tstiegler

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

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

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

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

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.

Thanks. As from what I understand from your explanations there is no real difference apart from some very individual issues.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

Hi Bruce,thanks for your comments. I can't really tell if my installation has worked well before installing Acceleration as I've switched to new hardware and FSX as Acceleration was already available. So I did only a few very short tests with RTM/SP1 before installing Acceleration very soon. I also have already a 700W PSU installed. After reading all the comments I'm tending to think of having a heat problem. I'm searching for the proper temperatur range of the Striker Extreme MB but it's not that easy to find the numbers. One time as I've monitored temps MB temperature has show 45

Hi,I've set up FSX/Acceleration with FSGenesis meshs, MyTraffic, ASX and Level-D 767 on a rather good equipped rig (see below). Basically I'm fairly satisfied with the overal performance. I have locked my frame rate at 18 fps with scenery sliders at about 2/3 and 40% of AI traffic. Everything looks good and runs smooth until I approach a busy and detailed airport (i. e. KLAX). During approach FPS fall to 9-11. At the same time I see a overall CPU load of 35-40% and if I go into the task manager I see that only one core is really used while the other three are near idle. Playing with the sliders shows that the fps depend directly on the scenery densitiy (clouds and AI traffic has no real influence). I've read several sources that Accelleration supports multi core cpu's. Have I made something wrong? Is there a special tweak to dedicate more cores to scenery rendering?Thanks.

Hi,heat may be an issue I'm working on. A virus is unlikely. But I've never experienced that after a lock caused by heat a system resumes operation.Regards, Thomas

Basically it's just as you have described. I'm running only FSX on the computer (in windowed mode). But the locks seem to occur always when doing something. Usually there isn't that much to do during cruise, but I got aware of it when I tried to put something into the FMC. The funny thing is that cpu usage drops down to nearly idle and the HDD light is off. So I have no glue what it is waiting for. Btw. I've used Level-D 767 for all the flights.Regards, Thomas

Hmmm, I don't see any direct connection to the problems described in that thread. I don't get CTD's. FSX simply freezes and I get the vista version of the hourglass -- and after a couple of minutes it resumes running properly. Do you think it has something to do with the forceware drivers? I'm using 163.75, the latest official release, as far as I know.Thanks, Thomas

>Have you installed FSX Acceleration by any chance?Oh, forgot to mention -- yes, I have. Where do you want to point to?Regards, Thomas

Hi,I experienced the problem that FSX locks after a reasonable period of time (between 1.5 and 4 hours) when flying long legs. Task manager says that application is not responding but other running apps didn't show any problem. I was thinking of some kind of a hardware problem all the time. Now, as I sat in front of my froozen FSX again, angry about the time wasted and hardly thinking how to solve a problem that occours sporadically and only after hours all of a sudden FSX came back to live and resumed proper working. I haven't mesured the time exactly, but it was at least 5 minutes after it has stopped responding. I didn't find that out earlier as I had always restarted the sim before.Has anybody else experienced similar behavior and could somebody imagine what the cause for that hibernation could be?Thanks, Thomas***ASUS Striker Extreme / QX6850 / 4 GB PC800 / Nvidia 8800Ultra / Vista Business 64***

Hmm, now I'm getting a bit nervous. I've installed the Nov 2007 DX distribution as well as the newest graphics drivers (it's v7.15 not v6.15 as mentioned in my previous post). FSX is loading now, basically. Graphics are looking blurry and somehow unreal. FPS at default start place with that ultra light is about 35 without having any addon installed (I have a QX6850 with 4 GB PC800, giving a Vista performance rate of 5.5). Full screen mode is not properly working with dual monitors, nor it is in maximized window mode. Any ideas? Thomas

Hi,I've moved to the USB version a year ago or so. I still have my gameport yoke and pedals somewhere. You can get them for nothing but the shipment from Germany (I don't know if its worth, depends on where you are living). Yoke and pedals are in good condition, but the game port version did not have toe breaks at all. Another issue might be that "modern" operating systems may not support the game port accordingly and I don't know if there CH will supply drivers.Regards, Thomas

>Yes it should. I'm running Vista Ultimate 64 and have never>seen that error. Something's not right. I just don't know>what it is. Maybe you don't have the right 64 bit drivers>installed for your videocard. Have you allowed all of the>Windows Updates after installation of Vista?Hi Jim,I have installed all available updates the Windows update program have suggested. Surprisingly (for me) there was also an update of the 8800Ultra drivers to version 6.15 (as far as I can remember, I'm currently not in front of my FS computer) among them. I haven't checked the nvidia site if there are other/newer/better drivers but I will do today.Thanks, Thomas.

>Have you tried installing the directX nov 2007>redistribution? If not, it should have all the DX9 bits you>may be missing.Thanks for the hint. No, I think I havent't. I have run the windows updater that came with an updated graphics driver but no DX10. I will give it a try.Thomas.

Hi,I've set up FSX SP1 on QX6850 / 4 GB RAM / 8800Ultra / Vista 64, meaning DX10 comes with the OS and the graphics adapter is DX10 compatible. Now, if I try to start FSX I get the message that FSX can't be started as it requires DX 9.0. Does it mean that I need SP2/Accelleration to run FSX on Vista 64? Shouldn't it be possible to run DX9 apps in a DX10 environment as DX10 should be downwards compatible DX9?Could somebody help me out there?Thanks, Thomas