Jump to content

lost16

Frozen-Inactivity
  • Content Count

    34
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No
  1. The Caravan is nose heavy with that big PT-6a in it. Kodiak has similar nose drop.
  2. The actual engine that renders the graphics is different from the API(advanced programming interface). In simplistic terms think of the graphics engine as your car and the API as a kind of fuel. For example Crysis uses the Crytec(2 I think) engine and it is designed to use DX9 and DX10. For the same engine to run DX11 would require some revision (but not much). The engine that renders Flight Simulator has more in common with the graphics engine that runs Wing Commander 3,4 and Prophecy than the Crytec engine as they depended almost entirely on CPU power to render graphics unlike most graphics engines today which rely on the GPU to take the lead in rendering the pixels you see on your screen. I don't know if my explanation is in any way accurate but I'm sure someone will correct me if it isn't. Will
  3. People tend to forget that the reason we have FSX in its present state was the cost of replacing FSX's terrain/graphics engine. Phil and crew wanted to rewrite it, but MS nixed it on cost grounds. That alone causes most of the headaches in running FSX. The graphics engine is still a mish-mash of FS 7,8,and 9 code at its heart. Using the same engine would NOT solve anything as it is a SOFTWARE renderer not a HARDWARE renderer. That is why FSX and previous editions are so CPU dependant. This time, I hope MS has learned it's lesson and gives Flight a hardware driven graphics engine(like every other PC game out there) so that it will work much better across a wider rande of PC/Windows platforms. Will
  4. Turning off Hypertheading is best help for stutters with I7's. Disable it in your bios since there are no apps that utilize virtual cores anyways.Will
  5. By that time Intel's new Gulftown should be out (6 cores 12 threads) but still using x58 architecture. I suspect 2 more cores will not make FSX run any better though,lolWill
  6. Unfortunately there will be immediate fallout in the FS third party add-on developers. For example I can see Saitek curtailing their Pro Flight system peripherals. Without MS developing FS11 there will be little to attract new users to the FS community and therefore fewer yokes, throttles, headsets and switches will be sold and no incentive to develop new equipment that is affordable to the average simmer. It will probably be the end of royalty free payware add-ons if FS is sold to another software publisher as they will seek to maximize profits in every way possible. Will
  7. MS is after profits to impress Wall Street after the latest numbers came out today which were bad for them. Flight Simulator has a limited base to draw on for potential profits, while console gaming and MP3 provide exponetial base compared to FS. Sombody will probably buy the FS franchise and continue to run with it. I'm sure they had one of those meetings recently where the execs came out with the proclamation that they must focus on their core products (the OS and Office) and expand into areas where they will find increased profitability (consoles and music). Which is why the money losing Zune will go on (have to compete with Apple). ACES is a casuality of bean counters trimming the so called "fat" in MS. I'm sure there was a lot of "fat" trimmed in other divisions, other MS products curtailed or cut (at least 5000 jobs, probably more as MS "refocuses"). I am sorry that people lost their jobs but with consumers pulling back and not purchasing like they used to its the beginning of a vicious cycle. People cut back, buisiness cuts back with layoffs and consumers cut back further and business responds in kind with further layoffs so they can post decent numbers for the Street.
  8. At least 4 options1. FS franchise goes into long term holding pattern (3-4 years for next version)2. MS concentrates on PC business and OS software ditches PC entertainment software to cut costs. Sells FS franchise3. EXP coming to shelf near you for 49.95 to recoup investment loses for MS 4. We all now eagerly await the next iteration of X-Plane since they're the only one left standing (ducks)
  9. A large part of the FPS hit on either rig is the choice of using the Flight 1 ATR. Aside from issues with Sp2 and Vista64, it is just a conversion. Model was built using FS9 SDK and just ported over to run on FSX. To see an example of this use a Carenado 182Q FS9/adapted for FSX, then use the newer FSX/DX10 182Q (model converted to FSX SDK format). Even on my old E6700, I get a 10+ fps difference between the two. I think a more objective evaluation would be using FSX scenery, FSX optimized complex A/C (PMDG MD-11 comes to mind), FSX SDK built AI (not the current FS9 AI that is mostly being used now) and FSX weather program (ASX,FTX,REX)
  10. If bus speed is key to graphic card edge, why not use Nvidia's 260 or 280 cards,(448 bit and 512 bit memory buses respectively vs 384 bit for Ultra)? And both have more memory that the 8800 Ultra (896 mb and 1 gb vs 768 mb)? As for driver issues, I'm getting used to the black squares and rectangles when I pan too fast with just about every version of Nvidia drver software.
  11. Yes, but how else can you get a VC for a -700 or -600 that works in FSX? My problem was just getting the default cockpit controls to function in the merge just like the FSX 738. That was my question.Will
  12. With everyone following the saga of getting the POSKY B777 to work with FSX, has anyone followed up on this? http://forum.projectopensky.com/index.php?...6&hl=737+VC+fsxI managed to get the default B737 VC installed in a POSKY B737-800 and 700 model but ran into two problems. First I coulnd't match the exact viewpoint in the FSX B737 VC, so instead of being in the seat, I am in the seat back, Secondly, the controls don't work when using the mouse. Asking about this got the standard, "We do not support this.", even though they enabled this for FSX. Glad to get a working VC, even if I have to do the legwork myself. So I'm throwing the question out on this forum Any ideas?Will
  13. It's just an analogy. Replace physical with verbal and it does fit what has been read on these forums. They get everything from polite critcism to poorly written, uninteligible cursing and flaming. And the opposite is also true. Everything from kind enthusiasm to outright a really excited user worship (couldn't come up with less contentious analogy in short time, lol) has also been written on these forums. The point of the mob is that it contains all of these kinds of personalities as does the FS community. But the ones the scream, "foul" will always appear to be louder than the cheerleaders as that is the nature of things. Just consult your local newspaper for affirmation. Hopefully the lesson taken from FSX and its predecessors is that Vnext will be optimized for middle of the road PC's in the near future, not two years plus, down the road, on release day. Of course it will not stop the sixty-something retiree or the kid with the hand-me down computer from complaining that it doesnt run with all the bells and whistles on their five year old computers. But it will result in fewer complainers and more enthusiasts joining the FS ranks. Will
  14. Well I fixed my problem. (sort of). I re-installed St. Maarten Complete without the custom water class, birds and dolphins, extra boats and ships and vehicle traffic. Why the designer didn't use fsx default vehicle and waterborne trafic around the airports, I don't know. Only gained 5-6 fps on runway at St. Maarten, but went back up to 30+ fps once in air, using Vdense autogen. Noticed that the airport at St Maarten doesn't use pop up autogen like every other object in FSX. The only other product that I have seen that uses fixed land autogen is Venice X. Fixed autogen takes larger fps hit than pop up autogen it seems. Still something about the runway that FSX does not like. At least its better now. Thanks for the offer. Will
  15. For my specs they were great when FSX first rolled out. Dell xps 420 E6700 2.66Ghz (1066 FSB) 4GB 533Mhz DDR2 Samsung 500MB HD 7950 GT 512MB (now 8800GT 512MB 650Mhz) Sound Blaster X-fi Fatality Extremegamer Vista 64 I can run default St. Maarten locked at 31fps on the runway. in a cessna caravan, with AI locked at 100%(UT) cars 25%, boats and ships 50%. Autogen is at Very Dense. Unlimited frame lock causes major fps surges for me, so I lock it at 31 which is half of my monitors refresh rate. Also using Nhancer with 8xS combined AA, 16x AF, and Vsync forced on. On FlyTampa's, I get 12fps on the runway, goes up to about 18-25 over water with any portion of scenery in view with no Aircraft AI cars 12%, boats and ships 35%. Autogen is at dense Short of replacing CPU with q6700 (can't upgrade memory since MB only takes 533 or 667 and can't overclock), I'm just waiting to see what comes out. Most of FSX's problems ( in my experience) are in how it's engine renders textures. Flying over any heavily forested areas, mountains, etc. and getting major FPS surges, no mater what autogen settings for me is an example fo this, or textures that sharpen up right under the aircraft on dense or very dense autogen is another example. Just my experience (yours will vary, lol) Will
×
×
  • Create New...