http://www.simforums.com/Forums/the-fsx-computer-system-the-bible-by-nickn_topic46211.html

 

Wisdom ...even for FS9 users.

 

Apologies to those who have already seen this up-to-date thread.

Latest NickN's revolutionary thought! +1

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. 

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)...

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!

 

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

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.

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

 

 

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.

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:

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...)  <_< 

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.

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.

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:

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