Jump to content

tstiegler

Frozen-Inactivity
  • Content Count

    125
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About tstiegler

  • Rank
    Member

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi, Sorry for replying that late but I didn't have much time on the computer over the weekend and the picture is still not clear to me. I have a sound system setup I would call as just standard. I use only the sound chip on the ASUS ROG Strix Z390-F Gaming Mainboard having the headphone connected through the front plug. The chip also delivers sound to the monitor speaker via HDMI. The level is the same there. To not to have even more variables I have switched it off in the NVidia settings. I finally found a way that works fairly well by setting the ATC voice to 100% and all other sounds to 10% and then adjusted the general Windows volume to a level that works. But these are all compromises. I still don't understand why there is such a great difference between the various sounds inside the sim. There is just one Windows sound service that can be used. I also don't understand why it has worked better a couple of days before. Although I'm no longer 100% sure if it really came with the Comanche. As the computer is new and not just used for sim, I have also installed a few other pieces of software -- but no other games ore software that might interfere with the sound system (as I would see it). Is there probably some documentation that describes how audio is handled in P3D at all? Thanks again, Thomas
  2. Hi, Since a couple of days I have the problem that the ATC voice level in my P3Dv4.4 installation is much too low compared to exterior, interior and engine sounds. It is there but barely to hear. Exterior, interior and engine sounds are OK. Moving the sound slider in options to max didn't help. I have a few ORBX packages installed, A2A Piper Comanche and Active Sky for P3Dv4. Any ideas? Thanks, Thomas
  3. Dear all,I'm using FSG mesh, GEX and UTX Europe. Everything works fine with no problem. But if I try to make an approach to LOWI RWY 26 with the FeelThere B737 FSX crashes to desktop seconds before touchdown at about 30ft AGL. I can repeat that at LOWI RWY 26 but have never experienced such a behavior at any other airport in Europe (and US/CAN using FSG meshs, GEX and UTX there as well). Does anybody have a glue where this could come from?Thanks, Thomas
  4. Thanks for your opinions. From what I've read I will try to overclock my existing Q9650 as far as possible. I have a water cooling system, so there should be some room for it. And maybe I go for a GTX285. For the rest I will wait what the next year will bring.Thomas
  5. Hm, I was afraid to get such an answer.If I go to tomshardware.com and take the benchmark named "Sum of FPS Benchmarks 1920x1200 with anti aliasing, 4AA (High Quality) I get 621 frames for the GTX295 and 253 for the 8800 Ultra. Most other benchmarks are in the same ratio although a few doesn't show that much of a difference. This is somehow as to be expected as the GTX295 has two GPU's.Regarding the CPU I didn't find a direct comparison between Q9650 and i7-975 so I took the QX6850 instead, that to my knowledge has a better performance than the Q9650. The average of all benchmarks shows an increas of 39% (saying if QX6850 has 100% then Q9650 has 139%).I know that using this figures to estimate what to expect in FSX is comparing apples with oranges, but what if I don't have anything else. But, anyhow, if we take money aside for a moment what system would you consider as the best for FSX?Thanks, Thomas
  6. Hi,may I ask if you would consider it worth to upgrade my system (Intel Q9650-4x3.0GHz, NVIDIA 8800 Ultra, 4 GB DDR-3-1066) to an i7-975 and an NVIDIA GTX 295? According to common benchmarks I should expect a "general" increase in performance of 150-200%. But what does it mean in FPS in FSX? Are there special recommendations regarding motherboard and RAM? What's the best HDD currently on the market? Is it better to use Vista or Windows 7? I tried Vista 64 2 years ago but gave up as I couldn't see any real performance improvement but a lot of incompatibilities of various addons.Many thanks in advance, Thomas
  7. Hi,in FS9 one could answer ATC instructions by clicking a menu item in the ATC window or by pressing the corresponding number key above "qwerty" when the ATC window is open. In FSX the number keys seem to no longer work, even if the TAC window is still open. I'm only able to click the menu items. Does anybody has made the same experience? Maybe it is of importance, I'm running a German version of FSX on a German version of Vista Ultimate 32.Thanks.
  8. Thanks. As from what I understand from your explanations there is no real difference apart from some very individual issues.
  9. Hi,Up until today I thought that Acceleration and SP2 are somewhat the same, at least regarding FSX core functionality. But now I've read that there are substantial differences but could not find any detailed explanation where they are. Could someone please explain where the differences between Acceleration and SP2 are (besides additional a/c and missions). I'm particularly interested in (graphics) preformace related differences.
  10. DearMark,Up until a year ago or so I was simming on FS9 and an active member of the DC3 Airways community ... then, for some reason I could not longer resist, bought the finest computer available and switched over to FSX. A few months later I did not only give up to fly the Gooney but also put flight simming aside more or less completely. This was partially because business and family demanded their part but mainly because the whole FSX thing was that much frustrating that I was loosing interest at all. I had a brand new QX9650/8800 Ultra/4GB system and was still tweaking and fiddling to get somehow satisfiying results. And it seems that our beloved MAAM R4D is also among the victims of FSX. At least I did not get her working properly. Hearing that you are planning an all new version is really good news. Having a working MAAM R4D would bring me probably to the point to try a second attempt with FSX. Although I'm a little in doubt that you will be able to make it in a reasonable time frame if I see how other "established" keep their schedules. OK, must of them have never published a schedule, but if we compare the development cycles it seems that FSX versions take much more time than expected.I don't have any special wishes for the FSX R4D. The last version was absolutely satisfying to me. If you could re-create that quality within the native FSX environment, I would be more than glad.Regards, Tom.
  11. Hi,after having installed SP2 I tried to fly from KSFO to PANC but destroyed the plane every time as I had winds of 120 knots shifting by 180
  12. We had a little discussion at http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho..._id=31596&page=. Maybe it helps. I personally own a quad core rig, but as currently only two cores will be really supported by FSX, I tend to say that clock speed is still more important than the number of cores.
  13. I think you are right considering AI as the fps killer no 1. In my statements above where I mentioned that AI has not that much of an impact but the terminal buildings I was a bit short minded and forgot that these buildings have "hidden" most of the AI aircraft.Other thing, if I take a look at the task manager I see only one of four cores really used. I read a bit about multicore support (but probably not the whole story) and it seems to me that only texture handling is moved to an additional core if ACES speak of multicore support. Would A/I and weather not be ideal candidates for parallel tasking and so for moving to additional cores? Even the flight logic meaning flight physics and all the gauge computing stuff could be split across multiple cores from a logical point of view.Can anybody tell what is really possible in FSX or is having more than two cores only wasting money?
  14. Hi Rhett,thanks for your response. I played a bit with the sliders and managed to get a minimum of 15 fps even at KLAX. As I tried a lot I can't tell what was it that has increased the FPS. I'm using MyTraffic and have the AI sliders at about 25%. I can't tell exactly how many, but at KLAX there is a large number of AI aircraft. It seems that I need to start some systematic tests. But before this I need to know what all these sliders really mean and what kind of impact will the movement of them generate.
  15. Hi Bert,thanks for the hint, I will give it a try. The thing I still can't understand is even with scenery complexity set to dense (meaning no jetways) I will get only 10 fps on the hardware listed when looking towards (simple) airport buildings. If I stay at the same place but look into a different direction where no airport buildings are visible fps jump to 20+ Also autogen scenery does not seem to have much of an impact nor have a resonable AI setting. Do I really have to live with 10 fps at airports even on the most powerful hardware currently available? From my experience you need 18 fps to have a smooth sim, especially during the approach and landing phase.
×
×
  • Create New...