Jump to content

TRauppius

Members
  • Content Count

    61
  • Donations

    $15.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TRauppius

  1. Jack,I agree with Ray, you won't get very far without installing the Gateway .INF file somehow. I looked at the Gateway EzTune utility description at the Gateway website and it appears to consolidate the basic installation bits (like the .INF file) with an User Friendly graphic interface for tuning the display. All of the EzTune functionality will be matched by, and exceeded by, the ATI Catalyst control panel applet the is installed with/by your video card.If you don't want the EzTune overhead/burden, why not try installing the EzTune, then the latest Catalyst driver/applet (to find and use the .INF installed by EzTune), run FS2004 and configure the settings / hardware as discussed in earlier messages, exit and save, AND THEN uninstall EzTune. The .INF should remain in the Windows directory, and besides, the information will already have been exploited by ATI Catalyst and FS2004 to setup and configure as decribed in prior messages.Todd
  2. Jack,Purchase and install a DVI-D cable. Upon reboot you will begin to see a differences that allow you to access all of the display modes mutually supported by your video card and display. Second, go to the ATI website to download and install a recent version of the ATI Radeon video driver and Catalyst Control application. The ATI Catalyst program is key to managing advanced settings that are needed to get the best performance for FS2004.You should now be able to change screen resolutions and color depth (bits/pixel) by right clicking on an open area of the desktop, selecting "properties" from the menu. If you then push the "Advanced" button in the lower right it will take you to a series of selectable tabs of various ATI setting. Altenatively, you may invoke the ATI Catalyst from your start menu or by right clicking on the desktop and selecting the ATI Catalyst option from the pop-up menu. You should select the highest "native" mode resolution x 32 bit/pixel that you monitor supports. There will also be section that allows you to specify how applications running at less than "native" resolution should be treated. This will offer the choice of scaling or centering with borders, select the latter.Reboot, and then then start FS2004 go to settings, display and you should now see all of the resolutions. Pick the highest that has a nearly 4:3 ratio, done.Once you get this far let me know and I can provide some optimal settings for the ATI. My prior card was an ATI 9800/128MB so I have been there and done that as far as FS2004 tuning is concerned.Good luck,Todd
  3. Jack,While I am not a hardware guru, I can tell you from my own experience and experimentation (I have both VGA and DVI cables hooked up) that the DVI connection is much, much better.Some of the advantages are:1. No need to fiddle with size and position adjustments2. Slightly faster resolution switching (no auto VGA adjusts needed)3. Smoother FS2004 performance, expecially in VC and external viewsThis last point is a combination of observation/impression more than a quantified measurement, but it seems as if the FPS is unaffected as you increase the resolution. With the VGA connection in use each increase in resolution seems to tax the CPU/VPU combo more and slows down overall display performance (i.e. FPS and smoothness).The VGA output is included on the video boards for backward compatibility with older displays. I recommend getting a DVI-D cable, I think you will be much better off.As for the resolution, for best 2D compatibility try the resolution you LCD supports that is thes closet to an exact 4:3 ratio. Also have to you display driver configured to "window" application resolutions less than the full "native mode" into a centered display with a black surround/filler. This works very nicely for me.Good luck,Todd
  4. Craig,I just went through the same deliberations and decided to try the LCD. I love it and don't miss my CRT. Attached is an earlier posting describing the results I am experiencing.I have recently been following the forum discussions on the pro and con of LCD vs CRT, and especially the use of the newer 16 to 9 aspect ratio widescreen LCD for FS9, and later FSX. I decided to go ahead an replace my trusty 19" Compaq Pro CRT with a ViewSonic VX2025wm on sale for $329. The results are excellent and overall performance is unexpectedly improved despite operating at higher resolution.My system could JUST manage 1280 x 1024 x 32 locked at 20 FPS target with the CRT. I had good balanced operation with no stutters, but FPS could get down to ~10 FPS at the worst airports. I also occasionaly got a lock-up/FS9 or CTD when panning the view too rapidly in demanding airport situations on the ground. Surprisingly, the LCD using the DVI/digital connection is much more stable and execptionally smooth in VC and outside view modes. Howerver, switching views in the 2D cockpit produces a slight delay (1/10 sec or so) to load the distant texture squares. Perhaps it is something about the superposition of foreground 2D cockpit windows/panels over the outside view (just speculating). Anyway, the tough airports and situations are actually much improved for reasons that I don't fully understand but I am not going to "look a gift horse in the mouth", I will take the improvement and be glad for it.Anyway, the ViewSonic is basic LCD with good imaging but low on features (no USB, tilt adjust only). There is just the slightest color banding visible in the night/day sky transitions. Sharpness and detail is astounding, and I am seeing things I was entirely missing before.I noted the prior forum discussions about the need to use LCD native mode resolution to get the best results, and this is the case for my new wide LCD. It works much better at the 1680 x 1050 native resolution and the XP desktop and Office applications seem to automatically use this resolution to good effect. The wide view in the FS9 (a legacy application) VC and external views is wonderful, however the 2D instrument panels are unrealistically strectched. This is handled nicely by selecting (in FS9) to use the 1360 x 1024 x 32 mode. The resulting 2D panel aspect ratio is perfect and a nice black/dark frame surrounds the sides the FS9 "Full Screen" mode display. Perfect! You end up yielding up a little bit of screen area in exchange for backward compatibility with 2D. Reportedly, FSX will be able to maintain the proper aspect ratio in both VC and 2D modes.I just wanted to share my experience, and note that I am looking forward to FSX.ToddPennsylvania, USA---------------------------------------------------------Dell 8300, P4/3.0 HT/800FSB, 2GB DDR2, SATA RAID 0 array, ATI X800 Pro/256MB, SB Audigy.FS9 locked at 20 FPS target, FS Genesis DEM/LOD 21 - 76M World/38M USA/10M West Coast+Hawaii, FSG Landclass, Airport Environment, Active Sky 6, Ground Environment Pro, Ultimate Traffic @ 80%, Ultimate Terrain USA and Europe, many airport add-ons and PSS/PMDG/LVL-D/other high-end aircraft models.
  5. This topic has been moved by the moderator of this forum. It can be found at:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...&topic_id=16290
  6. Thanks Shad, you appear to be technically well founded in this FS hobby.I did go look at your Vista Beta review and it certainly looks like Microsoft and the various HW device driver sources have a long way to go in matching, and hopefully surpassing, the support that XP provides to FS2004.What is your feeling about the Vista and FSX support/use_of 64 bit and Dual Core technology?Back to the widescreen LCD I am baffled by how smoothly everything works in VC and external views. It does not seem to matter what resolution is selected, it is fast and smooth at any setting. It was not like that when driving my CRT via the VGA connection. However, When I switch to a 2D intrument panel view with superimposed aircraft structure in the foreground of the side-views the loading of the detailed texture maps seems to slow down and get somewhat jerky compared with the identical view in VC mode. I wonder why?I will try reducing the brightness control as you suggested to minimize banding. It have it at 60% now; it came set at 90% and was far to bright; especially for night flight.Thanks again,Todd
  7. :-) Folks,I have recently been following the forum discussions on the pro and con of LCD vs CRT, and especially the use of the newer 16 to 9 aspect ratio widescreen LCD for FS9, and later FSX. I decided to go ahead an replace my trusty 19" Compaq Pro CRT with a ViewSonic VX2025wm on sale for $329. The results are excellent and overall performance is unexpectedly improved despite operating at higher resolution.My system could JUST manage 1280 x 1024 x 32 locked at 20 FPS target with the CRT. I had good balanced operation with no stutters, but FPS could get down to ~10 FPS at the worst airports. I also occasionaly got a lock-up/FS9 or CTD when panning the view too rapidly in demanding airport situations on the ground. Surprisingly, the LCD using the DVI/digital connection is much more stable and execptionally smooth in VC and outside view modes. Howerver, switching views in the 2D cockpit produces a slight delay (1/10 sec or so) to load the distant texture squares. Perhaps it is something about the superposition of foreground 2D cockpit windows/panels over the outside view (just speculating). Anyway, the tough airports and situations are actually much improved for reasons that I don't fully understand but I am not going to "look a gift horse in the mouth", I will take the improvement and be glad for it.Anyway, the ViewSonic is basic LCD with good imaging but low on features (no USB, tilt adjust only). There is just the slightest color banding visible in the night/day sky transitions. Sharpness and detail is astounding, and I am seeing things I was entirely missing before.I noted the prior forum discussions about the need to use LCD native mode resolution to get the best results, and this is the case for my new wide LCD. It works much better at the 1680 x 1050 native resolution and the XP desktop and Office applications seem to automatically use this resolution to good effect. The wide view in the FS9 (a legacy application) VC and external views is wonderful, however the 2D instrument panels are unrealistically strectched. This is handled nicely by selecting (in FS9) to use the 1360 x 1024 x 32 mode. The resulting 2D panel aspect ratio is perfect and a nice black/dark frame surrounds the sides the FS9 "Full Screen" mode display. Perfect! You end up yielding up a little bit of screen area in exchange for backward compatibility with 2D. Reportedly, FSX will be able to maintain the proper aspect ratio in both VC and 2D modes.I just wanted to share my experience, and note that I am looking forward to FSX.ToddPennsylvania, USA---------------------------------------------------------Dell 8300, P4/3.0 HT/800FSB, 2GB DDR2, SATA RAID 0 array, ATI X800 Pro/256MB, SB Audigy.FS9 locked at 20 FPS target, FS Genesis DEM/LOD 21 - 76M World/38M USA/10M West Coast+Hawaii, FSG Landclass, Airport Environment, Active Sky 6, Ground Environment Pro, Ultimate Traffic @ 80%, Ultimate Terrain USA and Europe, many airport add-ons and PSS/PMDG/LVL-D/other high-end aircraft models.
  8. Try this fix if your are experiencing FS9 CTDs induced by a failure by FSWXR2100.gau interaction with ASV (Active Sky) and the PSS B777.Uncheck/deselect the "Force Constant Route Aloft Temp" option box.My experience had been as follows:1. RC1 install + ASV + worked OK; no CTD's but did experience vertical porpoise/hunting motion at cruise. 4X to 8X time exasperated these motions.2. Tried activating "Force Constant Route Aloft Temp" option in ASV to smooth out these motions. Smoothing worked, but now had CTDs on almost every flight shortly after reaching cruise.3. Installed newest Wx Gauge (V1.4.1), no change. Turned off Wx, still CTDs.4. Turned off "Force Constant Route Aloft Temp", no more CTDs.I suspect some type of FS9.1, PSS, FSUIPC, FSWXR211 interaction. I am sure the experts will fix this in due course, but for now try my suggestion.Todd Rauppius
  9. Yes, Norman must have uploaded already as I have just downloaded and intstalled Air Europe and Lauda Air (thanks Giorgio La Pira) and they look spectacular. Thanks again.Todd Rauppius
  10. Well, I have finally gotten the pre-release up and running with the XML and weather gauge fixes. So far, so good at VC refresh of 6 fps. But has anyone heard when the PSS Liveries (or User repaints) will become available?Todd Rauppius
  11. Wolfgang,You are correct about my not doing a lot of posting as I do not usually feel compelled to jump-in with opinions that may be redundant with all of the other postings from forum members. I like to reserve my postings to situations where I have had first hand experience with the issue and, as is the case in this instance, a desire pass on what I have learned so that others may avoid wasting their valuable time and money.While I am not a TriStar pilot I am an older aerospace engineer currently working for Lockheed Martin. I was also on the development team for the DC-10 and worked as a liaison engineering pilot for McDonnel-Douglas. So I can assure you that both the DC-10/MD-10/MD-11 and L-1011 flew superbly, with very well harmonized controls and precise controlability that could easily make you forget how massive they were. The flight models of some recent commercial products, such as the Level-D 767, PMDG 737, and Flight1 ATR42-500 feel "realistic" to me. The Perfect Flight L-1011 flight model just flat out behaves improperly, in my humble opinion.Todd
  12. Folks,I am one of those unfortunates who got enticed into buying the Perfect Flight L1011; I guess I am just a sucker for those great old tri-jets. Anyway, the aircraft visuals are OK, but not up to the standards of the mainstream payware products (PMDG, PSS, Dreamfleet), and have some serious flaws, such as outswinging passenger doors instead of the correct rollup/down type. The horizontal stabilizer is not articulated, no wing flex, no details in the wing internals or wheels, etc. The flight model is joke. Jack rabbit acceleration, poor roll response, nearly non-existent yaw control, and terrible ground handling. Very unrealistic feeling! The 2D panel is weak by payware standards (poor similarity to real) and the VC panel is even worse (no controls in VC). Systems: the fuel system is simplified to 3 tanks, no direct lift control, etc. The best part of the package are the engine, flight, and mechanical sounds; they sound pretty good....but are somewhat FAMILIAR if you know what I mean.Sorry for the bad news folks, but hey, live and learn. I just hope PMDG can finish up the B747 so they can get onto the tri-jet MD-11.Good flying,Todd
  13. I upgraded to the FS2004 version and it looks and works fine. Pretty much indistinguishable from the FS2002 version. The hand-flying feeling is very good, sound is very good, however the virtual cockpit not quite as realistic looking and operating as other good payware from PSS, PMDG, and Captain Sim. Nice tie-in to new FS9 GPS system reduces hand-flying burden on longer trips. Text-O-Matic scheme for adding liveries is still tops.
  14. I agree with you about the FS2004 default water settings. Fortunately, all you have to do is turn the FS9 Water Effects slider control all the way left to the "NONE" setting; this forces FS9 to revert to the old FS2002 water. I also set the Terrain Detail slider to the right for "Land and Water".Best Wishes,
×
×
  • Create New...