lost16

The Caravan is nose heavy with that big PT-6a in it. Kodiak has similar nose drop.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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)

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)

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Bottom line is that MS flubbed FSX. ACES was run over by MS marketing in tying FSX, Dx10, et al to Vista (another not ready for prime-time product, lol), when dx10 for FSX didnt't actually exist at that time in Aug, 2006. Phill inhereted a FSX that was esentially new code on top of old code going back to FS98. The original team leader who is no longer around to get flamed for the choices he made and the resulting consequences, is probably telling Phill, "I told you so", in reference to reaching out to the FS community. I dont think that the communication between MS and us was a corporate thing as much as it was an ACES initiative to improve relations between 3rd party developers and the community at large. In the beginning, Phill and various team members approached us with a "glass is half full" attitude towards FSX, but in the end it was the nearly two years of constant bashing and flaming by various end users and some 3rd party developers with the attitude of the "glass is half empty" attitude and maybe overall fatigue with dealing with the constant negativity that made Phill pull the plug on that initiative for now. Does FSX deserve the ire it generates? Yes, it does because we bought it with the promise that it woud be fixed and the fixes were inadequate in the eyes of a large number of end users. Could FSX be fixed? Sure. but nothing short of a major rewrite would do that and MS accounting would not approve the money for all of the man-hours involved in that just for essentially gaming software. If we all were individual companies, paying licensing fees to use FSX instead of just individuals, that rewrite would be done without question, but it is what it is. As an early adopter, FSX has been nothing short of frustrating through RTM to SP1 and 2, with all of the money spent on hardware and the countless hours of tweaking to get more FPS. But get a 3PD add on like FlyTampa's St. Maarten complete for example and get prepared for at least a 10fps + hit on FSX, which has essentially no overhead, unless you turn the graphics way down. I hope the next generation of CPU's and RAM coming this fall will allow FSX to be run like FS9 is now, but I'm not holding my breath. So just move those sliders to the left and try to enjoy FSX or go back to FS9 because all of the complaining and flaming will not change anything. If there is to be any fix, it will probably be up to a 3PD or a talented individual(s) to come up with one, not ACES or MS.

Just one question, is the DX10 upgrade 10.0 or 10.1? MS decided to come out with new DX10 spec called 10.1 and NO current DX10 vid card on market uses 10.1, which is supposed to be part of Vista SP1.

I actually bought Florence and it is a nice little airport(having been there a few times a long time ago. Yes, ACES did create good looking large airports for FSX (lax and ksfo for example). But in FSX, generic looking medium and smaller airports are the rule. With all the extra autogen available I see FSX as more of a regional, small airport sim and as airlines are trying to fly more point to point than hub to hub, this fits right in. Even with Penryns or Barcelonas and nvidia 9 series or ATI r700's, FSX will not be able to max out AI aircraft, cars, ships, weather, lens flare, light bloom, etc. at large airports and large cities. DX10 has more effects like HDR for example that may find its way into FSX. On the other hand, at medium and smaller destinations it will be easier to have an airport and city full of AI and autogen and get decent frame rates which will help make FSX a more immersing experience. Now only if third party add on companies can make realistic regional aircraft that don't suck up 10+fps in VC mode, lol. I would like to see more sceneries in the same 1.2M resolution like the default St. Maarten, Rio and Vegas. Especiallv Carribean islands (there is a lot of opprtunity for third party developers here). For example Tropicalsim has Flamingo Airport for the island of Bonaire (near TNCM). In default FSX, Bonaire is a desert with a few trees, A tank farm, and a generic small airport and no visible houses or roads. This is an example of where an airport+city is necessary.

Unfortunately you can't fix it. Just another side effect of the tweaking to get more FPS for lower end computer and dual core users. When sp-1 loads textures it seems to prioritize lower resolution textures first, then it goes back and adds the higher resolution textures and autogen around the aircraft. The second loading does notwork properly and that is why you get ground textures forming at max resolution right around the A/C in flight. Just try high speed (above 250kts) and you will get blurries if you are only a few thousnd feet up. Toss it into the same category as autogen popping. You can live with it,uninstall SP-1 or go back to FS9. Did you get fewer textures popping into focus with the lines added to your config than without?

No 8800 here, just old 7950 o'ced with 162.18 drivers and using Nhancer created game profile (deleted nvidia's profile for FSX from control panel). But, if you go and look at Tom's Hardware (they have a card comparison using FSX as test subject), there is not much spread in the performance of FSX with an 8800 series vs a 7 series card other than amount of RAM on card. Those two lines go in your FSX Config under GRAPHICS, just as I typed them. HTH Will

I'm guessing that your referring to textures increasing resolution right under your aircraft? Your videocard is having to make multiple passes to get the textures to show up at the desired resolution. The best that you can do is to minimize this effect. Have you tried these lines in your config? Under graphics add: DirtyRegionUpdateLimit=0 MergeDirtyRegionUpdates=1 Will Also change your water to 2x low reduces passes that card has to make

I suspect it has to do more with shader two vs. shader three performance. FSX still uses shader two's while most dx9 games have moved to shader three. I recall reading on a forum about how shader two performance has dropped 150% (their numbers, not mine, lol) with each driver revision from nvidia since the 84 series till now. So the equlity in performance between high end and low end video cards may have to do with driver revisions from ATI and Nvidia that cater to shader three perfomance in newer, more high demand games, while shader two performance has been ignored as it is "old". With dx10 and shader four this will change again and you will see FSX benefitting from high end cards as will all dx10 games. And of course I could be totally wrong but it's the only thing that makes sense to me from my perspective.Will

This 777-200 is actually a port from another fs9 product by aerosim called Shuttle Flight. Its on the Japanese version of web site and has the same exact 777 and cockpit shown in pictures along with a 777-300 and 747-400 and multiple Japanese airports. The english web site made it sound like it was all new for FSX. You live and learn..

Pulled the trigger and bought. Exterior model is nice some, has raised detail around tail area and things like vents on exterior too. Going into VC however showed things were different than expected. Looks dated not as nice as pics on website. Lettering fonts in VC looked like just from old IFly 747. very low resolution and textures make this model appear to be a FS9 port. Panel screens had blue gray tint instead of black tint. Upper VC panel has better raised detail than Lvl-D's 767. The bad came with flight model though. Got good frame rates with FSX (7 to 10 FPS better than Lvl-D). Pitch rate average or above for airliner of this size, however roll rate was way off more like a default baron or caravan. Took out the level-d 767 and default 747 for comparison. They rolled at much lower rate than AeroSim's 777 and are similar aircraft. Do not recommend unless AeroSim fixes and updates VC textures and flight model. Maybe A FMC would be appropriate since this is only $5.00 cheaper than Wilcos (which has a bugged FMC). I'm out 35.00 as AeroSim takes the same policy as SimMarket, no refunds, buyer beware (But that I knew going in so its on me). Hopefully there will be a patch but I'm not holding my breath. This is only after 10 min of flying it. Haven't use navigation yet.Will

Update: Tried using Nhncer with other programs. Apparently Nhancer cannot set AF anymore in any game. So nhancer has problem with new driver or bug in nivida driver (no surprise there). Uninstall Nhancer and reinstall and see what happens. Will