Making eaglesoft Beechjet more fps friendly

[Azapata87 173]

hi,The other day I remember Johnci posted something about making only the captains gauges active on the panel. Can you please tell me how to do that John? The aircraft is wonderful and the framerates are good when in the outside view looking at the external model (in the 20s) but when I go into the cockpit view oh boy! My frame rates go down to china town (5-10) ;-) :-( . Not very flyable. I'm hoping disabling the Fo's gauges will improve fps some. Thanks,AndrewPS. Im not bashing the aircraft in any way Eaglesoft, The beechjet is awsome and Im going to be flying it a lot for months to come :D.

[Dillon 2,197]

For those who are having framerate problems try this...'You can cut back on half the work mentioned in other posts by simply editing your 'panel.cfg' under the VC section containing the left and right side panel entries. Change your 'pixel_size' resolution and your problem is solved with less work and all your gauges still work:file=vc_left.bmp Background_color=0,0,0 size_mm=1024,1024visible=0render_3d_window=1pixel_size=512,512 <------ This number was 1024,1024texture=$vc_leftBy cutting the pixel_size number in half, I was able to increase my frame rates by half or more. (Example: 1024=512, 512=256, 256=128).'Do not change all the VC panel entries just the left and right main panel!!! Text should begin like this:file=vc_left.bmp Background_color=0,0,0 size_mm=1024,1024visible=0render_3d_window=1pixel_size=512,512texture=$vc_left--------------------file=vc_right.bmp Background_color=0,0,0 size_mm=1024,1024visible=0pixel_size=512,512texture=$vc_rightThat's it, don't change anything else...One thing to add (as we both discovered)--if your V/C gauge quality slider is set to the minimum, this tip may not change performance at all.The other option I found is simply replacing the v/c setup with a static panel.... These gauges running in V/C mode absorb a lot of resources from the system. I'm in the process of creating a panel which will replace the v/c.... IMHO, this is one jet that lends itself better to flying with the 2-d panel anyway... -JohnCI I disagree with John here for I like the VC more than the 2D panel and by using my edits above, I'm happy. The framerate performance with this plane is great now...--Dillon

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Dillon...You know, I saw your post at ES, and now this one. I am getting a bit fed up with you arguing with me over a suggestion I made--not on behalf of ES, but in the hopes I could help someone. Yet you seem challenged by it. Get over it...you are not the sole means of help here, and I can get really nasty in these forums when someone seems to make a mission of debunking everything I say. This isn't a contest to see who is right or who is wrong--it is a user to user forum, offering help.You know full well I qualified my issue around my low memory situation....yet you have to turn this into some type of friggin contest.... If you sense I am mad, I am....

[Azapata87 173]

hi,Got it! thanks FPS went up a lot :D Very enjoyable aircraft, just has to be trimmed properly or it wont fly real well, it only took an out of control landing for me to figure that one out :-roll. Andrew

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Great to hear that helped you Andrew.... As I mentioned in my comment to Dillon, my fix is if your system is "memory impaired", like mine. Until the Eaglesoft panel came along, I never hit that impairment. But there's always a first time....-John

[Dillon 2,197]

I think we have a serious misunderstanding here... You can get nasty all you want but none of my comments were directed at you per say. You don't like VC's, I do. So I will make every effort to support the people who do like them, furthermore if I can in anyway show someone an easier way around a problem that keeps every function of the original design working I will. You seem to be taking my comments as a personnel attack on you when in my view point we've been really helpful together to Eaglesoft as well as their customers because we have different view points. Together we add another level of enhanced support that Eaglesoft otherwise wouldn't have had. Now if you want to get nasty by all means go ahead and I'll just take the step as not to respond. You being nasty here is by no way going to cause me any personnel harm or take money out of my pocket, so I don't care one way or another....

[Dillon 2,197]

Glad to hear things worked out... Thanks also goes to a person on this forum that goes by the name of Yellow5, he found the tip mentioned above.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I agree Dillon...It sounds like we have one of those issues caused by the great void called the web, where you can't hear the skepticism in my voice when this whole panel thing fell on our laps...First--I love a V/C--when it works on my system. Plain and simple, this V/C will not run well on a system unless it has more than 256 megs of RAM. That has me PO'd.....and one of the answers I got from E/S "A stick of RAM only costs $20" was as BS a response as I ever heard. I didn't plan on throwing money away on RAM when I'm replacing a MB in a few months--and it's crazy to spend $45 for a $25 product. I tried to politely respond in their forums, as they go through the trouble of hosting them. But I still was miffed by that answer. I won't upgrade until I see what FS2004 requires. And truth is, my system ran FS with all the features I wanted, until this V/C came along. You'd think for the RAM and performance penalty, we'd at least have an FMC.As an A/C designer, I hate V/C's--only because they are hard work and I am....uh....lazy. But they make all the difference between a professional release and one that is more of a casual flyer. So my own ventures in a/c design won't be enough for me to give up my day job.Flight1's 421--the only way I fly it is from the V/C.... Same goes for DF's Cardinal, and the Gforce 150. They don't eat the RAM up on my system. Yannick's Robin is another one I fly from the V/C.... I don't care for the ES V/C because it simply doesn't work on my system--and, their resolution recommendations are crazy for low end systems...at best I can run in 800x600. Their cockpit is unreadable at all but the highest resolution.When I posted my solution on the panel, it was to help the type of person in my shoes--someone who at least wanted the 2d panel and didn't have enough RAM for the V/C. Now it seems there's other issues with even the 2-d panel, such as the alt hold issues people are reporting. IMHO, the ES gauge designers bit off more than they could chew, and created something too complex, even for higher end systems. Sure, an 850MHZ system can run it at 15fps, but I don't find that acceptable for fluid flight, which is why I fly around cities like Cleveland and Phoenix vs. NYC and LA.... I can get better than 15fps with the 2-d panel and my hacked v/c...but I still think that like all developers, ES was a bit too optimistic and assuming when it came to estimating requirements for their panel. And flippant answers like "RAM is only $20" ignores the issue I identified. Complex code is one thing, but no panel should wipe out RAM....Having said all that, I also love a good visual design. That's why I bought the Ariane aircraft, and why I'm crazy about FFX's work. There's no bizjet that comes close to these in visual quality, although the textures could have been more detailed, and dynamic shine could have been applied and tested in an hour. Considering I buy one or two A/C add-ons a year, I still consider my money well spent. OTH, if ES just blows off the issues I reported with answers like "RAM only costs $20", then I probably will have to think twice about another product of theirs until they learn to create complex gauges without hindering fps on systems like yours, or killing RAM on systems like mine.-John