RE: Realflight G5Coming Soon
[quote]ORIGINAL: johndou Why would you assume that the description on the side of the box about minimum requirements and some “some graphical features may be disabled� is a statement from the “software� developer. It’s a statement from “RealFlight� the owners, producers, marketers, etc. of the product. KnifeEdge is nothing more then a third party hired by RealFlight to write the software. KnifeEdge may be the original developer. But, RealFlight, a subsidiary of GreatPlanes creates the advertising and distributes the product ... not KnifeEdge. I don't know KnifeEdge's contractual obligations with RealFlight, but I have read statements on their website which indicate that RealFlight and not KnifeEdge make the decisions about what features to include or not include in the software. There is nowhere in the minimum requirements statement that says anything about some of the features being “diminished�. It states that they will be “disabled�. But, then it doesn’t say what will be disabled either. It also doesn’t mention that some of the standard features, in fact, will be diminished or disabled either. Features like shadows, smoke, trees and scenary or even clouds. Features that most people would think they can have with “minimum requirements�. It’s not until after you buy the product that most people discover these issues. When and or where have I ever stated that I don’t like RealFlight? I don’t like the one sided reviews of their products. The constant praise of the obviously bug filled software. Or their misleading advertising. Until recently I highly disliked their upgrade policy - I’m still not thrilled with it. I don’t like the way people who try to present an unbiased opinion of their products are treated. The way people have been banned from websites because they may say something that isn't flatering about the product. I don’t like a company encouraging the buyers of their product to conspire together to fill posts such as this one with praise for their product. I have on numerous occasions recommended RealFlight on this website as well as others. But, I fall well short of telling people that it will run on their older computer, or that they’ll be thrilled with the product running on their minimum requirements machine - like some “experts� seem to do. Instead I tell them that they may find that what they thought they were buying isn’t what they’ll see on their computer screen. For a true understanding of how your computer will run RealFlight you need to download the ''demo'' and go into the settings portion of the program and turn things on that the ''demo'' has turned off. Then try to fly. [/quote] Whether the statement came from Knife Edge or Great Planes is to me, in the context of this discussion, really a matter of semantics. It's a statement intended to relay to the user how the application will work on lower end systems using simple language. While it may be vague in its description it is an accurate statement that fits within the space allotted on the box. You can't fit all of what you would like on the outside of a box and there is plenty of information available on the web that if people were interested in researching their purchase they could find out what things are diminished or disabled. If they couldn't find the information they wanted all they need to do is ask, people are answering questions here, on other RC boards and over at the Knife Edge forums everyday. Where have you said you don't like RealFlight? I don't know if you have ever actually said that or not, nor do I have the inclination to go searching. The reason I suggested pulling up stakes and going to something you like is because you seem so angry over just about everything involving the software that it just doesn't seem like it would be worthwhile to continue using a product which apparently causes you so much anger. At some point it has to be healthier to just go away from the thing that causes you such stress and irritation. You are right about the demo, people should download it and try it out on their system. They should download the demo, ask questions, watch videos on youtube and in general do their homework before they put down $200 and then they'll know for sure what to expect. RealFlight isn't perfect, look at the writeup I did on it earlier in this thread and you'll see I have some issues with it as well, but it isn't the bug filled travesty that you would have others believe it is. It, like all software, has some bugs but, that doesn't make it bad software and a vague description on the outside of the box doesn't make Knife Edge or Great Planes deceptive. I'm sorry if you have had some bad experiences in the past with people on a forum or had a bad experience with the software for that matter. I just can't help reading what you write and feeling that the anger you are holding onto clouds your opinion. Whatever you think of what I have said about RealFlight I hope you take away that in the end it's just software. Life is too short to hold onto the kind of anger you have and I hope you can find a way to let it go.
Posted on: 11/18/2009 2:12 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9263030

RE: Realflight G5Coming Soon
[quote]ORIGINAL: dbcisco The AMD problem surfaced after the product was on the shelves and that should have been caught in beta testing, unless KE only has a couple computers they tested it on. A public beta is very doable and cheap, it just isn't done by KE. Unless you call using people who bought the product beta testers which seemed to be the case with G4.5. Small software companies do public betas all the time just check out the gaming forums and will trip all over them. If Beta testing is done in-house by KE then the self proclaimed beta testers of G5 claims of not being KE employees is in question. No, I am not starting that flame war again but you brought it up. The stated minimums are a problem to me. What is a problem to me is all the pro G5 people jumping down the throat of people who clearly have met the minimum requirements are unhappy (at the least) with G5. Lastly, I do not have a problem with game aspects. I have no clue where you get that idea. [/quote] Like I said, other companies have missed things like this in the past and KE has stated they will resolve the problem, not much more to say other than possibly what you've said that they could have had a larger test bed to include more AMD and older Intel processors. The problem KE and companies like KE who develop software secured by hardware devices is that open public beta testing would only be possible using your existing customer base due to the hardware restrictions involved. I think if you look back you'll not see me saying they did beta testing "in-house" I said closed. That can have much broader implications than simply saying "in-house". Closed beta testing means that you can use customers, or whomever else you'd like, to assist you with your testing without needing to perform an open public beta. I don't know what their reasons for performing their testing the way they did was but, one could guess that code security and publication control would be two reasons. As far as people jumping on other people, I agree I think that it's pretty ridiculous to get personally involved in any of this. Myself personally, I own a copy of just about every version of RF but, I'm not one to take on a "fanboy" mentality. If KE or Great Planes steps in it I'm on the forums letting them know that I think so. And while I'm not scared to get in a verbal joust on occasion I don't get into the personal attacks and bad mouthing that others do. So, with that, I'll just end with the fact that I hope that eventually all parties can reconcile and let the past be the past.
Posted on: 11/17/2009 10:20 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9261668

RE: Realflight G5Coming Soon
[quote]ORIGINAL: dbcisco Just this second I grabbed the first game box on top of my wifes desk. World of warcraft. The box lists minimum requirements [u]and[/u] recommended specifications [u]plus [/u]a note to go to there website for a list of compatible video cards. I guess you don't have enough game boxes laying around.[8D] [/quote] Since I'm not a huge gamer I don't exactly see that as a negative. Perhaps some of the disconnect centers around the difference between the gaming and simming communities. Perhaps the expectations of what minimum requirements means is different in the gaming community than it is in the simming communitiy. In any case, I hope you find piece with your minimum requirements dilemma.
Posted on: 11/17/2009 10:07 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9261635

RE: Realflight G5Coming Soon
[quote]ORIGINAL: johndou But, in all seriousness, I have to disagree with your understanding of the “minimum requirements� posted on the side of a software package. First off can you tell me what other 3D game software lists more then the minimum requirements on their box - like RealFlight does? I’m not familiar with any other 3D game that lists both a “minimum requirements� and “optimal requirements�. I even went so far as to do a search specifically looking for a 3D game that listed anything other than “minimum requirements� and was unable to find anything. All of the games I looked at said nothing about “Some graphical features may be disabled.� with minimum requirements. Minimum requirements typically state the hardware requirements needed to run the software - AS ADVERTISED. That means that any machine meeting those hardware requirements will run the software. It makes no difference if I have an HP and you have a Dell. Or I have a Gforce video card and you have Nvidia. Yes, there may be a few exceptions. But, generally speaking if the Dell and HP are identical machines they'll run the sofware with similar performance ... AND if they both meet the minimum requirements they'll run that software without any of the features having to be disabled. I understand that KnifeEdge Software is essentially a small company developing software for the needs of another relatively small company - RealFlight - that sells a product to a small group of (R/C) enthusiasts. Not exactly MicroSoft. And as a small company filling the needs of a small group I would hope that RealFlight can be honest enough with their customers to deliver to them what they say they’re going to deliver. Unfortunately I’ve been waiting for that to happen since I bought G3.0. Hiding behind the statement that “Some graphical features may be disabled.� isn’t fair to the general public or to the company advertising a product that claims to be more then it is. [/quote] I'm sorry you disagree with my understanding of what minimum requirements means. However, in that I have been installing, maintaining and repairing applications, operating systems and hardware for nearly 20 years I would point out that I have seen all forms of description for what the term "minimum requirements" means. What is "typically" the case is that this description varies from developer to developer and in the case of Knife Edge's description of minimum requirements it means the amount of hardware you'll need to get the application working with some diminished graphical capability. If they state on the box that with configuration X you will have diminished graphical capabilities it isn't exactly like they're trying to pull a fast one on you by openly divulging that information, it isn't reverse system requirements psychology. Apparently, at Knife Edge they're taking the approach that they want to let their customers know what they consider to actually be the real minimum requirements a machine must posses in order to run the application. When you consider a large part of their market are hobbyists who don't have high end gaming systems that approach makes a lot of sense. You seem to be missing the fact that for the vast majority of customers that bother to post on the forums, RealFlight is a great product. Sure people have problems but, like any other software company there is a support group to assist with them. Maybe your expectations are too high I don't know but, if you're that unhappy with the service or product you get then why keep buying it? If I were unhappy with the service I had gotten from a company and there were alternative products I could use I would jump ship and go get with the guys I like rather than hanging around hating the product. To each his own though I guess.
Posted on: 11/17/2009 10:04 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9261622

RE: Realflight G5Coming Soon
[quote]ORIGINAL: dbcisco They can do what almost every software company on the planet does, beta test it on hundreds if not thousands of computers and gather data for bug fixing, optimization of code, setting minimum requirements and providing a list of compatible (or non-compatible, which ever list is smaller) components . Public Beta testing (usually with a time lock) is a great (almost) free way to test your program on an extremely wide range of systems. It is also one of the best free advertising models available. Of course maybe Blizzard and Microsoft are just a bunch of idiots and going to go out of business soon for doing it.[:D] Sorry, I am not buying into any excuses for inadequate code testing. This is not saying that G5 has any major problems like G4.5 did (I hope KE learned their lesson). Time will tell whether it is as great as G4 or as problematic as G4.5. I honestly think they are trying to swing towards the game aspect and away from the RC. Maybe they are trying to please two master, again time will tell. [/quote] They do beta test and it's not uncommon for companies to do closed beta testing especially smaller companies who produce software for smaller markets like the R/C hobby market. Where Microsoft has invested billions in hardware compatibility certification for it operating system and used that certification for partner marketing a company like Knife Edge wouldn't have the sort of resources to accomplish such a task. The type of testing you're talking about makes sense for the developer of an operating system not a small market application developer. Sure they have the responsibility to test their product to ensure it functions as advertised but as long as they're not developing their own customer hardware drivers or system libraries it's unrealistic to expect them to perform a protracted public beta to prove out hardware compatibility in thousands of disparate hardware and software configurations. The reason for standardized system libraries and drivers is to provide developers the ability to put together code without the need to ensure it works on 1000 different configurations of hardware. As long as their code properly interfaces with the libraries and drivers the underlying hardware is generally not as important as it is to the developers of the drivers and libraries. The level of testing may have been inadequate in your judgment but, in the end, the application seems to be working well on many if not most systems with little to no modification. Also, using Microsoft as an example of the benefits of open beta testing doesn't exactly score your argument points. Microsoft performed extensive open public beta testing with Vista along with tons of market research and in the end Vista was their largest flop based on technical problems, lack of driver support and lack of customer interest ever even surpassing Windows ME. As far as Microsoft going out of business, no, I doubt it but, as far as industry innovation and leadership is concerning Apple has taken the lead in many analysts opinions and Microsoft has been scrambling to catch up. Would the sort of testing your talking about have proved out the AMD and Pre-Pentium 4 processor issue that came up with G5? Sure, most likely it would have found that problem. They missed that and I'm pretty positive they will address that in their future test plans. However, I'm not going to condemn them over it though as many software companies have made similar mistakes and it comes back to the last point in my previous post, it's written by humans for humans. We all make mistakes sometime and the only path forward is to own those mistakes and move on. Knife Edge has owned the mistake concerning the processor incompatibility and have stated that they are working on a solution to fix the problem. The have in the past, as have all software companies, dealt with problems as they arisen and provided fixes for them when possible. Before proclaiming their dereliction why not give them an opportunity to make the situation right. As far as it being a case of providing software that doesn't meet the hardware requirements, I look at posts on the Knife Edge forums all the time and I haven't seen anyone there complaining about this. I'm not sure who you're talking to but, if it were a major issue I'm pretty positive I would have seen someone complaining about it. Concerning your statement about the game development, people, including myself, have been asking for target practice and shooter games for a while. They listened, I don't know how you fault a company for responding to customer requests. For whatever reason you seem very invested in this issue. While I'm not personally
Posted on: 11/17/2009 9:44 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9261560

RE: Realflight G5Coming Soon
If you need help getting your router setup I can help you with it. I know it's pretty frustrating if your not sure what changes to make.
Posted on: 11/17/2009 6:28 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9261023

RE: Realflight G5Coming Soon
You're not really stipulating what your issue is other than saying that you have to turn down some video settings. I have a fairly high end video card and I turn down specific settings in RF and even in CoD to get higher frame rates. Your 128 MB video card could be a good card or it could be some brown box special that has very poor performance, it could be a good card with problems for hat matter. Also, I don't think it's a fair statement to say that people won't get the application that they're advertised unless they have an optimal computer. Most people these days understand that minimum system requirements means just that, it's the bare minimum. KnifeEdge and Great Planes can't control how your computer components will perform any more than they can dictate how the manufacturer assembles those components. It could be that your configuration, like others who would come to a forum seeking assistance or to vent, has a problematic component or two that is keeping RF from performing as well as it could. I don't know, I had problems on my other machine with RF and that turned out to be a low end video card causing my issues. I upgraded to a decent video card and the issues went away, problem solved. I think people have to look at this in a more general way. To use an automobile analogy, every car has four wheels, an engine, a body and seats but you can't use every car for every purpose. Police vehicles are purpose built in many cases with extra durable components, passenger vehicles have many of the same components but you wouldn't want to try ramming a pickup truck off the road with one. Both a police cruiser and passenger vehicle can have the same or very similar specs and both can have very different durability and operation profiles. The same holds true for computers. Specs on a computer don't always tell the whole story. You can have a junk motherboard, junk video card and cheap memory and still meet or exceed all the minimum requirements. Given that scenario it's not difficult to see that there would be a pretty good chance that RF or other applications would probably run poorly on that machine. And while not all cases are going to be as extreme as that it often only takes one sub-par component to impact performance especially when you're talking about an application that is rendering 3D landscapes and modeling the physics for flying airplanes and helicopters. Minimum requirements are set in place to dictate a minimum starting point at which you're able to run software. They're written as a guideline to assist people in making the software purchase choice and if people purchase software knowing that their machines meet the bare minimums they shouldn't exactly be surprised that their performance isn't the best. Likewise, if you're having problems with RF on your computer working with support and allowing them to assist you is a good place to start but, when you do that you have to be willing to work through the process. I'm doing that exact same thing myself right now with ASUS and Seagate in trying to figure out an issue with my motherboard and some of their drives. I could get mad and start saying the ASUS sucks and they sell junk motherboards or that Seagate drives suck but, instead I'm working through the process because I understand that computers aren't perfect because they're made by people just like RealFlight is written by people. Just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.
Posted on: 11/17/2009 6:24 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9261007

RE: Realflight G5Coming Soon
I have to say that I'm pretty happy with G5. The performance in G5 is actually improved over G4.5 for me (no I didn't turn down any settings) and I have to be honest, I believe I will need a 12 step program to stop playing the combat games. The new flying sites are also very cool and incorporate some new objects such as flying birds, giant building billboards and surreal bombed out bridges and buildings. Also, they've done something with the physics engine in G5 that I notice makes the planes feel more realistic in the way they handle. For example, I was flying a trainer on one of the fields and started into a steep climb and noticed that the plane realistically broke slightly from its arc as I started the climb in response to a wind gust. It doesn't sound like much but it wasn't a large amount of wind and the change in the arc looked so real it sort of caught me off guard. I fly with wind simulated all the time in G4.5 and have never seen a response like that, I was pretty impressed. There are a few new issues that I hope get resolved soon e.g.: the zoom level setting preferences are not saved between sessions and always default to the same "keep ground in view" autozooming option; the multi-player gadget went from a compact useful tool to an intrusive behemoth that eats up a huge portion of your screen until you move more than half of it off of the edge of your monitor, it isn't resizeable and doesn't save its positioning information for next use nor does it automatically come up when you join a mutiplayer session so you're constantly managing it dragging it around the screen between uses to get it out of the way. Also, as was mentioned earlier, there is no method for a host to prevent the kiddies from abusing multiplayer sessions with guns, paintballs and rockets, or smoke for that matter, if the host is away from the keyboard. The only real option for managing the use of guns in a normal 'non-game' MP session at this point is for clients to manually ignore them as the host has no way of preventing the use of "weapons", other than banning the user, in a session nor is there a "turn off" feature for guns and rockets like there is for particles i.e. smoke. There are a couple of lingering old issues that I have noticed as well. There is still an annoying hang that occurs when a new player joins a session and there are some cases where sound files loading for the first time in a session cause delays as well. The sound files loading delay is not as pronounced a problem for me as it apparently is for others and for myself the only noticeable instance of sound generated delays are in using the guns in a combat game. On first fire there is a noticeable .5 to 1 second delay or stutter in the sound and graphics. The player join hang is really more problematic to me than anything as the delay can last up to a few seconds and can severely impact flight. Overall, I'm pretty happy with my purchase. Installation was straight forward and the performance is very good. There don't seem to be any major functionality issues in G5 with the biggest problems I have found to be more interface management and multiplayer session control related. I have and will continue to recommend RealFlight to people inquiring about an R/C flight sim as currently feature and performance wise I don't think there's another sim that comes close.
Posted on: 11/16/2009 2:16 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9257977

RE: FS One by Hangar 9
[quote]ORIGINAL: cubmaster126 100 for the sim, 30 for the new adapter(which didn't work), and the 10 in gas getting the adapter. And it takes the reciept and the broken piece. Support was supposed to tell me if the other adapter would work or not and they never did so i bought it, so I got a sim I can't use, and adapter I can't use, and a bad taste for hangar 9. Offered to purchase the stock one, at a handsome price, just so me and the boy could fly on it and they said nope. I got a player 2 adapter for sale if anyone is interested. [size=6][/size]FSONE is a joke, along with hangar 9 [sm=punching.gif] [/quote] Hmmm.
Posted on: 3/11/2009 7:46 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8568235

RE: FS one by Horizon Hobbies
[quote]ORIGINAL: CloudSkipper [quote]ORIGINAL: js3862 Hey didn't Service Merchandise have a 50% off sale just before they went out of business? [/quote] Sounds like you're implying that they might be liquidating inventory? But I don't see how it necessarily relates to dropping the price of a software package which has been around for a while and is now essentially just a CD and $20
Posted on: 3/11/2009 10:49 AM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8566491

RE: FS one by Horizon Hobbies
[quote]ORIGINAL: CloudSkipper [quote]ORIGINAL: Kristian1108 They have it listed for $99 now.[:D] [/quote] Yeah knocking down the price to 99 happened sometime end of last summer or during last fall as I recall. Good move all things considered. A more or less fair price for a quality sim which is not evolving currently. [/quote] Hey didn't Service Merchandise have a 50% off sale just before they went out of business?
Posted on: 3/11/2009 4:50 AM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8565904

RE: FS One by Hangar 9
[quote]ORIGINAL: CloudSkipper Maybe our speculation has started to irritate them and they'll just tell us. [/quote] That would be refreshing :-)
Posted on: 3/9/2009 8:00 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8560806

RE: FS One by Hangar 9
[quote]ORIGINAL: CloudSkipper It could be many things and anything is possible, but just should mention for example that Horizon has discontinued the 90 size ShowTime which is a much loved plane. To me that's an indication that sales are hurting and they are being forced to downsize. So even if the plane is popular, they are having to stick with the smaller size ShowTimes which might be marginally more profitable. They might not be in dire straights but consumers are adjusting their spending habits. [/quote] Yes, or it could be an indication that they're getting ready to release a new version of the 90 size. You could be right though and they simply see a shift in their growing or stable markets to a different demographic of consumer than is inclined to buy into the 90 size. [quote]Could be just an executive decision. Also I think that most if not all of the developers have entirely different day jobs. I recall that Selig is prof of aeronautical engineering or something and has been involved in all sorts of projects. So that can complicate things. Who knows. [/quote] I suppose that sort of thing could complicate development but, when a client plunks down a wad of cash people tend to adjust their schedules pretty quickly. Is it just me or should we just IM :-)
Posted on: 3/9/2009 7:05 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8560594

RE: FS One by Hangar 9
Perhaps but given that they don't appear to be hurting in other areas I'm of the opinion that it's probably more of an internal political issue. They're developing and selling new planes, helicopters and cars but haven't touched the sim since hangar pack 1. While in the meantime the competition has released, I believe, three major revisions. To me that sounds a lot like whoever it was at the executive level that was backing the product either left or he or the product fell from the graces of the majority. This is all conjecture of course but, it makes better sense to me than the cost being the real issue.
Posted on: 3/9/2009 6:25 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8560450

RE: FS One by Hangar 9
Not using the sim to promote their own planes is, in my opinion, a huge misstep on their part. When you can download and install a reasonably close (no not close like it was designed by an aeronautical engineer or anything) representation of a Horizon model in a competing simulator months or years after the actual aircraft have been released I would say that's pretty much an admission of, if nothing else, that they don't believe the sim is a valid marketing tool or they don't think they'll get enough market penetration with the product to compete against the currently dominant product(s). I love the sim, they need to invest in it.
Posted on: 3/9/2009 4:24 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8560048

RE: FS One by Hangar 9
Ah, ok then but, nothing for getting or creating new models like the T-28 or any of the other new Horizon models? That seems unfortunate.
Posted on: 3/9/2009 3:32 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8559854

RE: FS One by Hangar 9
This might be common knowledge but, is there a repository somewhere of any additional planes or instructions on creating planes for FSOne?
Posted on: 3/9/2009 12:05 AM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8557983

RE: FS One by Hangar 9
[quote]ORIGINAL: Katman1 Yeah, I had thought about doing it for a while I but never took the time to figure it out. Now that I have I want to do some nice ones. I just slapped this one together last night quick. I didn't have any of my regular brushes loaded in Gimp so I couldn't do any thing fancy. [/quote] Ok, I'm lazy, so, how do you do it? Since you have figured it out and all. :-)
Posted on: 3/4/2009 5:02 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8543913

RE: FS One by Hangar 9
[quote]ORIGINAL: Albatross1 Hi Scott and JS, I think onboard video is a problem if you have it, from when I was researching which sim to get. I remember reading something about how CPU's that share memory for video processing don't play too nicely with high memory users like flight sims. That said, it's funny that your other ones don't have issues with your setup. I have a laptop that I run FS One on that has a switch to let me choose between the GeForce 7400 card and an oboard video (I think that's what it's for) so I'll try to switch back & forth to see if it makes a difference on that machine at least. Dave [/quote] I actually solved this problem. I had to install symbols and a debugger to do it but, it turned out to be the ac3filter.ax codec that was causing the issue. I searched for all instances of ac3 and renamed them and the problem went away. Renamed them back and the problem returned. So far with the registry entries renamed, no issues. If I find something that disabling ac3 breaks I can rename them back.
Posted on: 2/9/2009 2:46 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8457265

RE: FS One by Hangar 9
[quote]ORIGINAL: sctholson I guess that depends on whether the motherboard has an onboard video/audo. If it does have an on-board Video and Audio than the latest drivers for each (and assuming you have the monitor plugged into the port for the on-board video card) the sim will run. It won't run wicked fast or anything, but it won't crash. If you have the on-bard video/audio I'd give safe mode a try just to be sure other software products aren't giving you issues. Scott [/quote] Eh, I was thinking of the "VGA Mode" startup option. The board only has on-board audio luckily. I can try safe mode tonight. The other thing that keeps nagging at me is the drive controllers. It seems unrelated but, other than digging down into all of the chipsets and other board level components, the drive controllers might be related to the issue or perhaps the drivers for them. This Gigabyte board has both Intel and Gigabyte raid controllers on it. The drive that FSOne is installed on is just a JBOD drive but it is attached to and would be affected by the driver/controller. This problem is just so odd. I have two other simulators on this machine that have never so much as had an audio hiccup and FSOne just keeps crashing.
Posted on: 2/5/2009 9:50 AM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8441020

RE: FS One by Hangar 9
[quote]ORIGINAL: sctholson I don't think I suggested this yet,,, restart the computer in safe mode and run FSOne. Make sure the onboard sound drivers are loaded and make sure you know which video card is active (when starting in safe mode) If you don't want to start in safe mode to try this disable all startup items and give it a try. As you know, Safe mode will eliminate all software conflicts. Scott [/quote] I didn't do safe mode but I did run msconfig and disable all startup items. There was only one video card in the machine at a time so that wouldn't have been an issue. Besides, in safe mode wouldn't the basic drivers keep the sim from running?
Posted on: 2/4/2009 11:40 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8440096

RE: FS One by Hangar 9
[quote]ORIGINAL: Calman2k JS3862, It sounds like you have a deeper problem with the software than the sound card. If the program worked on your other computer but still failed to work on the original, with the apparently functioning sound card, I would think that it is something else. I did a google search on your error code and came up with this: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/811270
Posted on: 2/4/2009 6:09 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8438799

RE: FS One by Hangar 9
[quote]ORIGINAL: sctholson I don't think you need to wast bucks on the new video card.. the problem is sound related. FSOne won't run without the sound drivers being up to date. Disabling them and having FSOne sill not function doesn't discount the sound drivers as being at fault. It only tells you that FSOne won't run with sound drivers disabled. Since you have Horizon Hobby helping you it's probably best you get direction from one source. Scott [/quote] Ok, working with tech support they suggested I try other sound options. I did, and I still have this stupid c0000005 error. I used a Sound Blaster Live! 5.1 card and even turned down the acceleration on that and it did no good. Adding to the list of things tried: 11. Disabled onboard sound and installed SB Live! 5.1 - same error 12. Removed SB Live/re-enabled onboard sound and replaced video card with known working video card (works with FSone on another computer) - same error 13. Again disabled onboard sound, re-installed SB Live with known good video card - same error I'm thinking about using a spare drive and just doing a clean install of XP and FSOne just to test it and make sure it isn't some third party app or SP3 that is screwing with it. I am usually up for an adventure like that but, with building a new pc already on the schedule, I may postpone that until after the build is done. Take care!
Posted on: 2/4/2009 4:57 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8438578

RE: FS One by Hangar 9
[quote]ORIGINAL: sctholson <snip> Regarding new releases to FSOne, I don't think there are any rumors about new releases. We all hope FSOne's not a has been. Scott [/quote] I sent them an e-mail to that affect just today. I really believe they could do a lot of good for themselves if they would just release a few one off new planes, color schemes or open up the specs and tools to create planes. At least that would get some buzz going and maybe generate them enough new income to restart development and dump some money into their support channel.
Posted on: 2/2/2009 7:45 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8431533

RE: FS One by Hangar 9
[quote]ORIGINAL: sctholson You've covered alot of ground for sure, but you didn't mention updating the sound drivers. Did you do that.. It's likely the sound drivers are dated something like 2001 or 2005 (integrated audio). Beyond that I'm stumped. It's likely an incompatibility, but finding it is hard. In most of the cases I've helped on it's audio/video drivers and hardware acceleration. Scott [/quote] Well, that was part of the problem with the board, the last update for the sound drivers was 2005. Honestly, I have never had any issues with the integrated sound ever. The lack of newer drivers is why I went the route of disabling sound in total via the bios as to avoid loading potentially bad drivers. Even without sound/sound drivers the problem persisted so, I have to assume at this point that I have fairly well isolated sound out of the picture. I am working on the theory that it has to be either a total video incompatibility or a board level component driver that is not interacting well with the app. I am waiting for tier 2 to call me back again today. Hoping maybe I can get a checked version or the symbols pack (if it exists) for the application that might give them a better idea where the error is being generated. I offered to send them a dr watson log last time and they didn't think it was necessary. Although, I don't blame them since the audio acceleration thing seemed to work at the time. I guess I could just get a cheap video card to test with but, I hate the thought of spending $50 just to test a theory.
Posted on: 2/2/2009 10:31 AM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8429534

RE: FS One by Hangar 9
[quote]ORIGINAL: sctholson I'm confused (no really), If you've totally disabled the audio "onboard" do you have some other audio card? Unless the video card also has audio? [/quote] No, it's fine, the way I worded it sort of sounds like I trouble shot the sound problem with tech support after I disabled all the sound. That happened before I disabled/removed the sound drivers. I only removed all the sound after it had worked briefly while on the phone with tech support and then went right back to crashing. I left the Bluetooth uninstalled since it was just an extra piece to confuse the issue. I am upgrading my computer later in the week so maybe I'll just wait until I swap out the motherboard to see if it starts working then. Worst case at least then I'll have a better chance that it's the video card. Although I guess it would be possible that I could at that point have another motherboard with incompatible chipset or bios but, I would hope that would be the longshot of the two possibilities. I have plenty of free hard drive space (67,3 GB) and 2 GB of memory in this computer so, that isn't the issue. So far I have tried running FSOne after I: 01. Turned down acceleration on audio - ultra-temporary fix 02. Installed all current OS patches (critical) - no change 03. Defraged the hard drive - no change other than computer was a bit happier 04. Disabled sound - no change 05. Updated video drivers to latest version - no change 06. Disabled DirectDraw, Direct3D, and AGP Texture acceleration - no change 07. Added installation directory to Anti-Virus realtime protection exclude list - no change 08. Temporarily disabled Anti-virus - no change 09. Used MsConfig to disable all startup items except for system services - no change 10. Uninstalled/Deleted Install Directory/Reinstalled - no change a. Ran program at each stage of installation/patching with same crash at each stage I might have forgotten something that I have tried in here but, I think this is a pretty complete list. On an unrelated note; it sure would be nice to remap the instant up and reset buttons on the TacCon to the ctrl and alt key codes while playing the target game. Losing rudder and throttle control and trying to hold the controller with one hand while trying to navigate onto a target just seems like a bad design IMO. Thanks for any input!
Posted on: 2/2/2009 9:59 AM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8429444

RE: FS One by Hangar 9
[quote]ORIGINAL: kenrinc So I have the FSone controller but I lost the friggin proprietary USB to Fsone box connector where the controller plugs in. Where can I get a new one? Actually if there is a way I can use my Futaba T6EX that would be even better! Thanks Ken [/quote] Call the support number on www.fsone.com. If you're a registered user they may be able to help you.
Posted on: 2/2/2009 2:12 AM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8428910

RE: FS One by Hangar 9
[quote]ORIGINAL: sctholson Did you also update the video and audio drivers? Check the faq section out at www.inertiasoft.com go to the support tab for how to go about this, if you don't already know. I would think that should solve the problem. Scott [/quote] Yes, the board is a couple of years old and I have pretty much ruled out the audio being the issue. I totally disabled the onboard sound, and uninstalled bluetooth from my computer to remove all sound drivers and the problem still occurred. Further, I have the latest drivers for my video card and that makes no change either. I talked to one of the guys at Horizon who is the second level support and it worked while I was on the phone with him after he had me turn down audio acceleration but, after a few more tries it started doing the same thing again. I thought I had run into some accidental fix because while I was testing to see what the app was accessing on the hard drive when it crashed it stopped doing it while I was running the Sysinternals monitoring tool. I thought that having the extra lag in the system from the heavy monitoring could have affected something in a positive way, causing a delay which possibly prevented an overflow from happening or the like. But, once I shut it down and came back the next day and tried doing it again I couldn't reproduce it. So, no joy there. Fortunately, I have a second computer that I was able to install it on that, while the video card has an old NVidia 5500 series GPU, seems to work just fine. Not exactly an ideal solution as, "if it doesn't work on your computer just install it on another one" isn't really an option most of the time. Thanks!
Posted on: 2/2/2009 2:10 AM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8428907

RE: FS One by Hangar 9
Good morning, I just got/installed fs-one and everything went well with the install. The odd thing is that after installing all the patches and getting up to version 1.1 every time I try to switch between planes the sim crashes with an exception c000005. I'll probably have to end up calling their tech support but, I thought I would try hitting you guys up first to see if it was something that was common. thanks!
Posted on: 1/30/2009 4:18 AM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Flight Simulator Software"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8418479

RE: Futaba vs Spektrum
[quote]ORIGINAL: Hilarious Check it out. If the second recevier is removed while the system is connected to the Tx the system will continue to work normally until the power is shut off at the RX. It does not shut down. You can always tell someones attitudes, does anyone actually go fly? [/quote] That's good to know, is the part about the receiver being disconnected on their site somewhere or did you just unplug one while it was on? [quote]ORIGINAL: Hilarious This is a safety design, btw, same thing happens if the main rx antenae should fail, the second one takes over. [/quote] Yes, that's part of the "DuaLink" that I keep reading about I believe. Jerry
Posted on: 6/19/2008 2:43 PM by Author "js3862" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7637936