This may be a dumb question.

[Guest V4DIV-CVN-70]

In FSX the defualt aircraft such as the B737 or the CRJ have great frame rates and also look superb when in the VC on the other hand aircraft addons like the PIC737 of Wilco777 have horrible frame rates and have ok looking VC views. Why is that? Could someone just take the Default B737 and add some more functions to it such as a working FMC and Overhead with VNAV and such and still get the great Frame rates? I have found in the Avsim Library a few guage fixes for the Default 737 and CRJ , so couldnt someone just expand on that some?Just seems like the only addon Aircraft I have purchsed that has good frame rates is the Eaglesoft Twin Comanche. Cant seem to find a Passenger Jet with Good FPS. Like I said maybe a dumb question ,but sure would like to know.

[Guest V4DIV-CVN-70]

Stumped

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

Grape,First, thank you for your service to our country.Since you work on one of the world's best aircraft carriers (which look a lot like the one in Acceleration)... I wonder if you could take a few minutes to briefly review the FSX F18 Hornet, and in general, the realism in the Carrier Operations present in Acceleration.Thanks!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/181339.jpg

[Guest jshyluk]

To answer the question at the top:The high-end third-part add-on passenger jet simulations have a lot more avionics systems running than do the FSX jets. FSX doesn't care all that much what the visual model is as it flies. You could fly a cube or your couch, and it would have the same flight characteristics as a Cessna Skyhawk. Or put another way, the default Boeing 737 and the Skyhawk are more or less the same in terms of flight model complexity.Well, that's actually too broad a statement: the 737 has 2 engines to the Skyhawk's one, there's spoilers and engine reversers to worry about, and the main propulsion is through jets rather than a prop. Still, in terms of what your computer has to do to simulate the flight, the 737 and the Skyhawk are in the same ballpark.The big difference comes with a)the glass cockpit planes with the G1000 displays, and b)the default 747. In the former case, those big animated screens draw a lot of computing horsepower, especially in the virtual cockpit. In the latter case, the aircraft has 4 engines. Both cases serve to illustrate that most computers don't have much wriggle room in terms of running extras in the FSX aircraft. The more complicated you go from the Skyhawk, the more frames you are likely to lose.The premium passenger jets have a) the complicated displays and :( lots of engines, especially the PMDG 747. Then, too, they will also have simulated electronics and avionics that are usually just rendered as "abstract" in the default planes. For instance, a fire-suppression system that actually looks at fuel flow, hydraulics and electricals every computing cycle is much less abstract than a fire extinguisher switch that makes a light illuminate on the dash. The FMC is another good example. Aircraft that have functioning FMC's are really simulating a computer system that's running on board the aircraft that's being simulated by your computer! The MS Flight Planner, on the other hand, greatly abstracts the flight planning process, but on the other hand, you aren't spending an entire afternoon staring at a tiny screen and wondering where the DISCO's are coming from. If you are looking for frame-rate friendly aircraft that show you the systems (but run them abstractly), the JustFlight F-Lite series of jets comes to mind, or the CLS product (which is the same thing). None of them are going to win prizes for beauty and fidelity as compared to the premium jets, but they do let you play around with more complicated systems than the default jets, yet on the other hand they don't require you to memorize a flight manual, an dthey are very good on the frame rates. As long as you don't choose the "Beginner" mode for their flight model, you can even fly these jets by the numbers for the most part. http://www.justflight.com/Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

[Guest V4DIV-CVN-70]

fsxmissionguyThanks, I have been out a long time but I have to say I do remember it like yesterday. One of the best times of my life was 6 months at sea. I worked on the flight deck and loved it. Now, to your question.I may not be able to review the F-18 very good because when I was on the Vinson we had only the following aircraft.F-14 Tomcat (2 squadrons)A-7 Corsair,A-6 Intruder, EA-6B Prowler, S-3/S-3B Viking, SH-4 SeaKing, E-3 HawkEye, and believe it or not 2 A-3 Whales.(throw backs from the 60's) On occasion the marines would fly carrier quals on our deck with the F-18 but not alot. As for the deck. Well Lets start with the most blaring part. When on the deck in acceleration you can see a "Rail" around the deck. (except for the bow front and angle deck front) In real life there is NO RAIL, there is a net that hangs over the side that is intended to catch a falling sailor. but it is about 4 feet down and a 5 inch tall bumper painted white around the edge of the deck. (again except the bow and angle deck)The deck looks really good other then that. the JBD's (jet) blast deflectors are nice. There is a missing bubble (catapult controller station) between the two bow cats. I like the FSX cat system pretty good although I would like to SEE the shuttle ( http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/newsphot...ewsphotoid=8580 ) and the hold back bar. the hold back bar hold the airplane from moving while at Full power until the cat shoots at which time a small barbell looking piece of metal "Breaks in half" and releases the aircraft down the cat. ( http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=7122 ) Another thing that seems to be missing (at least i haven

[Guest V4DIV-CVN-70]

HeyThanks for the good answer.

[beatle 0]

My brother used to run the nuclear reactor on the Vinson back in the mid 80's, somewhere around here I still have a CVN-70 ball cap.Small world :->

[Guest V4DIV-CVN-70]

CoolHe was what we called a "Nuke". They were always studying if not on duty. I wear my CVN-70 Cap almost everyday. I need to get another, its about worn out.

[BoeingGuy 0]

Off-topic!!!!!In FS98, the elevators on the default carrier work!

[Guest PPSFA]

A lot of the addons planes need to be 'mitmapped'. I fly a fairly large selection, including a lot from FS9, with great frame rates.

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

Also ... V4-Grape! I'm guessing you were a refueler, right?http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/181354.jpgWhat I miss most in the Carrier Ops are those guys who go down on one knee and point with their arms right before you're launched.That's GOT to be in FS11, or I go back to GoFly!

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

This one off Norfolk looks less like the barren desert. Unfortunately, no working Cat or Arrestor gear (I'm guessing Microsoft decided that the working ones needed to be less complex to provide the highest possible frame rates when attempting landings).Thanks a lot for your review, and your service.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/181352.jpg

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

I use this carrier for practicing touch-and-go approaches. It's a lot more intimidating knowing that there are things on the deck that go boom if you bump them.Heh.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/181356.jpg

[ccaughie 0]

>This one off Norfolk looks less like the barren desert.Where exactly did you find that? The other day I flew around Norfolk for ages trying to find a carrier, figuring there would be one around somewhere. Couldn't find one though.My parents-in-law live in Norfolk. I've been a few times but I still haven't quite figured out the geography of the place.Thanks,Colin

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

Colin,These carriers sail on a schedule. This one can be found if you fly on a Friday at 12:30pm out of Norfolk NAS (set your Time/Season to these settings).Cheers,Kevin