Which I consider since it's sold at lower at the moment. Then I would like to know some things. I do have ASE and I have it installed on networked computer. Doing so to avoid unneccesary performence load of my FS computer. If I get AS2012 what would be the best thing to do? Installing it on the networked computer in order to not take resources from FSX? How much difference could it make? Or would I be better of placing it on my main FS computer so it can run smoother. Because I do experience that ASE is a little slow and unresponsive on my old networked computer especially the map.

Also I would like to know if I could continue use ASE after starting to use AS2012?

It would be best on the same system if your CPU can handle the load. You can still use ASE but why, AS2012 does it all, no further need for ASE.

 

Vic

It would be best on the same system if your CPU can handle the load. You can still use ASE but why, AS2012 does it all, no further need for ASE.

 

Vic

 

Well my CPU is AMD Phenom II X4 965BE 3.4 GHz (OC to 4 GHz but I don't think that made much difference). But is not AS2012 only for FSX? Meaning I would still need ASE for FS9 right?

No. AS2012 works in FS9 too, I believe. Haven't used it in years but IIRC AS2012 will import plans and inject weather in FS9.

I have your same CPU and it performs very well with everything.

 

 

David DD

No. AS2012 works in FS9 too, I believe. Haven't used it in years but IIRC AS2012 will import plans and inject weather in FS9.

 

I was thinking of this description from simmarket

FSX-Exclusive Integration

Active Sky 2012 is designed specifically for FSX.

 

It would be best on the same system if your CPU can handle the load. You can still use ASE but why, AS2012 does it all, no further need for ASE.

 

Vic

 

I can see one further use of ASE if I install AS2012 on my main FS computer. I could compare performence with AS2012 and ASE and thus see if and what impact on performence I get. And I assume I could reinstall AS2012 on my networked computer if I would find it necessary?

 

I have your same CPU and it performs very well with everything.

 

 

David DD

 

And you don't notice any effect on performence with AS2012 running? Btw what impression do you have of overclocking from 3.4 GHz to 4 GHz?

And you don't notice any effect on performence with AS2012 running? Btw what impression do you have of overclocking from 3.4 GHz to 4 GHz?

Not at all, I guess it depends on the textures you choose to install...and the gpu you are using will also improve your performance. I had fsx running on a 32 led philips tv in HD and it was an amazing experience, total immersion factor! Unfortunately I had to put it back where it belonged and now I'm using a smaller monitor, highest resolution 1440 x 900 and my clouds are set to 1024 x 1024.

Cloud density and draw distance play a huge role in performance, mine are set respectively to medium and 70 miles.

My Cpu is very stable, I never have crashes, not even before playing in HD. I do use a good cooling system, without it I would have never met the 4ghz barrier! Anything more than 4ghz will cause crashes tough.

Yes, it was designed specifically for FSX but it works just fine with FS9. There's nothing to say you CANNOT use ASE too , just not both at the same time. It's your call.

 

Don't use AMD CPU's but on Intels - 4ghz seems to be the start of the sweet spot but each system is different. For example, my second system is a q9650 CPU clocked to 3,88. It ran fine at 4ghz BUT FSX didn't run fine - skips and stutters etc. Dropped to 3.88 and FSX runs just about as well on that system as it does on my main system. If you get all the pieces in balance, it can be fun.

 

One of the best things about ASE and AS2012 is their flexibility. try different settings and see what pleases you. Just one suggestion - IMHO the visuals using the 1024 textures are just as beautiful and dramatic with much less performance hit. Sometimes less is more!

 

have fun,

 

Vic

Not at all, I guess it depends on the textures you choose to install...and the gpu you are using will also improve your performance. I had fsx running on a 32 led philips tv in HD and it was an amazing experience, total immersion factor! Unfortunately I had to put it back where it belonged and now I'm using a smaller monitor, highest resolution 1440 x 900 and my clouds are set to 1024 x 1024.

Cloud density and draw distance play a huge role in performance, mine are set respectively to medium and 70 miles.

My Cpu is very stable, I never have crashes, not even before playing in HD. I do use a good cooling system, without it I would have never met the 4ghz barrier! Anything more than 4ghz will cause crashes tough.

 

Do yoy know why >4 GHz leads to problem? Are your CPU getting to hot?

 

One of the best things about ASE and AS2012 is their flexibility. try different settings and see what pleases you. Just one suggestion - IMHO the visuals using the 1024 textures are just as beautiful and dramatic with much less performance hit. Sometimes less is more!

 

Yes I tried installing the 1024 textures from REX Essential which I also use in FS9 where they are called HD clouds (but in FSX not). I don't think I can notice any difference between 1024 and 2048.

Do yoy know why >4 GHz leads to problem? Are your CPU getting to hot?

From research I have read that 4 ghz is the most you can get out of this cpu, maybe a little higher only with a professional water cooling solution.

Not worth the money for such little gain imo anyway. So as long as I'm good with fsx I have nothing to worry about...:-)

 

 

David DD