The in-cockpit FPS seemed to average between 13 and 18, whereas the old (pre 64-bit conversion) FPS averaged 5 to 8 (again, from within the 3D cockpit).

I don't see how the FPS could have improved that much. I didn't think there even was an improvement from 32 and 64 bit gaming... at least when it came to FPS, but what do I know... The question still lingers... Were you able to push it above 4GB???? This is the selling point for me.

 

I also got artifacting with fsx especially mse... (i only have mse colorado v2) when i used dx10. I'm assuming youre using an AMD card? I just got massive land spikes that made it nearly impossible to fly. It wasn't my card overheating or the poolsize. If you're AMD, I suggest you go back to dx9.

They have a team of 14 members according to their website and this is the only thing it looks like they have ever produced, with the exception of some questionable scenery......and no it doesn't look like Jorge is one of the team members..... :huh:

 

Hope it works out for those who are paying for it....

Ok, in one of the screenshots of the Ilheus airport you can see a Mexican flag.... Ilheus is in Brazil.... This is becoming dodgier and dodgier.... 

Honestly we should find out if that work is stolen. I realize it doesn't affect the discussion of the performance of the 64bit converted, but it does warrant whether these people deserve any business at all.

 

I hope the creator allowed it.

lol. Their site yesterday didn't even contain the scenery page and the next day miracle they had a new scenery....

 

My opinion as a hobbyist C++ developer. This is absolute bull. Just avoid it like plague.

A friend of mine happened to purchase it. He told me and I quote...   

 

"It just turns FSX into a visual representation of testicular cancer, cheating to prevent FSX from getting anywhere near the memory limit."

 

 

 

 

We are a relatively small community after all. Hoaxes just happen to be easier to pull in smaller crowds.

So they are selling a frewware scenery for 10 dollars ?

 

hmmm that raises a lot of questions on authenticity of this developer. (unless the guy who developed this scenery is working for them- but still why would someone pay for it when it's available for free ?)

S C A M.

 

I think it's as clear as daylight that is the case.

 

If such coding genius is able to reverse engineer the FSX code, he might as well work for the major tech companies where he will get 10x the pay in FS or maybe even code a brand new FS.

We're jumping to conclusions again... Let's just wait and see.

Jorge Amengol is with Orbx now, he's the guy behind most of the advanced animations, VehicleFlow, CreatureFlow, PeopleFlow2, the train that runs between Harvey Field and Monroe, the hot air balloons, etc...

 

I highly doubt he would stoop to suddenly offering a 3 year old freeware scenery as payware. Jumping to conclusions? It was stolen, end of story.

lol. Their site yesterday didn't even contain the scenery page and the next day miracle they had a new scenery....

 

My opinion as a hobbyist C++ developer. This is absolute bull. Just avoid it like plague.

 

Yep super sketchy, but I'll keep quiet over the whole matter after this post.  I strongly urge caution.

 

Coming from someone working as a software developer in the military training flight simulation field, this is super dodgy.  That is all I'm going to say about this, good luck to all of you.

This thread is de-railing. Only those who have the tool should be posting.

 

I purchased myself and admit am very dubious its ability however it hasn't installed any malware and I see a 2nd process under FSX (32 bit) - Yes, Windows 8.1 still sees FSX is 32bit process. That 2nd process is blank and no memory reading at all.

 

Under Sysinternals Process Explorer, there is one FSX process listed, I can't see that 2nd 'phantom' process in there at all. Am unable to reach 4GB after 1 hour flying (2.2GB max , with 4096 textures enabled, ASNext running with 20 cloud layers setting, scenery to the max, traffic 100% and PMDG 777 in the mix) No FPS difference and was not expecting one either.

Honestly we should find out if that work is stolen. I realize it doesn't affect the discussion of the performance of the 64bit converted, but it does warrant whether these people deserve any business at all.

 

I hope the creator allowed it.

 

Fully agree. While I can't accuse this company for stealing YET, I'd like to see some form of proof that the work is original and not "borrowed" from any freeware scenery.

 

Lastly, this is just my personal opinion as a developer, but if such high quality work was done (according to their website: animated people, car animations, ground vehicles... etc), I'd expect a much higher price. That scenery is priced lower than the 32-64 bit converter, if anyone noticed.

 

However, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. Anyways - my apologies for changing the topic. Back to the 64 bit converter.

People, some "scientific" knowledge regarding 64 bit.

 

It's extremely hard to convert a complex game with direct x 9 with tons of legacy C code to 64 bit WITH source code.

 

An example article on the number of cautions a C++ developer has to take just to make sure the data types used in 64bit is used correctly : http://www.viva64.com/en/a/0004/

 

Now to do the miracle of Reverse Engineer (which the basis of this tool itself may be illegal) and manage to convert all that legacy code and don't break anything else in the process is impossible.

 

I hate to see people waste even a penny on this kind of things and hence that's why I am still posting even though people say don't jump to conclusion.

 

This will very likely be my last post on this matter.

Again sorry to go off topic, but I couldn't resist.

 

Did anyone notice that their website has X-Plane 10's cover banner on their homepage without any credit to Austin? (X-Plane's developer) I sure hope they paid for a license to put it there.

This is X-Plane 10's picture of the 737: http://i.imgur.com/vkXgB2K.jpg

This is what I found on FlightReal's homepage: http://i.imgur.com/ZONHkAb.png

 

All they did was darken the image. But clearly that's X-Plane's banner photo. Now ain't that the same? :ph34r: (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

 

[EDIT] - has been previously mentioned. I missed that post.