Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
RESET MCP ALT

I guess I'm the frst one!! Re: LDS 767 for FSX

Recommended Posts

Guest

Yep, FPS sucks pretty much. I have a new system (E6600, 8800GTS etc) and its just not good with the LDS 767. You know what I would really like to see from developers? Efficient add-ons. AXP is doing it, I hope others try to catch up. When we install these add-ons, you have to move all the freaking sliders so far to the left you might as well just play FS9 because the graphics at that point are pretty similar. I think FSX is great but with complex add-ons its just a dud. I just got this machine a week ago, and I'm already starting to feel like I'm going to have to upgrade. There has got to be a better way, and I hope developers find it otherwise we're going to go through this lame cycle everytime a new version of FS comes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Len

>Yep, FPS sucks pretty much. I have a new system (E6600,>8800GTS etc) and its just not good with the LDS 767. >>You know what I would really like to see from developers? >Efficient add-ons. AXP is doing it, I hope others try to>catch up. When we install these add-ons, you have to move all>the freaking sliders so far to the left you might as well just>play FS9 because the graphics at that point are pretty>similar. I think FSX is great but with complex add-ons its>just a dud. I just got this machine a week ago, and I'm>already starting to feel like I'm going to have to upgrade.>There has got to be a better way, and I hope developers find>it otherwise we're going to go through this lame cycle>everytime a new version of FS comes out. Rats. Can't afford the already meagre overhead. I was in the process of downloading but stopped when I read the fps hits. I have the FS9 version which worked very well frame wise. Was very pleased with it. Unfortunately this is a no go in FSX for me.P4 3.6 Ghz HT, 2 gig ddr ram, ATI X800XT 256 mb PCIe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Papa 3 Charlie

I am thinking it might be a bit early to completely write off this product.It's been released less than an hour and already people are drawing negative conclusions about performance under FSXI'll hold my opinion until I have had time to fairly evaluate the aircraft.Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JIMJAM

Forget the fps, I cannot load the plane.I get a nasty "reinstall the 767" and then a CTD.Something about the panel cannot load.Luckily I love helicopters and small GA planes.Cause Im afraid thats all FSX is going to be good at.Well maybe blimps....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Len wrote:"I was in the process of downloading but stopped when I read the fps hits."I wouldn't write it off on the basis of a few reports of FPS issues.Frame rate issues can be so nebulous and machine specific, that unless absolutely everyone reports it, I'd take it with a grain of salt. Not to dismiss the earlier claims of FPS issues, but that's just the way things generally go in this area.Still, great news about the 767 FSX all the same though.The good news from FS2Crew's point of view is that the SDK/API FS2Crew uses has been unchanged more or less, so getting an FSX FS2Crew 767 version shouldn't (hopefully) take too long.Cheers,Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a smaller system, P4 3.0ghz HT (on), 1gb RAM DDR333, nVidia 6800 GS/XT 256mb (AGP) and with sliders somewhere near middle on all, I get 20-30 FPS. Have you tried renaming the default.xml (autogen) file at all? if not, give it a go...It seriously put me back in the game for playing. I even have AI turned on at 10% GA/Airliners, 20% vehicles/boats/tankers.


Aaron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MauiHawk

>You know what I would really like to see from developers? >Efficient add-ons. AXP is doing it, I hope others try to>catch up. I agree-- I like that performance is one of the features AXP has been advertising.... hopefully the product reflects those promises.I'd also like to see more developers do what ASX did and look to take more advantage of extra cores. If we ignore blurries (or assume there will be a solution at some point), a lot of us now have dual core machines, and really I think we could get by without virtually the entire 2nd core being dedicated to texture work.And actually, ACES may essentially give an automatic dual-core boost to addons with the DX10 patch. Phil has mentioned that they are looking into making the DX calls from the 2nd core-- that would presumably open up more CPU on the main FSX thread for things like addons. Of course, this would apply only to people with both dual-core machines AND a DX10 card.... but that should be a much more common setup by the time the patch is out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Forget the fps, I cannot load the plane.>I get a nasty "reinstall the 767" and then a CTD.>Something about the panel cannot load.>Luckily I love helicopters and small GA planes.>Cause Im afraid thats all FSX is going to be good at.>Well maybe blimps....I had the same error. Download and install the latest FSUIPC (June 1) and you should be OK. Also, every one's mileage is different with FSX and since Flight1 offers a refund; give it a try. For me it makes no sense to keep trying FSX for heavies. I still enjoy flying the FSD planes and the FeelThere Legacy in the boonies. :)Bob...


Bob Prince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest diajohn2

My experience is decent. Sitting on the runway at KSEA with 20% Ultimate Traffic-X, real weather (cloudy), i get 16-18 FPS in the 2D cockpit. My setting are most sliders high and no autogen.Its very flyable and once I tweak some more, I should be able to fly from the VC. Those with better machines really need to check their settings.Athlon 64-3800dual, 2 G, PC3200 memory, ATI XT800PE video card. AA-6, AF-16. 1280x1024 on LCD monitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JIMJAM

Reinstalled fsuipc did the trick.From my 30 minutes or so flying around lightly ai airports, my FPS is surprisingly good on my upper end system.No better or worse than the Wilco CitationX.Overall it gives me some hope heavies are possible in FSX.BTW-Have not flown in big cities with lots of AI or in heavy weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just flown my first full flight with it and so far it's not too bad! I duplicated a flight I just flew today so I have a benchmark! It was beween KGPT and KMEM. Not the most challenging area performance wise in FSX though. I flew real weather with ASX both times, this morning though was clouds and storms, it seems to have cleared up tonight mainly fair weather clouds on this one. All FPS was taking in VC on both flights. This mornings flight was on Overland 777Situation Ovr 777 LDS 767 On Tarmac KGPT 34-35FPS 19-22FPSTaxi and Takeoff KGPT 30-32 FPS 17-19FPSMid Flight 48-54 FPS 25-30FPSApproach KMEM 30-35 FPS 17-19FPSLanding & Taxi KMEM 25-30 FPS 13-15FPSThis is without changing my current settings which are extremely dense scenery, max global texture res, Dense autogen tweaked to 600 trees, 800 buildings per cell, water 2xlow, max weather and 100% traffic (Airline)If you have the horsepower you can get decent, (not great) results, but if your system is lacking, then this may not work for you!


Thanks

Tom

My Youtube Videos!

http://www.youtube.com/user/tf51d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm tickled to death!!!!With framerates locked @ 20, on a flight from KLWB to KSAT she was near 20 all the way until KSAT. At KSAT in the mid teens to twenty and very flyable IMHO (I realize that to some, anything below 40 or 50 is hersey, these old eyes just can't see the difference). A smooth and uneventful flight. (Flew down for the first NBA final game). GO WHOEVER, I Love both teams but will probably lean toward the Spurs.I just relocated to KJFK, gate 72 for a worse case situation. Then taxied G and B taxiways to 13R for a takeoff. Framerates anywhere between 10 and 20, but again, very flyable. The takeoff run was at about 15 but smooth as could be to these old eyes. Quite honestly, I get about the same results with the default Baron. Downtown Manhattan is another story. Better stick to something else for sightseeing NY, but who flys a 767 at 500 feet down the East River?On FSX, performance with my new system (system specs attached) is about equal to the best I got on my 3.2 Intel with FS9 and the FS9 LDS 767.1280x960x32 tripple monitors, target frame rate 20, Advanced animations, Anisotropic filtering, AA both FSX & Video control, Global texture resolution very high, 2D Instrunent Panel, Show cockpit ToolTips, Aircraft casts shadows on the ground, Aircraft landing lights illuminate ground, All scenery sliders full right except Water effects: High 1.x, Land detail textures, Global Settings Ultra High, Cloud draw distance 60 mi, Detailed clouds Cloud coverage density Maximum, Download winds aloft data with real world weather, Rate at which weather changes over time very high, All traffic as close to 50% as possible (48-51%), All aircraft labels except User aircraft. All others are not checked (and there are not many). I also have implemented the nhancer recommendations.A couple of other notes: I have also implemented the "3GB enabler"/ "LARGE ADDRESS AWARE"/ "BCDEDIT" edits to get rid of Out of memory errors (On XPPro). Since doing that, I have not had the error again. Don't know if it improved anything else.I confess that I also am not much on VC's. As an old CFI who taught many lessons in J3's, Cessna 120's and 140's, a Luscomb or two and Colts I could care less about eye candy and am only interested in functionality. If VC's are your thing, I don't really know what the impact is, but best of luck.The latest version of FSUIPC was included in the installation for me from Flight1 (Thanks Flight1!).Conclusion: Especially if you already have the fs9 version, a $15.00 investment in this offering is one of the best bargins I ever saw IMHO. If you must have 80 FPS (boy, I wish I could get that on anything that turns me on), this is not the bird for you!.Good luck and happy flying!RTHASUS P5N-E-SLI MotherboardIntel E6600 Core2 Duo CPUZalman CNPS7700-CU RT CPU Fam4 GB KST DII800 MemoryWinXP ProNVIDIA VCG8800GTX 768MB Primary Video Graphics Card21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest acarsonline

Fantastic news :)I've been waiting for this since FSX was released.Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back after a good night's sleep and it's looking interesting. Some people seem to be doing ok, others not. Now I'm really in a dilema :-)


Gavin Barbara

 

Over 10 years here and AVSIM is still my favourite FS site :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>anywhere between 10 and 20, but again, very flyable.I have a different opinion on what's flyable and smooth. :-roll>ASUS P5N-E-SLI Motherboard>Intel E6600 Core2 Duo CPU>Zalman CNPS7700-CU RT CPU Fam>4 GB KST DII800 Memory>WinXP Pro>NVIDIA VCG8800GTX 768MB Primary Video Graphics Card>21

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  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    10%
    $2,560.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...