btrjet

I bought a yoke long time ago in the 90's and it changed my whole experience of FS for the better. It was the original CH Virtual Pilot Pro and it lasted until a couple of months ago. I replaced it with the Saitek Pro and it is a great yoke. My old Thrustmaster Pedals also lasted a long time and were subsequently replaced by the new Saitek pedals. I couldn't enjoy flying without both a yoke and pedals. On the other hand, if you're an Airbus man you probably need that little boy's joystick they are flown with ^_^ .

I am deeply shocked and saddened to hear that David has passed. He was a true friend to all flightsimmers yet I, like so many, never actually met him. He will always be remembered with great affection. My heartfelt condolences to David's family. May he rest in eternal peace.

OOPS, Dave, not to worry. Already have it installed. :( http://www.projectireland.com/downloads.htm?OpenAgent

Dave, do you have a link to where that file may be downloaded from?

Thanks, clum, for that shot from FSGlobal2010. I'd have to say that I'd be disappointed with it as it seems to be less detailed than 2008 and with a very rounded-looking Sugar Loaf. Do you have the amended line in the fs9.cfg as follows:TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=21The reason I ask is that a friend of mine bought the new FSGenesis mesh but didn't see any difference but when I checked his cfg file it was set at 19 instead of 21. Also the slider in his OPTIONS/SETTINGS/DISPLAY/SCENERY/Terrain Mesh Complexity was set to 50. Changing it to 100 plus the above cfg file amendment brought the mesh out in all its glory.

Thanks, Dave and F J for posting those shots. I think we can agree that the new FSGenesis is way superior to their old one and when you fly close to, for example, the Sugar Loaf this is patently obvious. To be fair, they originally provided the old version free as a sample of what they could produce and it was fine at the time.I can see minor differences in the topography the FS Genesis hills appear slightly more preciseI agree with that - not a lot but you can see it nevertheless.If someone who has FSGlobal2010 could post a shot that would complete the set.Dave, in relation to the landclass I had switched it off on the assumption that others who might be comparing shots might not have it so here is a shot with it turned on again. My freeware landclass file is Ireland.zip. Is that the one you are using or is there another one?

Here you go, Dave.Now back to Space Invaders :(

I don't have FS Global and have deleted the previous mesh so can't post any comparison shots. All I can tell you is that I have not seen any previous mesh for Ireland that comes close to this level of detail. If there is someone else who has FS Global maybe they could post a shot or two from the same area. Maybe it is as good. Rotate off 16 at EIDW and turn to heading approx. 200, head over the first range of mountains and drop down and look off to the left.On the other point I think the better level of detail does make a difference whether you are at 35,000ft or low and slow. I have done some flights (high and low) over the UK version of this mesh and it is a much more realistic experience not only in mountainous Scotland and Wales but on approaches to airports where there are now small hills left or right rather than flat land. I'd much rather experience that than, say, airport sceneries that allow you to look inside the terminal and see people playing Call of Duty on their laptops :(

Well, I fully concur with psolk. Here's an example of what the new FSGenesis mesh does for Ireland in FS9. Co. Wicklow: In the foreground there is Glencree valley and Knockree Mountain and in the background Sugar Loaf Mountain and it's smaller cousin to the left. The real shot is a snapshot from a video so is not sharp but I think it is enough to show what a difference the new mesh makes. I know every nook and cranny in these mountains and they're all there. Very impressive so I've purchased a few more of these European mesh sceneries.

This kinda helps.http://www.projectireland.com/downloads.htm?OpenAgent

Yes, been doing it for many years. You can designate a specific key of your choice to move it to the place you want it to be.

Hi Martin, I've never had this happen in thousands of FS flights over 20 years plus so there must be some setting that has to be turned on to get this effect.

>Uninstalling FS-X takes away part of your FS9 registry. I haven't moved to FSX myself but Boshar is completely right and RonB49 is completely wrong. I have already repaired the registries of at least a dozen FS2004 machines where people installed FSX, couldn't run it or didn't like it, uninstalled it and found their FS2004 registry entries had been removed.

What a fascinating thread this is. Thanks to everyone for their input so far.For the record I am one who has always filed addon AFCADS in the Addon Scenery Folder and have never had a CTD. (fingers tightly crossed)

>Well yes but I was under the impression that you only had to>use identicle cards if you are using the scalable link interface>(SLI)Otherwise they are just 2 PCIe slots ???Steve, you are absolutely correct. I have a motherboard with 2 x PCI-E slots (x 16).I'm running FS2004 in a home cockpit with 4 monitors as follows:Main card: 7900GT PCI-E Output No. 1 for Main Monitor Forward view Output No. 2 for second monitor below for gaugesSecond card: 7300GS PCI-E Output No. 1 for third monitor below for more gaugesOutput No. 2 for fourth monitor for gauges and FSNavYou need only a cheapo second card for the gauges monitors.There is no hit in frame rates with extra monitors, in fact, there is an increase in fr's once you take the panels/gauges off the main screen.The instrument panels were designed with FS Panel Studio and, of course, the gauges are much bigger and more legible as a result of being on separate screens.I have a 650w PSU with 3 x 12v rails to ensure supply is adequate and there are no problems at all with all these monitors working together.Best of luck.

Mike,I don't have Vista myself but a good friend of mine loves experimenting and doing comparisons even more so than flying. He is very meticulous and here is what he has reported:FS9 yielded less frame rates when using Vista.Imagine my surprise, though, when I saw the difference in examples he gives:HeathrowFS9 with XP Pro = 49FS9 with Vista = 28And Seattle:FS9 with XP Pro = 59FS9 with Vista = 28The trend with FSX was similar but the differences were much less being somewhere between 2 and 7 fps in favour of Win XP.You can be assured that he has no bias here and, in fact, loves both FSX and Vista. He points out, of course,that this is the result on HIS system and can't be taken as applying to all systems. His PC Specs are:AMD Athlon 64 x 2 5000+2GB RAM320GB SATA HDDPCI-E 7600GT x 2

Hi Andayle,The guys have more or less said it all so I'll just confirm I have been using 4 monitors in my home cockpit for a few years now with no problems at all.1 monitor for the front view only (no panels just the view) and three additional monitors below for homemade panels/gauges/FSNav, TCAS.Up 'til recently this was on a Socket 939 motherboard so the three additional monitors ran off the second output on the main nVidia 6600GT card and two extra (very) ancient PCI cards. You don't need anything powerful for panels.My newer system is a PCI-Express motherboard with 2 x full PCI_E slots so the main nVidia 7900GT card runs the front view and one panel monitor. For the other two monitors I use another (very) cheapo 7300GS with two outlets. If you're not using SLI the second card doesn't have to be the same as the main card.However, in contrast with some of the other guys here I have never had stutters on either system with 4 monitors.

> No more boring flying around. Well, I would have to admit that, in all honesty, I have thoroughly enjoyed the last twenty three years of boredom and am looking forward to more of the same :-)

>Like all statements (either good or bad) on performance that>is a matter of opinion rather than fact. Victor, I'm not going to get involved in arguments over FSX (that's for each individual to decide for himself) but Allcott is correct in relation to hardware. If you look at the roadmaps of Intel/AMD for the foreseeable future you can see that all the CPU developments are going in a different direction than FSX - MS has already admitted they got that bit wrong. So, no matter what way you look at it and unlike the situation with all previous versions of FS, there is nothing on the horizon that will have any of the ingredients to make a major difference to FSX or, indeed, any other game developers who got the future wrong.I know that may be hard to swallow because over the years we've got so used to knowing that the hardware was just around the corner and would wait patiently for it. Unfortunately, this time it is not going to happen.If you don't agree with this assessment I would be very happy for you to point me in the direction of the information you possess which makes the future brighter for FSX but please don't include either Vista or DX10 as I already know about those.

If not intending to run the two cards in SLI mode but just using two cards to service 4 monitors, do the two cards have to be the same?Thanks in advance.

> Are you saying you made a panel that has certain views that you just alligned for your multiple monitors?Yes. It's a fairly simple arrangement. The custom instrument panels were designed using FSPanel Studio - about 4 or 5 Windows depending on which aircraft I'm flying. These have to fit on three monitors.Within FS2004 I undocked the various windows to the appropriate monitors and positioned them so that each gauge or set of gauges fits inside the shape of the appropriate cutout in the (MDF)front panel. When I was satisfied that the positioning was accurate I saved the flight.Now, when I boot up FS and Select that flight, everything appears where it should be on each monitor.That's all there is to it.You can test it by booting up the Cessna and undocking its panel to your second monitor and saving the flight. Close and restart FS, Select that flight and the panel should be where you left it.

>Saving doesn't do the trick.It does, actually. My flight deck uses 4 monitors. 3 of these (used for instruments only) have several separate windows strategically placed to fit in with panel cutouts and they will position exactly where they should be every time. However, I would add that, as MS screwed up multimonitors in FS2004, I have to fly in Windowed Mode but my panel cutouts are so designed that they hide the Window "Frames" themselves.I believe MS may have fixed this problem in FSX.

>This is like comparing apples and oranges a bit.......Yes, that is very true. AS6 as a program does more than FSMeteo because it also has its own clouds so you don't need a separate nicer-than-default clouds program. If you had neither you would almost certainly go for AS6 as your wallet gets hit only once. (albeit a nice hit :-)>tone-down the qaulity of the clouds, 64, 128, 256, or 512 bit>sets to suite your particular FS FPS requirements. However, using FSMeteo in conjunction with Flight Environment (one of the greatest ever add-ons which I wouldn't dream of flying without) you can tone down with FE if you wish. OK, you need to buy two programs but I know people who have and love AS6 but they have also bought FE rather than use AS6's clouds etc. as they think FE's are better.In the end it's all down to personal opinion and experience.

>Yep... :-)Whoa now.Whilst not wishing to get involved in arguing which is the better program I think that Simon's question is whether AS gives better frame rates than FSMeteo.If you are flying in the exact same weather in AS or FSMeteo the resultant performance (frame rates, fluidity) in FS2004 should be the same on the same PC. The fact that you believe that you can customise (reduce cloud layers or whatever to improve performance) the weather easier in AS is a different ball-game.

>>>Also FS9 doesn