FredK

FSGRW was working fine with my WideView setup until I updated to Build#29. FSGRW downloads weather as usual but then cannot transfer into FSX or P3D....I get a message that FSGRW cannot connect to FSX/P3D. At first I thought it perhaps was a corruption of my FSX installation so I embarked on a complete rebuild.....all new visual computers and conversion to P3D. But now the same exact thing happens with P3D. The FSGRW network check facility always indicates all is OK with communications...FSUIPC and SimConnect. I have found that a new installation of FSGRW will always work on the first weather download, but then fails on the next download even on the same flight when set up as dynamic weather. Again, all was working perfectly prior to Build#29. Any ideas on this? Fred K

Paul - I have not fired things up yet to check out your recommendation about HIMEMFIX yet...but now I'm a bit confused about what you are saying. Fred

I have recently encountered a problem with momentary white flashes in the upper part of the screen. The flashes happen randomly every several seconds - something like a quick lightening flash. It is more noticeable when flying at higher altitudes since the flash encompasses a greater area of the upper screen. It is also more noticeable when there is a dark blue sky. I use Wideview and have 3 clients running. The flash happens simultaneously on each of the clients so it is not related to a video card problem I would think. The thing is that I have been using FSX for years now and have never experienced this behavior until recently. I did recently update my Nvidia drivers so that could be a possibility. I am using Nvidia Inspector with the recommended settings for FSX. In a search of the forum there is very little reference to such but some have indicated it happens when using real world weather which I typically use. I'm going to check that out but would still be interested in knowing if there is a fix. Again, I have not had this problem in the past. Thanks, Fred

I have an older non-USB PFC rudder pedal set. The set worked in XP but does not work in WIN7 using a game port to USB adapter. From what I have read WIN7 no longer supports game port drivers but some have reported to get their legacy hardware to work none-the-less. I want to use my old PFC rudder pedals and yoke in my dual seat cockpit for the FO side. Any ideas are appreciated.

Hi All -Would appreciate thoughts on a GTX285 vs. GTX470 for FSX. The thing is they are actually priced about the same right now. Nominally you would think to go with the 470 in that regard of course, but with DX10 constrained FSX is it safer to go with the 285 from a driver standpoint etc. The real benefits for the 470 appear to be marginal from what I have read here and I do not need DX11 for anything else. Would I be better off with the 285 since it is optimized for DX10 only, etc.? It is curious to me that they are priced comparably.Thanks,Fred

I have a dedicated computer for FS. Recently I reloaded FS9 and FSX onto a new separate Raptor drive. WindowsXP resides on the original IDE drive with the paging file there. I found a performance improvement doing so. I have not really checked but perhaps I am getting better utilization of the dual CPU cores.I run with an ASUS P5N32SLI-SE motherboard, E6600 C2Duo, evga 7950GT KO video board, 3gig Kingston HyperX memory.For FSX at New York I get 18-20 FPS on the ground with sliders set at 60-100% max, 20%AI, 50% traffic, 1600x1200 resolution. I do run with autogen off since I never have liked the cartoonish look. However autogen detail is set at 100% to fully display the charateristic main buildings and visual features in major cities.I do get some stuttering on fast turns on the ground. Certainly not smooth, but not unreasonable either. Only tweak employed is the BUFFER POOL set at 10,000,000. I find this helps the stuttering somewhat. Fred

This is an interesting idea.I am actually impressed by FSX performance in the air considering the amount of terrain data that is being processed - such really would have bogged down FS9. Weather performance has also improved dramatically. I find I can throw any kind of weather situation at FSX with minimal impact on performance - a hugh improvement over FS9.The thing that is really confounding and very curious though is the airport performance. Especially since if you eliminate airport traffic features and autogen etc. there really is not much difference in airport detail versus FS9, yet there is a hugh comparative performance hit.Why is that? Is the redesigned terrain engine operating at the expense of airport priority? One would think that this is fixable. Perhaps there is hope for the promised DX9 version patch after all!Fred

Hi -I just installed the ASUS P5N32-SLI SE and Core2 6700 with 3 GB Kingston HyperX memory. Works great!Fred

In theory, the dual core should knock the socks off the single core. However there is enough evidence in the various threads here and elsewhere that would suggest that there is a real problem with FSX running under dual core architecture. There are some very conflicting polarized opinions on all this though.My situation is much like yours. I am in the process of upgrading from my old P4C800-E AGP-based mobo. I am going with a P5N32-SLI SE Deluxe with an EVGA 7950GT KO videocard. To satisfy my own curiosity about FSX (and FS9) performance I will be testing a dual core (E6600) versus a single core (P4 3.6) in this setup. I have just acquired all the parts and will be doing my build within the next week.I have a Wideview setup with 3 views. My intent is to upgrade for each view. So as I work through this I will be able to perform side-by-side on-the-fly comparison testing to take into account exact setting and precise location comparisons for each cpu.Fred

Sounds more and more like FSX might be the end-of-the-line for PC-based flight sims. Microsoft may very well go in the direction of Xbox, particularly if a complete code rewrite is involved. Also creates more business opportunity - just think, every 3 years flight sim enthusiasts will not only need to shell out $49 for the software but also $600 for a new game box to keep current.Fred

I know this has been touched on in some of the discussion threads, but I thought I might pose the question more directly. Since FSX (and FS9 of course) is not optimized for taking advantage of a dual core CPU architecture would a high speed single core (e.g., a P4 3.8) actually produce better performance over a lower speed dual core (e.g. a Pentium D 2.6 and lower)? And at a cheaper price to boot! This might explain why some with older single core CPUs are reporting better results than more current dual core CPU users. Could related chipset architecture also be a factor in the same regard?Fred

I have been using system cache with as little as 1GB RAM for about 2 years without any problems whatsoever - see lengthier reply posted in other thread.Fred

Hi All -Just for the record....I have been using the system cache option with FS9 for over two years now yielding modest performance improvement without any kind of system problems whatsoever(i.e., crashes etc.). I run a Wideview setup with 3 views. Each computer is set to the system cache option. Am currently using 2GB Kingston PC3200 HyperX on 2 computers ([email protected]) and 1GB Samsung PC1066 RDRAM on the older computer (P4 2.53)(4 years old). Video cards are Nvidia AGP versions(6800Ultra and5900Ultra). All are dedicated FS computers.Again, I do see what I characterize as modest improvement. Adding more RAM as suggested could conceivably yield more significant improvement, particularly for FSX one would think.I do not yet have FSX - I am planning to upgrade my entire hardware setup to current leading edge once Vista and DX10 are available next year. I plan not even to look at FSX until then (but have been following the threads here on the forum with much interest).Home flying base is metro New York (Newark). Am using MegaScenery wherever available and prefer to fly in those areas. Sliders at or approach max in most cases. No autogen (don't like the phony looks). No AI (unfortunately Wideview does not support). FPS never less than 20 except in severe weather/clouds conditions.Bottomline - Don't be afraid to try the system cache option! Documentation I have indicates it can be used with as little as 256MB ram (reference textbook by Cowart and Knittel).Has anyone actually personally experienced a detrimental result using system cache? Such would be interesting to know of course.Fred

As mentioned previously it would be helpful for Microsoft to comment on all this. They are the ultimate authority on how it works - I would assume they would have to know. If they don't however, then just say so. Why are they reluctant to comment here?Very frustrating indeed!