FSX

[miguelpp 25]

Thanks, Gerry, that

[Guest Knikolaes]

Hey anyone successfully even moved the 757 into FSX? if so, what folders do I use? Would the procedure be similar as well for the 777?

[Guest NormanB]

Chris,Yes but you need some tweaking. Installing to your FSX folder wont work. Some files need moved around, plus panel.cfg and fsx.cfg needs edited. You also require FSUIPC.There may be other issues which the developers will be working on once they have the retail version - not everywhere in the world has it yet.

[Guest Knikolaes]

Thanks, Norman.I may uninstall FS X for a while anyway until updates are done. I think it's silly how they did their registry. I guess it overwrites FS 9 registry -- I installed FS X and then went to open FS 9 to fly the 757 and got warnings everywhere from my other payware products slamming me for not having them activated :-( And now they won't let me activate them because the registry no longer sees me as having FS 9 installed :-(I thought there was a tool out there that fixed the FS 9 registry without having to reinstall. Anyone have a clue where that is?Back on topic, I did get FSUIPC 4, and have familiarized myself with the FSX layout. Odd how they moved things -- makes developer upgrades a pain. I really do feel for you guys having to adapt your products to FSX with all the structure differences.

[zementa 0]

Hi Chris!It

[Guest ac772LR]

Hi Norman,I know the PSS team is working hard on a solution, but would you mind posting your interim solution for us. It's clear you've figured out how to get the 757 to work in FSX, so if it's not too complicated, would you mind sharing your solutions? I picked up FSUIPC4 yesterday in the hopes that I could get the 777 and 757s to work. Any assistance to make this happen would be greatly appreciated. PLEASE DON'T GET ME WRONG, I'm not trying to pressure you...just hoping that, if it's not too complicated, I could benefit from your wisdom.Regards,Bill

[Guest Knikolaes]

>Hi Chris!>It

[FOD 23]

Hi Chris,Be interested to see how you get on. This is a new FSX issue that I have not seen raised in any other forum. It did not happen with the demo and if the release FSX retains the same structure and .exe file, not sure how it manages to overwrite the FS9 registry entries. However ...................???Unfortunately I have not tried the final release yet and no access to FS systems at the moment, so let us know how the reset works.RegardsJohn

[Guest The_Glideslope]

I'm sorry but I don't get these errors In FS9 that you guys report. I am now running FSX and FS9 in the same machine and just did a VATSIM flight in my LD767, yesterday in my PMDG747, and I got several other addons installed all in FS9. And I fly them both with no problems at all.Don't you think the FS Team would have thought about this?All the registries are fine here, even an error reported from some users in Beta stages of FS9 flight files replacing the icon to FSX, I couldn't reproduce.Could anyone be more specific as to what errors come up? Do you have these errors on Boxed or Downloaded products?I think these problems occured with one of the Demos but not the Betas or Release Candidates.

[Guest Knikolaes]

Well the registry repAir worked for having access to both sims, but I wonder now what'll hapen when I get any third party add-ons for FS X now that the registry is pointed back to FS 9. And I was the same - no issues with the demo version. In fact the demo was installed too and it didnt even use the same keys.

[Guest Knikolaes]

>I'm sorry but I don't get these errors In FS9 that you guys>report. >I am now running FSX and FS9 in the same machine and just did>a VATSIM flight in my LD767, yesterday in my PMDG747, and I>got several other addons installed all in FS9. And I fly them>both with no problems at all.>>>Could anyone be more specific as to what errors come up? >Do you have these errors on Boxed or Downloaded products?>For some reason some utilities that access FS 9 such as Edit Voicepack cannot see FS 9 any longer after FS X is installed. The registry repair tool, though, fixed that issue :-) All is well now. I just hope it doesnt effect 3rd party software being installed in FS X in the future.Anyway, sorry this kinda veered off the main subject of this thread, so I'll hush now LOL.

[Guest Rake7575]

Gerry--one of the few optimistic FSX posts I've seen.I haven't installed FSX yet--waiting for some of the dust to settle and allow time for add-ons (PSS etc) to catch up.I have a very similar system to yours (except FX-60 and 4GB RAM)...where did your system default to after installation? Are you letting your video cards run anti-aliasing etc as opposed to FSX? Did you go to unlimited FPS setting? Did you make any changes to the autogen (trees/roofs modifications I see on the forums)? Lastly, where did you get the BA repaint for the A321?ThanksRake

[Guest Knikolaes]

Rake -- I do not know about anyone else, but I have ALL sliders in FSX maxed with the exception that i had to TOTALLY kill Autogen. Even with my system being a lower to mid grade system, it still isn't that bad of a system and FSX's autogen brought it to it's knees. I have already seen on AVSIM where folks are starting to release better texture sets for autogen to cure this issue -- as soon as a full world set is available I'll give it another go.However without autogen, I am able to run 100 percent AI traffic, 100 percent cars, boats and airport clutter, and all other sliders completely maxed (I left weather alone though -- weather looks okay at default).The only thing is if you bring AI over from elsewhere (such as i did with UT), it'll be slightly jacked up. Microsoft I guess decided not to leave things well enough alone on the way AI parks, so they changed how FS sees AI radius, so once i loaded UT into FS I had wings overlapping all over the place. Before we had aircraft radius -- now it's based on wingspan **shrugs**I do get frame hits at major airports such as Denver, but I am sure that will hange once I get a HALFway decent system. Right now I'm just running 4 gb RAM, a 3.2 GHz P4 HT processor and a cheap P.O.S. ATI X1300 Pro 256 MB (because i fried my good nVidea 9800 GT Ultra 512 **cries**) on an Asus mobo. I hope to catch up with the times next semester with financial aid and get what FSX was actually meant for - PCI Express with an ACTUAL graphcis card (NOT ATI) and an actual processor (dual core) and possibly 8 gb memory. The only thing right now i like about my computer is I have a little bit of HD space to work with (1 TB).FSX does have one drawback on my machine - but I am sure it is just my machine that has this issue -- the ground textures look 10 times more fake than in FS 9. Am I the only one encountering this? Pueblo, CO looks lik the sahara desert and we're nowhere even close to a desert LOL. I'm sure flight1 will rescue me eventually by releasing a ground package for FS. Now certain areas DO look awesome, but Colorado doesn't look NEAR as good as it does in FS 9 with UT USA and FS Genesis - even with all sliders maxed as they are.I did notice a lot more "green" with autogen, so it appears 98 percent of the earth's look in FS X is now dependant on autogen -- which as i stated above -- brought my machine to it's knees. For graphics card settings, I have all of mine set to "application preference" when running FS X and set to manual sliders when running FS 9. For some reason FS X doesn't like me forcing video card settings. Then again -- it's probably just me and my card -- ATI is crud -- only reason I have this card is because it was budget cheap for a college flight school student like myself who'd rather dump his cash into -- well -- flight school :-) Which, by the way, I am about to take my FAA written **jumps around excited** That costs more than a graphics card just to take the test -- I better study LOL.Hope this input helps. Hopefully others will put their views here as well as my system is definitely NOT the best one to compare to.Chris

[FOD 23]

Chris,Many thanks for this = very interesting and good to see positive reviews appearing. We do not have FSX yet and in any case I am trying to decide what is the minimum update I can get away with to make it worthwhile - I am not into 3000 {usd or GBP} systems just to run one programme; especially as I expect we will all be updating in another year for Vista/DX10!!!Your problem with the ground textures is mentioned on the FSX forum - a suggestion that Poland looks like a desert.BTW I assume that you have sorted out the FS9 registry problem?John

[Guest Rake7575]

ok...so maybe this is a blinding flash of the obvious but what again is the attraction of FSX if autogen and eye candy have to be either turned off or "simplified" to a level below FS9 with add-ons?If I can currently achieve 50-60 FPS with every add-on known to man what is the impetus to change? Not sure I want to spend hours/days tweaking FSX so I can hopefully get 20FPS without AI, without autogen, and questionable texture tiles and learn that my system is just not good enough--but I probably will--: )RakeAMD FX-60Nvidia 7950 GX2 (1GB) video card (a recent purchase--ouch)4GB ultra low latency RAMRaptor 150GB HD at 10,000rpm