wb5okj

Check the custom scenery folder, they are all in there.

I have recently changed from a 24" HP monitor to a Samsung 46" D7000 3D for a monitor, native resolution is 1920x1080, probably a bit low for this size of screen. My video card is an nVidia GTX560 with 2GB of memory.Is it better to use an HDMI 1.4 cable or a DVI cable to hook my computer up to this TV? I am using an HDMI 1.4 cable now, but am wondering if a computer would use the DVI approach better or perhaps it does not make any difference?Appreciate any and all comments.

Yes it pretty much has gone that way for me also. At about a mile or so in front of me, scenery goes into a squarish mess, with a lot of shimmering, The roads are swimming all over the place.I just went to a 46" Samsung Model D7000, feeding it from a GTX560 via HDMI 1.4 cable. I thought maybe that is a problem a 1920x1080 resolution might not be enough resolution for that large of a screen. Perhaps I've always had this bad of shimmering only wasn't noticible on a 24" monitor. I don't know, if it is the beta or the monitor? Perhaps time will tell.:(

I use the default settings then set antaliasing transparency setting to 2x Sparse Grid Supersampling. This seems to work pretty well. I set he sparse grid supersampling because of a lot of shimmering. Another simmer in the X Plane forums suggested this, worked well for a lot of people, did fairly well for me.

Alec please don't judge a developer by the way they get there programs to work. the whole concept of flight simulation is by its very nature artificial. Respect developers that take the long road, I certainly do, but by the same token don't short shrift someone because of their techniques. Flight modeling is like making sausage, it is best done, if you don't watch it being done. The only thing important in modeling aircraft flight, is, "does it work"? If it does, don't question how or why or even if, just fly the thing. You would be surprised at the programing tricks that are done in the simulators that are top of the line commercial simulators, such as the Level D, that United has in Denver Colo. As an aside, and a point of intrest they will sell time to anyone that wants to fly, there simulator, or they were a few years ago, in the mid 1990's you could book a session for around $300 US.

I downloaded it this morning. I already have 2400 points in my first flight, a water landing, (a bit hard, but the lady instructor complimented me on it anyway). And I didn't hit any of the Blender rendered balloons. :( I haven't ordered any addons though, my XYL put a restraining order on addons after getting this 46" monitor.

Yes we loose our color, (liveries), too. also don't put any ver. 9 plane with gear doors through PlaneMaker, or you will not be able to close your gear doors. Apparently LR has changed the way you append the gear doors in version 10.As a side note, the hazy fog is what I really like about HDR rendering, well at least one of the things. At first I didn't use HDR because of the frame loss, but have finally learned to tweak my system to be able to use it, and I got to where I like it quite a lot. Speaking of the radios in the Duchess, in mine without HDR the radios are like they are really fogged over, I have to really get up close to read them. Perhaps that is a quirk of an nVidia card? A small inconvenience at any rate, and nothing to worry about. :smile:Thanks for the tip Rob, I just changed that in inspector, it seemed to help it somewhat, I historically run with medium to low World Detail settings but increasing them to higher seemed to help a little. Hard to tell whether that is real or a placebo effect. Actually its the roads that are doing most of the shimmiring, really its more like swimming. I'll play around a bit more with that Transparency Supersampling. Thanks again.PS. Rob I stand corrected that helped quite a lot, at least 95% better maybe more. I quite the sim then restarted. Thanks again

It seems to me that shimmer is worse, but i can't really tell as i have just went to a 46 inch monitor so a lack of higher resolution my be hindering me. The aliasing that I used to not notice on a 24 inch screen is now much more noticble :( I used to never worry about antialiasing but now have to use it.HDR seems to help a bit or at least be somewhat better and keeping the visibility down to 10 miles helps somewhat too. That is not a hardship for me as I usually keep visibility down to around 10 miles or so anyway, as that is usually what I have here, so am used to flying in hazy conditions. HDR with the quad rendering is somewhat better, but not enough better to sacrifice the FPS. With HDR on and FXAA i can get 40 to 45 fps, with quad rendering that drops to around 18 FPS. Could be worse, we could be limited to Hawaii and flying around balloons I guess. I wonder if Microsoft did the ballons in Blender? :biggrin:Talking about HDR, those with the Beechcraft Duchess will find that the Duchess loves HDR, with that on one can read the radio displays without squinting. Much better panel color too.

Yes I knew he is the dev, I'm not embarrassed to give credit and compliments and or recommendations to or for those who deserve it. :( which by the way does include your blog.

That doesn't happen all the time, don't know why. One thing I should have mentioned just as a tip, the Duchess is very very VERY light on the controls. Thought I would throw that in although i doubt very much if you are ham handed on the controls. :(

Glad to hear that Glen,The only thing I have found in the Duchess, is if I start on a ramp with engines off, which is what I normally do, I get no illumination in the radio stack. The radios are on, the OBI work as well as the ADF, I just have no lights in the radios. The only solution I have found is to set the sim to have engines running at start up. I don't know if that is specific to my setup or not. I talked to GoranM about it, and he couldn't duplicate it, but I thought I would throw that in, just in case you run onto it. I've never had that problem in X-Plane 9.70 so I would guess it is a version 10 fault. One other thing the manifold pressure gauge will only show a maximum of 25 in of Hg, but it does get full power. Gorton said he would, get that fixed when version 10 gets stable. He also plans on introducing some other improovements he has apprently learned along the way. :smile:Really glad to hear that it lives up to my billing. :(

The ATC in X-Plane, in my opinion is not worth the effort. Better to go Vatsim or something. Download the opensceneryX library and the Seattle scenery that Honnli and Simmo made, it has night lighting. Here's a link. http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=15392

Actually Bob, and keep in mind that I have owned run MSFS fkight sims from about what would have been FS2 on a TRS 80 model 1 computer, so I have no axe to grind, I use them all, but I find myself lately using XPlane more than FSX. XPlane is not without its warts and bumps. I don't think one is better or worse than the other, just different approach to the same end. Both of these flight simulators need tweaks, adjustments, addons and whatnot, but therein is the fun of it all, is it not.To be truthful, I cannot quite put my finger on why I tend to use XPlane a bit more than FSX, perhaps it is the newness for me, ( I have only used XPlane since ver 9.5). I can only say, I am glad that I bought the version that I did.In both sims I think it is the quality of the developer, that makes a really big difference. Of course the payware people probably make the better quality planes, but there are freeware developers, that are amazing. There is a freewar B17 available that rivals or outdoes any payware plane that you will get, (hint: google XPFR).The only thing I can say Bob is I can recommend either or both sims, I for one don't regret the money spent.When you get X-Plane, (we know sooner or later), :( I can hearily reccomend anything from Leading Edge, IXEG, or JRollon, the art is fantastic, the flight abilities are as well.Hows that for wishy washy?

Bob, allow me to suggest purchasing the Beechcraft Duchess, from Leading Edge Simulations. I have absolutely no connections to them or any other developers, for that matter, but If you want aesthetics as well asan excellent FDE, you will not get any better. Any of the Carenado offerings are good also, I own them all. :(

I have a evga nVidia GTX 560 video card, my cpu is an Intel core2duo q9650 running at stock 3.0 Ghz.After upgrading my monitor from a 24 inch to a 45 inch 3D monitor, I have a lot of shimmering, that wasn't noticeable on the 24 inch monitor. I also have to do antialiasing now whereas on the 24 inch I didn't have to bother. LOLMy question, is what setting in nVidia inspector will give me the least shimmering? For antialiasing, HDR with the FXAA does pretty well, some jaggies, but not too bad, I get 35 to 40 fps with that, The 4xSSAA quad render is too much though. Is there a better antialiasing scheme in nVidia inspector that is better than the FXAA, without the fps hit of the 4xSSAA?

@GeofA,Geof you should try Leading Edge Simulations Beechcraft Duchess. It too is a great flying twin engine. Formerly I wasn't in to twins, as I don't have a twin engine rating, SEL only and no high performance either. I bought the Duchess and now I fly it nearly exclusively. well that and the F33A. The duchess has nearly neutral stability and Goran did not use artificial stability either. Its one of the few planes I have found that exhibits 0000, pitch and 0000, yaw in the X-Plane pitch and yaw stability derivatives. even the F33a will show a small derivitive i believe about .-0003 if I remember right. The Duchess in a 20 to 30 degree bank will hold that bank throughout a standard turn in either direction. Pitch up then drop the yoke and the plane will return to level flight in about 3 or so small oscillations. Also it is ver easy to trim to handsoff level flight, although i did modify my copy a bit by changing the trim speed to about 20 seconds from one extreme to another. It makes it trim slower, but with my CH Flight Sim Yoke, I can get much finer pitch trim control..All in all, I find this plane to be of superior quality, and can recommend it highly if you don't already have it.

If your buildings ae transparent at a distance, increase the world detail in settings. I keep mine about medium most of the time, that seems to look about right to me. In heavy scenery areas, if FPS drops too low, the world detail is the first thing I lower, you get good FPS response quickly, (without reloading the scenery), and it still doesn't look too bad. As you all have stated above, one gets used to it fairly quickly. :(

Glen doing the exclusions, does it do away with the towers that are supposed to be in the area? The towers you had, look exactly like the towers in the OKC scenery, but those towers are supposed to be there.

I too feel that the VASI and the PAPPI lights are a bit dim. X-Plane 9 looked to me to be about right. I have a bit of trouble picking the Visual Approach Lights out at 3 miles. To be truthful I don't know how far out in real life, as all the cheap planes that I can afford to fly don't have DME on board, but they always looked pretty bright to me quite a ways out. :smile:I never worried about the lights in real life, I was just glad to see them, when they were available. Of course we had to turn the lights on ourselves most of the time, so we were pretty close in at that.Perhaps GeofA or LAdamson will weigh in on the matter.

Although the previous WHQL (285.62)did OK except in global shadows above low, they would not run Win 7 movie maker, so I had been running the 295 beta for awhile. These latest WHQL drivers 295.73 seem to be better than the 295 beta driver.

:( Keep ON stirring the pot.

Greg I appreciate the answer, particularly as it makes a great deal of sense. :(

I understand that using the OpenSceneryX library is freeware, and we can distribute the files we create freely.The question I have is if one uses some of the say, buildings, hangers, or other objects in the default X-Plane scenery, (such as a tower at Seattle airport or LOWI airport for instance), can we freely distribute the file then? Is it legal, or does using any of the default scenery constitute a violation of copyright?I know we can do that for ourselves, (who would know).Any knowledgeable responses are appreciated.

Hi Glen,I've downloaded the CloudMaxx and the SkyMaxx also, and they are an improvement, at least in the morning light. I haven't scrolled thru time yet.My video card is a nVidia GTX 560 2Gb card, does pretty well. I wanted a 580, but one wasn't available locally and this 560 was, so call me impatient, got it anyway and the wife was happy it was cheaper :smile:With HDR on and the original cloud textures, I get around 20 to 25 fps. With HDR off and the original textures I get about 35 to 40 sometimes a bit higher or lower. This is where I fly in Oklahoma City not Seattle, In Seattle I typically get just under the 20s, but its still smooth and flyable.With the Maxx textures HDR on I get in the 30s fps, HDR off I get over 40fps in the Oklahoma City area. When I get time I will go to Seattle and do some experimenting.The upshot is I like the textures, will have to look into the Ultra payware later.PS. I almost forgot the most important thing, I keep my cloud percentage at 20%.

This is the first video I have ever made,VQPR, Paro Bhutan, it has been said in 2008 there were only 8 pilots in the world that were certified to land at this airport. Of course that is airliners they are putting in there. I elected to use a twin engine Beechcraft Duchess for my first attempt. I've made better landings but I did get down. :smile:Hope his upload works.