Am I the only one who flies mostly from external views?

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

For shame. For shame.

[Guest jshyluk]

I only fly airplanes inverted under bridges for the reviews! Really!!! I mean, I don't want to get scores of e-mails asking me why I didn't check to see if the airplane would fit under the bridge as its being flown upside-down! Really!!!!1!Well, not really at all. But on the other hand, invitations for me to fly in Level III full-motion flight simulators have totalled exactly zero in my tenure with AVSIM, so maybe there's some cause-and-effect going on here. Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

[tf51d 284]

Well my 2 cents is I normally fly exclusively in the VC, but I also record my flights in FS Recorder. After the flight is over, I often go back and playback and that's when I go exploring with the different views and see all the scenery I missed flying in the VC.

[Guest kingairvols]

My specs are at the bottom.However when FSX was installed (and still with FS9) I (a lot of the time ) place a spot view on the main monitor, the panel/guages on second and the FSNav or Gps (aka FSX) on the third monitor. I really like the views but really take a FPM hit and a way big hit in FSX.Thus I am trying to figure out a set up that allows the ability to have good FPM with the config of monitors mentioned above or a more standard set up in FSX without the hit on the frame rates.I suspect the days of the 3 monitor set up are going out of popularity as it seems the really big wide screen monitors running off of two (my lack of terms) tied together viedo cards may be the new way of simming.I need to appologize in advance as I have for the last few months undergone a lenght og re-hab for CHF, thus playing catch up.I do want to let you guys know the screen shoots you posted were really nice looking. I guess it makes me think there is a chance that one day I will get it close. P.S. I have started shopping for a new PC as to allow for Dir X 10 (I hope I got thie correct). As much slack as FSX seems to tke on the forums it dose seem to be the way of the future. I hope I can keep up.Last, I was simming when FS went from the 2000 version to 2002 (I think) but it seemed to be a big booost then the smaller step to FS9. I wonder if the others here seem to think the FSX is like the step was from FS2000 to the FS 2002 versions. Best of simming, Thank you.Mark.OS:MS Windows XP Professional, Ver 2002 Service Pack 2 Hardware:Intel Pentium® 4 CPU 2.802.84 GHz, 2.00 GB of RAM GeForce 7800GS 256 MB w/ DDR3 running a 21/19.6 Sony Flat Screen Tubed Monitorand a,GeForce FX 5200 128MB 17/16 NEC/Mitsubishi Tubed MonitorGeForce FX 5200 128MB NEC/Mitsubishi 18 Flat Panel.

[Guest jshyluk]

Hi, Mark, I hope you are getting some fun in with FSX.Most people shorten "DirectX 10" to DX10, which as you know needs both Windows Vista and DX10 hardware to run.That being said, FSX runs well in DX9. I'm not really all that good with multi-monitor setups, so you might want to ask about that in the Hardware Forum. That being said, a lot of people do use multiple monitors, and it looks great. You just need a lot of graphics card power.One way to do it is with multiple cards, and another is to take the feed from one card and split it to up to 3 monitors using a device called "TripleHead 2 Go". Either way, though, you have to have a lot of power to run multiple monitors. Again, I am not an expert on the video cards, but out of the ones that you mention, I would guess that your 7800 would allow you to run FSX reasonably well on one screen. I used to have a 7600GT, which is similar, and I ran FSX at medium settings on one monitor. As for FSX being a big leap forward... well, I would say it was more of a leap into uncharted space. If FSX were not linked with the delayed and flawed releases of both Vista and DX10, then maybe things would be different. That being said, FSX does a lot of great things, and shows some maturity in design philosphy that the other versions of MSFS never had. Certainly, FSX has a tremendous potential for the future, even it it grows into FS11. I would suggest that FSX was something of a learning experience for Microsoft as well as third-party developers. The recent Service Packs would indicate to me that there was a lot of work done for FSX that wasn't complete by the release date. Unfortunately, those Service Packs made life difficult for some third-party developers. Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

[perigee 0]

I actually love going crazy in FS and flying from the outside views. This might sound like it contradicts something I said in a previous post, where I talked about making FS as real as you possibly can, by planning out the flight and flying it as you would do in real life. In that post, I was responding to the concept of using FS as a training aid, in which case you should be careful. As much as I love keeping things "real", I'll often just load up an external view and start spinning around and doing all sorts of crazy things. I'll think to myself how amazed I am how much FS actually simulates and recreates. Then, out of nowhere, I'll switch to a helicopter and dive down and start weaving through trees or mountains and just start playing around. I'll wind up going into Instant Replay and watch everything I've done from the outside views.One big complaint I have with FSX is that not all buildings are "solid". I was really disappointed the other day when I tried landing the helicopter in a baseball stadium, only to find that I sunk down through the turf into the ground below the stadium. That ruins some of the fun :)

[Guest kingairvols]

Jeff,Yea, I guess I will re-install FSX on my second harddrive and keep experimenting with it. I guess there in comfort hearing I am not out here alone with FSX issues. I called Dell and asked about the hardware needed (in relation to purchasing a new PC which I hope to do by April) and they shared information that was not consistant with the DX10 info sharred here in the forums and as you mentioned. If you have the time what is the required hardware needed along with which Vista version you would recommend, please? Agian the purchase will be specific to having good results with FSX and hope for future FS versions (as far as predictable, LOL) as well.Thank you.Mark.OS:MS Windows XP Professional, Ver 2002 Service Pack 2 Hardware:Intel Pentium® 4 CPU 2.802.84 GHz, 2.00 GB of RAM GeForce 7800GS 256 MB w/ DDR3 running a 21/19.6 Sony Flat Screen Tubed Monitorand a,GeForce FX 5200 128MB 17/16 NEC/Mitsubishi Tubed MonitorGeForce FX 5200 128MB NEC/Mitsubishi 18 Flat Panel.

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

There's a reason why they're not solid ... it's related somehow to performance (I have zero clue why, but there it is.) It's the one part of the "physics engine" in FSX that I don't care for.Solid objects are more CPU-intensive to draw ... or something. (Maybe ACES can shed some light here.)As a dedicated rotorhead myself, I often try to land on just about everything in the game that looks interesting, and am pleasantly surprised to find some objects that have solidity to them. I've discovered that any building that you can cast a shadow on is landable.Almost every one of the bridges is not, however, and that's quite a disappointment.With so few helipads in the game, us prop-on-tops need all the solid structures we can find.Cheers,Kevin :-rotor

[Murmur 3,941]

>Solid objects are more CPU-intensive to draw ... or something.>(Maybe ACES can shed some light here.)For every solid object, physics engine needs to calculate and detect collision between the object and the aircraft. That's the reason it impacts performance.Marco

[ryanbatc 12,773]

Yeah, I like the tail view for fast planes, like jets and the P51 etcAnd I love the fixed spot view for helos, they are hard to land without it hehehttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/183581.jpg

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

Marco,I wonder if you can expound on this point a little bit more.Say I am hovering over a building. It seems to me that FSX's physics engine is already calculating my position relative to that building and detecting whether I have made contact with it - regardless of whether I can actually land on it. (For example, assuming crash detection is enabled, if I touch that building, I crash, but only if the roof is not landable.)Why is making the roof a "landable platform" so much more intensive?

[Guest]

>Solar, I'm curious if have you ever experienced TrackIR?>>It removes most of the limitations of the VC, making viewing>the area around you very natural and immersive. >Nope haven't tied that yet. Sounds pretty cool as I;ve heard you can even lean closer to the panel and everything. I've thought about it but panning around with my hat switch has worked so far.

[Guest thx1137]

LOL!