FS2004 and 1024x1024 Textures

[JSkorna 137]

Mitch,

 

Can you provide a link to this GEPX?

 

I was not aware that there was anything like this for FSX!

[mmann 72]

Mitch,

 

Can you provide a link to this GEPX?

 

I was not aware that there was anything like this for FSX!

 

 

I call it GEPX. Not sure what its called. It's the FSX version of Ground Environment Professional.

 

The FSX version of Ground Environment Professional is Ground Environment X, so he should be using GEX as the abbreviation.

[PebbleBeach 120]

Thanks Mike

[JSkorna 137]

OK that I have access to.

 

FYI, that is one set of textures that are not modified as GEP does for FS04.

[PebbleBeach 120]

Ok, well the summer daytime texture experiment didn't go so well. Kept getting CTD's every time I started the sim. I'm sure someone knows why.

 

At any rate, night time is now spectacular. Approaching cities from a distance is very realistic looking. Banking with a little over 200 degree visual system is breathtaking to say the least. Thank you Taxi2gate for the superb KSTL and for triggering this little experiment.

[Lyle221 38]

My question is..., and I am asking this in the nicest way possible..

 

If all of you are trying so hard to make FS9 look more like FSX.. (Increased texture size... etc), why don't you just use FSX?

 

If you succeed in doing this to make FS9 look more like FSX, FS9 will perform the same as FSX..

 

FS9 isn't just "magically" faster... FSX loads wayy more stuff, higher textures... etc. Doesn't make sense..

 

 

Best Regards,

[JSkorna 137]

1. Because FSX is unstable.

 

2. Because FSX requires a super computer.

 

3. Because FSX requires constant tweaking.

 

4. Because many FS9 users have a ton of $$ tied up in add-ons, not counting all the fantastic freeware stuff.

[Groovin_DC-10 50]

1. Because FSX is unstable.

 

2. Because FSX requires a super computer.

 

3. Because FSX requires constant tweaking.

 

4. Because many FS9 users have a ton of $$ tied up in add-ons, not counting all the fantastic freeware stuff.

+1 what Jim said. However, #1 doesn't apply to me. Just 2-4.

 

Also, my most used heavy/complex aircraft is the PMDG MD-11. I have both FS9 and FSX versions. No matter what I do, in FSX I get micro stutters in big airports like KJFK, KLAX, etc. even at very low settings. In FS9, it's always smooth sailing.

 

Unless I have a super computer, I won't even bother with FSX anymore. The only time I'm going back to it is when we can buy a PC that can run FSX super smooth with every single slider maxed out.

 

Another thing I really hate about FSX when flying heavies is the head momentum that can't be turned off and rarely comes back perfectly centered. I feel like a drunk pilot whenever I'm making a turn.

 

When we buy tons of add ons and enhancement, getting FS9 to look like FSX is not the goal. We know FS9's limitations and we just want to make it look as pretty as we can.

 

There are more reasons why I prefer FS9, but I'll leave it at that. I'm sure other members will chime in with their reasons for sticking with FS9.

 

If you succeed in doing this to make FS9 look more like FSX, FS9 will perform the same as FSX..

It won't. I've tried it. Try it on a big hub like Aerosoft's Madrid Barajas. Looks pretty much identical on both sims. 100% traffic with heavy weather in FS9 and it's still smooth. Try that in FSX.

[Lyle221 38]

But if you get FS9 with all of these improvements to get it to look like FSX, you will need a super computer to run FS9, just like FSX..

[Groovin_DC-10 50]

But if you get FS9 with all of these improvements to get it to look like FSX, you will need a super computer to run FS9, just like FSX..

 

You don't.  Read the last part of my post before yours (last post page 1).

[Groovin_DC-10 50]

Thanks for sharing Jon.  I looked at it last night and saw the fsx thing and I thought maybe you were tired and posted on wrong forum.

 

I will be getting the files but will wait on trying them out because I'm currently doing pure VFR and not flying on any default airports at the moment.  I'll be using them as soon as I go back to the jets. 

[mmann 72]

But if you get FS9 with all of these improvements to get it to look like FSX, you will need a super computer to run FS9, just like FSX..

You are absolutely right! Already I find that FS9 stutters more than FSX on my older system.

[alderon57 7]

I tried those detail files last night.  They did work with no problems, but made my runways look too pixilated and "busy".  I went back to my old files until something else comes along.  Thanks for the tip!

[Groovin_DC-10 50]

You are absolutely right! Already I find that FS9 stutters more than FSX on my older system.

 

Can you list what add on you're running for FS9 that's causing you to get more stutters than FSX?  I'm not being rude, but I find it very hard to believe.

I have very heavy add ons on my FS9 and it's silky smooth compared to my FSX installation.  I know a few people with older machines who have both installed and fsx runs like poop on their pc's.

 

 

 

Jon,

Thanks for sharing the pics.  Will try it out when I fly to a default airport.  I like the "rough" texture.

[alderon57 7]

Jon,

No, but only because of my particular setup, I think.  My runway texture has some colored pixels in it - not just gray tones.  Combine that with the detail file, and it just came off too harsh for my taste.  It did look more like your pic if I zoomed in, but not from further away.  No worries - keep up the good work.

Ron