texture manager) 0 OFF 3rd virtual core thread 2 1 ON 4th core thread 1 (Texture manager) 0 OFF 4th virtual core thread 2Which is how I arrived at 84. I hope I've got it right, although it seems to work pretty well for me, so I've stuck with it.Back to the mainstream: for those with a quad core (or the ones who have disabled hyperthreading on their i7s) the equivalent of the above would be 14. Again, here's the logic:14 is 1110, so this is what we get (reading backwards from the right-hand end, as usual): CORE0 = OFF i.e. running fibers (terrain system) CORE1 = ON = Main Scheduler CORE2 = ON = Texture Manager CORE3 = ON = Texture ManagerThe figure of 14 above is *******'s recommendation, of course: all I did to arrive at 84 was to extend his logic to also switch off the four virtual cores that the hyperthreading insists on giving me.As ******* Bojote wrote: The Maestro's comments on this (as always) make very interesting reading (if you're interested, here's a good place to start.)Cheers,BrianP.S. Yes, I think we're all waiting for Ryan to release the guide! :(

Thanks for the link, Jim, but.....As its name suggests, doesn't this utility only change the priority of the process. not the core it's associated with? :( Cheers,Brian[Edit

Hi Patrick!Welcome to the club, sadly. :( You'll find that you're by no means alone

There can be some aspects of running fsx on W7 (perhaps especially W7 64-bit) which may cause problems. But your immediate problem is that blue screens are not especially friendly things to deal with.I would suggest

Might be the UIAutomationCore problem? :( (Follow this link if you need to know more).Best of luck,Brian

Hi dazz!I'm about to test this (i.e. I haven't yet). But go to this page and scroll right down until you find the post by gkair2 on May 5th at 11:57 AM, headed "THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE UIAUTOMATIONCORE.DLL FILE CAUSES OTHER DLL FILES TO MALFUNCTION!"Edit -addition: You may need to be aware of the issue dealt with here, too...I'll be testing this myself, soon.....Hope it helps,Cheers,Brian

Hi Ryan!The weeks are going by..... Any news on a release date for the eagerly-anticipated guide? :( Cheers,Brian