moggel

I'm planning on having 16GB of RAM so the pagefile shouldn't be much of an issue, I hope. From what I've learned here I believe separating Windows and FSX on two different drives is the way to go (it's also what I've done in the past and it has always worked fine). Perhaps I should look into getting a second SSD after all? Have to find something else I don't need then...

I'm surprised to hear REX would be best placed on the HDD as I assumed REX was quite texture intense. Could you expand on that some?

Pilots,I'm getting back into the hobby after more than a year and I've decided I need a brand new computer to enjoy FSX. My budget will allow for one Solid State Drive (SSD) so I'd appreciate any hints on how to best utilize it. It's going to be a 120GB drive so I'm guessing there won't be enough space to fit in BOTH Windows and FSX plus all addons (scenery etc.). If so, would you recommend I place FSX (and addons) on the SSD while Windows resides on a normal HDD or should it be the other way around?The machine I'm building will have a boot manager so all simming will have a dedicated Windows running it while work and "non-fun" stuff is on another Windows instance.ThanksJonas

Well, providing I'm wrong and that MS does provide a place on Games for Windows Marketplace for 3PD's to market their products I don't see why they would be upset. This will clearly be big dent in the body for SimMarket, FlightSimStore and others that no longer gets a cut but that's just the way of business: It changes. If that cut gets back into the continous develpment of 'Flight' it might be a good thing.

I'm getting back to simming after a year or so and I find the negativism concerning 'Flight' baffling. It's pretty clear to anyone that Microsoft could not move on with FSX tech-wise. The sim engine needed a complete rebuld to meet the expectations of a modern "game". But even more important was the poor business model. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that ORBX has made more $ from FSX than Microsoft has. I love ORBX's products so I don't mind but I have no problem seeing the problem. I've spent a LOT more money add ons from various "sim markets" than I have on the core product.I'm just returning to FSX after a year and I find my self iterating the reading-installingand-tweaking process several times before flying is as enjoyable as I want it to be. The end result is just as good as the weakest add on. If there's an issue with some add on somewhere I'm left to roam the forums and spend time trying to isolate and resolve the problem. I cannot call Microsoft support because, well, there isn't any. I'm an IT professional and I've done it a few times by now so it's acceptable. But I can honestly say I have spent more time fiddling with the sim than I have flying it. Clearly this is not optimal. Just imagine what it must be like for a new flight enthusiast to get FSX up and running with all the bells and whistles in place (improved whather, improved ATC, a few products to improve environment, a bunch of sceneries, one or two realistic aircrafts and so on). Learning to fly is fun and that's what I would like the sim to be. Instead, learning to assemble sim is what a new enthusiast is faced with. There's hours upon hours to be spent on this as he or she gets in to this hobby. As a simmer I would welcome a business model where I can expand the sim as easily as clicking an icon and submit my consent for payment to get a new expansion installed and done with. With FSX its a matter of tech know how, "community smarts" and keeping an archive of license and order numbers around for safe keeping so I can reiterate the assembly process the next time I'm upgrading my computer. I have seen some statements that leads me to believe that Microsoft won't let ANY third party companies into the 'Flight' product. That would be a big mistake from Microsoft's part and let's hope this isn't the case. That if anything would loose many of the hard core flight enthusiasts. I'm sure Microsoft realizes the value of having ORBX, PMDG and all the other quality vendors on board, marketing their products through "Games for Windows Marketplace" (what a clunky name that is ;-) ). That would make the sim more enjoyable, easier to get into for first time armchair pilots and it would make for a much better ROI for Microsoft. That's money they can put to work expanding and improving the product for many years to come.Needless to say I'm downloading 'Flight' on the 29th of February and I'll fly it as a complementing sim until I'm proven wrong. FSX isn't going anywhere...unfortunately.Kind regardsJonas

I had the exact same reacton when first I saw the different "webisodes" for Flight! But then I examined them closer and noticed quite alot of improvements. Flight! sports a new water/wave model which looks very realistic (would like to see if FSX's silly "star reflection" problem is resolved though). Mountains, cliffs and steep slopes now looks realstic (in FSX textures gets stretched and looks very unrealistic). Clouds look much better in Flight! Lighting, shadows and related aspects is much improved in Flight! For example: You can see how nearby vegetation cast shadows on the airplane in webisode #2. The same can be seen in webisode #3. Also, shadows are sotfer and mucg more realistic and they are now fully rendered inside the VC which is something I'm missing in FSX (the experimental ones we see in FSX "DX10 preview" doesn't look very good). I haven't seen evidence thereof but cloud shadows should be fully implemented considering how the new lighting model works (see above). Overall coloration is much better in Flight! Also, Microsoft has pointed out several times that what we see now is from very early in the development process. Check out this post for a FSX/Flight! screen shot comparison. The FSX screens seems to be out of the box (not improved by REX, ORBX or any other add on) but, then again, so are the Flight! screenies.Over all, assuming MS don't compromise on realism, I very much look forward to Flight!Jonas

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you (or you me) here? Indeed, some add on airplane models do offer this kind of persistency to varying degrees (and with varying success). What I would like to see is the ability for the end user to choose any model, stock or add on, and create an "airplane individual" from it. This "airplane individual" would then support full persistency in the following areas (for example): Full model state persistency: All systems are in the state you left them the next time you spawn the same "airplane individual". Geographical persistency: The "airplane individual" is located at the exact same spot and direction you left it in (or, possibly, if you have ordered some repair for it, it could be located in or outside a nearby hangar). Use (and misuse): The airplane individual tracks engine hours, temperature, RPM etc. Misuse or failure to perform service will increase the probability of failure. Again, these things are offered by some third party products but then only to a limited extent and most often the experience is outlined with bugs or various technical issues or bugs. I think it should be an natural and integral part of the core simulation. Looking at FSPassenger X or similar add ons that try to deliver an experience where your actions as a pilot has conseqnences beyond the current flight all seem to struggle hard to overcome the limitations of the sim. Having a robust persistency model built in to the sim itself would free up development resources for add on developers and I think we could see very interesting missions, or even story based scenarios, coming from the add on community.Jonas

Not with any persistency, no. At least not in any way I know of. Please enlighten me if I am wrong. :huh:Jonas

Very good four cents indeed. I have a few whishes that might have been put forward by others in different threads but here they are, just the same:PersistencyI would like to see a feature where you can create an individual airplane, give it a tail number, possibly a painting, and then have the sim follow up on its use (or misuse). (Being able to see the wear and tear would be awesome but that might be hoping for too much? :( ) Also, I would love to be able to just continue from where I last left the bird, without having to fill up a folder with "flights" like in FSX. Improved Architecture LongevityQuite frankly, 3rd party addons is a far bigger investment than the sim itself for most of us. I don't think I'm the only one that's getting tired of seeing this investment being rendered void with every new version of the core product. Also, I can imagine 3rd party developers would prefer extending on their work and create improvements or more scenery rather than spending development resourses on pure compatibility issues or, even worse, having to rebuild them completely. I would therefore like to see a better architecture for "Flight!" where graphics and physics could be improved in a more modular fashion as new hardware hits the market. The best scenario would simply be to utilize Windows Update (or some similar mechanism) to upgrade over time. Let's face it: A platform attempting to cover the whole planet provides a big enough market to provide future revenues for Microsoft and their partners without having to release completely new versions of the sim like we have grown accustomed to ever since its original release. Regards...Jonas

Just want to tune in and praise the OP for his efforts in this thread.What I've noticed so far while studying MS's "webisodes" is... Textures improvements are very apparent on steep slopes. This is one of the few aspects where FSX didn't improve much over FS2004. Colorization is vastly improved. Haze and contrast, both in terrain and clouds, looks much more realistic in Flight! Lighting also seems much more realistic. I noticed in "webisode #3" that the terrain now cast shadows on the airplane as it flies through that narrow valley. Clouds are greatly improved. At least at a distance. Would be nice if they finally made them truly volumetric in Flight. Terrain classes (or whatever its equivalent in Flight may be) is improved. This become evident when you see all those little water streams and waterfalls. Microsoft Game studios underline that they are in early development and I believe we will see general texture improvements and, hopefully, improved auto gen too. Textures in the movies and screen shots so far published isn't really on par with other improvements and mostly looks like having been recycled from FSX. Also, there is very little auto gen buildings. I suspect development for these things has not yet begun.

I feel your pain brother. These effects are a joke, especially the snow effect. This question have been asked over and over but as far as I know no one has figured out how to replace those effects. As I understand it they are very hard to modify due to the different technology used to produce them (I think it's shaders) compared to FS9. My best hope right now is that the geniouses over at REX will rise to the challenge but I've seen no statements other than "we're not adresseing this right now".Still hoping "right now" will pass one fine day.../Jonas

No worries. I had no idea I had managed to file a DP from that auto generated flight. I went back and loaded the same FSX flight into RC and checked the "controller info" page and you're right: The "Alt Restrictions" radio button was indeed selected and the "No Dep Proc" option was disabled. I assumed selecting a DP was something I needed to do actively.I'll read the RC manual a bit more carefully on that part and return with any questions if it's ok.Cheers/Jonas

I love this program but I have to day it's a bug infested as a flee cirkus. On most flight I have to restart VoxATC and resume in mid flight and I tend to avoid having AI enabled just to be able to complete any flights.So, does anyone know if there's a new version planned? Any word on the estimated time of arrival?Anyone?Cheers/Jonas

I have this exact problem too. I have done the trainings several times and occasionally I can complete a full flight without VoxATC stumbling anywhere. My readbacks are picked up immediately (when they're correct that is) and everything runs fine. Unfortunately, this only happens once in, say, seven flights (no science here, just my impression). I've learned t live with it and when VoxATC calls "last airplane, say again" I simply click the mike once and tries not to think about it.From what I've seen it's realeted less to the current VoxATC session and more to Windows (voice recognition) because it never helps restarting VoxATC or FSX but it sometimes help restarting the computer. Again, there's no science behind this assumption.I consider VoxATC the single most promising add on out there and I'm actually enjoying it but unfortunately it IS in a very buggy state. It might be my hardware or some configuration but the most frustrating aspect is the complete lack of support. I'm sorry I can't help you get this sorted out but it's sometimes good to know more have the same issues. At least it saves one from trying to locate the proverbial holy grail./Jonas

I had a rather strange experience tonite...I was flying from YSTW to YPEC and was almost at the TOC when RC started to scold me for drifting off my filed course. My filed course was 148 but RC directed me to 320 and added "proceed direct when able". First I didn't understand anything and rather stupidly assumed I was being delayed so I headed back to 320 as directed and after a few minutes I started to feel I "was able" to "proceed direct". Yes, that wasn't exactly too bright but there you go. :( Anyway, some five minutes later I was being yelled at again and the controller directed me back to 320 while adding I'm a moron that shouldn't even allowed to drive cars, let alone fly airplanes (rather funny actually :( ).Now, what I suspect happened is this: The flight plan was auto generated by FSX (VOR to VOR) and started with YSTW to TW. The TW VOR is located 1.5 miles to the north of the airport but I took off to the south (RWY 12L) so I guess RC never detected I flew that first leg? I never bothered to remove the first leg because I've been trying out VoxATC for some time and in these scenarios VoxATC always instructs me to: "after take off, proceed direct <the second steerpoint>", (West Maitland in this flight). For this reason I leave that first leg in there as I find it practical to have that first VOR as a starting radial during departure.Is VoxATC simply slightly more "artificially intelligent" in these situations or am I just making the wrong assumptions. Or is RC actually simulating ATC better when the controller forces me to go back to that first steerpoint before he allows me to "proceed direct when able"? What would have happened in real life if I had filed a flight plan like that and flew it like I did? Would the controller hand some smirky remark and then let me proceed to the second steerpoint or would he actually force me to go back like RC did?I'd appreciate any input/advice Cheers/Jonas

My credit card will definetly be ready on that joyful day! :( /Jonas

I've always liked the Learjet series and this new package looks promising but the info isn't exactly exhaustive. Are there any early buyers out there that can enlighten the rest of us? Where does this model fit in on the "introduction-to-hard-core-scale"?(Product page here)Cheers/Jonas

I did as you suggested and it seems to have solved the problem. Hopefully the problem doesn't return. Thanks you!/Jonas

I have the Saitek Pro Flight Yoke system (Yoke+Throttle Quadrant) with an additional throttle quadrant which gives me six levers in total. I usually fly twin engine turbo props so this is perfect for me. I have owned this system for a few months now and once I got it all configured and tuned with FSUIPC they have worked fine but starting from today the two middle levers (prop pitch) are acting very strange: The VC prop pitch levers sit the max position regardless of the physical lever positions. When I start moving the Saitek prop pitch levers the VC equivalent moves also but flickers between my physical lever's input and max. When I stop moving the Saitek prop pitch the VC levers settles back at max.I have checked axis calibration in the Saitek setup (Windows control panel) as well as in FSUIPC (FSX control management is disabled) and everything looks just fine. The animated "diagrams" in the Saitek control panel changes smoothly with the movement of the levers and the numbers in FSUIPC looks steady as ever. It's just in the FSX VC that things get weird. I have examined several airplanes (twins) and they all display the same behavior.I'm clueless right now. Does anyone have any idea on what to look for?Cheers/Jonas

Could you please clarify what the problem seems to be?This is what I do:1. Create the flight plan in FSX2. Start REX2 and click "I would like to follow a flight plan"3. Select "Load FSX flight plan" (I don't remember the exact wording as I write this from memory)4. Point out the FSX flight plan and load it.5. Complement whatever needs to be filled in (secondary airport, airplane etc.)6. (Optional) Save the flight plan if you feel you will do this again7. Click "Fly Now"8. In FSX, start up a flight and load the flight plan9. Enable VoxATC.I have never had any problems with this sequence.Hope this helps/Jonas

First of all, I assume by "click support" you actually mean "click Contact". I can't find any "support" link anywhere. I did click "Contact" a few weeks ago but got an (ASP.NET) error message when I tried submitting my issue. The "Contact" feature works now and I submitted my troubles to the VoxATC staff some days ago and I'm still awating a response.I'm not sure what's going on but "prompt replys" doesn't seem to be the agenda at the moment over at the VoxATC studio.I was lucky enough t be able to conduct a full flight yesterday with AI active. After having experimented quite alot I arrived at the following configuration:1. AI = 10% (anything above 10% have made VoxATC abandon me, apparently while dealing with other planes)2. First Officer = available (I don't use "him" and I'm not sure if this has anything to do with it but I tried activating it just before things started to work)3. VoxATC process priority = higher than normal (one notch more than "normal")Just having flown one successful flight doesn't prove much so I'll fly some more while I awat VoxATC's response.Cheers/Jonas

Hey again. I went ahead and purchased VoxATC, hoping that I will indeed get assistance in sorting out any problems, just like "Tegoid" promised in this thread.Since I have had more time experimenting I have found that the problems with VoxATC entering a "dead end state" seems to be related to the precense of AI. I tried turning AI completely off and the program seemed to work flawlessly. It responded without any hickups and never abandoned me. When I turned AI back on VoxATC seemed to get sluggish in its response and eventually my options where gone and VoxATC wouldn't recognise me or anything I said.Could you please provide me with Tegoid's email address so I can bring my issues to his attentions?Cheers/Jonas

A matter of opinion, no doubt, but my point was mainly that bloom looks alot better in DX10. In DX9 it looks strange at best and the FPS drop is twice what you'll see in DX10.In DX10 I love the way the sun comes through the clouds when bloom is on. It makes the skyscape look both realistic and wonderful. Bloom has its downsides of course. The FPS drop I can live with (my i7 gives me enough and your's should give even more I imagine, can't see much difference between 50 and 70 fps anyway) but the effect is sometimes exaggerated when it comes to the specular effect on surfaces. Sometimes the instruments "glow" in the dark on a level where you can't read them anymore. That's an annoying drawback that's drawing away realism rather than adding to it./Jonas

Yup, this is my experience also. Likely you'll see even more of a difference than I do with your heavier i7 (see my specs).I would be even happer if those asphalt taxiways hadn't caused all that flickering but I feel DX10 preview is so much better in all other aspects (FPS, bloom, graphical quality in general) it's still worth it./Jonas

I have ended my trial of VoxATC wihout being able to complete any flights. The problem is that VoxATC seems to stop directing me while enroute (it keeps sending traffic announcements though). Regardless of what I say I'm met with silence. At some time I have been given an instruction but my read back is never recognized and the text in the VoxATC gauge says something along the lines of "Readback instruction" but there's no "read back" text visible. This happens some time after I have departed the airport and are on my way. So far I have never been issued approach instructions and I have therefore abandoned all VoxATC-controlled flights without landing.I wrote about my experience in this thread:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...me+quicl+voxatcI then headed over to VoxATC and tried the "Contact" menu option because I couldn't see any other way to get support. It seems that web feature is broken unfortunately. I have tried to submit my support question three times during a two day period but is always met with an ASP.NET error message. Could anyone help me get in contact with the VoxATC support?CheersJonas Rembratt