adr179

As I stated in my first post - completely depends on area of interest. I do not know the list of airports that Ultimate Traffic is covering, so it can happen you'd be completely satisfied or completely disappointed with it's results.The aircraft we refer to as "traffic" are not static, they are exactly what the word "traffic" implies - they do their daily, weekly or monthly routine of flights.To make your own traffic all you need is Microsoft's SDK (software developer's kit) that is included in some versions of FS X - check your first DVD for folder SDK and if you have it, then read this:http://www.fsdeveloper.com/wiki/index.php?title=SDK_Installation_%28FSX%29once you have your SDK properly installed reading Traffic toolbox SDK is a must, when you familiarize yourself with what is covered there, all you need to produce your own traffic is a decent program to write your flight plans and createyour traffic bgl file or files. As of aircraft - you can use the whole fleet you have inside your SimobjectAircraft folder, but only if you have a strong computer. If not, then search the file libraries for aircraft that were specifically designed to play the role of AI traffic aircraft - they are designed with less polygons, so they produce less stress to the hardware.A very decent program for creation of flight plans is here:http://stuff4fs.com/newpage.asp?folder=AIFPdownload link is at the bottom of page, link almost hidden in text Version 2.1.25Good luck and I guess, you'll have lot's of fun doing this.

There is no cfg file that could change anything to solve your problem.Depending on which area is on your mind, the chances that any free or pay-ware product will populate small airports of your interest are also rather slim.The best solution for you is to do it yourself. If you are at least averagely computer literate and you have a couple of hours to spend, voila soon you'll be making your own traffic.

To be honest, I don't know if new or additional, since I don't have the slightest idea what sections can be in that additional file. Maybe it's possible to scale settings from the first file, there might be some more settings, but since nobody used it so far(at least as far as I know), the chances to find out what's inside the second file are slim, if not next to none.

That is understood, but so far I haven't saw anybody used this option and actually wrote enbseries2.ini. As far as I understand name of entry(AdditionalConfigFile) somehow implies possibility of more additional settings.

Jim, from my standpoint "easier" is not the name of the game.And while I was checking "ingredients" of enbseries.ini, I found also something else and would appreciate if you or somebody else knows the answer:http://forum.avsim.net/topic/366612-enb-series-additionalconfigfileenbseries2ini/

O.K., I moved the [LIMITER] section to the end of *.ini file, still no joy and I wasn't expecting really to see any difference - just position of a section can't really make any difference.Let's see what are the differences in our systems? For this tests I'm using I can say what's default installation of FS X+Acceleration - some addon aircraft and scenery, but no other tweaks, no Altuve's fsx.cfg tweaks, nothing of this sort.Could it be, this [LIMITER] section actually invokes a piece of software you do have and I don't?

Do excuse me if this was previously covered, I did searched the forums, but couldn't find anything relevant.This is the entry that puzzles me in the enbseries.ini:AdditionalConfigFile=enbseries2.iniit's part of [GLOBAL] section.While everything works as expected, maybe out of sheer purism I'd like to make this little detail clear:One would expect to find the enbseries2.ini in the root folder of FS X, right along the enbseries.ini, but that is not the case. And since all enbseries.ini files I tried(some 5 of them) have this entry referringto some additional settings, the fact makes me wonder - are we missing something here?

Hmm, I also copy/pasted this section and put it into my enbseries.ini immediately after [PROXY] section, so it's second section in *.ini, but it does not work on my system, windowed or full screen modeAny suggestions venustus?.

Nice discovery - thank you for sharing this.

+1 - If you had FSX up and running on any of installs, you were just throwing your time away, since this is definitely related with video drivers.

Please, somebody correct me if I'm mistaken, but as far as I know, behavior of AI traffic aircraft is hard-coded into the sim., so there's no easy (if at all) way to change that.

My family is pretty big and all of my kids want to play, so we happen to have 4 PC's that are capable of running FSX more or less decently. And if I start FSX on any of the 3 that don't have RAID simultaneously with the one that does have it, I'm finding myself in simulation almost 10 seconds earlier on the RAID computer and I don't have any stutters even in densest scenery areas, which is not the case on machines without RAID. All 4 of PC's I'm talking about otherwise have GPU's and CPU's that are not identical, but not so far apart to make them incomparable, so what I'm stating here is not theoretical expectation, but practical, measurable and with human feelings noticeable difference in performance .

Sorry, but I simply can't agree with anything of this. Theoretically and also in practice first of your statements make no sense. First reasonably small partition of physical hard drive will always be faster than the rest - it's pure geometry.So it does matter where files are positioned on a disk. I'm using RAID0 on motherboards based controllers for years and RAID0 has almost double speed compared to a single disk - measured with any disk speed software and timing loading time of FS X. So far I never lost a single bit of data from those RAID setups. Real reason for problems with RAID setups is almost always in PSU - people simply forget the fact that adding more and more hardware requires more power.Only thing I agree with you is that it makes no sense scattering the FSX files on other disks if you only have disks with same data output rate.

Lots of people I know are using combo of REX or AS textures and FSXrealwxlite for weather download and injection into the sim. I think it's quite a good combination, using best functions of more programs. Nothing against REX or AS, but FSXrealwxlite is popular for, by my opinion, one reason - it's really light on resources, computer hardly knows it's running in the background.

With three disks that have identical performance it makes no sense to move folder scenery from within FSX folder structure, especially so if you're not experienced with this. Configuration with three identical disks is different situation from the one that OmniAtlas has, where he has one small but significantly faster disk and he was wondering, which files from within FSX folder he should move to his fastest but smallest disk.Do not move any sub-folders of FSX if you're not sure what you're doing, you can cause re-instal of everything! In my previous post I was referring to scenery as various addons - additional high quality airports, whole countries or big areas covered with photo-real tiles and so on. This additional sceneries tend to be big in size and it makes sense to put them on the first (fastest) partition of the third disk if first partitions of first and second disk contain the operating system and FSX.

@Johnny767:No need to be confused, with two disks you have optimal distribution of files. If you purchase the third disk, then it would be sensible if you'd move BIG scenery files (photo scenery can be GB just like that) to the third disk. And another hint: do not use whole disk as a single partition. Windows tend to scatter files all over if you let them :-), so making some partitions that are just big enough or a bit bigger than planned amount of your files does some good things: prevents scattering of files all over the physical surface of a 500 or more G Bytes, fragmentation doesn't have such disastrous effect and even if defragmentation is needed, defragmentation of 50 GB takes considerably less than whole 500 or more and is more effective and if you(and you should) use first small partition of each disk it's much faster than simple one-partition-per-disk concept. Of course using just big enough partitions means careful planning of what must and what you'd wish to have installed, you may find yourself running out of free space on a certain partition easily.Sounds like a lot of work, but it's worth the effort.Why would you want 3 disks in your system? Think of your CPU as being a swimming pool of a certain volume. Think of your hard disk, signal cable and SATA controller as hose that's filling your pool - - ->More hoses, quicker the filling rate.And even mid-range CPU is capable of processing more data than regular SATA2 or even SATA3 disks can deliver, resulting in stutters in FSX. So with OS on one disk, FS X on second and scenery files on third, you are filling your pool with three hoses.

A bit strange - i never noticed any difference in FPS with sound on or off. Something must be wrong with either hardware (sound card) or drivers. Also run dxdiag to see if your directx files are by any chance corrupt or something. There's also good chance, dxdiag will point to the source of your problem

RAID0 on SATA3 is also pretty cool and not so expensive solution and one almost has no chance for running out of space. I have six 500GB WD disks in three pairs - one pair for the OS, next pair for FSX itself and third for big scenery files. Loading and overall performance of FS X is noticeably improved when compared with the same hardware but not in RAID0. I think that at least gauges are "touched" quite heavily all of the time and on many aircraft gauges are held within the panel folder. Also sound folder is "visited" on regular basis. The rest(model and texture) is probably indeed loaded only once.

Looooool - the best possible advice :( B R A V O!

And mine is 12.576.843.142.bytes :( . Not only start-up, you should see some overall improvement.

Cast my vote for "Scenery"

Maybe none of my business, but I'll just explain my point of view. I'm a member of a 700+ local community that's quite talkative. Some of them have REX, some AS, and, yes most of them really enjoy them, but again, there are some, that are not so happy with them. I noticed one detail: Those who love either REX or AS have one thing in common - they all have high-end computers. The same is true for those who hate it - they have low-end PC's. Logical conclusion is, both REX and AS are too complex and chew up into hardware resources - already overstressed CPU misses some commands and then something doesn't happen. Rising priority of REX or AS to prevent then produces significant drop in FS X performance, but there are still occasions when weather is not loaded into the sim. User thinks something is wrong with the software while actually it is not. And when this fact is explained, most common reaction of average user is: "I'm not buying or upgrading my machine just because of a piece of software."Just my 1 cent.

Very good piece of software for free : http://www.hanse-coders.net/index.php?page=self&id=1There already is at least one topic about it: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/362792-fsrealwx-lite-it-keeps-its-promises/

Press "A" one more time when in the outside view, so info says "fixed view" and that's it.

It's because Aces team needed to cover the whole world with thousands of airports and on some locations (quite a lot of them, to be honest) did far less than perfect job. But, still, it's great, the developers can intervene and add new scenery to FS X world, while in Flight that's no longer possible - they want to do it all by themselves. Rich, I don't know the location, but I'm a 100% sure this is default Microsoft - can't imagine any scenery designer would release something like this.