FS9 scenery.cfg gone crazy, please help!

ok, some scenery just vanished again, I checked fs9.cfg, it was in
there, perfectly as it should be, but the scenery library did NOT show
it ... ok, added it manually to the scenery library, restarted, now it
works again, but since there is a double entry in fs9.cfg now, the
thing does that re-indexing each time ... and if I delete the first of
the two entries, FS9 creates it again each time it starts, if I delete
the other from fs9.cfg, the scenery does not work!

HELP!

tvmia,

<<< Tina >>>
--
Rex Kramer: "Striker, listen, and you listen close:
flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle,
just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes."
('Airplane!', 1980)

Hallo,

What kind of entry ?
fs9.cfg is not concerned with scenery library i suppose.

Could You be more specific ?

Check your scenery.cfg, in the root of FS folder.
What does it say and how is it with those " [ " at [Area.nnn],
or other mess.

Gruss
--
Filipoff

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:42:50 +0100 there was darkness, Filipoff
<filipoff@inter.net> floated above the darkness and said :


sorry, I meant scenery.cfg - problem has resolved itself, have
detected that several sceneries shared the same (!) area number!

thx!

<<< Tina >>>
--
Rex Kramer: "Striker, listen, and you listen close:
flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle,
just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes."
('Airplane!', 1980)

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:33:33 +0100 there was darkness, Tina Fisher
<removethis.tina.fisher@liwest.at> floated above the darkness and said
:


sorry, I meant scenery.cfg - problem has resolved itself, have
detected that several sceneries shared the same (!) area number!

thx!

<<< Tina >>>
--
Rex Kramer: "Striker, listen, and you listen close:
flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle,
just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes."
('Airplane!', 1980)

that scenery.cfg is a nasty file anyway, try to sort it by area
number, fs9 will rearrange it

<<< Tina >>>
--
Rex Kramer: "Striker, listen, and you listen close:
flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle,
just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes."
('Airplane!', 1980)

Salut,

Oh yeah ! :-(

I have re-writen it (from [area.039] and down) a few times.
I do not know where the spy exactly is. I suspect this
SceneryStatus.DAT to be the one.
You can delete it, it will be made a new one at the next start.
You may also delete a 'scenery.cfg' in your Document and Settings
folder (where FS9.cfg is) if present. Do not need it there anyway.

It depends also very much if you have not enabled some scenery
(Active=FALSE). Then it will jump a layer each time.
--
Filipoff

FS9 does some mysterious things with scenery.cfg.
It keeps several copies - in XP, one is sometimes kept in the same
place where fs9.cfg is kept.
But that's not the one it uses. That one is in the FS2004 root folder.
Then it also creates oldscenery.cfg (I think that's what it's called)
which it uses when you modify the scenery library using the FS9
panels. It apparently places the changes there and at next boot-up of
FS9 it will update scenery.cfg from it.
If you have modified scenery.cfg directly before that boot-up, things
can get screwed up royally - multiple entries is just one of them
which re-appear when you delete them directly from scenery.cfg ;-((

Been there ... done that! (

-=tom=-

Tina Fisher <removethis.tina.fisher@liwest.at> wrote:

isn't the one with the fs9 file meant for the scenery on default flight
starting point? thats what I assumed when I saw that.

--


David MacLeod
Etna, Maine USA
P4 2.8 OC to 3.13
1 GB DDR 466
Radeon 9800 Pro 256 MB
2 Seagate 120 RAID 0

"Tom Orle" <xspam.orle@att.net> wrote in message
news:eo4g40plaehc50igc3ctrta1iacabn22ot@4ax.com...

Tom Orle wrote:
newscenery.cfg? I think...... :-)
adds it, then (usually) deletes it when everything up to speed........

"dmac" <dmacleo@tds.1net> wrote:

I'm not sure. After I delete it, there is no problem starting from my
last default flight.

I'm thinking of switching to RAID 0 but am somewhat leary about it's
reliability.
I have 2 120 GB drives in normal FAT32 operation. Recently one got
corrupted but I still could access the other - something I couldn't do
with a RAID 0 implementation.
So, what's your experience with RAID 0? Do you have Sandra for
benchmarking? I'd be interested to know what it reports for the
thruput. Have you converted all your partitions to RAID and do you
boot from a RAID partition?

Just curious ...

-=tom=-