Christmas greetings, everyone.
It seems things have settled down nicely with the reinstallation of my FS9 versions. One of the aircraft in the sim is the Captain Sim C-130 and all its variants - an excellent aircraft and well worth having. One of the variants installed during the download/install process is the "C-130-30," and its civilian counterpart, the L-100-30. I went to a site affiliated with CS and found a lot of free add-on textures. One of them was part of a pack of textures for Air Contractors L-100-30 aircraft. They all installed fine except for one, the AC L-100-30 in 2000 colors. It installed with two large grey bands around the fuselage, before and after the wing. I did some checking, comparing the other AC texture files with the faulty texture and discovered a texture file (.bmp) was missing. Repeated attempts to contact the author of the texture were never answered, I'm not sure how to find this person. This evening I went ahead and, as an experiment, changed the name of the .bmp in question, and borrowed other textures from the three other AC aircraft to flesh out the texture file in question. I've actually got a properly-painted aircraft now, but the old bugbear has surfaced - there aren't any landing gear, and the props disappear when the engines start - a "safeguard" built into the sim by its Russian designers to protect themselves against us "thieves" out here who are constantly trying to steal their work, I suppose. The model is proper for the aircraft in question and the .cfg entry is absolutely correct. The CS "ACE" utility will not allow installation into the C-133 folder and if you put anything in there it's got to be inserted by hand. Not only that, but I followed a procedure stated by many authors of add-on textures for this aircraft to install this one file - and I still get this result. It's the only one behaving like this, so I'm not sure what I did wrong. Going to the CS website only results in getting canned answers to situations like this.
I don't know if anyone else has run into this problem and if they have a work-around - maybe not - but at least I can let you folks know about this issue so you can avoid it in future.
It seems things have settled down nicely with the reinstallation of my FS9 versions. One of the aircraft in the sim is the Captain Sim C-130 and all its variants - an excellent aircraft and well worth having. One of the variants installed during the download/install process is the "C-130-30," and its civilian counterpart, the L-100-30. I went to a site affiliated with CS and found a lot of free add-on textures. One of them was part of a pack of textures for Air Contractors L-100-30 aircraft. They all installed fine except for one, the AC L-100-30 in 2000 colors. It installed with two large grey bands around the fuselage, before and after the wing. I did some checking, comparing the other AC texture files with the faulty texture and discovered a texture file (.bmp) was missing. Repeated attempts to contact the author of the texture were never answered, I'm not sure how to find this person. This evening I went ahead and, as an experiment, changed the name of the .bmp in question, and borrowed other textures from the three other AC aircraft to flesh out the texture file in question. I've actually got a properly-painted aircraft now, but the old bugbear has surfaced - there aren't any landing gear, and the props disappear when the engines start - a "safeguard" built into the sim by its Russian designers to protect themselves against us "thieves" out here who are constantly trying to steal their work, I suppose. The model is proper for the aircraft in question and the .cfg entry is absolutely correct. The CS "ACE" utility will not allow installation into the C-133 folder and if you put anything in there it's got to be inserted by hand. Not only that, but I followed a procedure stated by many authors of add-on textures for this aircraft to install this one file - and I still get this result. It's the only one behaving like this, so I'm not sure what I did wrong. Going to the CS website only results in getting canned answers to situations like this.
I don't know if anyone else has run into this problem and if they have a work-around - maybe not - but at least I can let you folks know about this issue so you can avoid it in future.