Seattle in UTX...any experiences with misplaced buildin...

[JDWalley 354]

I've been sitting here with the downloaded zipped files to UTX stored on my drive for a couple of days. I've been just on the verge of making the purchase from Flight 1...but...I like the occasional VFR "sightseeing" trip, particularly around my home area, at just above skyscraper height. I was really enthused about UT for FS9 when I first heard about it, until I had the chance to try such a flight on a system with UT installed. I couldn't help but notice that most of downtown Seattle seemed to have made a jump of about 1/4 mile to the east, relative to the coastline and freeways. I'm sure it was probably more a Microsoft placement error than anything the makers of UT did, but it was still pretty jarring to see the Columbia Tower sitting on top of Interstate 5, many buildings west of that interstate somehow winding up east of it instead, piers located a block or so away from Elliot Bay on dry land, a crane planted right in the middle of the water in a shipping channel...well, "as real as it gets" it most definitely was not.So, I'm hesitating here. I would think, given the nice default scenery in FSX, that Microsoft should certainly have fixed the positioning errors...or did they? I've seen one screenshot of Seattle from the UT demo, but it really didn't show the downtown area where the problems were. And I haven't seen any feedback around here one way or another. Can a Seattle-knowledgeable simmer with UTX please tell me whether the downtown buildings, etc., are in the right places this time around? Thanks in advance.

[Max Kraus 338]

I'm not Seattle-knowledgable, but I can post some screens of the dt area for you if you want. I personally think the KSEA and surrounding areas look great this time.

[Paul J 349]

Hope this is what you need, JD: I don't live there, so I'm not familiar with street and building names, but I fly the area all the time, so here's a few: http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/174015.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/174016.jpg. . and LOOK at the docks. . incredible!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/174017.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/174018.jpgThis is the one I think you're looking for:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/174019.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/174020.jpgHope this helps; UTX is the best addon I've ever purchased for any sim in twenty years.:-beerchugPS: If the pics seem kind smallish - I'm running 1680 x 1050 on a 21" LCD, so reducing it to 1024 x 600 and <150k (with XAT Image Optimizer) destroys much of the quality.

[JDWalley 354]

Thanks! In the screenshot you single out, I notice one smaller building still sitting on I-5, but the rest are in their proper places. I think the building in question is there because that's the spot where the Washington State Convention Center is actually built on top of and across the freeway; although that building looks nothing like the Convention Center, I guess that still makes it "kosher."As to the rest of the screenshots, all I can say is :-jumpy WOW!!! :-jumpy Time to make the purchase!

[Guest]

Ughh dear God the blurries! Has UT fixed the blurry issue yet? I would seriously love to purchase this addon but not if it causes those kinds of blurries. Eeek.________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 565/900 | Seagate 2x320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW | Matrox Triplehead Setup

[Paul J 349]

hahahahah! Now I AM rolling on the floor! :-lol:-lol:-lol:-lolI had a peep, using Google Earth, and there looks to be a flat building over the top: UT now shows tunnel entrances - the black half-circles - which it didn't do in FS9. But - yes - what a difference. I had the same amount of enthusiasm when I first loaded and ran it. It is just the greatest, isn't it! The part that gets me, you know, is I was never able to run more than perhaps 12 - 15% road traffic: add more and the frames would drop. But with UT - there's a TON of vehicular traffic on 80% of the roads! I'm STILL amazed!Anyway - I'm off: have fun!:-beerchug

[JDWalley 354]

Well, I bought it, and am suitably impressed. Of course, my framerate dropped into the high single digits, but the dual-core CPU I've got on order (Athlon 64 X2 5600+, which happens to be a drop-in replacement on my mainboard) should fix that problem.OTOH, I have to file a strong letter of complaint with the Board of Directors of our housing subdevelopment...although we're not allowed to so much as cut down a tree on our property without getting prior approval, it looks from UTX like they allowed a multi-story office building and large parking lot a couple of blocks from my house. I thought this place was zoned for residential-only! ;-)Also, it seems there's a bottomless pit on one of the hills of West Seattle. I know that area is prone to sinkholes, but this is ridiculous!http://www.eskimo.com/~jwalley/AVSimstuff/sinkhole.jpg

[Max Kraus 338]

That's some piece of roadworks there ! :-lol Re: the Blurries, I must one of the only UTX users who DOESN'T get them?

[Paul J 349]

As I said in the post, Astro - I'm running 1680 x 1050 on a 21" Gateway monitor, and when you have reduce a 5 meg screenshot down to 1024 x 660 and make it less than 150 KB to satisfy Avsim's storage and bandwidth requirements - this is what you get. The OP had a query about a particular positioning of downtown Seattle with respect to I-5 running through buildings: My #5 shot answered his question. I suppose if my posts or pictures aren't up to your very high standards - then I apologise - I just won't post any more.. . . and don't purchase it. I won't twist your arm.:-cool

[FlyingsCool 3]

Nope - I don't get them either.It's important to understand that FSX was designed to be ABLE to send more graphic information to your system than it can handle. But it doesn't HAVE to do that. If you are judicious in how you set up your sliders, you can fly with good looking scenery AND without blurries. But if you insist on overtaxing your system, then you WILL get blurries. Your choice. You may decide that blurries is ok as long as the flying is smooth.If you are having a problem with the blurries, your best choice is to lock your framerates at a value BELOW the max your system can do. If you set it at the max, then the software will try to drive for that max, sacrificing scenery quality first and then it will show stuttering. If you know your system can get decent performance in a rural area at 25 fps; set your framerate to say 17 or 20. You'll have much better luck avoiding the blurries as the scenery gets more dense.As for your scenery, etc. sliders setup, as Phil said: Start with your sliders at low values, maybe a notch or two below what FS chose as your default on installation. Then crank them up a little at a time, one at a time, until you get a look you can live with and still get good performance.Use bloom as a last resort, this is a framerate killer. Start with shadows on the ground and on your aircraft turned off. Even lens flare has an effect on performance. Clouds are also an fps killer, try simple first, then move up to detailed at low coverage, and move up from there. Finally, air and ground traffic are real fps killers. Start at 0, and move up from there. As you move things up, try moving other sliders back.For instance, if you are going to be flying in 0/0 weather, you may decide traffic isn't that important to you, since you aren't going to see it anyway.I've tested UT on 3 different machines with a wide range of performance, and I have not experienced sustained problems with the blurries except when I did it on purpose.- Dell D810 Lattitude 1.86 GHz Pentium M/2 GB/64 MB ATI X300/100 GB 7200 rpm- AMD 2500 (3200 OC)/1 GB/128 MB ATI 9800 Pro/? (5400 rpm I assume)- DFI Infinity 975X/G E6600 (3.34 GHz OC (370x9))/2 GB 800 MHz Kingston HyperX/EVGA OC 8800 GTS 640/150 GB 10K raptorI typically set up with 1.x water and 0 air traffic (5-10% auto traffic) on the two slower machines. 15 fps, dense scenery, no autogen on the laptop (I can turn it on but fps dips into the single digits when I do that), 20 fps, dense autogen, very dense scenery, 0 air traffic on the AMD (I could probably add some traffic, but I wanted 0 stuttering). No bloom on any of the machines. On my big desktop, I set my fps to 30 most of the time (40 and higher somtimes), and crank all the sliders. Not all the way to the right, but very high.I'll be the first to admit that there are people out there who wouldn't be satisfied flying on my machines. They expect 60 - 120 fps and beautiful, detailed scenery, full bloom, dense, realistic air traffic, and everything. But as far as I'm concerned, this is what we have to work with, and I want to fly, not complain.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

[Paul J 349]

Well said, Thomas; thanks for this post, it's rational and level-headed, and has cooled me back down! We're all still in the learning curve yet, and should be helping each other and not poo-pooing others hard work - particularly when they're attempting to help someone else as I was. For the record I don't see any blurring or shimmering anywhere when flying: what is annoying at the moment is that my trees appear kinda "black", slightly shimmer, and stand out more than I think they should, so this is one challenge. What I'm seeing is small improvements over time as people mention the various suggestions here: I don't particularly care about the water, flare, nor bloom, but I must have good clouds and realistic scenery: I like the tons of traffic which came with UT, and wasn't expecting it - (so bonus! :) ), but more so I would like the old traffic back - at Seattle - which I used to get with FS9. It will come, I'm sure.Meanwhile I'm looking forward the the GEX and FEX additions slated for July 7th.Regards,

[bob.bernstein 0]

looks like somebody pulled the drain plug from the resevoir. First time I knew how much water it holds.B