FSX Fiber Accelerator?

[SteveW 1,792]

Do we have to set the worst eye candy desired and least fps, and it adds eye candy as the load eases? Or do we set best visuals desired, and it reduces visual quality to increase fps? A unlimited setting fps showing 17 is likely to be less than that in limited mode. Why not try 10 to 30 and see what it does?

[zmak 331]

Take it easy Rich, it was just a joke. Besides, if you're charging people $40 you no longer qualify as a humanitarian.

:lol:

[Groovin_DC-10 50]

Still waiting to hear from FSPS if this program can run together with FSX Booster 2013?  I posted this on the other thread but no reply.  I'm guessing they haven't tested it with the booster.

 

I agree with a few members here.  I feel some people are being too harsh on FSPS.  Like someone had already mentioned, English may not be their native language and things are expressed differently.

 

IMO, five x 5 mins is enough for me.  I would just load up FSX, go to an airport that's known for being fps hungry, and taxi/takeoff while watching smoothness and fps.  The trial may be short, but I'm glad FSPS provided us with it.

[GSalden 4,656]

The program can run side by side with FSX Booster or Xtreme FSX PC.

 

I just read the manuel and now it is much more clear on how to set the lowest framerate.

 

As far is I can see it the program is able to play with the LOD radius and perhaps the FTFF.

Very clever.

 

And wen you have found the lowest framerate set this in the program a little bit higher.

 

Just read the manuel.

 

Tomorrow I am going to try this.

[AnkH 2,260]

Honestly, hundreds of people in forums all over the world tried and are still trying to get the FSX smooth, to include tweaks that increase FPS and to avoid OOMs. And this for over 8 years now. And you guys really think that the all of the sudden appearance of a 40$ tool can do what all those people did not achieve over the last 8 years? Come on, how naive can one be?

[timoteo 0]

 

Imho you should use a more proper language...

You're not speaking on behalf of me with these words.

 

It;'s up to the developer to do something or not about the 5x 5min demo time...

 

 

Hurh?  Sorry, but I never mentioned you, quoted you, or said I was speaking on your behalf.  Not sure how you became confused in this regard?  (Unless I'm missing something.)  And sorry, what exactly is "proper language" ??  I thought my language was perfectly proper and civil.  Pointed an (perhaps) passionate ... but nothing improper.

 

And yes, we're in total agreement ... it is up to the developer to fix the demo  ... that was my point, and I was clearly addressing them. 

[voodoo101 21]

Dear Developer,

 

I would really like to try your product, however to do this I would need to test my FSX system of full load, as I would on a normal flight from the beginning, This means that I would start the aircraft at the gate with real world weather and run through FS2Crew preflight, this in itself takes 30 minutes. Then I need to get GSX to do the pushback, which takes another couple of minutes, including engine start. Once I get taxi to the gate and line up, that could be another 10 minutes go. To take off and climb above the clouds could take in excess of 20 minutes.

 

Now I could test your program as it is for the full 25 minutes you allow, however that would only let me see how it works with FS2Crew. I could test it in stages, however this would not be representative.

 

Regards

 

A possible future purchaser.

[Joachim 6]

I like the idea of this program, it makes sense to have a program that automatically adjusts graphic settings to keep the FPS at a target rate. You say it does not touch FSX's settings at the user level, so it won't change or add anything to fsx.cfg? Could you confirm this,as I have found a good balance and do not want to really start restoring certain settings in the fsx.cfg.

 

My demo also expired, trying to get this to work. I am not sure why but it would not let me change my "lowest target" again after a first time and I could not get the demo to work. My frames were the same as always, although the software said it was connected. It's a shame, I cannot test the software anymore before the demo ran out.

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

Dear Developer,

 

(...)

 

Regards

 

A possible future purchaser.

 

 

Great write-up, Craig.

 

In a flightsimming world full of snake oil, your words make a lot of sense.

[MPL 30]

I have to agree that 5 min per a test session was too short to test overall product efficiency... Im not going to buy this addon with these conditions.

[GSalden 4,656]

Dear Developer,

 

I would really like to try your product, however to do this I would need to test my FSX system of full load, as I would on a normal flight from the beginning, This means that I would start the aircraft at the gate with real world weather and run through FS2Crew preflight, this in itself takes 30 minutes. Then I need to get GSX to do the pushback, which takes another couple of minutes, including engine start. Once I get taxi to the gate and line up, that could be another 10 minutes go. To take off and climb above the clouds could take in excess of 20 minutes.

 

Now I could test your program as it is for the full 25 minutes you allow, however that would only let me see how it works with FS2Crew. I could test it in stages, however this would not be representative.

 

Regards

 

A possible future purchaser.

 

 

Why don't you setup everything, take of, pause the flight and start this program.. ?

You can also save the flight for use later.

 

[voodoo101 21]

Gerard, I would like to test the program in all circumstances, not just in flight. My frame rates change on the ground, they change as I pan around the cockpit setting up, when I look outside at different stages of GSX. To test a program after FSX has had a load on it would be unrepresentative. To test as they expect, is like me making changes to my FSX config file, load up and airport for a few minutes and make a decision on whether it works or not. It is a bit like asking doing a survey, going to the AVSIM forum and asking people if they fly simulators, then turning round and saying 100% of gamers play flight simulator. I want to test it through all parts of the flight, how it works after 5 minutes of use, whether it works after 15 hours of use or whether it screws up my flight after 30 minutes.

 

What happens if I try this product, fly for the 25 minutes during take off, buy the product then after half an hour my PC crashes. Are the developers going to just turn round and refund my money?

 

People who try to compare it to aircraft, sceneries and other add-ons. These add-ons normally have screenshots or video's so you can see exactly what you are getting. Add-ons like Vox or MCE comes with a demo you can try on a full flight. When I buy a product I research it by looking at the website for pictures, look on the web for video's or try it out to the extreme. This developer cannot show screenshots because it could just be FSX with settings turned down, it can't show video's because again these will not show the product. The only way to test it is with a demo, which the developer is not willing for people to have long enough to test.

 

I have asked nicely and explained my opinion. It is in the hands of the developer now whether they want there reputation in the FS community to be the team that listened to there future customers, brought out a great program and allowed people to see it's full potential, or the development team who decided to stand by it 25 minute on/off trial, went against it's future customers and had so many people slagging it on when anybody asks about it.

 

There are numerous threads on AVSIM, where somebody asks about a certain product, where the answers are things like "avoid like a plague" or "terrible customer service".  Then there are the others that say "excellent customer service" or "this product is great, I tried it to the full, it works so I bought".

[ivanrk 0]

Hi fellow Simmers.

Here is what I posted early today on FSPS's forum.

 

"I am really interested in using this but unfortunately I find that the 5 minute evaluation period is nowhere long enough to see what benefit if any the program is giving even with 5 trials giving 25 minutes in total.  I use as my main test flying over Canberra in Australia with ORBX scenery, city and airport which drops my frame rates from the normal 30 down to about 12.  It looks like FSX Fiber might be increasing that slightly to around 14.5 but 5 minutes is no where near enough time to give it a good test and be sure before I pay out for it. There are several other airports I would like to try it out with before I considered purchasing.  I have already used up my quota and I am not convinced I am getting much improvement but I may not be doing the product justice due to the lack of real testing time.  It would be better if you could remove the time factor entirely and just limit it to say 5 trials without any time restriction.  Then we would have a far better chance of really seeing how it improves things.  I am sure I am not the only one who will be finding the current 5 minutes too restrictive to test it.  

Also, most of the time I fly FSX without being connected to the Internet.  Does this mean that I am unable to use Fibre?  If that is the case then that also is too restrictive.  Again I am certain there are a lot of simmers out there that do not fly using the Internet.

 

Just my thoughts for what its worth."

 

So far there has been no response from them.  I also copied it in a Support Ticket to them so I will wait and see what happens.  As I said above, it "seemed" to give a slight improvement when I was flying around Canberra but 5 lots of 5 minutes isn't even close to a reasonable time to test this product and decide whether it really works and is worth around $40.00.  I would love it to work and I would even happily pay the rather high price if I could be really confident it works for me.  In the meantime I will not be purchasing it.  I will post FSPS's reply when I get one.  To be fair it was only today I posted on their site.

 

Ivan

[gliderdriver 6]

I am an existing customer of FSPS and an enthusiastic user of FSX Booster 2013.

 

I have tried (I can't say 'tested') Fiber Accelerator (FA), as suggested at JFK, using a simple GA aircraft, the freeware Ercoup, so as not to get to involved or delayed with starting systems etc.

 

I have only a, AMD 2 core running at 3.4 Ghz/4 Gb of RAM and a 32 bit OS, and an ATI 7850, 2 Gb vid card, with Acceleration installed, and Steve's DX10 Fixer.  I use Peter Dowson's VAS .lua screen readout and I rarely if ever sink below 1 Gb of free VAS.

 

I do use FSX Booster 2013 on its 'one click' VFR setting, which actually gives me a far better experience with good fps and a smoothness than I could never achieve with all my fsx.cfg tweaking.  Call it 'snake oil' if you like, but I rub it all over and it does me a power of good. :P

 

I did, for once, read the manual before I did anything, and so I knew well enough to start FSX in my normal way to spawn at JFK, (through FSX Booster in my case), and then set my 'top end' fps limit using the internal fps limiter, I chose 60.  I then started FA and dragged the slider to 17, the lowest fps value that I would be prepared to accept in any circumstances. 

 

I then minimised FA and went for a fly, over New York with autogen settings up on the maximum. 

 

I agree this demo is all too short, but I think 5 minutes was enough to get me up in the air and determine that I maintained 17 fps, with high autogen.  I don't normally fly over this kind of high autogen scenery as its not to my taste but I know that when I have, it's a disaster, fps fall too low to be flyable and I abandon the attempt.  VAS usage was higher than what I normally experience, but then again, I was flying over New York at high autogen, something I don't normally do.

 

This was the briefest of trial, inevitably, and hardly enough to speak with any authority, but I think it works. I gather that the developer has found a method of adjusting some values 'on the fly' and having derived benefit from their other 'snake oil' I am inclined to give them some credit, and extend my trust.  It's a helluva world if you can't do that in this hobby.

 

However, my flying is mainly GA and Gliding over photo-real scenery and is not that varied, or over very demanding autogen or scenery intense airports, so I am not sure |I really need FA.  I hope FSPS revisit the trial period and also ease the price as I would buy if it were less.

[JB3DG 225]

Honestly, hundreds of people in forums all over the world tried and are still trying to get the FSX smooth, to include tweaks that increase FPS and to avoid OOMs. And this for over 8 years now. And you guys really think that the all of the sudden appearance of a 40$ tool can do what all those people did not achieve over the last 8 years? Come on, how naive can one be?

 

At this and to those complaining about the price:

 

If these guys are doing what I think they are then they earned it. The R&D that goes into making something that can adjust FSX settings on the fly without having to reload the sim is not to be sniffed at. Its a challenge especially if they had no access to inside assistance.