Kabs

Actually the way I understand it (and I may be wrong), RoG and CoG are two different things, both of which are simulated in x-plane. The RoG is the determines how quickly/easily the airplane rotates about an axis when a control input is applied. The smaller the RoG the twitchier the airplane. CoG (also simulated in x-plane) detemines the tendency of the airplane to have a particular orientation. Lets take rotation about the longitudinal axis (bank) of the airplane. Suppose we start out with full fuel in the wings. At this point the airplane has a higher RoG and is less twitchy. As fuel is depleted (assume equal burn for both tanks) the CoG across the wings axis remains the same, but the RoG becomes smaller. The airplane must become more twitchy. CoG alone cannot be used to calculate this effect, and this is why RoG is required. In effect a change in CoG will have an effect on RoG, but RoG can also change when there is no change in CoG Kabs

Hi Bob,I can already see a flaw in your logic.The fact that you do not get ctd's does not necessarily mean that the OP's machine is at fault. Do you fly in the same areas that he does? Do you use the your simulator in the exactly the same manner that he does.How long are your sessions compared to his?All I am saying is that we should not be so quick to blame hardware just because you think your installation is solid. A better way to solve the problem would be to investigate with sequence of actions lead to the CTD and THEN try that sequence on other hardware.To the OP, do the CTD's seem to occur regularly at particular point in the simulation?Kabs

Hi fellow simmers,I recently downloaded and installed SP1 in the hope of improving FSX performance on my machine. At first I was not happy since I seemed to be getting about 12 fps everywhere even with all the scenery turned off. I think I solved my problem by turning off the vertical sync option in my display driver settings. You might want to try this too.I did this and I am getting much better framerates especially away from the airport with dense autogen and normal scenery complexity. It appears that the custom buildings at the airports really reduce framerates. I have to turn off commercial traffic to get my frames in the 20s when at an airport with these settings. Also, for those with slower PC's stay away for Garmin 1000 equipped aircraft.Does anyone know how to get smaller textures for the airport buildings? Also, does project ai work with FSX?With dense autogen and normal scenery complexity away from the airport, I can maintain 31 fps. My specsAthlon 64 3800,2 gigs ramGeForce 6800 SLIAudigy 2 The only modification I have with my installation is that I have deactivated the default.xml file under autogen by changing the name.I hope the tip helps. I know it can be really frustrating, but keep trying, keep your cool and dont rush out for new hardware too quickly.Remember $4000 is a substantial about of dough (a substantial portion of a PPL)..Also to all those who are getting good frames, if you can think of anything please try to provide some advice so that others can enjoy this beautiful hobby.Good luckKabs

This is the type of FLAME-BAIT that turns a great occasion like this sour. FSX with SP1 might not have been a reality if the "nay sayers" had not complained about the RTM version. I was not pleased with the RTM version myself, but I am very excited by what I am hearing about SP1. I cannot wait to leave work to try it out. So please do no turn this occasion into something less desirable.ThanksKabs

I agree with everything you are saying except the part about viewing in frames.When the human eye receives light from a seen, a reversible chemical change of a substance (I think it is called rhodopsin) on the retina occurs. The chemical change then causes an electrical impulse to be sent to the optical center of the brain through the optic nerve. After a very tiny fraction of time the chemical reaction involving the rhodopsin is reversed and the eye is ready for another photon. This amount of time can be considered as a frame since during this time any light hitting the retina does not cause any electrical impulses (because the retinal chemical has been altered) to be sent to the brain to create an image.this is kinda like a video camera where the technical specs indicate that the camera can capture at xx frames per second. If it takes the camera 0.5 secs receive and process the light information before it is ready for some more information, then the camera is only capable of 2 frames a second.kabs

Not to hijack the thread, but does anyone know the frame rate of the human brain. By this, I mean how fast can the brain interpret a scene. Is is the squirrel I see outside my window as I type this message really still there, or has it been gone for the past 5 seconds while my brain was processing the information?

Actually, and please correct me if I am wrong, I dont think there will be anyone feeling sick with a 6000fpm or any climb rate for that matter provided the climb rate is a constant or near constant. Infact at any constant climb rate you will experience a force of exactly 1g (as if you were not climbing at all)since there is no acceleration.Excessive but constant climb rate may be a problem if the pressurization system is unable to keep up, or if the attitude of the plane is soo steep that your food slips off your table.Kabs

I meant to ask that if microsoft modified WinXP to run DX10 and we were to recieve a copy of that modified version on WinXP as it is right now, will there be features (security features for exampler) that are currently on the vanilla winXP that MS would have had to remove because they would cause conflicts with the DX10 modification.Also would resolving those conflicts be a trivial task?Kabs

>BTW, no need to change the Kernel for DX10 unless you plan to provide aeroglass interface in WinXP. You release DX10 for WinXP just like they have done with all prior versions of DirectX. This is very doable and like I've said before...what OS do you think they used to create Vista and DX10? I can assure you, their development cycle isn't code DX10 features, make a build, install that build on a unknown state of a Vista build, and then test -- that is not efficient. They test on the same OS you and I have with some minor modifications. Good point, on which os does Windows test DX10? If DX10 is tested on Windows XP do the modifications that are necessary to run DX10 on XP require that other windows xp functions are sacrificed?Finally was the modification "minor" or was it essentially rewriting the OS

Has anyone looked at the Airliner XP Airbus of late. I believe the product is a collaborative effort between the dreamfleet group and reality XP. Some of the technologies they are promising to bring to flight simulator are really exciting (such as Gauge refresh rates equaling that of the sim itself). There is actually a video showing the PFD in the sim and it looks smoother than anything I have ever seen.I am really praying that they can deliver. If they do I dont know how I am going to be able to leave the house to go to work anymore.Check out the sitehttp://www.airlinerxp.com/a320features.html

Hi Robains,I am not entirely sure of whether this is true or not, so please educate me if I am wrong.You are right that 64-bit computing will allow you to address more memory, but is there not also a speed gain from having more bits available at the registers to perform a greater number of calculations without accessing memory in the first place. So for example, with 32-bit systems if I wanted to do a complex operation, I would have to have to do it small parts (since the registers cannot store all the values) then store my partial results in main memory in order to use them later to complete the operation whereas with a 64-bit system more operations can be performed with less use of the main memory. Should we not expect to see a speed boost from this.kabs

>IMHO, I like the fact Microsoft made a basic product that can stand alone without 3d party support and, if consumers desire, they can purchase addons. That's how FS started out and that's how it should continue. My one cent worth....Notice I mentioned that there would be three flavors of FS XI.So can I take it from your statement that if FS XI TP edition did come out for $80 bundled with a PMDG 737, you would not purchase it. You would go for the Deluxe or Standard version at $60 or $50 respectively and the separate 737 at $50.Kabs

Hello, What does everyone think about this idea. For the next installement of Flight simulator, the aces team should have an agreement with one or two reputable third party developers (PMDG, Level-D, and Dreamfleet for example) and bundle the software with a couple of high quality 3rd party aircraft. FS XI will then come out in three flavors, Standard - $49.50Deluxe - $59.50TPE - $79.50The agreement could have the 3rd parties either getting a fixed about of money from the deal or a percentage of earnings from the flight sim. Of course the 3rd party developers will reserve the right to sell their aircraft outside of the deal to people who buy the non TP edition.Such a system would have the following advantages to the status quo.1) The customer (hardcore simmers) will get some of their favorite addons for less ($20 instead of $50 a piece)2) I THINK that the 3rd party developers will also benefit because of sales volumes. It might not turn out to be the case if not enough people are willing to shell out the extra $20 for the TP edition. 3) I believe that in doing this the 3rd party developers will be more intimate with the inner workings of fsX since they will get it during the development process, and possible issues that could make coding 3rd party aircraft or scenery difficult will get ironed out.4) 3rd party addons will probably be better optimized for the flight simulator because of point 3.5) Also, I think that this deal will introduce detailed aircraft to a greater portion of the general public (especially those who are curious). As a result, the "average" simmer will be more likely to buy other 3rd party add-onsWell, I thought I would just through the idea out.what do ya thinkKabsP.s forgot to mention another advantageWe get some superb detail aircraft for the new sim on the day of release, instead of 3-6 months down the line.

I believe the problem he wants to tell microsoft about has nothing to do with the addon. He is having problems getting the microsoft site to accept his product ID in order to mention the problem. He is asking if an addon may have altered his product ID.To answer the OP's question, I do not think an addon can make ur product ID invalid. Such info would probably be stored on some Microsoft Database and I highly doubt that MS has software to detect addons to MSFS. Even if they did, the webpage would tell you that you had some addon installed instead of just telling you that your product ID was invalid. I would say that u may be entering the information wrong. Check for typo's, and make use you are not replacing zero's for the letter o and vice versa.Good LuckKabs

Hello Guys,I dont post much on this forum but this I felt I had to get my voice in on the FSX saga.I am one of those who was and still is dissappointed with the performance of FSX on my machine. I am not sure about what everyone else remembers but when FS2004 came out, I had bought a P4 2.5 ghz machine from Dell for a little over $800 dollars. I was using an ati 9700pro video card (from my earlier machine) and had 1Gig of ram. I concede that FS2004 did not run smoothly with all sliders to the right, BUT, at least I could make it run at 25 fps in the city while still looking better than FS2002 (at comparable framerates) and enjoying other enhancements like a clickable VC.As far as I am concerned, what us "whiners" are complaining about is that in order to get the same performance, we have to make FSX look worse than fs2004. Of course the looks and smoothness of the sim are in subjective. I for one want my autogen though it may look "cartoony" to some. I do not appreciate being called a whiner because another user thinks we can do without it. To me the FS world without autogen is a step backward. If you do not feel that way, then you are fortunate, and I am glad you enjoy the sim. You do not have to read my whining post and then get angry about it.After all is the forum not a place to express ones feelings about the software.I also have serious misgivings about FSX running in full glory on future computers. I bought my current machine about a 7 months ago. I have an Athlon 64 3800 with 2 gigs of ram and two Nvidia 6800 GT cards running in SLi Mode. I think that my machine would have been considered "future hardware" when FS2004 was released. Sure I can ran FS2004 much better than my old machine, but I still have to cut back on certain settings such as cloud draw distance (even with the downsized clouds). Even then, I still see drops in Framerates when I enter heavy weather. There are still areas such as the Washington DC area (around Reagan International Airport) and also in NYC where for no concievable reason, after a flight from Chicago, my framerates just plummet.If history is anything to go by, I cannot see how we will be able to run FSX in its full glory with "future hardware" in 2 to 3 yrs.I am also disturbed by those who tell others that they were stupid to upgrade when they saw that the demo's performance was not to their liking. I downloaded the demo, and I was worried about performance, but I read in this very same forum that there were supposed to be major optimizations after the release of the demo, and that the retail version would perform better. My experience with the program say otherwise.I am done ranting for now, but I guess the take home message is that I have bought a piece of software which I am dissatisfied with. I am not a Microsoft Hater. I love microsoft products. Have any of you tried installing drivers on some of the Linux ports out there. I have and it usually involves reading some looooong obsure text files and typing some magical incantations into a terminal window.I would take the double click and forget anyday. The point is I love simming very much and it pains me when I have to spend more time tweaking the product and worrying whether I will have to land on the grass because I have a slide show ils approach awaiting me at my destination, than flying. I feel is my right to be able to come onto a forum and voice my dissappointment without fear of being called name. I will try to label my posts well so that those who might get offended can just skip the post.I hope with all my heart that Aces comes up with a viable patch soon.Thanks for listeningKabs