Bruce Nicholson KMFR

HD Environment says they use virtually lossless textures. How can something be virtually lossless? Is that a marketing phrase for lossy textures that are almost lossless the same way preowned cars are virtually new used cars? That entire line in their website just jumped out at me and made me chuckle. I lost a little confidence in the product too because of that hyped line.I'd like to hear from someone that purchased HD Environment how they compare to the other texture products that are available.Anyone notice that texture sets seem to be the most plentiful way to enhance the sim?Bruce

This is an interesting thread and I'm glad it's found it's way to public discussion because I've often wondered about personal comments (opinions) made by posters with commercial member tags and product signatures lines.Here's how I see it...If I go out to a public place and I meet someone dressed in a uniform or that has a name tag that lists a company, I'm going to associate that person with their public image/logo. If they have something negative to say or they have an opinion that offends me, it's going to reflect on their association. If they change clothes or remove the logo, and say something, I'm going to think it's John Doe stating his own personal opinion. I think that goes for many people reading postings.If you are a commercial developer, I would think it's in one's own best interest, as well has their company's interest, to have a second login devoted to when you are speaking as a simmer and not as a company representative (I'm not sure if multiple logins are allowed on AVSIM). At the very least, remove your company banner from the signature line.I've formed some positive as well as negative opinions about some companies based on what I've read from postings by company employees. If you don't think your personal opinion has any affect on customers, then you'd be surprised to know that I've avoided buying specific products just because of the poor attitude reflected in some postings. As much as I try to differentiate the person from the entity, there's that company logo staring me in the face and over time, that logo generates an immediate positive or negative reminder when I see it. I don't think I'm alone in this observation.Food for thought the next time you want to simply state "your opinion" and leave your company logo on your posting. It's unlikely your customers and potential customers will make the differentiation.

I'm also with Paul on this one. I can easily afford any extreme system and add-ons. I just haven't seen the collection of add-ons for FSX that makes me want to take on FSX. There's nothing that's so "gotta have it" with FSX that I couldn't live without FS9.I was really excited when FSX was in development because going all the way back to FS1, I have always looked forward to upgrading when the next version came out. Each successive version's improvements made the previous version immediately obsolete. Yet, when FSX launched and I made a comparison of what I would get versus what I already had, there was nothing that made me think I had to have it. Not that it wasn't an easy decision, because I was almost "conditioned" to upgrade to the next version. It was almost like a law of nature, that the previous version would fade immediately if one didn't upgrade. However, there are many others that made the same comparison and for the first time in the history of the franchise, the previous version is still breathing years after it was replaced.Will I move to FSX? Certainly! However, there needs to be the motivation to do so in manner that makes the move worth leaving everything else behind. New products that only work with FSX are not the incentive so far. To be honest, dual development isn't helping the migration and neither is the slow rate of products introduced for FSX! It's going to be the collective parts working together that makes me one day say, FSX is much better than what I currently have.We can have these academic threads about what products should be developed for which platform and who will buy them, but for me, it's the big picture that matters and it's not just one select product that will make the difference.Interestingly, I don't think anyone would have predicted that a single version of the franchise would be so successful, that it would create such drama in the community, and be such a difficult act to follow.Bruce

Oops! Thanks Tom for seeing that!I meant to say 0 and 1 will show the aicraft and 2 will disable to the aircraft from showing in the selection window. That's what I get for talking to someone and not watching what I was typing.Another interesting trick is to switch all AI aircraft to Type 0 when looking for an AI texture CTD. The selection window will crash if you select an aircraft that has a bad texture. This is an easy way to find a problem AI aircraft when you get a CTD during your flights.

Ron,I don't follow the logic on 3D buttons/knobs for advanced users. Are you saying the limitation is to provide better frame rates for advanced FS enthusiasts? One would think that fully modeled 3D panels would increase the level of realism if frame rates weren't a factor.Bruce

You need to get an AIR file editor. There are several available. I use Aircraft Airfile Manager and AirEd.In the editor, go to section 105 and adjust the Aircraft Type:0=Aircraft1=Rotorcraft2=Non-flyable by user (AI)Only Types 1 & 2 show in the aircraft selection window.

I'm wondering why this topic isn't in the dedicated Windows 7 forum? The OP's question is covered very completely in that forum and the discussion here is creating two places one has to search for Win7 information.

Very nicely edited and the music is very grand and gives the impression of openness. It is very fitting for the enormous scale of the space operation.

This forum thread is almost as interesting as the Cascade Foundry news release.There is nothing solidly mentioned in the news release, yet people are certain it's going to be a new flight sim project. Just goes to show how people interpret news through the prism in which they read it. The release also says the team is made up of more than just the former ACES members, yet everyone here focuses on the team being a reincarnation of ACES.I haven't seen wild assumptions like this since FSX was announced and everyone went off the edge predicting what was going to be in the next version of the sim. Enthusiasm is great, but wild speculation is reckless and only sets one up for disappointment.Let's wait to see what the demo is and then celebrate (or boo) the news.

It's interesting that mounting projection systems close to the screen has been an engineering issue with projection-style televisions. Instead of mounting 2 x 45' mirrors, projection TVs have a single 45' mirror mounted above a reverse projection. The image appears correctly on the screen and the image is greatly increased in size by only mounting the projector a short distance from the screen.

Yes, I'm running with a TripleHead 2 Go Digital Edition using DVI ports on each monitor.

My intention is not to get into the middle of any squabbles, but it's interesting that no one has asked the OP what video card he is using with the TH2G digital, nor are any system specs stated anywhere. All we know is a TH2G digital is in use with 3 monitors.How is putting more money into a graphics card and dumping a brand new TH2G going to help the OP if we don't even know his mobo will support the 5870?Although I probably can't solve the problem, I'll at least start by asking the OP to state his system specs and if he has tested FSX without the TH2G by directly connecting the video card to one of the monitors and see if there are similar issues. We need to isolate the problem by knowing for certain that the TH2G is creating the problems and it's not a coincidental side issue that happened at the same time.What is the current video driver in use and have other screen resolutions been tested to see if there are similar poor response issues?

AI texture corruption is an always affair if the exact same conditions can be replicated. It either occurs because the bad texture spawns at a local airport, or the aircraft is in the local proximity to your location, either as an overflight or an arrival at an airport.You say you only get the crash when flying into NYC and not when starting from NYC. Also, crashes occur at various stages of landing. What I don't see in your descriptions are confirmations that the exact same time of day on the same date was tested in each scenario. Even if you tested one day apart at the same time of day, you may not see the same AI traffic as some airlines do not fly daily schedules.If you don't want to mess with your AI files, the easiest test is to save a flight on approach to NYC when you have not crashed. The saved flight will then allow you to test under identical conditions other than aircraft type. If you get inconsistent results under those settings, then it's not an AI texture issue, but more likely a scenery issue, either AFCAD or scenery texture being loaded.

Sounds like you may have a bad AI texture. This will cause a CTD when the offending texture is within range, regardless of which direction you are facing. If it involves an airline with a light schedule into the NYC area, it would explain why you are sometimes seeing the CTD and other times are not.A quick test would be to move all of the WOAI folders and any other schedules you have in the world\scenery folder. Test and if you CTD, then it must be an AFCAD, scenery texture, or user aircraft texture. If not, it's an AI texture.I know it's a PITA to find the texture because I'd had to do it with hundreds of AI schedules. You can zero in very quickly by working with halves. Add half back in and test. If OK, add in half of the remaining and test. When you get the CTD, remove half of the set you added and test. Continue until you are down to the schedule causing the CTD. From there, it's a matter of finding the aircraft(s) causing the problem.In one instance I had 2 separate schedules causing the CTD at one airport. After that episode, I carefully screen the AI textures to make sure they are good before I install.Bruce

I have this problem also and it includes the navigation lights of the AI aircraft that move past the side of the screen. Besides the white dots for the stars, I have a collection of red and green dots.A fix would be nice since it's an annoyance, but for now I just change to another view (like to the side view) and then back to forward view and the dots are gone.

Noel,Do a Google search on "gulftown" and you'll find some early lab tests on the i9 chips. Some of these reports also mention upcoming "news" on the chip, but unless this news in coming from inside Intel, I'd call it rumors.Bruce

I'm glad to see this thread have some life. I was thinking the FS crowd might be passing the Lynnfields by without notice.I certainly understand the limitations of the 1156 platform, but I'm looking for something that will handle FSX at a good price point. The reviews show it can match up nicely with the i7 920, and with plenty of 920 owners on this board and their good reports, the 860 might be a reasonably priced alternative.The 1366 design definitely has some upgrade aspects, and the early i9 tests look enticing, but I'm thinking the chip introductions will probably mirror the i7 introductions. Pricey extreme processor models for early adopters, then mid-stream processors for the masses at a later date, maybe 2011.I also appreciate the feedback on the BCLK tied to the PCIe. It does limit one's options, but people are able to get to 4.0 GHz on the 860 with a good cpu cooler.I've decided on a case, PSU, cooler, GPU, but the mobo and cpu decision is the toughest.

Glenn,I was having the same dilemma deciding which way to go. The 1156 board is at the end of the line with the 45nm processors coming next year.Further investigation of the Gulftown i9 shows it's going to be available 2Q 2010 in the Extreme Editions only, which means $$$.With that in mind, and knowing that 1366 boards are going to cost more just to support triple channel memory, I'm going with the dead-end 1156. Even if I went with a 1366, I'd probably dump that board by the time 45nm chips became affordable (sometime in 2011 maybe?). Memory design may be different by then and make the board obsolete anyway... who knows?At least we have choices now that make it very interesting and serve up the same potential for fun.Good luck with your build.Bruce

Very nice! Thanks for posting the link. This is the first I've seen with an FSX comparison.It confirms what I've read with other application testing. The 870 is twice the price, but one doesn't get much more out of it than the 860. The overclocking does match nicely between the 860 and the 920, yet the 860 does better in stock turbo mode.I'll research further into the products used in the test bed machine before settling on my build specs.Again, thanks for the link. Although it's a limited test, it does give me more confidence the 860 build may be the way to go.

First some background...I'm running a Pentium4 3.4 with 2GB RAM, TH2G monitors with a nvidia 8600GT. Yes, it's an ancient system! I received a free copy of FSX at the AVSIM conference right after the launch of FSX, but have kept it on the shelf unopened waiting for the time to arrive for a cost effective system that would run FSX with near max sliders and smoothly without studders. Obviously I've been very patient throughout the Duo2 series knowing they were good, but not quite the full potential without paying high-end prices and playing the rotational upgrade game as new CPUs were introduced.Quite happily, I'm reading reports the i7 is the series to run to get the most out of FSX. It's now time to consider building a system.The i7 920 appears to be the favorite on this forum based on price-for-performance. Intel has now released the i7 8xx series and the i5 750. I'm not considering the i5 since hyperthreading is disabled. But I do like the performance vs. price point of the i7 860. It appears to match or beat the i7 920 in most benchmarks and is approximately the same price.I realize that the i7 8xx series is limited to dual channel memory, which is cheaper, but has its limitations when all cores are running at maximum. Again, based on benchmark tests, dual channel memory doesn't seem to be much of a hinderance. Also, since I currently run a P4 with FS9, I've set up a network that offloads ActiveSky and other auxiliary programs from the main system. I plan to keep this set up and won't be loading the extra cores with these programs.I also like that the i7 8xx TDP is running at 95w versus the 130w for the i7 9xx series. The P55 motherboards are cheaper than the X58 boards. The base clock on the 860 is 2.80 GHz (turbo 3.46Ghz) vs. the 920 clock at 2.67GHz (turbo 2.93GHz).Overall, the system build price appears to be cheaper for the i7 860 than for the i7 920 and the reports indicate similar performance.Before proceeding, I'd like some feedback on some items:* The 920 has QPI and the 860 has DMI. Is this going to be a factor with overclocking options?* What P55 motherboard and BIOS is recommended to get the most overclocking potential? * I'm looking at the Zalman CNPS 10X for CPU cooling. Any recommendations for air cooling that allows max overclocking?* What overclocking limitations am I going to see in the i7 8xx series vs. the i7 9xx series?* What type of case provides the most effective air cooling? Side vent? Top vent? Both?* I'm considering the GTX 285 and this system will strictly be for FSX. Therefore I won't be doing any SLI and the P55 should be sufficient with it's limited 16 lanes for PCIe 2.0. What rating of PSU should I consider? Something in the 750W range?* Anything I should consider with a P55 motherboard and a RAID 0 configuration? How about future use of SSD technology?I appreciate any feedback because I've not seen any discussion here on the i7 8xx series. I'm not a techie, so I may have some follow up questions. I know that people here understand how best to configure computers to run FS. My goal is to build a system that hits the sweet spot for price versus performance and will run FSX adequately for at least the next year or two. I have much to catch up on with FSX and that will definitely keep me busy until the i9 series is introduced.Thanks,Bruce

Another fantastically produced video Ed.I would love to see your videos posted on vimeo.com. The clarity and sharpness is lost on HD YouTube whereas HD vimeo remains very clear, even in full-screen mode.Please check it out if you haven't already. I'd love to see your video in super sharp detail since you put so much time and effort into developing them.Cheers

No, I misread your post and thought you were talking about the A2A Cub. I deleted my post since it didn't answer your questions.

Removed post

Sam,When you purge all AI using Explorer, they don't stay deleted, rather they begin to regenerate immediately. You can see this by watching the Explorer window.All you are doing is removing the swarm and the AI in your local section begin to appear as expected. You method also works, so it's personal choice.Bruce

Sam,I've seen the "swarm" issue for about 6 years now.I can't say for certain why it happens, but I suspect it has to do with a timing issue within FS and the size of your AI aircraft library. Are you using FSRealTime? I've noticed that when FSRealTime adjusts my FS time to stay in synch with real world time, I see the spawning effect.You may know that AI aircraft are only generated within a certain distance from your aircraft. These "spawning" points (section boundaries) are divided over the entire FS globe. My suspicion is when the FS time is adjusted (for whatever reason), the AI scheduler becomes confused and begins to spawn aircraft into the local section. Not only those that belong in the local section, but also aircraft that should not be spawned and belong in other sections. This is why you see aircraft with flight paths that shouldn't be in your section of the world and why you see so many all originating from the same place in the airspace.It's an annoyance for sure and the only way to fix it is to wait it out, which can take quite some time and bring your system to a crawl, or delete all AI aircraft with the Explorer tool provided as an add-on by MS.Bruce