Jump to content

tohughes76

Members
  • Content Count

    66
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    KSVH

Flight Sim Profile

  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    IVAO
  • Virtual Airlines
    Yes
  1. Craig:What depiction mode are you using-standard, smooth cloud transitions or DWC? Each has their own trade-offs to deal with FSX limitations (wind shifts, etc), but I find standard is most like ASE in its enroute weather coverage.
  2. The 'cheat' HiFly and I described is workable in the advanced settings tab of FSX wx, but won't work if you are using real time AS weather...this would be a static weather conditon.
  3. Just went back and reviewed my saved wx files and remembered that the clouds/winds were saved in different layers but the vis was a single value. Getting the overcast deck appearance in AS2012 worked best at 1/2 mile vis with a ceiling layer bottoming out at 200 agl. I was remembering my testing back and forth with manual wx settings in FSX...my apologies.What you can do manually in the advanced weather tab in FSX that you can't replicate in AS is the overcast layer with 1/16th vis and have the surface layer with unrestricted visibility (or whatever value you prefer). This gives the "popping out' effect descending or climbing out of the layer. Perhaps adding layers of visibilities in the Edit Wx function would be a good additon in a future SP if it is possible...
  4. Craig:I have been using this method for some time. Even though the real time weather in AS doesn't use this technique, you can apply the same idea in AS 2012 by creating situations you described above in the 'Edit Wx' tab and saving them as .AST files for repeated use. For instance, I have a 'Low IFR' situation with a layer of clouds from 200-4000 ft and 1/16th mile vis, then a layer of 1/2 mile vis from 200 ft down to the surface. That gives me a pretty realistic depiction of weather right at most ILS minimums.Once you create and save your weather scenarios, under the 'Map' tab they will be available to you in the Drag and Drop Wx window. Makes it easy to fly where you want with whatever weather you want...much easier than having to manually do it every time in FSX's weather feature.
  5. If you check the ATIS, you will probably see a bunch of runways you didn't think existed at CLT. Try unchecking MyTrafficX in your scenery library after that and see if the problem still exists.If it goes away, you may want to head over to their forum and see if it isn't an AFCAD issue for that particular airport in MyTrafficX.
  6. I have had much success and am very pleased with SP2/Accel. I have pretty much remained in the DX10 preview mode since the switch, only to return to DX9 when I want to use the Flight1 C172 or the Carenado C182. I understand from the 'Disappointment with SP2' thread why these add-ons don't currently work, but I have yet to hear the status of these issues with DX10:1. Flashing runway/taxiway textures at intersections2. Jagged cockpit shadowsI have not yet seen any indication of who is working towards a solution for these issues, or if they will be dealt with at all. It would be my assumption that these are driver issues, so is Nvidia testing a fix? Is ACES communicating with Nvidia about the issue? Or are these just accepted problems that will remain? Lastly, are there any add-on devs that are planning on putting cockpit shadows in their aircraft that have an understanding of the problem?
  7. Here is an example of the manual way to do it from the B733MX aircraft.cfg: //{exits} number_of_exits = 2 exit.0 = 0.4, 19.1, -6.0, 2.0, 0 exit.1 = 0.4, -32.0, 4.5, -3.0, 1 Just two forward slashes in front of the bracketed exits header disables the jetways as they now have no where defined to attach to on the plane. I didn't do every aircraft, only the ones that would use jetways at a large airport. Still a lot of files to edit, but it was worth the performance gain. Looks like things are well under way from the MTX gang to do this the easy way, though.
  8. Perhaps if there was a file the likes of the 'performance_models' batch file that would remove exit headers from all of the models. In the same way that you now have performance and quality conversion files, there could be 'jetways' and 'no jetways' files. That way the user could easily switch between the two.Great work on the new planes, by the way. I have been following the new aircraft threads on the MTX forum with great anticipation...
  9. Looking forward to that option. I have been using MTX with great success...I am currently using it in DX10 mode using the revised schedule posted on the MTX forum for SP2 compatible models. There is only about a 1-2 fps drop at KSEA when I move the traffic sliders from 0 Airline/0 GA to 50/50 (that is a lot of movements). Of course, I avoided the perf hit of the jetways by commenting out the exit entries in all of the models. Before that, it was about a 6-7 FPS drop while the jetways were in motion. To tell you the truth, I have never really paid attention to the jetways attaching to the AI aircraft. That would be a great option to choose from...hope to see that in MTX 5.1b!
  10. For those fortunate enough to be able to attend the event in Seattle, was there any major news to share? In particular, any word on:-The status of DX10 driver issues in SP2 from Nvidia or ACES?-Any announcements about upcoming FSX add-ons, such as Ground Environment X?
  11. Mine sat on the desk for about a week before installing it, just daring me to try. I did just what you did for SP1...a clean wipe then reinstall everything. Defrag at each step, driver cleaning, and registry checking. Checked all the latest posts for tips that promised success. First run looked very promising in DX9 mode. Everything ran really well, less microstutters than I had previously experienced. Flying around Seattle with fairly high settings stayed around 15fps, and much better everywhere else. The thing I noticed most is that even at 15fps, without stutters it is quite flyable. So much so that I now run locked at 20 instead of 30 as it provides a much more consistent experience. I also noticed that the tiles around the aircraft loaded much more efficiently. Even the UTX roads which seemed to never sharpen up in SP1 were working well. Looks like the TBM and SWTO tweaks in combination with the new nhancer controlling the AA and AF were doing the trick in SP2. I could hardly wait to check that DX10 box and finally see what the 8800GTX was capable of...Ugh. When I first restarted FSX in DX10 mode it was awful. Jaggies, blurries and rotten frame rates. Exactly what I had read about on the forums that kept me from installing Accleration right away. How could the DX9 be so much better and DX10 be such a disappointment? So I went back and enjoyed the success of DX9 for a day or two before coming back to try my hand at DX10 again. I decided to try undoing the settings in nhancer that provided the great performance in DX9 and Voila! I set AA and AF for application controlled, then enabled them in the settings in FSX...DX10 was now running strong. 20 fps solid around Seattle so long as I kept the AI traffic at reasonable settings. Textures are razor sharp. Water is now up to mid 2x and bloom is on. The bloom is much different than in DX9, much less star like in appearance and more of a glow or glare. All in all a lot of improvement over SP1...it was worth all of the effort of a clean install in my case.Of course, there are problems that are well documented here. The cockpit shadows are jagged and the taxiway and runway textures tend to flash. I think that these are definitely fixable issues with a little cooperation between ACES and nvidia on the next round of drivers. I am keeping my fingers crossed that as the drivers mature the performance can get even better. Moral of the story is if you have the software in your hands and avoided the install, it is worth a try. Just be prepared to do some tweaking. The hardest part is that the tweaks that work can only be discovered on your own system by you.
  12. Thank you Jeff...truer words were never spoken. A very well thought, intelligent, and pertinent post. Should be required reading for every poster in AVSIM!
  13. FSX is a beauty to behold, but I have to admit that the first six months of owning this sim was spent tweaking, not flying. Every flight was only a validation of either a .cfg adjustment or some tip that I picked up on one of the many forums. Reminded me a lot of the late nights changing IRQs or paring down the config.sys and autoexec.bat just to get any number of games to run in Win 3.11 or, worse yet, the first iteration of Windows 95 (read: Nascar Racing, Wing Commander, or any early Lucas Arts game).For many years it seemed like that was the norm...software was always well ahead of hardware, at least in the gaming world. Then slowly it evolved. Perhaps it was first person shooters that finally ran great out of the box on current hardware- any of the Id titles post 2000 seemed to have cracked the code for instant gratification. Slowly the tide turned for most of the software that interested me, except for, alas, the flight sim. Mind you, there is a satisfaction that comes with the tinkering involved in the quest for FPS. I truly try to look at the flight sim as not just a game, simulation, training tool, or piece of software. I like think of it as a hobby-in the sense of model trains. It is as simple or as complex as you are willing to make it. You can either just set up the oval track as it came in the original set, or you can create and entire world where you scrutinize every detail down to the vending machines in the train station and spend countless hours making paper mache mountains. For me, the configuration of the sim is just part of the journey, and the add-ons are like a trip to the hobby shop to add more to my world. That said, I think ACES is right to be forward looking in their development. Each iteration of the sim has a lot longer life than 95 percent of simulations/games on the market. I also believe like others in this thread have pointed out that ACES was thrown a curve ball with the multi core processors, and in the absence of that would have delivered a product that would have satisfied a much broader base of simmers (not just the tinkerers). Given ACES involvement in user feedback and making things right with two service packs, I can only be optomistic that the lessons learned from FSX will result in a much more mature product at release time with FS11.And to Jean Luc- thank you for a thought provoking thread. It is nice to see a forum full of insight and great discussion with valid points on both sides. I was really hoping that the 'AVSIM Opression" thread was not an indication of where we were headed.Regards, Tim
  14. Strong work Prof! I really have to believe that very few people have actually passed this ride...it takes a lot of patience to go through this over and over doing trial and error to figure out what exactly they are looking for. Things like having to maintain +/-10 on the heading while tracking a course line and the flawed holding procedure make this a tough nut to crack. MS might have done well to take a look at the FAA instrument practical test standards and made those the requirements to pass the ride instead of the gauntlet they have created. Or at least let you save the flight so you can pick up from where the last point you were successful. Really appreciate your efforts in sharing the "standards" with us. I might actually have to go give it another try now that I know what is required. And keep telling myself it's only a game...:-roll
  15. It distresses me that they know about the issue but try to tell me it is isolated to just my system. That sort of thing will discourage me from ever buying from them again. That's a shame FSD, otherwise you have a great product.
×
×
  • Create New...