I reinstalled it today V1.1! FPS is awful around 10 at KTEB(Drzewiecki) uninstalled it quickly! Too bad to waste such a beautiful plane, I stick with my Citation X :wink:

 

 

FSX SE - P3D 3.2 - Windows 8.1 64 bit, Intel core i7-4720HQ, CPU 2.6 GHz, 32 GB RAM, NVidia GeForce GTX 980M.

 

Mate when I was you I would upgrade to Windows 10 64 bit for free before July 29th, 2016.

Check out the circus at:

https://www.facebook.com/WilcoPublishing/

 

Lets make them mad with our comments may be they will listen..

 

Apart from that, don't get me wrong, the many faults of the Wilco Falcon are a big disappointment but in my opinion the frames are not the biggest concern. The F1 Mustang for example can also eat a lot of frames in VC but otherwise is way more mature.

 

Framerates in the Flight1 Mustang on my PC are very good, even in very dense scenery areas.

Framerates in the Flight1 Mustang on my PC are very good, even in very dense scenery areas.

Must agree frames with the Mustang are good.

Mate when I was you I would upgrade to Windows 10 64 bit for free before July 29th, 2016.

Check out the circus at:

https://www.facebook.com/WilcoPublishing/

 

Lets make them mad with our comments may be they will listen..

I run Windows 10 :wink: , I need to update my signature!

I run Windows 10 :wink: , I need to update my signature!

:wub:

Framerates in the Flight1 Mustang on my PC are very good, even in very dense scenery areas.

 

 

Must agree frames with the Mustang are good.

 

We see again how different each system runs the same add-on. Some people here have single digit fps with the Falcon, I have mid twenties in the VC and this is exactly what I get with the Mustang. Outside the Mustang is clearly better (as in any other respect BTW other than size and range :-). I doubt that the Falcon will ever match the quality we'd like to see. Some improvements may come but at one point Wilco will stop bothering, I guess.

I'd say Wilco has already stopped bothering. Version 1.1 is worse then version 1.0b which they removed from their servers leaving us with very broken 1.0, 1.0a and 1.1. 

 

I find it disturbing they re-advertised version 1.1 on nearly every flight sim site after their pathetic initial launch and provided a product that is so bad it now causes a crash to desktop when you descend the aircraft. Their customer support is still stating "all confirmed bugs will be fixed." When will these bugs really be fixed? 

 

I understand that some people are able to get this product to work, but it seems I am running into more people who have issues then those who say the product works flawlessly. 8 out of 10 people that I have talked with seem to say they have problems. I know not a scientific survey and more people tend to complain when they have a problem then those who have a good experience. But, from my very limited view of this product it would seem to suggest a majority of people are facing bugs. 

 

The fact that Wilco seems to feel no remorse and has not been able to rectify this situation is deplorable. They have made no restitution to people left with worthless software that cannot be used on their systems.  

Removing 1.0b is indeed a very strange move. I still have it and currently try to combine parts of it with 1.1 to see if this stabilizes the model.

 

But honestly, it would be better to consider the money lost, like lost to a pickpocket.

What I want to know is why Dassault agreed to let Wilco build a simulated version of their flagship business jet. Surely there were better alternatives?

Active Sky 2016 is out what a beauty just bought it.

Oh dear

 

very low frames near the ground (sub 10K alt), lowest of any of my many AC

 

and a CTD after setting up and engaging the AP, it all seems to start working and turning onto the course (FMC or AP)

 

but

 

despite being at the set alt in the AP it begins to descend and then CTD

 

VC graphics are a bit ordinary,  compass roses in the displays are ovals too ( not a deal killer though themselves)

 

a fair bit of work to do

 

win 7  FSX gold accel

A couple of findings.

 

To avoid CTD when hit ALT or descend it helps adjusting altitude by only VS, during climb up, during cruise set VS to +0 feets per minute and descent down, it works.

 

I tried to downsize HD textures of Falcon (from 4096 to 1024), impact on FPS almost none.

 

When i hit SHIFT+A in first VC view there is default VC view, you know that, without cockpit instruments, a have nice 30fps.

 

In first VC view with cold n dark around 13 FPS! After powering up the instruments horrible 9 FPS.

 

Switching range in the middle MDU from default 20 miles to 3 miles FPS are quite better but not much. Seems helps also switch to INFO for airport for slightly better FPS

 

where the MDU is static. The gauges are too much hungry for FPS. I found some variables like refresh inside the CAB files as xml but not seen difference.

How exactly did the beta testers (or indeed the programmers themselves) fail so spectacularly to notice the poor performance on the ground or at low altitude? Or are they all using Cray supercomputers for flight testing?

How exactly did the beta testers (or indeed the programmers themselves) fail so spectacularly to notice the poor performance on the ground or at low altitude? Or are they all using Cray supercomputers for flight testing?

Wilco has a dubious reputation.  I  hoped that their return to FS would have been something more spectacular (for the better). But sitting on the sidelines, that doesn't seem to have happened at all and has only reaffirmed my thoughts.