ChandlerL

Yes, that's the standard definition of tessellation but it's not what folks mean when they're talking about tessellation in computer graphics. For computers, it is a method where polygons can be subdivided orders of magnitude above their original mesh- the result is a greater sense of detail-- it can make a objects appear more organic. Computer graphics tessellation's been around for a while in one incarnation or another-- Heck, ATI included it in their Radeon 8500 back in 2001 but noone used it-- they called it Truform. However, these days, it's arriving front and center because it's about to go mainstream-- the PS4 and X1 both feature it. At this point, rather than get technical, it'll be more fun to just show you. I modeled a basic sphere-- a standard non-tessellated ball using 80 triangles. The immediate problem with it is I am using flat polygons to describe a curved object. I mean it works- it gets the job done but it looks artificial, yah? Now I'll take that same sphere and modestly tessellate it... You'll notice that the tessellated sphere mesh looks much rounder than the first. Ok, let's apply a final tessellation to the sphere. And there we have it: a round ball. We're having our GPUs do the heavy lifting by subdividing the polys to make our edges appear curved because we are using a greater number of smaller polygons to describe the object. This along with special shading allows for much greater detail whether it be a model of a human head with a rounded nose, forehead and cheekbones... or making mountainous terrain appear more realistic with pits, depressions, crevaces, etc. Two more examples: Animated GIF follows showing rocky ground acquiring greater detail by the inclusion of tessellation. Take a peak at this youtube demo showing Water & Terrain Tessellation. Now I don't mean to make it sound as simple as "flippin' a switch." It isn't-- there are problems that can crop up when you utilize tessellation to add detail rather than designing your mesh with higher polygon counts from the get-go but developers are dealing with those issues. What's even better is that it's just one of the features DirectX 11 has over DirectX 9. DX11 arguably provides even more substantial improvements. B) Cheers, Chan

When I install them the overhead switches go a bit haywire. Namely the fuel pumps on/off won't function. I can hover over them as if I can click but no response when clicking to turn then off or on.They're stuck in the off position.

Vista64 so no, not yet. :(

>Another update from me, probably my final one until PMDG>acknowledges this issue.>>My last big idea was to update DirectX 9.0c with the November>2008 redistributable. It seemed to make a slight difference in>that in lighter weather (fewer clouds) the black screen didn't>come for longer.>Did you try running in DirectX 10 preview mode*?* Vista and a DX10 compatible card required

I'd like to push the testing forward with my experience and something at the end I'd like you all to try out.The story:I've been struggling with the same issue as the rest of you. I had come back to simming after a year hiatus. Back then I was running Vista 32 with FSX SP1. The PMDG 747x ran fine. A year later the PMDG 747 with SU1 would OOM-- couldn't finish a flight. BCDEDIT alteration just seemed to delay the inevitable. What's important is that I saw the texture issues y'all describe BEFORE the OOM (missing fuselage on exterior model, some VC textures disappear, etc.) so I knew when the OOM was coming.Trivial note: What's interesting is that it didn't use to OOM a year ago with FSX SP1 and a lesser card (ATI 2900XT 512MB) than current (GTX 280 1GB). However, so many other variables have changed between then and now, I cannot use any of it to pin this issue down. (driver updates, PMDG 747 service pack update, FSX SP2, Vista SP1, AV updates, the list goes on and on)So I figured it was time to "suck it up" and try out Vista 64-- what I thought was the easy way out and support for it is much better these days. I got it installed a few days ago looking forward to it solving the issue. Installed up FSX, SP2, add-ons... And I haven't gotten the OOM error. However, with the PMDG I still get the eventual missing textures (fuselage, VC, etc) and succeeding black screen or messed up textures I got in Vista 32. I just don't get an OOM error. ;) I can still use FSX to quit out cleanly but can't see anything if I stay in it.In both OS's I tried the different tweaks out there though, as I understand it, most of the tweaks have been made obsolete with FSX SP2-- however I gave some a shot anyway (since NickN from GEX uses 'em). Bufferpools, DisablePreload, Texturebandwidthmulti. No difference in the PMDG's stability.Remembering FSAutostart, I also tried AlacrityPC to see if that would help-- it didn't help this issue though I'll stick with it like I did FSAutostart for overall performance. Let's move forward. Here are my list of installed add-ons:FSX SP2 (not-patched, Acceleration installed over RTM)Ultimate Terrain X 1.0.3aFlight Environment X 1.0.55Ground Environment X 1.09Squawkbox 4.0BetaActiveSkyX Build 1160XGraphics Build 298 (most features turned off due to FEX presence)Ultimate Traffic X PMDG 747 SP1FS2Crew Update 1I had many more add-ons installed a year ago when I wasn't getting the OOMs but, again, too much as changed and been updated to pin this down easily.In retrospect, it would have been best to install these add-ons one at a time but I really thought Vista64 would solve the OOMs entirely and it didn't occur to me to do so. Doh! I may yet do this for the purpose of helping this thread forward though I'm not sure it would serve us. For instance in order to test this process I'd have to begin with FSX w/ PMDG as a baseline, then install add-ons one at a time. If I were to install add-ons 1, 2, 3, then 4 and get the texture issue, it doesn't necessarily indicate addon 4 is the issue. It could mean the PMDG has the issue and add-on 4 reveals it. If I had skipped add-on 4 and installed add-on 5, perhaps that would reveal it. I say this because if I run all the add-ons with another aircraft, the problem does not occur and this might be important. From what I've read, it's what y'all have been saying. Without belaboring that point, I'm suggesting that the integrity of this experiment may be lacking but I am willing to try if there is scientific value in it.Since Vista 64, I've uninstalled Ultimate Traffic X and installed My Traffic 5.2a-- still an issue. I've tried lower sliders (on my uber rig -- say it ain't so)-- still an issue-- but I have yet to try lowering sliders systematically-- mainly because doing them in bunches didn't solve anything. I've tried texturemaxload=1024 and lowering cloud settings in FEX- still an issue. My opinion-- We could be correct in that the PMDG has an issue that's realized by add-ons. It could explain why we are unable to predict when the error will occur due the ever changing flight environment. It's more than difficult to lock down the flight environment without uninstalling add-ons-- add-ons that exist to alter the flight environment (ActiveSky, FEX, Traffic, Squawkbox, etc).That's my story-- now onto the test.For those of you that are running Vista with a DX10 capable card, do this test for me. Run FSX in DX10 Preview mode. Give it a shot and see if the PMDG issue goes away.I'm asking because this has fixed the issue for me. I'm not sure why the altered code path of DX10 would band-aid this-- I have not had the texture issues since- where the Display sliders are doesn't matter, add-ons installed doesn't matter, traffic up high-- doesn't matter, ActiveSky overcast, doesn't matter, Alt+Tabbing-- doesn't matter (though I still cringe when I do it)-- you get the picture. :) It has helped me but that isn't good enough-- I want to know why and I want to see if this helps others as well.Unfortunately, this isn't a solution-- just a band-aid. I'm not happy being forced to run the unfinished DX10 mode since it adversely affects my FPS, causes the flashing textures we all know about, is incompatible (aesthetically) with some FSX addons that weren't built for SP2 and virtually disables Antialiasing and Anisotropic filtering. It is not an ideal but I'd like to gather data on this from the rest of you. At the very least I hope it helps you temporarily so you can enjoy the 747 and/or MD-11 while we continue our search for the fix.My detailed specs for those that are interested:Dell XPS 720 - BIOS A06 (latest from DELL)Vista 64 SP1Core 2 Extreme Quad Core Q6850 3.00 Ghz o/c from factory @ 3.33 (tried reducing the clock to Intel 3.0 standard for kicks - no difference for PMDG)4GB 800Mhz Memory (2T Memory timing)nVidia Geforce GTX 280 1GB running 178.24 WHQLnVidia chipset drivers 15.24 for i680 chipset (was running DELL drivers but tried these to see if it would help the issue-- it didn't but they seem solid so leaving them installed)Creative X-Fi (running latest DELL Drivers but did try youp-pax for kicks -- no difference for PMDG)Cougar HOTAS RC1 64bit driversGateway FHD2400 running at 1920x1200DirectX 9.0c/10 November 2008 updateP.S. I own the MD-11 but need to learn the systems so I can test it with DX10. Regards to all,

>It won't be cheap ;)>>1)The RXP Garmin 430 pakage + the Pro add-on package (so you>can use two) ($30+$25)>2) The Sandel 3308 ($25)>3) The Flight Line 'T' package ($20)>4) The Flight Line 'N' package ($20)>>So that panel the way I have it laid out would be $120.00>>But, you can use them in a buch of other aircraft as well.>It's finally happened. It was only a matter of time... a simmer pimped their ride. ;)

It was working fine a week ago-- may be they're having server/host issues.

>I did a nice tour of Italy in the Real Air SF260. Reasonably>fast, fun to fly and great visibility.>Blair>CYOWDitto for the Real Air SF260-- if you're going to do VFR, nothing beats they're fluid VC.

>my average frame rate with all of the fixins. is about 10>frames per sec.>im into sim flying a lot, to much in fact, i have a eight>monitor set up with six computers all networked toghether.>I have the same add-ons as you and have significantly higher performance. There are tweaks you may implemented that have negatively impacted your performance. You may want to back up your FS9.cfg and explore your scenery library-- you shouldn't be getting performance that low on your hardware.One thing to remember is the tweaks we've received over the years within the forums are not necessarily cummulative-- in fact, some tweaks undermine others. I'm sorry you're getting poor performance. That's never fun.

>Go see Michael at FSGS man. Many have stated on here about>their results. They are right. I have a very high end system>and i STILL went and saw him. BTW, if ANYONE uses NOD32 virus>protection this WILL cause CTD's with vatsim EVEN IF YOU USE>FSAUTOSTART TO DISABLE IT. this took me a year to figure out.>i am not kidding.>>asus a832-sli>amd fx60>2 gig ocz 4000>dual eVGA 7800 GTX>>now with a system like this you would think i wouldnt have to>go see Michael but i am glad i did. TALK TO HIM. >>>I use NOD32 w/ VATSIM without issue. I'm sorry you had problems with the combination. :/

>Hi all,>>What payware a/c would you recommend to others to purchase?>>I've just seen the PSS 757 and it looks great, just waiting>for the reviews..>>>WillA few off the top of my head that will generate enormous enjoyment.Small GA--------RealAir SF-260Flight1/Dreamfleet C172RFlight1/Dreamfleet Beech Baron 58Large GA---------Aeroworx X-Treme King Air B200Commercial----------PMDG 737PMDG 747PMDG B1800DLevel-D 767Flight1 ATR 72-500Vintage-------RealAir SpitFire IVFlight1/Dreamfleet 727There are more great a/c. Be sure to check the AVSIM reviews for other superb a/c that I can't personally recommend because I haven't tried (i.e. Cerenado, etc.)-- the AVSIM reviewers have always been spot on IMHO.

>It looks like the VC screenshot thread was deleted for some>reason (I thought the beta was no longer under NDA?) - anyway,>I asked in it if anything has been done about the VC lighting>issue that was said to be fixed in FSX?>>The screenshots didn't show any improvement over the FSX demo>or FS9. Was this because the person who took them forgot to>turn some feature on (that fixes the problem) or is the>problem still there?If memory serves, there have been marked improvements in VC lighting that neither the beta nor the demo show-- tdragger said (and I'm paraphrasing) they're saving that good stuff for release.Whether that includes the answer to your question is unsure- may be you'll get an ACES response however prior to that, you may want to articulate what you think the VC lighting issue is so they have something specific to work with.

>So beta members... screen shots? thoughts on the ATC does it>work the way it should now?KDFWhttp://www.izonefaceware.com/fsx/KDFW1.jpghttp://www.izonefaceware.com/fsx/KDFW2.jpg

>The posts I've seen over the last few days relating to the>Fileplanet FSX beta indicate to me that its largely a fun fest>for a select few (paying) FS fans a month out from the full>release. Its value as a beta seems questionable given how>unstructured user feedback to MS seems to be (please correct>me I am wrong here), and moreso because any bug found would>have to major and easy to fix to meet the very short time line>before FSX goes gold. The NDA side of things seems to be a>non-issue, given the information being disclosed on these>forums without any apparent recourse from AVSIM or MS.>>Before anyone points out that I could have signed up for>Fileplanet and the FSX beta, sure I could be rubbing shoulders>with the lucky ones, but I'd still be left wondering what MS>aims for this beta to achieve. Comments anyone?>>GaryThe point- viral marketing. buzz. hype. A recipe for higher sales-- Microsoft has used this method (think XBox) successfully in the recent past so I'd guess they're utilizing the same winning methods. They're also doing this with Vista.Indeed, I respect the strategy.

>I've used symflyers KLAX in FS2k2 and KLAX 2 in FS9. Both>nice but they are hard on frames. I imagine Clould9 could be>better, but I don't find Symflyers objectionable to the point>that I would pay to switch. >>scott s.>.>Can't argue with that. I used Simflyers for quite some time after the Cloud9 release until I couldn't stand the glowing reviews any longer. ;)Simflyers and Cloud9, framerates notwithstanding are head and shoulders above the default KLAX and are worth the investment of frequenters of the airport.