Sarcasm and diminishment of another's post....

 

I offer that some recent (page 10 posters) have missed the entire 'point' of adding a decimal figure to FS9(x). It is not a rating per user of how technical you can get FS9, when FSX is a base' test bed'. No...rather the user assigns an .x rating to express how close, an experience to simulate a user-comparable, feature rich,and non-crashing/stable FSX flight session, and, their satisfaction achieved in flying FS9(x). Since the Groovin' Tweak from last week, I have updated my decimal place to reflect how CLOSE to a perfect FSX flight session with FSX-style eye-candy and clarity, I now have when firing up FS9. So...with this explanation for my decimal rating x.99, I basically am stating to the rest of AVSIM, that my flight satisfaction and user session is a mere shave less than a perfect FSX one. THAT is what FS9.99 means to me, and I will stick by that. I find it curious that within my thread, that a few have had to start taking shots at another's post by use of sarcasm. If you roll your eyes with what you read in my thread, then roll your eyes, shake your head, but don't feel the need to start diminishing another's post with such as I have seen on the last page which has prompted a monitoring and warning-of-closure by AVSIM. Sarcasm, and the use of diminishment of another's post is unacceptable.

 

Thank you,
The O.P.

I just finished converting some 4096 resolution rock textures - from Aime's website - into DXT3 1024 textures. Done the same with his 4096 grass which when converted into 1024 still looks better then something starting with 1024 due to the higher spec texture to begin with.

 

With some mesh around a mountainous region or when approaching a grass field in a very quick flight last night, wow. Impressive. In fact after a quick comparison with fsx at same place, it looked better.

 

Do the same with the forest and desert areas he has, and boy, a whole new sim.

 

 

Forget 9.75 or even 9.99. I firmly believe that 10.1 or more is possible. In fact, only a brief search online - youtube- will see that it is more then possible. It's been done. On a stable platform like fs9, this can open up a whole new ball game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The truth is out there....

If you have already done the work, Jon, would it be possible that you can share your texture conversions, and how/where to place them? I would love to see what you state is possible....  Again, perhaps you can bundle them up in a .zip file with directions, and upload it to the AVSIM FS9 scenery library.

Still experimenting hoping I'm not seeing something I want to see.

 

The high resolution grass works.

The high resolution clouds work.

 

 

 

Just making sure the rock textures work. Will update over next few days....or hours if not. But it can be done.

Ok, just so we are on the 'same page',  these will be the converted, just 'drop in folder' and fly textures, right?  While I'm posting, are these universal textures that you would drop into your WORLD/SCENERY/TEXTURE folder?

Here's my observation about your posts, Dillon.

 

1. It seems like you've never had a problem with anything the past few years.

 

2. FS9 does NOT run well no matter what you throw at it. Take cumulus clouds for example. There have been / are many examples in this forum stating as such. Add high AI traffic areas and complex scenery and you just might see some problems (even you say so much, hence contradicting yourself)

 

3. Not everyone has Windows 7 (I have WinXP) and a 64-bit operating system (mine is 32-bit)

 

4. Every machine/software package/operating system/video card combination reacts differently, hence you can't claim "there is no reason". YOU may be lucky enough to have the "perfect" set up, but the rest of us just might not be so lucky.

 

5. Your last statement is so preposterous that I can't even respond to it.

 

Mr. Dillon - Remember, the only "Mr. Know-It-All" was played by Bullwinkle of "Rocky & Bullwinkle" fame. If that's really you in your Avatar, you might not "get" the reference. Look it up.

 

You've been around this forum long enough to know that there is no "silver bullet" for all the woes that can strike FS9. Please try to be more empathetic with those of us who HAVE had problems with Contrails Pro and any other hardware/software being used with FS9. If you've hit the lottery and won FS9.75, fine. Remember - MOST don't win the lottery and all aren't guaranteed a win at the "Wheel of Tweaks".

 

He's gone!

 

If you need our help getting your setup streamlined just ask. The rest of that crap you can save and/or keep to yourself. The first step you will have to do if you want anything remotely to what others are seeing is to dump XP and get 7 64bit. Whining about what you don't have isn't going to change that fact. Just like many of us know what it would take to get FSX up and running somewhat decently (problem is today it shouldn't take so much hence we stay with FS9). I can more than identify with being in this hobby on a budget but some things you have to have no matter what sim you use. We can't help you if you don't have 7 expecting to see what we see, so that's the first step (let alone what hardware your using). I'd love to help you out but you need the right stuff. Contrails Pro is not the problem.

The rest of that crap you can save and/or keep to yourself. The first step you will have to do if you want anything remotely to what others are seeing is to dump XP and get 7 64bit. Whining about what you don't have isn't going to change that fact.

 

Wowsers!

 

He's gone

Already done years ago.

 

Very good. At least better than dusting away on some HDD.

I went to FSX and got too much problems. Crashing on long fligh etc. I am back with FS9 and no problem at all and I just love it.

 

Al

 

 

The rest of that crap you can save and/or keep to yourself. The first step you will have to do if you want anything remotely to what others are seeing is to dump XP and get 7 64bit. Whining about what you don't have isn't going to change that fact.

 

See the PM just sent to you.

 

 

The first step you will have to do if you want anything remotely to what others are seeing is to dump XP and get 7 64bit.

 

I completely agree with this observation. Having done a fresh installation of FS9 on a new Win 7 64-bit computer earlier this year (I used 32-bit XP on my previous rig) I can confirm that the difference in both performance and the incidence of irritating problems is very significant. From what I understand however, it seems to be the presence of a 64-bit system that contributes to much of the improved peformance and I guess FS9 may well run equally well on a 64-bit XP. I have followed some very helpful advice from Dillon and others, for which I am very grateful, during the installation and I am sure this has contributed in no small way to the very smooth running of FS9 which I now enjoy. I can also confirm that frame rate issues are now very unusual. Even flying over Aerosoft New York in a Carenado aircraft with everything (including AI) maxed out, I still achieve my frame rate which has been locked at 30 FPS, the only exception being when I am panning around in spot plane view. When I have tried FS9 with Frame Rates set to unlimited, I regularly achieved frame rates well over 100 (although not over New York), which was unheard of with my old set up. An added bonus is that Win 7 64 runs FSX, my second line simulator, pretty well too!

 

Bill

Not sure how FS9 would perform better under 64 bit, given it's not a 64 bit application.

But I'm sure running it on an i7 computer at - most importantly - 3.5GHz, would make a difference.

And the other stuff inevitably on a PC could run on all the other cores and not affect the show. 

 

FWIW my 5 yr old Core 2 Duo running at a slow 2.4GHz under 32 bit XP SP3 is a perfect match for FS2004.

I see that  on my "fullest" install (I have multiple installs) there is now some drag due to texture bloat and orphan references, but not enough yet to throw it away.

Not sure how FS9 would perform better under 64 bit, given it's not a 64 bit application.

But I'm sure running it on an i7 computer at - most importantly - 3.5GHz, would make a difference.

And the other stuff inevitably on a PC could run on all the other cores and not affect the show.

 

FWIW my 5 yr old Core 2 Duo running at a slow 2.4GHz under 32 bit XP SP3 is a perfect match for FS2004.

I see that on my "fullest" install (I have multiple installs) there is now some drag due to texture bloat and orphan references, but not enough yet to throw it away.

 

A 64bit OS can handle all the memory on both the motherboard and video card today's PC's can throw at it. FS9 benefits from this because it can use over 4gigs of ram which XP hinders which causes OOM and other issues when going into high detailed densely populated AI areas. If nothing else when you make the 'FS9.exe' file large address aware it helps greatly in it's ability to access more of the PC's RAM resources. When RAM no longer is the issue the program functions much more efficiently. It is well documented that even 32bit applications benefit from running in a 64bit environment. Now that drivers are no longer a problem with a 64bit OS most have migrated to this option. Much of Microsoft's own development tools are still 32bit but they function well in 7 64bit. 7 was built for this as Microsoft created an area for 32bit apps in the 'Program Files (X86)' directory. There's allot to go into as to why FS9 functions better in 7 versus XP, I'll let others chime in on that. The simple fact is it does and much more complicated combinations are possible now than before. I for one had OOM issues if I dared to fly the PMDG MD11 into New York at dusk (example scenario). I haven't had any issue since migrating to 7. I wrote a detail migration plan in the 'Windows 7 OS' forum for those needing an efficient way to migrate without fully re-installing everything.

I still get OOMs occasionally and I'm on W7 64x, pretty decent PC as well, 8 GB of RAM, and a large-address-aware FS9.exe.

Mobile forums seems to be broken. It's displaying in basic HTML.

Why one would think he is in need to tell he has sent a PM. Perhaps expecting others to be alarmed? Why not telling here so that we are more aware of how we define "offending" statements.

 

By the way. I double that although FS9 is classic, one should really consider to use W7 64bit. It is a blatant truth and one should NOT be offended. As I said, most of Dillon's words do make sense, when being askes which ones that don't make sense, I chose not to answer because that doesn't matter, what matters is taking positivi sides from a contributive member and compromise with the negatives without even saying them in public.

 

I have no problems at all in running fs9, am I a simmer who knows everything? No. What has given me troubles is my lack of knowledge and ignorance.

I still get OOMs occasionally and I'm on W7 64x, pretty decent PC as well, 8 GB of RAM, and a large-address-aware FS9.exe.

Could someone please explain to me what the statement "large-address-aware" FS9.exe is.

Cheers

Romflyer

 

EDIT....I found it, and I'm very excited about, I have struggled with random CTD's and freeze-ups....despite my rig being plenty good enough to run FS9 as smooth as silk.

Avsim is a great place.......cant believe I havent spent more time here before now  :rolleyes: