Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Appliance

Important Info For Those Who Need To Know

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

wisdom indeed.  This is why I no longer tweak or add anything in FS9 anymore.  I use it as a user.  And I don't use any location-specific scenery addons, by that I mean an airport, a city, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, where can I ask a question to Nick? Part of this left me thinking about the sticky in this forum (A huge FPS increase)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow... so rich in food for thought! There's a valuable lesson to be learned by reading this, and there isn't a single 'tweak' in it!

 

:O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that some tweaking - or better said: playing with regular fs9.cfg entries - should be allowed. ^_^

But after this, I enjoy my sim without SweetFX, without setting Core affinity and without converted 1024x1024 textures.

 

Have fun, tweaked or not!

Harald

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wisdom indeed.  This is why I no longer tweak or add anything in FS9 anymore.  I use it as a user.  And I don't use any location-specific scenery addons, by that I mean an airport, a city, etc. 

If you're using a decent PC, this shouldn't be an issue with FS9.  Nick's post about adding scenery is for FSX because fsx with add ons can really bring down the fps.

 

I think that some tweaking - or better said: playing with regular fs9.cfg entries - should be allowed. ^_^

But after this, I enjoy my sim without SweetFX, without setting Core affinity and without converted 1024x1024 textures.

 

Have fun, tweaked or not!

Harald

I agree.  I have to adjust 3 things in my FS9 .cfg to get rid of horrible blurries.

I'm also enjoying my sim without any sort of bloom enhancement.  I used to spend so much time tweaking enb, sweetFX, FXAA.  Now I find that I enjoy it more without them.

I also don't set core affinity and I'm perfectly fine with lower res textures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to the original poster "Appliance" for the link to the post. by Nick. The writing explains some very basic and commonly misunderstood notions about flight simulators and the mindset of all the various people, both users and developers. I tweak or try things on occasion, but not because I expect or am looking for some 'magic'. I do it to learn, then go right back to basic. The best thing I have ever done for my set up is correct improperly formatted ( mip / alpha ) and sized textures. I keep the FS9.cfg tweaks to a minimum, as in one or two I think.

 

@Harald. We are in agreement yet again! I gave up on SweetFx as well, no affinity changes and the only HD texture I use is a 1024 image of the full moon I made from a picture I took years ago.

 

When flying gets boring I dabble with making scenery, use ADE to tidy up default airports or paint a aircraft. I do my best to resist the temptation to start fixing something that isn't broken, . . . . . . yet.

 

Best regards,

Mel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


If you're using a decent PC, this shouldn't be an issue with FS9. Nick's post about adding scenery is for FSX because fsx with add ons can really bring down the fps.

 

The two reasons why I don't use local sceneries do not include performance issues. 

 

1. Quite like Nick stated, for me I use FS to fly.  I'm a FS pilot not a FS baggage handler. 

 

2. If I have a small number of customized sceneries I may be inclined to fly in those locations most of the time, hence forfeiting one of FS's major strength - global coverage.  My time spent on FS is much more beneficial if my flights are not highly repetitive.  The exercise of flying in new and unfamiliar locations help me retain my currency more effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two reasons why I don't use local sceneries do not include performance issues. 

 

1. Quite like Nick stated, for me I use FS to fly.  I'm a FS pilot not a FS baggage handler. 

 

2. If I have a small number of customized sceneries I may be inclined to fly in those locations most of the time, hence forfeiting one of FS's major strength - global coverage.  My time spent on FS is much more beneficial if my flights are not highly repetitive.  The exercise of flying in new and unfamiliar locations help me retain my currency more effectively.

 

Gotcha :good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh heh...

 

Go to the left, and look at my Computer Specs. SweetFx? ENB adjustment? Not a chance!

 

But, I have everything over to the right. No payware airports, enhancements or jetliners, 'cause I don't fly those... just the enhancements one finds in the Freeware Libraries. FPS? Hey, it looks good to me, and that includes looking smooth. B)

 

When I'm ready to make the switch, Nick's guide will be invaluable. Until then, I'm taking his advice, and using the Sim.

 

(It's just me, but I hate calling FS a "game". I know... semantics. But, still...)  <_< 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a FS pilot not a FS baggage handler.

 

Quite commendable these days. I agree.

 

A considerable amount of recent posts in the FS2004 Forum seem to indicate that many have now become FS passengers .... just along for the view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on. People who purchase add ons are not passengers just along for the view. Different people have different needs to feel immersed in the sim. Whether it's payware airports, sceneries, enb, whatever.
If flying VFR, isn't it nice to look out the window once in a while and enjoy the scenery while flying?
When you land at an airport you like, wouldn't you want it to look as close as possible to the real one?
If we have airplanes with realistic graphics and flight dynamics, why is it wrong to have scenery that is more accurate to make the flying experience more realistic?
I just don't understand how you can say people who like add ons are just passengers who want to enjoy the view. If that's the case, why even bother flying an airplane in FS9. Just install DBS walk&follow and look around instead of flying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on. People who purchase add ons are not passengers just along for the view. Different people have different needs to feel immersed in the sim. Whether it's payware airports, sceneries, enb, whatever.

If flying VFR, isn't it nice to look out the window once in a while and enjoy the scenery while flying?

When you land at an airport you like, wouldn't you want it to look as close as possible to the real one?

If we have airplanes with realistic graphics and flight dynamics, why is it wrong to have scenery that is more accurate to make the flying experience more realistic?

I just don't understand how you can say people who like add ons are just passengers who want to enjoy the view. If that's the case, why even bother flying an airplane in FS9. Just install DBS walk&follow and look around instead of flying.

 

As you said; different people have different needs in order to feel immersed. Maybe some need less than others, as well.

 

And so, the debate begins. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having more realistic scenery (photo, detailed airports, etc.) but where does one draw the line between performance and visual accuracy and/ or clarity?

 

Which is more important... flying into a realistic looking KDEN with slight stutters and 12 fps, or flying at 30 fps, but with a little less eye candy?

 

Like you said; different strokes for different folks. In the end it all comes down to flying.

 

:smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Groovin_DC-10, on 09 Jul 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Come on. People who purchase add ons are not passengers just along for the view. Different people have different needs to feel immersed in the sim. Whether it's payware airports, sceneries, enb, whatever.

If flying VFR, isn't it nice to look out the window once in a while and enjoy the scenery while flying?

When you land at an airport you like, wouldn't you want it to look as close as possible to the real one?

If we have airplanes with realistic graphics and flight dynamics, why is it wrong to have scenery that is more accurate to make the flying experience more realistic?

I just don't understand how you can say people who like add ons are just passengers who want to enjoy the view. If that's the case, why even bother flying an airplane in FS9. Just install DBS walk&follow and look around instead of flying.

I never said that people who purchase addons are just passengers along for the view. I have hundreds of dollars worth of scenery addons myself; and aim to buy more if they are interesting and available (for FS2004). Ground, airports, mesh, environmental, etc. I even do most of my flying using a "mini panel" so I can "see more".

 

My comment was mostly aimed at those who seemingly post and spend more time looking for added "tweaks" or engage in lengthy conversations trying to cram 4094X4096 bitmaps into 256X256 (please, no flames - I understand the concept of better source material to begin with and have no arguments regarding better visual experience). I just am amused at the amount of "work" done to either perform or convince others of the worth of doing so ...... instead of enjoying what they have now wrt the actual flying experience.

 

I guess it's my advancing age and newly found retirement that has given me the perspective that I now have. I'm going to spend less time "fiddling" with something that I'm already satisfied with. Going to spend more time flying under bridges (inverted, no less) and winding down mountainous and concrete canyons.

 

If you notice, I've been around these forums quite awhile but don't have the humongous amount of posts that some "experts" have. Guess I either don't have as much time, or I'm using it flying instead of posting.

 

Anyhow, I agree ..... to each his own .....even if other viewpoints and activities are at least slightly humorous.

 

gwillmot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on. People who purchase add ons are not passengers just along for the view. Different people have different needs to feel immersed in the sim. Whether it's payware airports, sceneries, enb, whatever.

If flying VFR, isn't it nice to look out the window once in a while and enjoy the scenery while flying?

When you land at an airport you like, wouldn't you want it to look as close as possible to the real one?

If we have airplanes with realistic graphics and flight dynamics, why is it wrong to have scenery that is more accurate to make the flying experience more realistic?

I just don't understand how you can say people who like add ons are just passengers who want to enjoy the view. If that's the case, why even bother flying an airplane in FS9. Just install DBS walk&follow and look around instead of flying.

Totally agree, People get tired of looking at the samething over and over again lol i know i do just becarefull what you download and if you find something thats buggy or causing a conflict narrow it down and get rid of it. Ive had my share of double of trouble but all in all everything has been fixed just one issue i need to get rid of but soon enough ill find the solution 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which is more important... flying into a realistic looking KDEN with slight stutters and 12 fps, or flying at 30 fps, but with a little less eye candy?

 

Like you said; different strokes for different folks. In the end it all comes down to flying.

 

:smile:

 

I made a mistake.  I didn't think about people's PC's.  You're right, if you're having performance problems with add ons, it's better not to use them.  I prefer a smooth flight over a stuttery one.

But if your PC is able to handle everything, then add ons can really make a big improvement.

My rig is considered average, but stutters is not an issue for me, that's why I love adding more sceneries.  I have my fps locked at 60 and the lowest dip I've seen was just over 30.

 

I never said that people who purchase addons are just passengers along for the view. I have hundreds of dollars worth of scenery addons myself; and aim to buy more if they are interesting and available (for FS2004). Ground, airports, mesh, environmental, etc. I even do most of my flying using a "mini panel" so I can "see more".

 

My comment was mostly aimed at those who seemingly post and spend more time looking for added "tweaks" or engage in lengthy conversations trying to cram 4094X4096 bitmaps into 256X256 (please, no flames - I understand the concept of better source material to begin with and have no arguments regarding better visual experience). I just am amused at the amount of "work" done to either perform or convince others of the worth of doing so ...... instead of enjoying what they have now wrt the actual flying experience.

 

I guess it's my advancing age and newly found retirement that has given me the perspective that I now have. I'm going to spend less time "fiddling" with something that I'm already satisfied with. Going to spend more time flying under bridges (inverted, no less) and winding down mountainous and concrete canyons.

 

If you notice, I've been around these forums quite awhile but don't have the humongous amount of posts that some "experts" have. Guess I either don't have as much time, or I'm using it flying instead of posting.

 

Anyhow, I agree ..... to each his own .....even if other viewpoints and activities are at least slightly humorous.

 

gwillmot

 

My apologies, Gwillmot.  I had no idea you were talking about texture conversions. 

I do find it interesting but I'm in no rush to do it.  Don't know if I'll even do it.

Just a few days ago, I was doing some VFR at about 1200 AGL and I'm completely satisfied with GEP textures.  Sure they're blurry at that height, but with a little imagination, I'm all good lol.

I'm also in agreement with you about flying.  I find myself flying and enjoying the sim a lot more now.  The constant tweaking and other things I used to do took away the fun and time from flying.

Lol @ flying inverted under bridges.  As I'm new to VFR, I found myself enjoying flying under the Golden Gate bridge after departing KSFO and have done it quite a few times.  Quite intense for me, and I was upright, not inverted lol.

 

Again, I apologize.  I didn't know you were talking about texture conversions.

 

 

Totally agree, People get tired of looking at the samething over and over again lol i know i do just becarefull what you download and if you find something thats buggy or causing a conflict narrow it down and get rid of it. Ive had my share of double of trouble but all in all everything has been fixed just one issue i need to get rid of but soon enough ill find the solution 

 

Great suggestion.  I've done exactly that with one payware airport and will do the same for another.  However, I need to try out the alpha channel tool first just to be sure.  With the add ons I'm having issues with, the fps is pretty bad or there would be hiccups on an otherwise less than complex add on scenery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maurice,

 

No worries at all! My rig is completely obsolete, but for some reason the Sim works very well for something this old. And for what I do it's just fine.

 

:smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought that installing add-on sceneries is understood as tweaking.

 

 

 


My time spent on FS is much more beneficial if my flights are not highly repetitive. The exercise of flying in new and unfamiliar locations help me retain my currency more effectively.

 

Every winter I round the world on a new route. Downloading or - after careful consideration - buying new sceneries "en route" are an important part of my journey preparation.

 

I consider flightsimming not only as a mean to improve my flying skills, but also as a way to explore the world (around airports, of course).

 

Harald

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites