Mango

Oh, i think it does :( http://www.flightsimworld.com/forums/index...howtopic=165046

I can imagine that the RTM repair resets many SP2 files - i would reinstall Acceleration, no doubt.

Both aircraft are in my personal top ten list.

Have to agree here with the night lightening... issue. I own almost all Carenado planes since the birth of FS9 and i am more than satisfied (specially with the true FSX models) - well except the terrible (yes terrible) night visuals. I wouldn't have a problem to spend 5 bucks more on the product for state of the art VC lightening. Fingers crossed...

Welcome :(

Hi Mathias,under settings -> customize -> weather -> Thermal visualization you can disable those.

Spot on, Chris ! :(

The superior Blade Element Theory... It might be superior indeed - in theory. Modern real aircraft (and cars for example) are designed and tested by super computers. The accuracy of the FS model, the environment simulation and the processing power of an average home PC just don't cut the cake (yet?).Please correct me if i am wrong.

Make ESET NOD32 #5. I have to disable the whole security system completely because 2 files are flagged hot while downloading. However, when the wrapper is complete, i can enable NOD32 and install (and use the software) without problems. That's why i didn't forward the quarantined files for evaluation.

When you run the network, you might consider to move other addons to the client as well. It frees up resources on your FSX PC and your main screen stays clean. I have FSCommander (FSUIPC/WideFS), REX, ASA, MovingMap, AISmooth and two different Gmap versions (all via SimConnect) running on the client PC. Works like a charm !

No !Just for the record...

Great job ! But i still don't get it why the Twin Comanche and the SF260 get a lower rating then f.e. the Saratoga glass. I see a huge difference the other way around. Also the Flight1 Mustang is by far not worse than the BushHawk. Further the Carenado C182 performs much better than the default Baron G1000. Not sure if some developer can agree with the current list - IMO there should be much more input to get a fair average reading :( .

I am afraid frankinla and gjharrall are right - FSX in 5 years will run like FSX today. Chip designers are hitting more and more a clock speed wall which will lead to more CPU cores. Have a look at the game development the last 5 years - how f.e. the graphics advanced. I can't imagine to be satisfied flying FS8 today. Hopefully there might be others filling the gap, or MS restructures the team around it's flagship.Very disappointing.

For everybody calculating ( :( ) - don't forget Acceleration. I am pretty sure MS broke even with FSX/Acceleration already. Anyways, like mentioned above, the dev cycle seems way too long for such a dev team size. Talking about efficiency which is part of management which is obviously not bean counter's strength. For now FS must get away from it's gaming part and concentrate purely on it's soul - the simulation. A small but highly specialized team to maintain and expand the ESP platform with 3rd party involvement for the eye candy, aircraft and other refinement. Way to go, is it ? Who wouldn't fork out 100 to 200 bucks for a highly sophisticated FS ? Maybe that's their plan... We'll find out.

http://www.flightsim.com/main/op-ed/ed420.htm

More than... In the US...

Well, we don't know what is going on behind the curtain... Maybe they have a plan and investors stand already by. Maybe they don't and are the top contenders for the next Darwin award. Mismanagement is the last thing you need in difficult times. FS was and is an earner, no doubt about that.Btw, a few days ago i purchased the Ka-50 Black Shark combat sim. It's well made - there are companies out there able to create a nice flight simulator...

Wouldn't it be a great idea to let the last men standing work on SP3 ? If FSX is the platform for many years to come, we need more efficient multicore utilization. Forget about 5 or 6 GHz CPUs as mainstream, won't happen - but 3 GHz 8 core systems will be the standard very soon... Bring on SP3 and give FSX a bright future ! And sales will continue...

That's their goal... :(

I am not sure how exactly it is done, but it is indeed an interesting technique. The FTX photo real part is covered by shallow water (no matter what textures are used) - you can see it even at some default places like St. Maarten. 1 meter or higher photo real coverage without autogen and without a proper color correction doesn't cut the cake for low GA flying (at least not for me). The fun begins at 15 cm with hand placed trees and buildings. Of course it is not possible (yet?) to distribute this huge amount of data for big areas like a whole state. That's why i think that high quality generic terrain with embedded (well blending) smaller 15 cm locations like airfields or points of interest (f.e. the lake in the pics above) are the way to go. Anyways, i am looking forward to get a product like MegaScenery for the place i know very well - where i lived for many years.

Yes, the cars on the photo real roads are moving - even in both directions on a 2 lane road.The water is animated - i use REX textures and wave animation plus the free FSWC water shader tweaker with the calm ocean preset.

Some GPS let you type in with the keyboard, some not. If you type YMML into the default G1000, you'll end up most likely in slew mode... :(

Well, no need to do anything with the scenery.cfg. Go to the FSX settings page - you will find four buttons (Save, Load, Customize and Reset Defaults). There you save your current settings as f.e. Standard and your FPS test settings as f.e. Test. Easy to switch. Set up your test situation (i was sitting at the Ayers Rock airport with the CRJ700) and save the flight as f.e. FPS Test. It can happen that some aircraft crash when you work through your hangar. Load the 'Test' cfg and the 'FPS Test' flight and you are back in no time.

Hi Ponti,FPS were of course unlocked and all were measured in the VC at daytime (vsync off). I even took care of the different initial zoom levels and was setting it like i would fly the aircraft. Readings are average FPS rounded up or down. All systems were running, weather was set to clear sky. The CRJ had straight 100 FPS average.Like i said, some aircraft have very stable FPS at unlimited, some are all over the place... Wonder why.

I like to add my findings as well. While running the tests, i saw that i have not all aircraft installed, but i hope that's enough anyways. The CRJ in mind, i adjusted the cfg until i reached exactly 100 FPS average with this model (autogen, scenery and traffic off). The aircraft settings/detail was at maximum. Interesting that some aircraft have very unstable FPS (at least on my system with FPS set to unlimited). However, those mentioned below perform all well with locked FPS - just the average result doesn't tell the truth... The F-16 is a surprise , i don't have problems to fly it fluid with my normal settings. The Bushhawk needs a patch if you ask me... Oh, and sorry about the Saratoga - the non glass model is of course not bad.Default DC-3 - 162Default Piper Cub - 161Default Lear - 144Default Robinson R22 - 142Default Mooney - 142Shockwave P-51D - 134Default King Air - 131Aircreation Trike - 129Carenado C182 RG - 125 (HD VC version, cfg set to 1024)Default DG 808 - 123Default C172 - 122Acceleration P-51D - 121Default Grumman Goose - 121Default C208B - 117Default Extra 300S - 117Default Baron - 116Default Maule - 115Shockwave B-17G - 115Default JetRanger - 112RealAir Decathlon - 111Default Mooney G1000 - 111Carenado C152 - 108Default Beaver - 103Default Boeing 737 - 102 Default CRJ700 - 100Default Airbus A321 - 100Default C172 G1000 - 100Carenado C172N - 99Eaglesoft Twin Comanche - 96Aerosoft Long-EZ - 96Eaglesoft CJ1 - 96RealAir SF-260 - 92Eaglesoft Liberty - 91FSD Saratoga - 91Flight1 Citation Mustang - 86CS C-130 - 86DA Cheyenne IIXL - 84Default Baron G1000 - 82Flight1 PC-12 - 78Acceleration EH101 - 77Aerosoft Beaver - 74Acceleration F-18 - 68FSD Saratoga Glass - 68Wilco Citation X - 60Eaglesoft Cirrus SR22 - 59Eaglesoft Columbia 400 - 55CS 757-200 - 48DA Do-27 - 46Aerosoft Bushhawk - 40Aerosoft F-16 - 37--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coolsky MD80 - 178 (very unstable between 25 and 310 FPS)Aerosoft DHC-6-300 - 166 (very unstable between 20 and 300 FPS)Shockwave Spitfire - 166 (very unstable between 34 and 345 FPS)Iris PC-9 - 148 (very unstable between 22 and 245 FPS)Shockwave Bf109E - 144 (very unstable between 32 and 340 FPS)Carenado Mooney - 118 (very unstable between 30 and 225 FPS)Default Boeing 747 - 114 (unstable between 80 and 155 FPS)Btw, this test on another system might show a completely different result.