Sign in to follow this  
duckbilled

Aibus A320 by Wilco how does it fly

Recommended Posts

I finally managed to download the aircraft.I didn't get as far as being able to test it fully because it crashes FSX within about 10-15 minutes of flying when around Seattle.I've looked in to this and it's probably linked to the fact I've got a Core 2 Duo 6600 which anyone in the "know" will know than unofficially, because ACES and INTEL will never admit this, that Core 2 Duo's suffer a RAM problem with FSX..To confirm this while running FSX and the Wilco A320 I watched my RAM creep up, (I have 2GB) to an incredible 97%. Within a few minutes of getting this high FSX will crash.Technically, this is not really Wilco's falult though I would say to them it was probably not a good idea to release this aircraft so early in the life cycle of FSX.The big gestion for me as a developer in particular is how are ACES going to fix these issues. If ACES do not fix these issues then the Core 2 Duo user will have 2 choices.a) change to a very high spec AMD:( Not botther with complex aircraftOf course for me I can't use the Airbus as for me I have a Core 2 Duo so a 10 minute flight is not exacltly what I had in mind.Can I get a refund from Wilco. No...Are Wilco warning customers about the Core 2 issues....NoDo I know of any developers warning customers about the Core 2 issues...NoIs it in the interest of the publisher or developer to warn their customers... No. (but with a few exceptions maybe yes?)Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

>The big gestion for me as a developer in particular is how are>ACES going to fix these issues. If ACES do not fix these>issues then the Core 2 Duo user will have 2 choices.>>a) change to a very high spec AMD>>:( Not botther with complex aircraftReading in the forums, I thought Core 2 Duo users were those having best performance in FSX!Marco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to dispute your report of a Core2/FSX bug, but I've been running FSX on a Core2 Duo E6600 with 2 gigs of ram and a GeForce 7950GT card since FSX was released. I have had no problems at all with memory leaks using FSX. I have flown quite a few flights of 3-4 hours with the memory load around the 60% mark.I am using all the default FSX textures with the settings on Med. High.Edit: I do not have the Wilco A320.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Not to dispute your report of a Core2/FSX bug, but I've been>running FSX on a Core2 Duo E6600 with 2 gigs of ram and a>GeForce 790GT card since FSX was released. I have had no>problems at all with memory leaks using FSX. I have flown>quite a few flights of 3-4 hours with the memory load around>the 60% mark.>>I am using all the default FSX textures with the settings on>Med. High.I've also had the same results with an E6600 and 2GB DDR800. No memory or crash issues. Where else has this been reported?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect, its the aircraft and how win XP manages VM. I could be wrong.I have had memory problems since I mobed the Flight1 MD80 over. The MD80 textures takes a lot of memory for some reason. When my memory usage creeps from 1.6G to 1.99, I get a memory CTD.Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's trying to say that it only happens with fsx and complex 3rd party aircraft. About the most complex aircraft I have for fsx is the ES Cirrus SR20 and I haven't had any trouble with it except for the sizable chunk of frame rate it consumes and the very limited amount that this sim has to offer to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter,I never heard of this Core 2 Duo bug before. Do you have links to any sites or forums where this is mentioned and do you know if ACES is trying to patch this? (not admitting it isn't the same as not knowing about it, yes?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry! I should have been more specific.I meant in FSX. I brought over the FS9 MD80 (a complext airliner) over to FSX. and the 2D textures in it consumes lots of memory...and when the overall usage goes from 1.6 to 1.99, it CTDs. with memory issues.I did not have that issue with the Eaglesofts Cirrus cause, the memory never went close to 1.99GigsManny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, (and that opinion is based on the vast majority of Core2 users here who report great results with FSX) the problem is with the aircraft, and not with the Core2Duo processor.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty clear Manny is getting this same issue.It maybe the some Core 2 Duo's in some sitututaions don't suffer this issue.For me anyway is that dispite my high spec system, Nividia 7950 with 512MB, core 2 duo 6600 and 2gb of 800 memory I can't use the Airbus by wilco for more than a few minutes; well 10 mins on averate over a dense are like Seattle.Some regions and some default aircraft, sure the RAM holds at 60% for a while.The thing is I can't tell how the airbus flys becuase I can't test it long enough. It's been a terrible waste of money for me as Wilco won't even consider a refund. Needless to say I won't be buying more Wilco aircraft for FSX. In fact I don't think I'll be buying any add on aircraft for fSX for at least until the developers learn how to code and make aircraft for FSX. I would think that's going to mean at least 4-8 months before FSX airaft aircraft are working really well in FSX. Just my opinion.Anyway, at least for me thanks to Wilco I'm going to be very cautious now about what I buy for FSX.Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In fact I don't think I'll be buying any add on aircraft for fSX for at least until the developers learn how to code and make aircraft for FSX."How things change: http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=search"No disrespect guys but most people that come to these forums get off on slaming and moaning and pointing out the negative aspects."That's all you've been doing of late! Get thee some humble pie!... and once you're done, join the rest of us, as we have plenty of s##t sandwich to go around ;):-xxrotflmao(It's one big s### sandwich and we're all gonna have to take a bite.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree MD83FSX has finally come to bite me in the butt.I've got to face up to the fact it sucks and fps is poor of the bat.FSX does not support a Core 2 duo and any complex add on aircraft are a no go.The only alternative is to set all the sliders way, way down.For the record, I tried it and found the airbus worked okay but the simulator and such minimal settings looks really bad.I think it's time for a new simulator?I think I'll invest some time and money in making a new simulator ready for FS11. At least then we'll all have a choice.What do you think?Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big brains need to completely start over with a new flightsim engine.No matter how many people it ####### off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>It's pretty clear Manny is getting this same issue.>I thought he wasn't having too many problems with his setup anymore...?>>Anyway, at least for me thanks to Wilco I'm going to be very>cautious now about what I buy for FSX.>That is a good/wise idea, especially at the present time. I think in about 10-12 months things will be much more filled-in, in terms of what we know works and what doesn't.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Peter :)Thanks for replying :). Something drastic needs to happen. Either the hardware world needs to make huge gains, or the FSX SP1 needs to fix the majority of woes. FSX simply doesn't cut it on my mid-range machine (P4 3Ghz, 1Gb RAM, 256Mb Radeon 9600PRO) ... the Demo was full of stutters, even with the infamous "tweaks" applied.Something needs to happen very soon! :-boom. A new simulator would be great, especially if it can match FS9 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Rhett,I made a few points, more a waffle really, an air of frustration in part and in others a concern or 2.My big concern is that the Wilco airbus uses too much resources for the Core 2 duo. Most people are not appreciating the issues with the core 2 duo and are simply going by the many reports of how good it is.I've done some in-depth testing, as I need to as a developer, and I have found what is being covered up.I've got some good contacts in to IBM and Intel as well as Microsoft. Nobody is officially admitting any issues but the Core 2 duo does have a real problem.If you set the autogen past zero it will need to use the bridge far more and gradually the RAM fills up. It starts around 65% and builds up until around 97% and then the games locks up and craps out.The Wilco Airbus makes the RAM fill up really quickly. I get around 10 minutes in complex scenery areas when using complex cloud situations.By turing of the autogen I can use the Wilco airbus.Of course nobody is admitting this issue and most people on this forum are not really testing this properly.If you have a core 2 duo contact me in a PM and I'll talk you through how to test this properly and maybe hook you up on voice with some experts who can validate this and help you minimize the issues you are having.All this said, the Wilco airbus means I have to set FSX to such a poor state it spoils the enjoyment on the fsx visuals. Wilco should have waited until at least the official patch comes out. The worrying thing here is perhaps they've already tried the patch in a beta forum and as such feel it makes no difference. I think it would be a very bad business decision to release a complex product before the patch. I doubt if they've done that without really knowing what's going on.Though people aren't really admitting it now the Core 2 duo users will be the people reporting most the memory issues with stutters building up over time of use in game and in particular when a complex airplane is being used.There is a new type of Intel coming out in maybe 4-6 months time and from what I understand it will fix the RAM issue with games like FSX.Meanwhile only the sx62 AMD users will get a good performance from FSX. A bit expensive for me to change right now but I'm considering it. I'll probably have to order the parts direct from the USA as the 62's are at least $1000 here in the UK plus a MB on top and a complete reinstall and loss of credits on validated installs. Not sure I want to go that route. I may wait until the more advanced Intells come out later in the year.Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to be a tough call to make a new simulator that's good and that does not directly compete with FSX.Maybe a more serious simulator, maybe a little more expensive than FSX aimed at a more serious simmer.What do you think? There's not much point in just copying FSX and trying to make it better. Too much chance it will fail or be outdone by the next FS version.Healthy competiion is good but any new product would have to establish a market.I'm working on some ideas in this area. Rasing funds won't be a problem once we have the right vision.What do you think a new and better simulator should concentrate on.Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Look back a few years: There was the Fly! series, Flight Unlimited, Pro Pilot, X-Plane and FS. Fly! came pretty much out of nowhere and was developed by a fairly small studio and took the flightsim community by storm.Right now you have only FS and X-Plane.I strongly believe that technology and CPU power has advanced to a degree where stunning scenery with fluid framerates and more complex add-ons are possible. X-Plane has demonstrated that. However, as long as X-Plane does not enter mainstream and lose its elitist stigmata, it will stay the 'Linux' of flight sims.I am sure that serious simmers (including me) wouldn't mind at all to spend $200 on a serious and professional flightsim.What would be my wishes for a 'better' simulator?- Usability and fluid framerates. Only include/use the technology that is currently available - not what could, should or might be available in a year after the release (DX10). This is my biggest problem with FSX. MS relies on and hypes technology that is not even present, instead of what is available right now (dual core, SLI).- Addons that don't rely on a 3rd party (FSUIPC)- Professional add-ons that have to pass a certification process by the developer or distributor ("official add-ons"). Flight 1?- A professional manual. Eventually the inclusion of the FAA Airmen's Manual and if it's just as a pdf. Crucial to educate users about aviation. In my opinion a flight sim should represent the real-life procedures as closely as possible, otherwise it's not a sim, but merely a "game".- Professional marketing, packaging and distribution. And again: Flight 1, because they have clearly and continuously demonstrated over the years how to do things right.I am sure that I could come up with a lot more suggestions, but those would be my key wishes for now.I glad you kicked off a dialogue. This is a very interesting and intriguing topic for sure.Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it has been tried. When fs98 had one flying around ice cube clouds ,vector drawn polygons and generic instrumentation pro pilot had 5 extremely realistic aircraft/ panels, 3d clouds, a 3d world,built in atc and ai traffic.People didn't like it as you could not add in aircraft, it didn't run initially in 3d, and you could only fly in the US and Europe.Fly then came along-taking "serious" to the next degree-even more realistic cockpits, better clouds, maps etc.-it didn't do well.Flight unlimited came along-probably the most fun sim I have ever used-specialized in a small highly detailed area and a few aircraft-people didn't like that (or the sliders that were invented with that series-they turned them all the way up and then were shocked with poor performance).Xplane's is serious in flight models-though I haven't flown a plane in xplane yet that reminds me of the real thing-therfore that "serious" sim sits on my shelf at home.There are other "serious" sims out there now-I own On Top, and elite is another. Of course On top disables your rudders-the graphics look like fs4, and the cockpits are extremely limited-but good performance needed for a "serious" sim comes at a cost.Me-I merely leave autogen off fsx and I like it better than all the above mentioned "serious" sims. With an aircraft like the real air marchetti-some real weather-the detailed geography etc. I find it more serious than something like on top -for me.I think the problem competitors like pro pilot, fly,fu found is that everyone wants something different from a sim. Some want to play airline pilot, some want to zoom buildings, some want to do serious ifr work, some serious maneuvers, some aerobatics etc. FS has always been able to be something for everyone-thru sliders and add ons.Me-I have no interest in the Airbus-and frankly don't even fly the jets in fs-haven't even tried them. Since I don't fly them in real life-for me flying them in the sim would be a game-and I use fs "seriously" to practice in real aircraft I have flown-but that is me. So even "serious" is in the eye of the beholder!In any case-if you choose to go after a "new" sim-I'll be supporting you-but the history doesn't look too good...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points Geof as always,I think one of the key things here is perhaps when the other flight sims came out it was the wrong time.I think simming is gradually building up a good base of the more serious pilots who won't mind paying more for more.I'm not thinking of a game but I do appreciate some people like to fly in the whole world rather than a dedicated area for example.I think though things are changing with voice over IP for example so what worked for people a while back maybe now has evolved to something very different.I know a few years back I didn't even try the other simulators because back then I was in to freeware and building up the train set if you like. Now things are different for me. I don't use Freeware these days and want much more quality and skill to come in to play. I want an airplane to feel right and with good voice and real pilots with real ATC. A grown up VATSIM if you like.You've only got to look at how disappointed people are with FSX to realize that the fact is it's now aimed at the bulk market that simply wants a program of the shelf that works well with default airplanes.I really don't think FSX has been designed to be future proof. Just the opposite. It's been designed to work on high spec current AMD's and with little or no vision towards the future. Even DX10 will not be supported in the patch.The word I got, which I can't qualify, but does worry me is that there is no real promise from ACES to support dual cores. FS11, if it is ever delivered to the market may well have dual core support.What's needed IMO is a new simulator that's aimed at today's more serious simmer who would spend $200 and would be happy to have an online flying environment that's a serious simulator.If this vision is right then there is a market for a new simulator and I'll be happy to play my role in making this happen. I wouldn't like to directly compete with ACES though. Good as FSX is it's still really a game in the end.Maybe the problem with the history of simming is that these more realistic simulators came out too early and tried to get the market from the gamers. That market was the wrong market. To be honest it's not really the market for a more realistic simulator.The question is is a bigger and better more realistic simulator something enough people really want? It's a big gamble? It's a big risk?But... in business the big risk often pays off in big bucks?It depends if I'm feeling lucky I guess and how many people want to join in with that vision, developers and users.Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I haven't as yet got any confirmation (=> key code) from Wilco even if I bought the Airbus from them on Thursday... :(Petteri PulkkinenVihti, Finland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Peter,what a good idea, to think about a real good new Sim. Many serious simmers would be happy, to get a good flight simulator, and pay 200$ or more for it.Compared to, let's say PM, it would be quite cheap.I personally would even pay more for a good sim.Happy landingsArry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the great question: how to enter a market essentially controlled by one producer ... sounds like betamax v. vhsquick list of options after microsoft (MS). all these products claim better flight modeling -*fly!*x-plane*flightgear <-- freeware & open-sourcethe neg. of the above three to the average person: lower visual quality than FS9 or 10.microsoft has pushed visual world over flight dynamics through many versions of FS. the majority user of FS doesn't care about FMC sub-pages, the correct color of the altutude bug, or the reality of the flight and weather models. MS knows this market, and i belive the sales of the FS product show FS designers are correct.--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I certainly think Microsoft have got it right for a gamers market. No doubt about that.That's not the market I was thinking of.I was thinking more a serious simming market that uses todays technology.I don't agree with Microsoft that they say it's future proof. How can that be the case if there is no plan to use todays techology of a dual core.The kind of simulator I would envisage would need a high spec machine. It's man's toy not a boys toy if you see what I mean.$200 or maybe even a bit more.Only 25% of the market of downloaders would then get $5,000,000 USD and then because it's better in terms of realism there would be a new market to explore. The real world aviation for example as a training tool/utility.Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this