URGENT: "POSKY" United 777-200 for FSX

[b108]

Thanks for everything so far. Now I will have a few other questions pertaining to POSKY aircraft with this similair nature of "errors" (For want of a better word), coming up over the next few days.

A friend of mine said He tried the SP2 and it slowed his computer down because of "Security." By that I think he means that the new software actually had security upgrades to it. Is this possible to happen to everyone? Because he's got an HP and it's nuts. Like crazy (at least to me), but I don't know exactly how crazy it is.

Now, does the same process you discussed with the 777-200 United apply to the 777-200 American (on the same page as the United)?
They look the same, and I tried both, but the download procedure was different.

Now, one last question for today, at least. In the readme of several aircraft, it will say "This is the ... for FS2004." But it's in the FSX section of this site, so is it still possible to get it to work if it does say things like "only for fs2004" in the readme, or will it not work? I think I know the answer to this but I'm not all the way sure. So does that mean they just haven't edited thier readme's to say "For FSX and FS2004" or "For FSX"?

[Hagar]

A friend of mine said He tried the SP2 and it slowed his computer down because of "Security." By that I think he means that the new software actually had security upgrades to it. Is this possible to happen to everyone? Because he's got an HP and it's nuts. Like crazy (at least to me), but I don't know exactly how crazy it is.

Perhaps he's talking about a Windows update. FSX SP2 is an official update for FSX. I don't think it has any security features.

Now, does the same process you discussed with the 777-200 United apply to the 777-200 American (on the same page as the United)?

I haven't tried any other versions of the 777-200 posted here as they're very big downloads & I have no use for them myself. The file was uploaded by the same person as the United version so I imagine it's configured in the same way.*

They look the same, and I tried both, but the download procedure was different.

Download procedures should be exactly the same for all files posted here. I suspect you mean installation procedure. It helps to use the correct terminology.

Now, one last question for today, at least. In the readme of several aircraft, it will say "This is the ... for FS2004." But it's in the FSX section of this site, so is it still possible to get it to work if it does say things like "only for fs2004" in the readme, or will it not work? I think I know the answer to this but I'm not all the way sure. So does that mean they just haven't edited thier readme's to say "For FSX and FS2004" or "For FSX"?

A lot of aircraft posted in the FSX section were originally intended for FS2004 (FS9). At least some were uploaded without the original author's knowledge or consent. These will usually include the original installation instructions. Installation is basically the same for both sims so once you understand the basic principles it should be easy enough to figure out. There is no guarantee that FS9 aircraft will be compatible with all versions of FSX. Most will not display correctly in FSX + SP2/Acceleration.

*I just checked it out. It's configured in exactly the same way as the United version.

[b108]

Thanks!

Yes, I meant installation once the file has dowloaded, sorry for not using specifics. Thanks for your help so far.

Now, you said that "Most will not display correctly in FSX + SP2/Acceleration."

What do you mean? Does that mean that the aircraft work, but in the aircraft menu there isn't a photo for the thumbnail, or do you mean the more serious problem of the aircraft downloading and installing but not flying correctly?

[Hagar]

Now, you said that "Most will not display correctly in FSX + SP2/Acceleration."

What do you mean? Does that mean that the aircraft work, but in the aircraft menu there isn't a photo for the thumbnail, or do you mean the more serious problem of the aircraft downloading and installing but not flying correctly?

Missing thumbnails are easily fixed & not a problem at all. If only it were as simple as that. Please remember that I haven't got FSX myself so I can only go on what I read here on the forum. I've seen a lot of comments & queries about problems with FS9 aircraft in FSX. One of the most common problems is incompatible gauges which I believe is the same in all versions.* I understand that many FS9 aircraft that worked reasonably well in FSX when it was first released have display problems with SP2 (or Acceleration) installed.

*The different versions of FSX are;

FSX RTM - this is the original version of FSX as first released
FSX SP1 - the first official patch or update
FSX Acceleration - an official addon for FSX. This includes SP1 & SP2.
FSX SP2 - the second official patch or update

These are further complicated by there being two different editions of FSX, Standard & DeLuxe. Also two different operating systems, Windows XP & Vista.

This makes it very difficult to give specific advice. The best way to find out if something will work on your system is to try it for yourself.

[Daube]

Thanks!

Yes, I meant installation once the file has dowloaded, sorry for not using specifics. Thanks for your help so far.

Now, you said that "Most will not display correctly in FSX + SP2/Acceleration."

What do you mean? Does that mean that the aircraft work, but in the aircraft menu there isn't a photo for the thumbnail, or do you mean the more serious problem of the aircraft downloading and installing but not flying correctly?

The SP2 for FSX has brought some modifications in the way the textures of a plane are handled. The main problem is the transparency of a texture, which has been inverted.

What does that mean ? The very typical example is the canopy texture. A canopy that would be transparent on a FS9 plane would be transparent in FSX and also in FSX SP1. But in FSX SP2 it would be opaque.

Why ? Because of the Alpha Channel of the canopy texture. The Alpha Channel of a texture is a black-and-white picture stored together with the texture itself in the texture file (so the texture file contains two pictures in fact). The Alpha Channel defines where the texture should be transparent and where it should not. In FS9, FSX and fSX SP1, if the Alpha Channel is white, that means that the texture is transparent. But in FSX SP2, that means that the texture is opaque !

So what to do ? => the Alpha Channel of a texture can be edited with a free tool nammed DXTBMP, which allows you to see the Alpha Channel in a texture file, exoprt it to an editor to modify it and then import it in the texture file again. The target is simply to make the Alpha Channel very dark, instead of very bright as is was before, so that the texture gets transparent again.

[b108]

The SP2 for FSX has brought some modifications in the way the textures of a plane are handled. The main problem is the transparency of a texture, which has been inverted.

What does that mean ? The very typical example is the canopy texture. A canopy that would be transparent on a FS9 plane would be transparent in FSX and also in FSX SP1. But in FSX SP2 it would be opaque.

Why ? Because of the Alpha Channel of the canopy texture. The Alpha Channel of a texture is a black-and-white picture stored together with the texture itself in the texture file (so the texture file contains two pictures in fact). The Alpha Channel defines where the texture should be transparent and where it should not. In FS9, FSX and fSX SP1, if the Alpha Channel is white, that means that the texture is transparent. But in FSX SP2, that means that the texture is opaque !

So what to do ? => the Alpha Channel of a texture can be edited with a free tool nammed DXTBMP, which allows you to see the Alpha Channel in a texture file, exoprt it to an editor to modify it and then import it in the texture file again. The target is simply to make the Alpha Channel very dark, instead of very bright as is was before, so that the texture gets transparent again.

Posted by: Hagar

So basically it looks more realistic, is what you're saying. I know what you mean-with sp2 it looks less "cheesy," or like perfect glass in the sense of it being so perfect it looks like it's not there. Whereas FSX SP2 makes it more realistic, so that you truly notice that there is a window there. Is that what you meant?

Thanks for your help. Can't wait to try this stuff out tomorrow-I'll get back to you guys and let you know.

AGAIN: Thanks to everyone for everything so far.

[b108]

Ok. Here's the problem.

I got the aircraft to appear in the menu, and I can go click "Fly Now," but once it gets to 100% loaded, it says "A Fatal Error Occured" and FSX restarts, no matter how many times I try. I tried this wtih the United, and a Delta 777-200lr as well.
What should I do?

[Daube]

The SP2 for FSX has brought some modifications in the way the textures of a plane are handled. The main problem is the transparency of a texture, which has been inverted.

What does that mean ? The very typical example is the canopy texture. A canopy that would be transparent on a FS9 plane would be transparent in FSX and also in FSX SP1. But in FSX SP2 it would be opaque.

Why ? Because of the Alpha Channel of the canopy texture. The Alpha Channel of a texture is a black-and-white picture stored together with the texture itself in the texture file (so the texture file contains two pictures in fact). The Alpha Channel defines where the texture should be transparent and where it should not. In FS9, FSX and fSX SP1, if the Alpha Channel is white, that means that the texture is transparent. But in FSX SP2, that means that the texture is opaque !

So what to do ? => the Alpha Channel of a texture can be edited with a free tool nammed DXTBMP, which allows you to see the Alpha Channel in a texture file, exoprt it to an editor to modify it and then import it in the texture file again. The target is simply to make the Alpha Channel very dark, instead of very bright as is was before, so that the texture gets transparent again.

Posted by: Hagar

So basically it looks more realistic, is what you're saying. I know what you mean-with sp2 it looks less "cheesy," or like perfect glass in the sense of it being so perfect it looks like it's not there. Whereas FSX SP2 makes it more realistic, so that you truly notice that there is a window there. Is that what you meant?

Thanks for your help. Can't wait to try this stuff out tomorrow-I'll get back to you guys and let you know.

AGAIN: Thanks to everyone for everything so far.

No that's not what I meant. I just tried to explain what the Alpha Channel is, and why some stuff that was transparent before SP2 get opaque after SP2. I'm not so sure why MS implemented such a change (I have my little idea, but it's a bit too complex to explain). However, the important info is that it is possible to correct this problem.

I myself use a lot of FS9 planes in my FSX SP2. Very often they have opaque canopies, but now I know how to solve the problem: edit the alpha channel to make it dark instead of bright.

[b108]

Ok---So like I said before(Which nobody seemed to notice), I can't get the aircraft to work-it just crashes everytime it loads to 100%.
DOES THIS MEAN That I need SP2?
Because the united appears, but I can't fly it. I can alter details and look at it in the menu-but that's it. What should I do? Does this deffinetly mean I need SP2?

thanks again for your help so far...