Video? An obvious misnomer...

[Guest AlfaNut]

What the folks in Redmond call a flight video is no more than a saved replay, obviously.I think I know the difference. Why not call it what it is?Anyhow - to my problem - still running a four-year old P4 1.6, XP Pro, 1GB RAM, nVidia 5200 128 and I'm getting fps over 20 when I use Ken Salter's FSAutoStart utility.When I do run an "instant" replay, taking it to the max of the length of the flight, my replay stops at random, positioning the aircraft to the finish without showing the flight leading up to the end. I have to opt for different time intervals to see the rest of my flight. Just a cache option, maybe? Something "adjustable?"If I save one of those replays, opting for the video options before the flight, after landing, shutting down all aircraft systems, then replaying that "video" (saved replay), the plane will restart and jump up into the wild blue at the end of the replay.Now I reckon this is either a stupid setup mistake in my personal configuration or some horrible glitch in the FS9 Sim itself.Any thoughts?Go back to my RACER simulator and forget all about it?Thanks for any kind and meaningful advice or blesphemy - whatever...Yours trulyJust another old frustrated might-have-been.

[Guest Jimbofly]

I hate to say it, but your system is rather low specced, and as a result it's understandable that you can't get completely smooth performance from the video feature, which is resource-intensive.Also, I prefer that MS have allowed you to record a flight as a replay rather than a video because you can view the same flight from different angles etc when you play it back, a feature which wouldn't be available if it were encoded into an actual video. I also don't see what the problem is that it's been called a video, it really isn't that big a deal. There is a difference between the Replay and Video feature as well, so it hardly makes sense to call both features Replay.But if you must, return to your RACER simulation.James

[Guest Calb]

Well, finally.... someone who has experienced the exact same as I have with both instant replay and flight video.I corresponded with one of the ACES team soon after FS9 came out but he said he could not duplicate the problem.I have experienced this across 3 different computers (all AMDs) with 2 or 3 different ASUS video cards. System memory ranged from 256Mb to 1Gb.I have no idea what "settings" might affect it but I did try disconnecting my flight controls (Game Port) and used keyboard control while recording. No difference.I know this doesn't offer you a solution but at least you know you're not alone.Cal (CYXX)

[DaryllB25840 1]

This is a great module for replays even though it is beta. In the AVSIM library. I couldn't attach the file because of the size.search for :Recorder_0800_beta.zipRecorder module for FS2004 version 0.8 betaCopyright © 2004-2005 Matthias Neusinger

[DaryllB25840 1]

SORRYI guess I was wrong about Recorder_0800_beta.zip being in the AVSIM library.

[n4gix 4,947]

>>SORRY>>I guess I was wrong about Recorder_0800_beta.zip being in the>AVSIM library.http://www.neusinger.net/recorder

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"Recorder module for FS2004 version 0.8 betaCopyright © 2004-2005 Matthias Neusinger"And to futher plug this tool, I run it with a P3/800 and it produces flawless replays and videos. However, I've never had any issues with instant replay in FS2004--flight videos, those are another matter but this great utility essentially replaces and far exceeds what exists in MSFS's own video recording tool.-John

[Guest AlfaNut]

Thank you all for bothering to read my post and offering some insight.Matthias Neusinger's Recorder is most useful and performs perfectly!I had installed that "Sonic Boom" effect earlier and the usual "replay" methods offered with FS9 failed to show those effects before, namely the sound.Now, with this new Recorder, everything works flawlessly and even my fps during these replays are at an acceptable level.Goes to show ya, eh? Ask a stupid question and not all the answers are necessarily stupid!THANKS, FOLKS!I couldn't be happier!Well, maybe...That new system might run me over a grand. Not quite what I had in mind. This old "box" is still working for me and so is FS9, now.I still maintain that Microsoft ought to call that "video" feature a replay. Videos should be playable without the supporting simulators.Why didn't they just call it "instant" or "saved" replay?Whatever...I'm not about to buy another commercial package to record avi's or mpg's just to impress my few (real) friends.I'll just wait until they "drop by" to impress them...Thanks again!A happy "sonic" duck!

[Guest yarvelling]

This sounds like a good utility...but, does it include AI traffic when recording? I always disliked that suddenly vacant airport when playing back the 'replays' using the FS original....Thanks.

[DaryllB25840 1]

Yes it does. You can turn AI off though in the settings box. But I found in the replay mode that if you inline waiting for takeoff you can get run over by AI. Your aircraft and AI don't really mesh, they just pass through you.

[FlyingsCool 3]

Why not just upgrade the CPU for starters. You didn't list your motherboard, so I can't tell what the max CPU you can upgrade is. You may want to consider a new Motherboard too, but it might be that you can just upgrade the CPU. 1.6 is mighty slow these days. For $250, I upgraded an Athlon 1.7 system to an Athlon 2.5, which is acceptable if a bit slow these days. And the only reason it was that expensive was because I had to buy memory and a motherboard as well as a CPU (I upgraded the video, too, but that was essentially free).Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

[Guest AlfaNut]

>Why not just upgrade the CPU for starters. You didn't list>your motherboard, so I can't tell what the max CPU you can>upgrade is. You may want to consider a new Motherboard too,>but it might be that you can just upgrade the CPU. >>1.6 is mighty slow these days. For $250, I upgraded an Athlon>1.7 system to an Athlon 2.5, which is acceptable if a bit slow>these days. And the only reason it was that expensive was>because I had to buy memory and a motherboard as well as a CPU>(I upgraded the video, too, but that was essentially free).>>Thomas>>[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html]>http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]>>I like using VC's :-)Good suggestion - sorry for the delay. My MB is by Intel, a D845WN.I have searched the Intel web site for this sort of thing but didn't find a reasonable answer there.In the final analysis, simply getting a consistent 24 fps would be quite adequate. That's where the Film Industry went with film, years ago. The human eye likes at least 24 fps to see smooth motion and (much) higher frame rates, IM(not so)HO are superfluous. Much like putting mag wheels with racing tires on a lawn mower...Thanks for the tips!