I forgot to mention that payware are the best choice when you are GA flyer

 

Yes, I think the above is a very key point.

 

Whilst I like the idea of sticking with default airports when flying tubes (and instead just investing in wide-area textures like FTX Global/Vector, and Zinertek HD Airport Graphics, I could never make that move if I were flying something like the Alabeo PA38, at 1,500 in rural PNW.  Never!

 

For low(ish) GA, I would always be simming with wider area texures and full-fat Orbx regions, as well as detailed payware airports.    

 

It needn't always be Orbx;  I downloaded a freeware wide-area improvement addon for Denmark.  You can then pick up Orbx-quality (but with better frames!) airfields from Vidan Design.  They are around 6 or 7 Euros each.    It's sim heaven flying between these airfieds in Denmark. :smile:

 

Freeware Denmark Base Scenery, via this site :-

 

http://www.fsonline.dk/en/index.php?title=Denmark_Scenery

 

Payware small GA Danish Airfields :-

 

http://www.vidandesign.com/

 

I flew a couple of flights in the NGX yesterday is Central Asia (Kazakhstan, etc) and the default airports were just fine for the job; as Pe11e said, especially with some airport vehicles around, and some realistic AI.

 

But tonight I'm flying the Carenado 1900D, and it will be Orbx PNW all the way !!

2. Visual consistency across the globe.

 

2. Visual monotony across the globe *cough*

Ahh  and let's not forget some people just love tweaking, testing, and generally squeaking the last frame and payware gear they can get. I think some of that is why FSX has stuck around so long.

 

Personally I can't stand it. I do enjoy my payware. I fly only one area and one plane. For me it is all about practicing over and over until I get something perfected....then I generally get bored and find something else to learn. Not really the type of guy to load up the sim fly anyway I like, thru any airspace however I want, and never follow proper procedures. I would get bored fast with that. Not a TV guy so learning is how I spend my free time. Navigation is my hobby. If in GA navigation it is about reference points often found in payware more easily. (I don't use a GPS or EFB in GA) Love the B17 for navigation learning.

 

So I can see how tweaking (not actual flying) is what occupies peoples attention - just not for me. Once I get my sim working and looking smooth enough I will not look at the frame rate again. Had it perfect and then bought the DX fixer and I am back to reading and freaking tweaking again...argh.

 

 

Once I get my sim working and looking smooth enough I will not look at the frame rate again.

 

It's funny, I've read many times about people who remove the frame rate counter from their FSX (by a change to the FSX.CFG), and I've always thought, nah! .... I couldn't do that.  Sometimes I can't resist a little peak at what my frames are running at.    But sometimes it certainly does become at best a distraction, or at worst an obsession.

 

So last weekend, I remove the FPS counter from FSX, and honestly, I've not looked back since.  If things get a little jerky then I accpept that it's time to turn something down (whether scenery, AI, weather, or sometimes even AA/AF), but most of the time it's just nice smooth flying.

 

I defintely recommend removing the FPS counter - certainly once you have your sim running pretty well.

I defintely recommend removing the FPS counter - certainly once you have your sim running pretty well.

 

No way Hose! For me, FPS counter is an ultimate way to see is there any changes to a performance, even if you didn't install or change anything. If fps is lower in that case, it's a best way to tell you that something went wrong.

No way Hose! For me, FPS counter is an ultimate way to see is there any changes to a performance, even if you didn't install or change anything. If fps is lower in that case, it's a best way to tell you that something went wrong.

 

I know what you mean.   But in terms of FPS, the ultimate measure is (or should be IMHO), "am I happy with this performance?".   That should encapsulate all of the thoughts and ideas on frame rates, smoothness, etc, etc.   "Can I enjoy this sim, with this level of performance?"

 

If the answer is "Yes" then go fly! :smile:

 

If the answer is no, then we ask some questions, like ;-

 

- Has this just happened (what have I installed recently?)

- Is it because of the aircraft I am using (may need to turn down settings)

- Is it because of the scenery I am in (again, may need to comprimize on settings).

- Are there any reliable, proven tweaks that I can apply?

 

........and then after the changes, again, "am I happy with this?".

 

(rinse and repeat until the answer is YES).

 

I'm only thinking out loud really, because most of the time I've been as obsessed as any one with FPS, but I am trying to adopt the above. 

Once things are good my judgment comes from visual not technical anymore.

 

I will only drive myself crazy if I worry about if I have lost a few frames. I know my system is good and I keep it optimized due to the work I do on it.

 

Once I get what I can outta FSX I am good. Not really adding loads of stuff (well lately I have because of my recent return). Set it and forget it is what I look to achieve.

 

I only went with DX Fixer to get VAS freed up sim looked fine in DX9 for me (780 is a better DX9 card anyways). But DX Fixer dropped my frames by almost 10 so working on fixing that. But then I will follow Craig's idea and disable the counter.

 

FSX is my game/leisure time not more code time.

 

 

Sometimes it's difficult to understand what users really want.

 

That's a very good point. A lot of what the simulator does is subjective. With a PC game, the environment is controlled by the developer. In FS, the environment is controlled, in theory, by the end user. Perception tends to take over. I can't totally appreciate your conundrum. I don't sit where you sit. But I am now more sympathetic towards it. Our hardware has progressed to the point where it can deliver what we want from the simulator until Windows says 'full up, time to shut down'. It can't be easy trying to design scenery that encourages the former, while avoiding the latter.

 

I am just interested in your opinion on this. Once we have a 64 bit simulator, whether it be P3D or FS?; what will be the next challenge, apart from porting the product?

 

Moderator: I have gone off topic. Please delete the post if I have strayed too far.

I'm not sure if it's self-indulgence - maybe - but I sometimes get the feeling that some developers, not only of scenery but of aircraft and weather and texture add-ons and the rest, test their products on plain vanilla setups, and don't think enough about the likely real-world use, where multiple add-ons get together and drag a system to its knees.  I hope that more of them will be inclined to test under "field conditions," or at least leave us more overhead than we have at the moment.

 

Bingo!

Why not try "low and slow" with the best freeware sceneries (immersion-wise!) ever made for FSX? Return to Misty Moorings

So did Pe11e ditch all payware airports?

I had to reinstall windows, and after installing P3D I decided to not install any of my FSDT sceneries because they just eat up too much performance.

For me that's the #1 thing I really need, which is smoothness.

Default airports give a whole bunch of that, so that's what I'm going to do as well.

 

As a counter-point, the ONLY developer that, imo, makes both awesome looking scenery that is also super framerate friendly is Flightbeam. I'll install their stuff on my system all day.

 

Going to look at the HD airport texture package too.

So did Pe11e ditch all payware airports?

 

 

 

I kept FlyLogic's Swiss Airfieds vol 1 and Birrfeld in FSX for now, but ditched big payware airports and hubs.

 

:ph34r:

I decided to keep everything still installed but nothing is activated in the Scenery Library / SCE.   Then on a flight by flight basis, I decide what -if anything- to activate.

 

Recent examples ;-

 

1. Flying the Alabeo C207 between rural fields in Denmark; activated all of the Vidan Design airfields

2. Flying the MJC Q400 from Stavanger to Tromso;  acticated both Aerosoft Stavanger and Tromso.

3. Flying the NGX from Manchester to Bourgas, Bulgaria, activated UK2000 EGCC, but flew into default LBBG.

4. Flying PMDG T7 from Ashghabat (Turmenistan) to Vladivostok; all default, nothing activated.

 

Seems to work pretty well. :smile:

I'm probably the lone minority in this thread but I can't imagine getting rid of my payware airports. Since I mainly fly tubes in the sim, the most interesting parts of my flights are usually the prep setting up the plane, taxi and departure, then arrival and taxi to the gate. I love to be in the most realistic airport environment that is available and the default airports just don't do it for me, mainly because they all more or less look the same with the repetitive building textures, generic or REX ground texture, etc. I hate the over user of the term immersion, but default airports for me are a total immersion killer.

 

In some cases I have to use 3rd party airports for the performance benefits. For example living in Dallas, I usually fly out of KDFW a lot in real life and like to use that airport in the sim as a starting point for probably 75% of my flights. For me the default KDFW not only looks bad, but is a total FPS killer unless I turn the scenery complexity down to normal and lose a lot of detail. I purchased KDFW by FSDT when it came out and it performs much better giving me a steady 25 to 30 FPS where default would be in the teens with the same level of detail. I've had to turn to FSDT and Flightbeam for my large US hubs to get better performance that what default delivers, mainly due to them being optimized better than default airports. Default KJFK or KLAX I'm in the teens, FSDT KJFK or KLAX I'm back to the 25 to 30 FPS range, plus get a better looking experience.

 

Granted I've purchased a few addon airports from Aerosoft that ended up being FPS hogs and had to spend a considerable amount of time re-engineering them using some of the freeware tools to get the performance I require. Even thought I had to spend time fixing them myself, once it's done, it's done and I don't have to live with default options.

 

It's too bad a lot of others in this thread don't get the same performance and enjoyment out of their addon airports that I do, especially if they have spent hard earned dollars on them. They would probably enjoy the sim a lot more with cool looking, realistic renditions of their favorite hubs, although I know some people are just concerned with a good looking VC and flight dynamics and don't really care what the airports look like. But just like everything sim related, your milage may vary. Good thing the sim comes with default airports for those that have too many issues with the 3rd party ones.

:ph34r:

I didn't want to read your huge thread