I am reasonably sure that there are occasions when the memory is stretched too far and a CTD occurs.
When this happens must relate to the available memory of the users' PCs, so I would expect it to vary.

Recently Ray reported a CTD when he was intercepting a large flight of B17s with a lot of multiskins loaded.
I was able to get the same, so I have been investigating.
My system was maxed out in terms of graphics quality settings.

B-17s are four-engined bombers so each plane generates four contrails. With up to 16 different multiskins for each plane type, and large flight numbers there will be a large demand on memory which could easily be excessive and cause a CTD.
On my PC I was able to avoid the CTD with the latest exe.
If there is a "MaxSet.mpf" file in the root folder the exe reads it and gets the maximum numbers of friendly primary, friendly secondary, enemy primary and enemy secondary planes for a single mission. If it is not present the default value of 72 is used for each. I tried a "MaxSet.mpf" file with low values 10, 10, 10 and 10, and the CTD did not occur.

Another strategy that I tried was to set the SPECIAL EFFECTS value to "low" using the config graphics screen. This turns off contrails.

I would appreciate any feedback from users so that we might get a clearer picture, and develop further strategies

Jel

Busy with some serious real life issues so I haven't had time to try out the new execs but there's one very minor issues I'd like to bring up.

Recently you added a smoke trail to the ME163 rocket plane but it will only show up with the detail level set to high so if a player sets the detail level to low or medium they're going to miss this nice add-on.

Like I said, minor in the scheme of things but maybe there's something you can do.

The "MaxSet.mpf" possibility seems promising. It is a matter of trying different values.
In the recent tests I have190A, B17-G, 109G-2 a,d P38J all wearing multi-skins, and no CTD with the contrails visible and the 10,10,10,10 setting.

Have a chance this morning to try out "Dec18thOldMap(M.3dz)" with all the MPF files you sent me.



Edit - I set up an intercept with all multiskins, Me110G's and Me109G's vs B-17G's and P-38J's.

Large formations, all graphics set to medium except special effects which was set to high.

With MaxSet.mpf set to 10, 10, 10 ,10 I get a CTD at the same place as before, just as the main model comes into view.

With Max set.mpf set to 5, 5, 5, 5 the game runs fine.

However, the planes are still not showing up at middle and long distance views. ( Yes, I'm using the new exec.)

I see the furthest distance dot up until about 14000 ft, then the planes disappear and reappear at about 4500 feet.

I'll try upping each of the graphics settings one by one and run the same mission to see when I hit the memory wall.




Edit - With all settings on high and the MaxSet.mpf at 5,5,5,5 the game runs. I will try upping the MaxSet numbers.



Edit - With all settings on high and the MaxSet.mpf at 7,7,7,7 the game CTD's after about 1/3 of the main models appear.

I suspect that he key value is the third one which is the number of B17s. Try 5, 5, 7, 5.
Also try with SPECIAL EFFECTS set to low.

I may be worth adding that I have suspected for years that EAW routines are stored in the "Windows Swapfile", and that once the CTD occurs it continues to because the routine in the "Swapfile" runs. I have no definite proof, but in the early days of EAW I had routine in DOS that deleted the swapfile during boot-up when it ran my edited "config.sys". This seemed to avoid repeated problems.

Actually the more people that are able to try this and give feedback the better, with differing operating systems and memory. What works on my PC may not on someone else's.

Back with more data:

I took out all the multiskins and ran the same mission with all the graphics set to high and the MaxSet.mpf set to 10,10,10,10.

No CTD's.

I'm going to say something that might not sit well with some folks but just remember that this is my own personal opinion, not a refection on anyone's work.

Critically speaking after today's tests, I don't think multiskins, as they are presently set up, are viable in EAW. In addition, I think we're chasing a dead end by adding in the MaxSet.mpf.

I say that because it adds another level of complexity that most players are not going to fiddle with. For most casual players the game either runs or it doesn't. To expect them to run 5 to 10 missions with all sorts of different graphic settings, both the ones in the game and now a text file with more settings, to find their own personal sweet spot is asking too much.

I must stress that this is my opinion and not demeaning of any contributor's work. I hope that's coming through loud and clear.

Having said that, I do have an idea that would allow SOME variability in the graphics without adding too much of a memory load.

It is the approach I took with the B-26 multiskins that I just finished.

I used an add-on section, in this case, the B.3dz. This B is composed of only a few elements and the texture is a hi-res BMP with nothing in it but some nose art. (We could probably get away with a lo-res pcx texture because the picture can take up the entire landscape. This might reduce the memory load a bit more.)

This B.3dz is attached to the nose section with a hardpoint and in the game it looks great.

So all the modder would need to do is add one 3dz section to each side of the main fuselage with the squadron ID numbers and optionally, some nose art attached to the nose section. At most there would be three 3dz's and three textures.for each of the 15 secondary planes.

What would be lost is the varied camo skins that the Brits and Germans used but the multiskin modification might run OK if this approach was adopted.

Lastly, I'd be happy to help get functional multiskins working in EAW. I happen to like the variety they add to the game.

I can also report that with all the settings the same as before I CAN run the B-26 multiskin planes after taking out all the secondary files except for the nose art. All the planes are silver, no green and brown ones, the squadron ID's are all the same as the primary plane but the nose art is different on each plane.

I will attempt to add squadron ID's attached with a hardpoint rather than painted on a 3dz section and get back later.

Great. It is good when a problem produces some creative investigations and we find better ways of doing things

I just flew a SPAW intercept of Betties with large numbers of aircraft involved and all settings to the max

All sorts of things happening!

In terms of simplification the multiskin problem has emerged due to large numbers of four engined bombers and their contrails.
Otherwise there seems to be no problem.

It is a PITA to fly them as level bombers at 17000 feet, so they should really only be AI planes to be escorted, without the need for cockpit 3dz files.
Having them with basically the same patterns but different squad markings added at hardpoints could seriously reduce the number of files needed to be loaded.

A big YES to that sentiment. Now to spread it forum wide.

We all want EAW to work at peak performance and the only way to do that is with critical thinking.

BTW, can you check out the problem with the distance models not showing up?

To me it is the skin colours
If I intercept the default B-17s I see them clearly. I do not have a gap.

I have a lot of memory in my system, so I can't offer much help in terms of detecting limitations. However, I do agree with the sentiment that a simplicity that works for the vast majority is the most important. It is more essential that the game is maximally functional for the majority of people. In terms of gameplay, smooth and stable performance combined with consistent long-distance plane-sighting are more important than visual bonuses that matter little in the replication of combat.

Those who have more patience and know-how for increased complexity, such as multiskins, and who have systems powerful enough for these extras, could be offered the option of a Multiskin patch, which could be added either permanently or via the use of a facility such as JSGME. Those without the horsepower to run this could simply choose to ignore it.

That's my opinion, for what it's worth, gentlemen.

Thanks again for your continued efforts and generosity in sharing them.

Yeah but if a player can't run the game or has to jump through hoops to the point that they don't bother playing at all then the multipoint mod is useless


What do you mean by default?






Skyhigh,

The problem is the way EAW handles memory, not how much you have in your system.

As to your suggestion to have different levels of graphics depending on a players system, that is easily done with the file set up program that comes with EAW 1.6

I can make a basic plane folder and multiskin folder of the same plane, that's not too difficult. In fact, with a short learning curve the average player can do the same thing.

However, the problem of how EAW handles memory remains the same.





I am working on a way to have some of the variety that multiskins offer without the memory load. This is a prototype:


Notice the plane in the foreground has the designation RJ A and the one in the background is RJ B. This proves that my idea will work with only two extra files per plane, one for each side, plus one for the nose art if desired.

As stated it doesn't allow for different colored skins, just varied squadron ID's and nose art.

But................it will run with a lot less stress on a PC avoiding the need for the added complexity of an external graphics set up file.

FWIW, I plan to go ahead with this idea with the B-26 in the new plane package I'm almost done with and I'm going to take out the other multiskins just to avoid the CTD issue.

I'll lose a couple of week's worth of work but I think it's important to keep the complexity and chance for CTD's to a minimum.

Ray. I think you misunderstood me
The default ETO planeset has the original EAW B17 skin.
If I load that planeset and fly a B17 intercept in a 190A I see them as black dots which get bigger as I approach from head-on. Eventually they become recognisable planes and never disappear like your multiskin B17s do. I think it is due to the colours used in your multiskins that are making them invisible against the sky background, and not a bug in the exe.

Jel

Nope.

I thought that too.

Same thing happens to the B-26's.

I'll take a few screen shots.

Default B26 (not multiskin) as they approach my 190A









At no time did I not see an image

I've been trying the new exes with graphics maxed out and extra squads=3. I tried an intercept mission of B-17's and escort in a 109k4, with all squadrons maxed out. With all four new exes, I get ctd's very quickly (I can never remember getting a ctd in EAW before). In contrast, using the October exe, the same mission remained stable both of the times I tried it. The game did ctd both times when I exited the mission. I used the ETO Late plane-set. In all cases, framerates remained acceptable and never lower than the mid-twenties, but averaging about forty.

I tried the same mission, with the same conditions, in 1.29 without problems.

I cannot really see any noticeable visual difference with the new exe's. In none of these cases did the bombers disappear and I was able to see them right up to either the ctd or, in the other case, when battle commenced.

What exactly does the MaxSet.mpf file do? Does it limit the number of planes or reduce their graphic imprint? If the former, I think it a pity to limit the number of planes in EAW.

Planes still disappearing over here.

Screen shots tomorrow.

My old Windows XP system flies multi-skins in 1.28e and 1.29 without a problem and at very high frame rates.

http://SimHQ.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4453508/re-a-few-sceenies#Post4453508

I hope the issues with the new models, multi-skins and 1.6X get ironed out.

Thanks to SkyHigh's comment I tested the October version, which worked well.
Then I went back to my folders and found the last version that worked and it was made on November 17th.
I am now attempting to add the changes since November 17th one at a time to locate the cause of the problem.

Mike could you try something?

Run an intercept mission in 1.28 just like the one I described above using all multiskin planes and see if it functions OK.

I ask because when setting up the multiskins for 1.6 I didn't have any problem with the brief entries into the game to observe my efforts. The CTD problem didn't arise until I started running missions.

Fixed




A file I had changed on December 8th was the culprit.
I put the previous version of that file in the code for the latest exe and had zillions of planes and contrails and tracers with no problem. It was not a memory issue.

Great work.

Ok, great news. As always thanks for the veritable HERCULEAN effort to get this straightened out.

Can you drop a copy in my folder ASAP?

Got a tough real life day ahead but I will have time here and there for some testing.

I will make the old map version and then upload them for you.
In that test I had 16 190s, 48 109G2s, 72 B17s and 64 P38s.


Edit
It is in your folder as "Dec21EAW Versions.zip"

This was the big clue I needed, and it highlights one of the best features of a co-operative forum.
Many thanks SkyHigh

I tested a late October version, and there were no problems. I then tested more recent ones until I found the last stable one, and checked the date.
I collected the files that had been added since that date, and added them one by one, compiling them and testing the new version.
The ninth file I added gave a version with the "B-17 CTD". I replaced the dodgy file with the previous version, and the exe worked fine.
Then I took a punt and went to the very latest version, and replaced the dodgy file. BINGO

I only did the donkey-work of experiment and observation, it was your expertise and diligence that found the important clue. It's true, though (and excuse me if that phrase reminds you of that absurd Canadian Prime Minister), that many hands make lighter work.

But that donkey work and report gave me a much needed starting point for the systemic investigation that brought the solution

The new exes are available here: 160exes 21st December 2018

Jel

Man, don't underestimate your contribution and the willingness to get involved.

Say, ever heard of rendering sequence calculations?

Just askin'....................no particular reason.

Your little man can stay running away!

Ah, 'cmon, what's a little insanity in the long run, am I right?

Ah, well.

These screenshots are with the new execs. Green P-38's escorting silver B-17's vs 110G's -

This is the P-38 escort at 6100 ft -


Same plane at 5500 ft - You have to look close but you can see the dark just above the distance readout:


The B17's at 5000 ft -


Same group at 4700 ft - You can see the planes just in front of the contrails, I caught this shot just as they came into view so some are still invisible:


So, it's not ME missing the silver planes in the glare or anything. They are popping into view just like before.

It must be a file problem somewhere Ray.
In my tests I think I had IronMike's B17-G multiskins, and they never disappeared.
In other tests the default single skin bombers did not disappear then reappear.
This includes B17s, B24s, B26s, Mossies, Ju88as and Betties.
Try intercepting some of these and see what happens on your PC.

Thanks for the new exes. I tried several 109K missions on ETO Late with the new map one, with extra squads=3 and numbers and graphics maxed out. I had total stability, no hint of a ctd, with aircraft, tracer, contrails and flamers all over the sky. The game at all times exited properly, also. I had no trace of that pop-up phenomenon that Ray has encountered. in fact, I was seeing aircraft dots at 100kms, with continuous view right up to engagement. All told, excellent so far.

i will double check everything but it's happening to the escorts too.

Ran the same mission but with planes from my 1939 BOB scenario.

Same problem, planes disappear around 5000 to 6000 feet. Doesn't matter, bombers or fighters, friend or foe.

I can show screen shots but rather you just take my word for it.

Ray I believe you, because I get the same problem with the B26s

Disappeared:


Reappeared:


However, you keep using your own files and do not appear to have tried the exe with the ETO default files that I used.
There was no problem with those files, or IM's multiskin B17Gs.
If it were a problem with the exe then I would have expected the same thing to happen every time.

Well, seeing as how I've now used 10 different sets of files, some going back 5 years, I'd say something else is out of wack but I'll give the defaults a try.



Edit - I no longer have the default planes, can you put the appropriate aircraft in a zip for me and load it up to the GEN?

I just tried this.
The DAW Whitley also does the disappearing act, but the DAW B25C does not.
I copied the "PlaneT.3dz" file from the DAW B25C files and put the copy in the root folder for a test.
When the Whitleys were intercepted they stayed in view.

Edit:
As the default folder is "GameData" I moved the "PlaneT.3dz" file into it and the Whitleys still stayed in view.
With that good result I switched planesets and intercepted your multiskin B26s. Sure enough they remained in view.
We need that "PlaneT.3dz" file, but as it is a stick model the one in "GameData" may well be good enough to cover for every skin folder that does not have one, and saves a heap of work

For further confirmation I have just intercepted your multiskin B17Gs and they did not disappear

The jpgs are of a full intercept mission involving Bf109Ks, FW190D-9, P-851D and B17G. All video at max settings and everything comes out fine (1.29 is being used).

Is it possible that the mid-distance model M.3dz being eliminated might have something to so with the planes winking in and out? The B-17s Jell is using still have these if he didn't modify the unit files. Does the T.3dz take the place of the M.3dz?

Just asking mind you.

The problem is solved Mike as per my last post. It was in the planets LOL

What is it they say? Great minds think alike.

I haven't had a lot of time but I did some digging around and I also found missing "T's" randomly throughout the various planesets. No idea why but to fix it I've dug out the old original "T's" from EAW 1.2.

There are four different ones that will suffice:

1 - Four engine
2 - Twin engine
3 - Single engine
4 - Twin boom

I will take the time to add the proper ones to the appropriate folders as I finish up this aircraft_inventory package.

Well at least the stop-gap is already there in "GameData" and that will take the pressure off

Well, if the stopgap works to everyone's approval should I bother adding the correct "T's" to all the folders?

The only difference in the first three "T's" I listed is the size and from what I've seen so far the twin boom doesn't even show up at that distance. In fact, a many of the twin engine planes that do have a "T" are using the twin boom even though they are normal layouts.

If we go with the stopgap as the default I could go the other direction and delete the "T's" that are presently in some of the folders. Each one is 350 bytes but this new plane package will have upwards of 500 folders so.............

I will get back to my programming disk shortly (I am testing W7 right now). It should be possible to program the M to kick in where the T does by adding a line to the "plane.dat" loading. That way we would not even need the T.
I will do it just to make sure I can, and if it works it should be interesting to see the images.

Actually you should do the "S" not the "M" to keep the sequence in proper order.

First the Dot,
Then "T",
Then "S"
Then "M"
Then Main model.

The "S" would work fine at the distances we now use. No point using processor resources when you don't have to. You can't see any real detail that far out, plus the "S" uses the same texture as the "M" so you wouldn't have to worry about a visual conflict.

FWIW, the original producers got it right, visually. You can't see enough detail at 2500 ft to worry about the accuracy of the textures on the plane, out about 6000 ft to see the specific shape of the plane, out about 9000 ft to see the general size of the plane and out about 12000 ft to see any more than a dot.

I have a version running in a copy of my 160 folder which has had all of the "PlaneM.3dz" and "PlaneT.3dz" files deleted. I am using an exe compiled from code the exe I edited with just one extra line.
The distant planes do not disappear, and so far there have been no problems AFAIK. Can you think of any potential ones?

Ray there is a "EEAWVersions.zip" in your folder with the old and new map versions that do not need or read the "PlaneM.3dz" or the "PlaneT.3dz".

So we would then have the distance dot, the "S.3dz" and the main model?

I can't think of a problem, we'd just have a lot of extraneous files floating around.

I probably won't get to the execs. today. Wife's 97 year old aunty who we were caring for died this morning.

Maybe if I get a quiet moment tomorrow morning I can give them a go.

My sympathies, Ray.

Condolences Ray, I know well the mixtures of feelings.

My Condolences Ray sorry for your loss

Condolences from me too. From what you told me earlier it may well be a blessed relief.

Thank you for the thoughts.

And yes, it was truly a blessing. She was 97 in full blown dementia.

I don't know if you recall but I lost my deceased wife to MS about 9 years ago after caring for her for 10 long years. My present wife lost her husband to Parkinson's around the same time after caring for him for 25 years.

We're veterans of the caregiver wars which is why we took this woman under our wings. Both of us can attest there are way worse things than death.

As you can imagine we're both aficionados of black humor. Sometimes it was all that got us through the bleak times.
So you might understand that the title of this thread kinda rings that bell for me after taking care of an Alzheimer's sufferer.







Ok, anyhow, I did get to run some missions with the new execs and I can say that it is without a doubt this modification is a nice improvement in graphics. I ran one mission in SPAW, one in BOB, one in the ETO and one in DAW and they all look good. That's all I had time.

The funny thing is, the first mission I ran was an intercept of my new silver B-26's and I though the mod wasn't working until I realized the silver planes were hard to spot against the cloudy background.

One thing though. I forgot to take MaxSet.mpf out of the folder so there weren't quite as many planes in the air. Still a lot though as the settings in MaxSet were 7,7,7,7.

If I get a chance I'll run a multiskin mission with maxed details and no MaxSet.mpf just to see how the framerates hold up

If that doesn't present a problem I can't think of a reason not to go forward with it.

One question.

I'm packing up the new aircraft_inventory project, cleaning up extraneous files and leftover pcx's that have been hanging out in the folders.

Can I go ahead and remove the "T's" and "M's" at the same time?

Being a caretaker is a difficult role. Death, even when expected, is a sorrowful thing. As a caretaker you will find yourself torn between feelings of sorrow and relief.

My respects and condolences.

Thanks OG.

Been there twice now myself. Harder than most people think.

I hate having to revive this thread, but I am getting the CTD's with Ray's multiskins again in a P-51D Escort Mission with B-17's. This is happening in EAW 1.60 with no extra mods whatsoever, although I am using Extra Squads=3. On the other hand, my 1.29 install, with the same conditions and some extra mods is totally stable. Any ideas?

Sky, I haven't made a P-51 multiskin set and I'm not even sure Jel has released a revised B-17 set that addresses the problem.

Also, what are the Axis aircraft in your mission?

FWIW, as I finish up a much improved aircraft package, everything is running OK with the new execs.

Ray, I had the Axis set to Random, but the problem repeats itself continually.

I'm a bit confused on this. Perhaps we are still awaiting your upcoming solution. I had the impression that the problem had already been solved, but as you are working on a new set and which happens to be working ok, please forgive me for jumping the gun. I look forward to the release of your package.

Nothing to forgive, Sky, just a simple exchange of ideas with no angst or offense taken.

The whole CTD issue is pretty complex. Could be anything from mixed up single mission data, to hardpoint mis-assignment to well, a whole host of problems including these multiskin issues that are presently bedeviling us.

Anyhow, I hope we go forward in 2019 with a motto of "No angst, no offense, only an exchange of data for the betterment of the EAW flying experience".

As to your question, I'm pretty sure the various fixes haven't been released yet but we'll need to have Mr. Jelly chime in on that and I think he's on real world sabbatical from EAW at the moment.

Questions do abound -

Do you have the full 1.6 install?

Can you select other scenarios, different execs and different plane sets?

If so, try a planeset from SPAW or DAW with the default EAW scenario and see if the CTD's still occur. Then try the planset that is giving you trouble but select the SPAW theater.

I am in Switzerland with just my laptop, so I cannot do much until I get back

My goodness, there's no panic, at all. From what I hear, you're probably snowed in!

I have a full 1.60 install.

Some observations.

The problem occurs in the form of a freeze as often as a ctd.

It also happens with the Emil ETO Mordred (set 60) planeset. It does not happen with the ETO Late set, with Emil ETO 2 or 3 or with the ZZZZZ set.

It happens in other scenarios with both your set and Emil/Mordred.

It seems to happen only with B-17's, in both cases. It doesn't happen with Lanc's, B-26's, B-24's and so on. Although your B-17 set is a multiskin, the Emil/Mordred one appears not to be, but is a HR set. I have no difficulty in 1.29, 1.28E or 1.40 with almost exactly similar missions, scenarios and set-ups and using HR B-17's in most cases and multiskin ones in the case of 1.40.

The freezing vs CTD's leads me to believe that some of the planes have incorrect middle and long distance models as this is a more likely a cause for this type of problem. If these models have hardpoints, especially the long distance ones ( S.3dz ) it's very easy to have graphic anomalies which cause the freezes vs CTD's, so that's good info.

If you are feeling adventurous I can take you through the process for removing the possibly offending files and then you can try the same missions to see if the freezing and CTD's are eliminated.

One other thing.

The B-17's are not my set either. At the time these CTD's started occurring the only multiskins I had put together were the B-26's but you probably don't have that set yet either.

FWIW, I've since made a set of multiskin A-20's just to see if my approach vs the "standard" multiskin approach is viable. So far I haven't had any problems with them.

It's hard to keep up with which set is which, so sorry for laying the blame on you! I just assumed since it was contained within a planeset named after Ray, it was your work.

I will certainly give the removal of the putative guilty files a go, if it's not extremely complicated. I can manage folder structures and the like, but manipulating the internal information contained within files would be beyond me.

I don't do the blame thing, Sky, so don't be concerned. I was just clarifying the who, what, where of the issue.

If you go to a subfolder of your 1.6 install named Aircraft_Inventory you'll see a bunch more subfolders with names like ETOplanes, Malta140_planes, SPAWplanes and probably others as well.

Drill down through the ETOPlanes folder, then the Skins folder, then the USA folder until you see the B17F(multi) and B17G(multi) folders. Make a copy of each of these folders just for safety's sake. You can delete them once the experiment is concluded. The copied folders can remain in place, they won't confuse the game.

Open each of the two original folders and find the files PLANEM.3dz and PLANES.3dz. Rename these two with something like PLANEMorig.3dz and PLANESorig.3dz.

Now try running the game. If it runs, you will notice that the planes disappear at long distances and then pop into view at about 5000 feet. That's because the game hasn't got a mid and long distance model to display. Obviously this will only affect the B-17's so you will still see all the other planes at a distance.

You will have to accept that for right now until we get other exec problems sorted but eventually they will be issued.

Let me know how it goes.

I'll get on to that tonight.

Actually got around to it sooner. I went a step further and replaced the two relevant files from the corresponding ones in the B-24. Preliminary results, but I will need more time on this, indicate that the freezes\ctd's are eliminated, but I retain a distant view of the bombers. I will report in more detail later, but it's looking promising.

Good thinking. At the distance involved you'd be hard pressed to see the difference between the B-17 and B-24.

You know what else looks promising?

A new user who isn't afraid to get his hands dirty.

Thanks. I can confirm that my solution seems to be continuing to work with your eponymous planeset. I also did the same with the Emil\Mordred planeset and all seems to be working ok. As you say, I can see no difference between the distant images of the B-24 and the B-17. This workaround will certainly do for now.

Edit:

To obviate any differences in the images, I used the PlaneM and PlaneS 3dz files from the Planes_ETO B-17 skin-folders, which are also working quite satisfactorily.

Whoa, "eponymous"????

I think I've been complimented.........................or insulted..............................I'm not sure which.

We can get to use words like 'eponymous' when we're anonymous...

I'll get my coat, now.

Don't you mean integument?

Revisiting earlier posts it seems like the problem was caused by a missing "planeT.3dz" and a quick bodge was to put one in the "GameData" folder. In the 1.29 and earlier cases there would be one such as "PBB17T.3dz" in the 3D.cdf file, so the problem did not occur.

That indubitably signifies my elucidatory tendency.

Didn't you mean to say tendentious hallucinatory tendencies?

FYI, you might be surprised at the distance you can tell a b-17 apart from a b-24 in the real world. The high wing on the b-24 sitting on top of the oval fuselage easily sets it apart from a Boeing. The Wings of Freedom tour flies in and out or the Westminster Airport each fall for the last zillion years and they fly over my job site each time they take off and land. That plus when they fly in they follow Md. Route 140 west from Baltimore and can be seen for miles as they approach the airport.

P.S. good luck to y'all. I hope you can get things to work in 1.6X as well as they do in 1.28/9. It will be worth the effort.

The solution to this particular problem is baked in.

We do have a few other unrelated issues to deal with but a bit of real life has intruded.

"...Ah Life, the tiny little pill you take every day..."

or, as my Mom used to say...

That's Life,
What's that?
A magazine,
Where do you get it?
At the corner drug.
How much does it cost?
25 cents,
I've only got a dime,
Well, that's Life...

I feel ya Ray, positive thoughts do help.