TRauppius

Dr. Nick,I am in big trouble now. I am a complete fan of the GEX and FEX products which had combined to make my 3 year old P4 finally work OK with FSX/SP2. I was even able to use UTX, which prior to GEX was just too much of a burden for my rig.Anyway, encouraged by the glowing responses from folks who have followed your perscription for tuning up Windows XP/SP2 and the storage system I through caution to the wind an plunged into following you fairly detailed and thorough instructions posted earlier in this, or a related, forum thread. All was going as plannned, and I had completed all of the steps up through the offline defrag (using O&O 8.5) successfully. The next step was the reboot and invoking a COMPLETE/NAME defrag; this completed in about 40 minutes. But upon rebooting, following the normal Dell BIOS and the 2nd BIOS for my Promise SATA 2 drive RAID 0 array, I get an error message (from ?) stating "NTLDR is missing" "press CTRL-ALT-D to restart". It appears as though the NAME oriented defrag has moved something vital away from the expected (fixed?) location. I know this is very, very bad. But before I tried anything too radical I want to check with more knowledgeable folks to see if there is any way to salvage this tragedy.My rig is a Dell 8300/P4/3MHz with 2GB and XP/SP2, Promise SATA RAID SATA controller with 2 120GB drives combined into one 240GB array. I am using the Dell A07 BIOS.Let me know if there is any way to salvage this situation; otherwise the impact is devastating years of FS9 and FSX tuning, dozens of add ons, all my saved email copies and business records.Here is hoping,ToddChester Springs, PA

Paul,That did it! I found the shadersterrain folder in the ...local settingsapplication data path.Now I will be able to go ahead and try the new water shader script.Thanks for your help,Todd

Nope, it is not there. There is no ShadersTerrain sub-folder. The path just ends at ..FSX and then contains a few CFG files and some files initialization iformation files created by commercial third-party applications.Todd

Paul,I went back and rechecked and found a number of permutations of my name located in "Documents and Settings" folder. Only one folder contained a visible "applications data" sub-folder. This one used my full name, without any suffix, and this "applications data" sub-folder in turn contained a "Microsoft" sub-folder, but without a FSX sub-folder, let alone the "terrain/shader" thingy.I then tried setting the top-level folder to show "hidden and system" sub-folders. This revealed (under a my name plus DBF70D31 suffix (the Dell machine identifier) an applications datamicrosoftfsx path to a sub-folder containing sub-folders for Controls, SimObjects, Substitutions, and a collection of secenery and FSX cfg files; but alas no terrain/shader path or folders.I have also noticed that in my FSX cfg file value of the following entry has changed to:[GRAPHICS]SHADER_CACHE_PRIMED=1693500672The pre Acceleration/SP2 value was 1693428480 for my nVidia 7600GT.Attempting to edit this parameter results in FSX resetting it back again during FSX startup. I wonder if this is related to my shader problem.Any ideas and suggestions will be appreciated, thanks.Todd

David and Jase et al,I have been following this thread and am now attempting to try this on my XP/7600GT/DX9/Acceleration/SP2 equipped rig. I got the new shader text file and replaced the Water20.fxh file, and then....I discovered that I do not have any "C:/Documents and Settings/YOUR NAME/Local Settings/Application Data/Microsoft/FSX/Shaders/Terrain" folder (much less the contents) on my machine. My Application/Microsoft Data folder contains sub-folders for MSN, Explorer, Crypto, etc., but no FSX! What is going on here? Have I been running without pixel shaders? I don't understand, as I have the normal "wing flex" functionality associated with shader use, but I don't have the terrain shader directory this thread points to.Any suggestions?Todd

I have been using FEX for several weeks on my older 3GHz/P4/2GB/XP with 256MB 7600GT and FSGenesis Mesh and Landclass rig and have experienced a significant improvement in appearance while also getting a slight boost in FPS versus the default textures; no problem with FEX....well done!However, as with many folks with rigs like mine I am always fighting the constant FSP and blurry tradeoff/battle with FSX and have achieved a (just) acceptable compromise by using many of the tweaks from the RTM/SP1 era; especially the texture tweaks to reduce the size of the textures for trees, buildings, misc. objects, and the scenery global ground textures. This worked very well and I was finally able to get nlt 15FPS with Acceleration and complex planes (LVLD-767, for exanple) over the big towns like Seattle and NY.Then GEX arrived. I love the improved look and realism, and indeed it does look spectacular at 0.6m and dense autogen. The problem is that the texture load has gone way over the limited capability of my rig....again! It is fine in rural areas, or when flying low and slow, but +200 knots with the "adjusted" autogen and new textures over complex scenery areas leads quickly to mass blurries, menu fuzz/fade, some vertical spike visual artifacts, too low FPS and the inevitable lock-up.I am going to ask the GEX guys if it is possible to use nconvert and imagetool to resize their textures prior to overloading them into the FSX teture directories. Perhaps the resulting sacrifice of detail would not be too high a price to pay. If possible, I could finally "rest in peace" and enjoy flying if I can just find a way to use GEX without overburdening my system.Todd

I tried these out at the Avsim conference last week and was impressed with the POTENTIAL of this type of device.I wear glasses with different presrcriptions in each lens, yet the Vuzix gizmos worked perfectly when placed over my regular progressive tri-focals. Well done.The image only covers about 32 degrees FOV, but because it automaticaly tracks your head movement you don't mind the reduced FOV. The limited FOV and resolution is a price/performance compromise necessary for commercial retail user products. I recall the guy pitching from Vuzix saying their military tactical goggles with larger FOV are something like $5k per set.The VR920 is all analog with a hefty driver for calibration and converting the motion sensors info into FS usable signals. There is a significant lag between head motion (not matter how smoothly applied) and the corresponding slewing of the view in the goggles. It is sort of slow and frustrating like running FSX can often be. The Vuzix guy said the digital model of the VR920 is much faster, too bad they were not on sale yet.The demos were using an older nVidia card and special stereoscopic driver that has not been updated for several years; it only supports 640x480 VGA or remapping of 1024x768 downto 640x480. The stero image looks very good and make some tasks like the last few feet coming down in a FS helicopter much, much easier. The downside is it cannot use higher resolution or any other brand of cards (ATI, etc.) and still get the stereo vision effect. The resolution of 640x480 when presented less than an inch from your eye looks far sharper and more detailed than when viewed on a LCT or CTR at 10-20", but more resolution (for details sake) would make this gizmo fabulous. Also, the built-in sound is just adequate and lacks low-end punch.Final thoughts: amazing and immersive, and a great way to the do the full VR cockpit thing. Great for portable laptop use. Just wait for a little more FOV and better stereo support for newer video cards.Todd

I have had this happen a couple of times to me; usually after I have been installing some new video driver or FSX application (for example the recent ASX SP1 update). It is really a pain in the #### because the suggested "remedies" of repair (does not work), or reinstall FSX (much, too much work).Fortunately has been alsways able to get around this be using the XP Restore registry to an earlier date feature. It seems that if I go back to just prior to the onset/notice of the problem, I can always get FSX to come-up without complaints.I suggest you give this a try. It is completely reverseable as Restore makes a new backup recovery point just prior to the restore operation.I hope this works for you.Todd

:) Thanks a bunch Mitch,I had all but surrendered to the supposedly inevitable blurries in FSX. Nothing seemed to be able to get my 3G/P4, Radeon XL1650/512 rig to give me 15 FPS + scenery without blurries. Well, this little program you suggested has made a world of difference for me.All have run all of my own saved benchmark flights and I am certain that the blurries have been almost completely eliminated. I don't know why or how, but I don't really care; now I can back to some flying again.I run Active Sky X, Graphics X, Ultimate Traffic X (set at 10%), Ultimate Terrain USA (mostly disabled, though), LVLD-767 or CLS DC-10, and all of the FS Genesis Mesh and landclass products.Just completed flight from IAD to MCO (Cloud 9 scenery) with multi-layer clouds, rain, lightning and the textures were loading and appearing crisp; frame rate was 7-12 fps, but smooth without stutters.I am going to try it out on FS9 later today.Thanks again,Todd

:* I just got this package installed yesterday and did a few flight using benchmark scenarios that I use to gauge progress in the never ending battle of finding an acceptable balance between FPS and texture loading (the blurries) in FSX-SP1.I have a single CPU P4/3GHz/2GB/ATI1650-AGP-512MB rig that worked very well for FS9, but FSX is another matter.Anyway, the impact on FPS is pretty tough with UTX on my rig. In situations were I could manage 15 FPS and decent texture loading I can now only manage 3-8 FPS with the Traffic set at 30-50% + minumum airport activity + 10% roads. Even with road and airport vehicle traffic off, no general aviation compiled in UTX, and 10% on the commerical air traffic slider my FPS decreased down to ~11. It is better at rural airports or in the air (only a ~1 FPS hit).I will keep tuning and trying but it looks like single CPU folks will not be able to fully enjoy UTX at realistic traffic levels at major airports. I guess the multi-core rigs should do much better.ToddP.S. The product installed, compiled and ran without a hitch.

:-) This LVLD 767 has given me new hope. My older single core P4/3GHz/2GB/ATI1650-512 is struggling to provide both adequate FPS and decent texture loading/sharpness. Very difficult to accomplish as most are well aware.I expected LVLD 767 to make matters worse, as it is very high fidelity, feature-rich, simulation. That is not what happened on my setup, instead my FPS nearly doubled to 20+ when running LVLD DXT3 texture models.I can now actually fly into airports (already tried KLAS/KLAX/EGLL/EDDF) at 150-260 knots and get 15 FPS and sharp textures. Go figure!Well LVLD 767 is a keeper for me while I continue to watch and hope for a more generalized fix to the SP1 performance woes.ToddP.S. I run FSGenesis mesh and US Landclass, ASX+Graphics X, UT for FSX.

;( Hi,I purchased, downloaded and ran the setup for the bundle. The setup seemed normal but did not install ASX, just X Graphics.What have I done wrong? Do you need to uninstall ASV6.5 before installing ASX?I have a support request email in the HiFi Sim support but would appreciate any help/clues.Thanks,Todd

:-hmmm This is indeed good news. I have a question for Phil and the forum to consider regarding the SP1 installation.Given the very large number of tweaks (texture, .cfg and .ini mods, autogen deletions or mods, etc.), will these have to be "backed-out" prior to SP1? Will a total reload of FSX be required? Or will the SP1 installation be compatible with the nyriad tweaks? I don't have a clue myself. Think about it.Thanks and here to a better FSX experience in the near future,Todd Rauppius

:-) Some good news. simMarket responded to my request by re-enabling my download link so that I could get a fresh/full installation of the updated Version 1.1.After a few flights I can notice the positive improvements:1. More accurate fuel rate2. Pilots shown and a few other cosmetic externals; nice3. FDE and .cfg file parameters fixed for better handling and autopilot tracking; can now use 4X time on autopilot through turns and ActiveSky temp/pressure changes.4. Do not need the .cfg tweaks necessary on the earlier version; although you may want to consider adding a default vertical rate for the autopilot (I am using 1800 fpm).5. You need to change the airline ATC names to Fed Ex, American and Swissair; the default names don't match the FS airlines names with pre-recorded voice callouts.6. Fuel management claims to be automated and move the fuel around for trim/balance; BE CAREFUL...I loaded tanks 1-3 identically, only to have the fuel management system run me dry on engine 2 inflight!The patch is far from perfect but a definite step in the right direction.

:( Yes, whoopy...but it did not install properly on my machine. I aborted after noting "1. Your key hasn't been found on the system".The abort dump refers you to their web page FAQs that say that you need to download a new installer. OK, but SIMMARKET won't allow downloads after a few weeks the initial purchase. Just enough time for early adopters to get denied a free download of either 1.1 or the new installer routine.I have support requests into both SkySimulations and SIMMARKET and I am awaiting a response.Todd Rauppius

I have at normal Dell 8300/3GHz/2GB/800FSB + Radeon X800/256/AGP Pro that has served very well for my loaded (many add on) FS9 rig. When I added FSX I experienced the usual performance shortfalls that most users have raised, not surprises here. I had the good fortune of obtaining a free Radeon X1650/512 Pro AGP card and thought that this might perform somewhat better than the X800 for texture loading speed and AA and AI. The extra texture memory effect is noticeable in FS9, but not FSX. Also, I noticed that Ray Adam's ATI Tool reports a performance benchmark for the X1650 that is just barely above an older Radeon 9800 AGP and just half the value of my older X800 card. Is the normal and to be expected? Is the X1650 processor and memory speed actually less effective than the X800? Is so why?Any insight will be appreciated, thanks.Todd R.

Definitely the Aerosim package. In addition to the many favorable comments already noted, I think the SOUND package is very realistic. The RB-211 makes a very distinctive 'Roll-Royce' sound that has been captured beautifully by Aerosim. They sounds are great, both outside and in the cockpit.The panel is simpler than the procedure based simulators with detailed modeling of systems and controls, but it is just about right (a nicely balanced compromise between ease of use and fidelity).Todd

Yes, I think you can do this by simply not generating any sky texture files for GE Pro to select from and load into FS2004. It comes with a few sky textures pre-generated but you can manually delete these.I prefer the AS6 sky textures as well, and so I generally use the default GE Pro ground textures and/or load GE Pro first, let it do its thing (including sky textures), exit GE PRO, then load AS6 and let it overwrite the GE Pro stuff. I then launch FS from AS6.Todd

:( I have been using this extensively since it was released and the overall visual and functional impact is excellent. The marshalling and moving jetways are the best yet, and detail is spectacular all the while preserving RELATIVELY low FPS impact.HOWEVER, there was ap roblem with AFCAD file that has now been corrected on via the User Forum website, and another, much more challenging problem involving the speed of Nightime texture loading. My high-end system cannot load the detailed textures and do the mip-mapping fast enough at night; the result is a case of severe blurries for the adjacent terrain (which is a separate FS2204 scenery layer) all the while the main airport is loading just fine. I have posted my observations on the User Forum and am awaiting a response from Cloud9. I am holding out for a solution that does not require changing FS2004 display options on a dynamic airport-by-airport basis.Todd

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

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

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

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.

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

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