Adrian West

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

801 profile views
  1. Adrian West

    Navigraph device limit

    Thanks guys for the replies. I didn't want to have to pay EUR 90 more than once. Adrian
  2. Adrian West

    Navigraph device limit

    Hi. I am posting this here as I cannot find any other more suitable forum. I am considering subscribing to Navigraph for both FMS data and charts. I share an installation of Prepar3d v4 with my brother. The plan would be to install Navigraph on the desktop for FMS data, and then have the Charts app on our respective Android tablets. We may also have the Charts app on the desktop too as a backup option. The Navigraph terms of service refer to simultaneous logins on multiple devices and say that there is a limit to the number of devices allowed depending on your subscription. It refers you to the subscription page on the web site for details. Well I have checked out that page, and there is no mention whatsoever of a device limit. In fact I cannot find any mention on any other page. So does anyone know what the device limit is? Will I be OK with a desktop and two tablets? Many thanks. Adrian
  3. Adrian West

    Pilot's FS Global 2018 or Pilot's FS Global Ultimate?

    Thanks for the interesting contributions. I will now need to consider whether to stick with my current 2010 mesh or switch to the 2018 product. Based on what you have said I think I will give the Ultimate mesh a miss - not sure I need that level of detail, especially if it could cause issues around airports. Adrian
  4. Adrian West

    Pilot's FS Global 2018 or Pilot's FS Global Ultimate?

    I don't currently fly any tubeliners. My main addon aircraft will initially be Flight1 King Air B200 and Just Flight Piper Warrior II, so the maximum altitude I will fly at is around FL 250. Detail at lower altitudes will therefore be important. And yes,I may well fly around the Alps. What I am really interested in knowing is the performance impact between the 2 products and whether I really need the extra level of details that Ultimate gives. Thanks. Adrian
  5. Hi. I will very soon be investing in a completely new rig designed specifically for P3D v4. On my existing computer I have been using Pilot's FS Global 2010 mesh with FSX. From what I have read I believe that my existing mesh would work with P3D v4, but that it is officially supported only up to P3D v3, and Pilot's FS Global 2018 is designed for P3D v4. However the latest product is of course Pilot's FS Global Ultimate. The question I have is which product to go for? FS Global 2018 is the successor to FS Global 2010 and apparently has the same resolution of up to 9m (LOD 8 to LOD 12). FS Global Ultimate has a much higher resolution of up to 1m (LOD 8 to LOD 15). Pilot's states that both products are optimised for best frame rates and short loading times, however I would suspect that there must surely be a performance hit using Ultimate compared to 2018. Ultimate will no doubt look that much better because of the higher resolution, but it also takes up much more disk space (80 GB as opposed to 25 GB). Ultimate also includes bathymetry mesh for submarines in P3D - I had no idea this was possible - do I really need this??!!! Assuming I use just aircraft in P3D, will I see any difference in the appearance of the sea from the air due to the varying sea depth? In other words, is there any point to this if I will only be flying? Ultimate also costs more than 2018. The system I am considering is based on W10 64, i7-7700K up to 4.6GHz, 16GB DDR4 2133MHz, GTX 1070 8GB, 500GB M.2 SSD, 2TB Seagate BarraCuda HDD. I am hoping that this will be no slouch and able to handle more or less anything thrown at it within reason. I will be running ORBX Global Base, Vector and openLC Europe on P3D, plus a number of high quality European airport addons, and probably REX Sky Force & ASP4. So based on this, which mesh product would you recommend? Is there anyone here who has tried both on the same system and can give a comparison? Many thanks. Adrian
  6. Hi Ray. I am glad to report that deleting FSX.cfg and allowing the sim to rebuild it did the trick. Clearly something must have become corrupted in the file which then somehow crashed the sim and corrupted the drivers. Glad to get FSX back after 2 weeks thinking my PC was dying. Adrian
  7. Hi. I really hope someone can help me. I am having big problems with my current system. You may have seen in another thread that I am trying to buy a new rig for P3d v4. For now I'm running FSX Gold boxed on an 8 year old system which is showing its age. The system is a Dell using a 2.80 GHz CPU, 8 GB RAM and GeForce GTS 240 1 GB GPU. The system runs fine, albeit the fps with current add-ons are on the low side, but generally flyable. A couple of weeks ago I installed Aerosoft La Palma X and MK-Studios Tenerife Vol 1, as I am keen to start flying around the Canaries with all of the new sceneries that are being developed for these islands at last. I tried out La Palma, and that performed fine. However I had big problems with the installation of Tenerife. I finally managed to install the scenery, but within a minute of loading my aircraft at the airport FSX crashed completely. The crash was so severe that I had to restart the PC and then discovered that my GPU was no longer recognised. Windows Device Manager was showing a code 43, which indicates that Windows had switched off the display adapter because of a problem. I was unable to run FSX because the program could not see a valid GPU on the system. I was unable to reinstall the current drivers in the normal way. I posted on the MK-Studios forum and established that there doesn't appear to be a problem with their scenery. They suggested that I should remove the drivers using an application called DDU (Display Driver Uninstaller) available on This I have now done (it has to be done in safe mode), and I then managed to install the drivers successfully. Windows finally recognised my GPU again and I was able to start FSX. However as soon as the flight loaded, FSX froze again and I had to perform a hard reboot of my system. The flight was with a default aircraft at Friday Harbour, so definitely nothing to do with the Tenerife scenery (which I had temporarily uninstalled anyway). When my system had restarted I discovered that my GPU had been deactivated again. So I had to remove and reinstall the drivers again. Windows has now recognised the GPU again, but I haven't tried to run FSX again until I can work out what is going wrong. There seems to be some sort of conflict going on. Does anyone have any suggestions? I haven't tried deleting fsx.cfg and letting FSX rebuild it. Would it be worthwhile trying this? Could it be a hardware issue with my GPU rather than a software conflict? Any thoughts? Thanks. Adrian
  8. Thanks for all of the replies. This thread seems to have expanded quite a bit!! My "flight deck" is in my office, which was converted from the smallest bedroom in the house - and I mean small!! My desk also has to accommodate my printer, and a 27" monitor really is my limit (and that may even mean having to tuck my speakers behind the monitor). I would really like to go for a 27" QHD if finances stretch that far, now that you guys have assured me that my system would have enough power to run at this resolution without a significant performance hit. Obviously when spending around GBP 2k for a new system I want it to be somewhat future-proofed, and who knows what sort of developments there will be in the next few years with regard to textures, aircraft complexity etc. For that reason I'd rather aim higher than a 1080p. On the other hand I don't want to be back in the same low fps situation I currently have with FSX within a few years. I understand about the lure of 4k monitors, but these are out of the question financially, and I simply don't have the space for a big enough one for this to have any point. Adrian
  9. Hi. I am investigating an upgrade specifically for P3Dv4. The rigs I am looking at are designed for flight simmers. I would probably be looking at a system with an i7-7700k or i7-8700k running at around 4.6 GHz or higher, 16 GB DDR4 RAM and a GTX 1070 8 GB GPU. The big dilemma I have is what sort of monitor to go for. My existing monitor is an 8 year old 21 inch TFT running at 1680x1050. The colour reproduction isn't great, and my flight sim (currently FSX) looks rather washed out, and gauges can be difficult to read. My research has suggested that I should go for an IPS monitor rather than TN because of the much better colour reproduction. The question is whether to go for a 1920x1080 full HD, which won't be a huge resolution improvement over my existing monitor, or to pay more for a 2560x1440 QHD. Desk space is an issue for me, so I will not be able to go higher than 27 inch. Going for 1080p on a 27 inch will presumably degrade the look of the picture because of the larger pixels. On the other hand running 1440p on a 24 inch will make the text really small (and my eyesight isn't what it once was!). So I'm left with the choice of a 24 inch 1080p versus a 27 inch 1440p. What I would really like to know is what sort of performance hit 1440p will have on P3D, as the GPU will be processing 3.7 million pixels as opposed to 2.1 million on 1080p. I have seen some videos on YouTube comparing the fps on games (not flight sims), and the loss was around 25-33% when using QHD. Can I expect a similar hit on P3D? Is the visual benefit of QHD worth the performance hit on the sim? Or would I be better sticking with a 14 inch 1080p? Or with my projected system specs, do you think P3D will run just fine at 1440p, even with all of the usual add ons? Thanks for your help. Adrian
  10. Hi. I currently run FSX Gold on an 8 year old system. Ultimately I would like to fly P3D v4, but for this I will need a completely new rig, and that is unfortunately not financially possible this year. I am looking for an interim upgrade to last me the next year or so. My current system is a Dell, running W7/64 on an i7 860 @ 2.80 GHz with 8 GB RAM and an OEM GeForce GTS 240 with just 1 GB graphics memory. My FS setup includes ORBX Global Base, Vector & OpenLC, Pilot's Global mesh, REX, ASN, plus a couple of study sim level aircraft and several high end airport sceneries (ORBX, Flytampa, Taxi2gate, UK2000, Aerosoft). I run FSX on DX9. You will appreciate that my current system struggles from time to time. When in the air I can usually get 20-30 fps, but on or close to the ground I might get only 10 fps (or lower), and this is with sliders set at a sensible level. I am looking to upgrade my graphics card to try to squeeze a few extra fps out of the system and get it to run more smoothly. I am very well aware that FSX is very CPU dependent - I read somewhere that it is around 75% CPU and 25% GPU. My CPU cannot be overclocked or upgraded. So I am not expecting miracles from a GPU upgrade, but if I can get a small improvement to make things smoother, that would be a success. My current PSU is 350 W. I really need to get more graphics memory, as 1 GB is too little with the addons that I have. Should I aim for 4 GB, or would 2 GB be sufficient for my setup? I have seen EVGA GTX 1050 2 GB at a reasonable price on Amazon, and I think this would fit my PC case. According to the EVGA web site it needs minimum 300 W (but does add that this is based on an i7 3.20 GHz, which is just slightly higher than my specs). Should I change to a more powerful PSU? Can I do this using the same motherboard? Some 4 GB cards I have seen will need at least 400 W, so I need to work out whether this would be feasible for me. As this will be just an interim upgrade, I do not want to spend the earth (and cannot afford to anyway), so I am just looking for a modest improvement. Thank you for any advice you can give. Adrian
  11. Adrian West

    P3Dv4 on an old PC?

    I am in a similar situation to Rafal. I have a 7 year old Dell system. I run FSX Gold on Windows 7 64 bit, i7 860 CPU @ 2.80 GHz, GeForce GTS 240 video card (1 GB VRAM), and 8 GB DDR3 RAM (recently upgraded from 4 GB). I have a 350 W PSU. I too am not in a position to buy a new system, so I am looking for ways to give my system a modest upgrade to give it a few more years of life. From what I can tell, Dell do not allow overclocking of their PCs. Turbo Boost Technology is also not available in the BIOS. Also it seems that the greatest clock speed that my mobo would accept is 3.07 GHZ, so this minimal gain is not worth the outlay. So I am wondering whether a GPU upgrade would give me any appreciable increase in performance? With the recent arrival of P3D v4 I am now weighing up staying with FSX against making the jump to P3D (ideally v4, but maybe v3). What would you suggest? Is there any point in considering P3D v4? If so, what sort of GPU should I look at that would be compatible with my system? Or should I stick with FSX or P3D v3 - and if so, with what sort of GPU? Many thanks. Adrian
  12. Hi. I posted this 5 weeks ago and received no replies. In the meantime P3D v4 has of course appeared, and I am seriously considering moving over to the new platform. I really need somebody's advice on upgrading my GPU. According to Lockheed Martin I will need a minimum of 2 GB of graphics card memory, and ideally 8 GB or more. My current card has just 1 GB. I realise that 8 GB will be out of reach both financially and from a hardware point of view for my system. What would be a reasonable upgrade? Is a GPU upgrade going to be worthwhile on my system? Are there any cards that would be compatible with my system with maybe 2 GB or even 4 GB? What about the PSU? Thanks for your help. Adrian
  13. Hi. I have a Dell Studio XPS 8000 desktop system which is 7 years old. I am currently running FSX Gold on the computer with Windows 7 Home 64 bit. The system comes with an i7 860 2.80 GHz CPU and a GeForce GTS 240 video card. It originally had 4 GB DDR memory which I have just upgraded to 8 GB. I believe I have a 350 W PSU. I am not in a position financially to buy a completely new system, and so I am looking for ways to upgrade the system, if only moderately, in order to give the PC a few more years of life. I have researched online, and most sources suggest that Dell lock down their PCs so that they cannot be overclocked. Is this correct? I can certainly confirm that Intel's Turbo Boost Technology is not available in the BIOS. According to Wikipedia the i7 860 processor uses Socket 1156 motherboards, and the highest clock speed accepted on these boards is 3.07 GHz (i7 880). This seems a very small speed increase over what I already have and probably not worth the financial outlay (even assuming I could still get hold of one of these CPUs). Assuming that a CPU upgrade will be either impossible or pointless, I am therefore looking at my possible options with regard to the graphics card. As far as I am aware, I have a single PCIe slot. I would like to stick with nVidia if at all possible. Could anybody recommend a graphics card that would be suitable for my system and which would give me a performance benefit (FPS in particular, as well as general picture quality)? It needs to be moderately priced, and I am of course well aware that my system would not take most of the latest cards. Would I need to have a new PSU? The other important question of course is whether it would in fact be reasonable to expect any appreciable performance benefit if I upgrade my graphics card? Or is my CPU going to be the bottleneck regardless of what graphics card I go for? At the moment I am sticking with FSX. I am keeping an eye on P3D and may decide to give that a try as it is apparently better than FSX, especially with VAS management. There is also of course the likelihood of 64 bit simulators on the horizon, so I want to keep my options open. I would appreciate any advice you can give. Adrian
  14. Same problem here. I haven't run Central for a while, it automatically updated when I ran it today, then I got the same message as the others on this thread. Please advise what the solution is. Thanks. Adrian
  15. Adrian West

    Scenery for Le Touquet LFAT?

    Thanks for the further comments and suggestions. The link from Chris doesn't work, but having searched on, the only FSX scenery for Le Touquet is the which I mentioned above. Yes Mark, the crash affects the whole FS2004 scenery. I tried initially on the runway and then on the ramp - same result. Adrian