Anyone using this or their other product?

 

Comments?

I can't advise you about the FSX version but I bought the FS9 one and I could see absolutely no difference in performance afterwards. It is no longer on my hard drive - a total waste of money. But others may have had a better experience....

snake oil.

Ok, I see ;-)  Thx for the feedback!

 

Anyway, I am getting a very stable and smooth performance, with all of my older add-ons installed, including LevelD767, ATR-72-500, PC-12, Cessna Mustang, Flight1 SkyHawk 172R, Wilcopub ERJ 145 Legacy, etc... and ending with my latest acquisition - the PMDG 737 NGX !

i did notice a difference both good and bad. However I found it messy and in the end removed all the profiles it created.

 

Manual tweaking of the .cfg is the best option.Your only paying for a programme that puts a fancy interface on editing your .cfg

 

If you we're constantly changing between high and fast flying and low and slow it might be worth it for creating two different profiles. But I would honestly save my money.

You can already save multiple .cfg file through FSX and even switch between them as you fly, and you don't even need to pay extra $$ for that.

I bought it because its very cheap and I was curious and happy to twiddle. I already use DX10 with Alacrity PC, which works really well and is free. My FSX CFG was tweaked this year using Bojote's free service (also recommended).

 

My first attempts halved the framerates I was already getting at CYLW (ORBX) with the Beech Duke. (13 down to 6 then 9!)

 

I have a very old PC which can still run FSX in most parts of PNW/PFJ/SAK, but  who knows, there may be a setting that will help - worth some time anyway.

 

Some observations:

 

1. You have to back up your FSX config - it doesn't provide an auto fsx.cfg back up option from what I could see.

2. I wasn't clear whether it has a bona fide external Frame limiter and whether it would work with DX10...but it does seem to work,

3. FSPS doesn't seem to care whether I am running DX9 or 10,

4. Although first results were unpromising I am happy to twiddle until I get results.  Not sure if its fair to call it snake oil, but it ain't necessarily gonna solve your FSX problems either - the marketing suggests otherwise

5. The manual says if this doesn't work it's time for new hardware, equally I could just go back to my old FSX CFG :-)

 

Well OK its early days, but If you have a system that is already smooth and working well, I guess don't bother.

 

 

 

Ray

Hi to all simmers,

 

Reading some points of this thread, I would like to clarify some points.

 

1. There was never any fs9 version

2. The program creates a backup with the name originalfsx.cfg file

3. The program does not care if you are running dx9 or dx10

4. While previous version (fsx booster v4) focused to give you extra frames, the new one is focused in smoothness firstly and then on extra frames not only using and changing fsx.cfg with values totally different for every pc but also working at windows threads.

 

The main goal is stability, smothness, extra frames, lower cpu load, lower gpu load, lower cpu temp and gpu temp.

 

It is up to the user to stay inside the green bars ( created by the program upon pc specs) in order to get the anove mentioned goals.

 

While the user sets frames to 35 for example, in heavy airports, the frames can drop, not as much as without the program, but the smoothness is the main case here while he stays inside the limits of the green bars.

 

I will watch this thread occasionally, to answer in possible future questions.

 

Regards,

Achilles