flex42

I don't believe it's a specs issue, I'm running a 4770k and a 4GB GTX680.

I have a feeling this maybe not be a scenery issue, but something related to their DRM, the Addon Manager. I have the same issue with Flightbeam airports (including KIAD). Quite nerve wrecking!

Do you have a link for that? As far as I'm aware, YSSY is planned for FS9. In my opinion, FSDT trails behind Flytampa, Flightbeam and 29 Palms, depite all the bells and whistles. Why? Again, in my view, FSDT aiports lack a certain "character" and feel industrialized to me. I own almost all of them, and probably will purchase KIAH also, but to me, they are a bit overrated.

I would recommend you and Virtuali took a look at Flytampa Dubai and Montreal, in both sim flavours. Then think about what inovation and quality really stands for.

I think I have some good news, and some bad news. The good news is that WOAI is a compilation of the necessary components to create AI in flight sim : Aircraft repaints and flightplans. WOAI uses widely available freeware resources, with their respective creators permission, and packages them in a ready-to-go, easy to use format. There still is a very healthy community of people working on these contents. Look at the at Avsim library, and you will find that a good percentage of the available files are AI repaints and flightplans and these are updated very often. If you wish so, you can create your own AI package yourself, for your own sim use. The tools are all there. I confess I am "AI addict", I started with some WOAI packages some years ago, but moved on to creating my own custom AI on my FS9 setup, using the resources that are made available by these great freeware developers. Right now I have 1679 AI files (airliner, military, GA...) on my scenery folder. My AI setup is kept as updated as possible, and spreads itself over 20GB in my HD. It's a constant work-in-progress. Right now, I have in the waiting line over 200 airlines (some quite small and exotic) waiting for a moment of my attention in order to be updated on my current sim setup. I recommend you visit the Alpha India Group website. It's the largest and greatest community dedicated to AI setup in flightsim. It's also home of AIFP, a very powerful tool that enables you to create "your own WOAI" packages in your sim. The bad news is that this activity is highly addictive. Beware that sometimes you will not fly in order to update one of your favorite airlines. And yes, forget about moving to FSX, AI is one of the things that FSX doesn't like very much and makes you pay with valuable frames per second.

:lol: Good luck in your next flight on your super-optimized-AI-less FSX. I don't know, maybe try to land with the NGX on brand new CYVR, really hope that you don't need to downgrade to regular textures to avoid OOMs. FSX is just great, and just by reading your post made me realize how dumb we all are. Thanks for your enlightment. I really don't understand the logic, each simmer is entitled to use the sim they prefer. What is the point of offending other users just because they use another sim? This. Fully agree with you, there are situations and usage models in which FS9 not only is competitive, but also a more stable and reliable platform. And each user has it's own sim preferences, so it's up to each one to find the best solution for its case.

We should be carefull stating that FSX is running full AI traffic, for some this means over 100 visible planes on screen, for others it's a couple of World of AI packages. It's also different running full AI traffic in an american airport (where the majority of planes are Boeing, which have FSX native AI models available) vs an european airport, where Airbus is predominant. AI traffic is a major FPS killer in FSX and is the reason I believe that there is still no HW solution available to run FSX under that specific scenario.

Can't argue with your experience. For those who have Airsimmer working tough, It's the sort of addon that gives you trouble at home with your wife. Finish a flight and you are wishing for another one :lol:

Welcome back

It's not a bad product, but it's not comparable to Ifly quality, to be honest. Altough it offers all the single aisle Airbus derivates, it feels like you're flying a Boeing in Airbus clothes. And the exterior models are not "payware quality", which will force you down the always tricky merge road. Can't comment on the VC quality as I uninstalled these planes before I entered my VC-only era. It does however give you integration with FS2Crew and a good representation of some of the Airbus systems. But don't expect something legendary.

Your logic neglects the fact that FSX is 6+ year old. If that was the only criteria, we would be all discussing MS Flight new DLC's or X-Plane 10 addon's, but we aren't, are we?

Yes, but if you think about it, this proportion has stabilized for quite some time now. It seems we have a good estimate of how many users did not transition to FSX and most likely won't in the forseeable future. Devellopers are in their own right to make their business decisions and we should respect them, even if we don't agree or they do not align with our wishes or expectations. What we, as a community should / must do is show our strenght. 25% of the market is still relevant, if we consider that the total flight sim user base is stable. How? Supporting FS9 devellopments. No point requesting further FS9 releases and not supporting them when they do exist. One example : I'm not a General Aviation fan, but I bought the new Carenado releases and these great little planes now serve as my "test new scenery" aircraft. Explore new go to market solutions. I've mentioned it before, I believe systems like Kickstarter can be a solution for devellopers to ensure a return on investment on these "niche" launches. Not sure if it would sell? Secure the sales before the actual work. Promote our sim. Not only positioning it as the best quality / performance ratio solution available for simming right now, but actually showing people what you can get in a highly customized FS9 environment. Screenshots, videos can show that FS9.5 is still alive and well and can benefit from new product launches, particularly new airports and aircraft with detailed VC. Ifly and Airsimmer have proven that they are possible. I believe that the future of FS9 is in our hands.

Hi, this was actually may statement. What I said was that I prefer flying with my full AI compared to some features that are more gimmicks than actual critical elements of the sim. For example, I prefer flying full AI vs. watching ultra high resolution cows. I would also prefer full AI vs. poodles or semi-dynamic scenery shadows. That's my view on this, I understand that others may have different preferences. You mentioned the higher complexity of FSX aircraft. I'm not a GA user. In my oppinion, at this point in time, only one FSX aircraft is clearly one step ahead : the NGX. Alternatives? I use the Ifly, which may not have all the visual quality, but system wise is a close match. Also, if you wish to have a realistic Airbus experience, there is only one good enough product available in the market, and that's the Airsimmer, FS9 only. I understand that evolution will bring better airbuses, the 777 and 747 to FSX and FS9 will probably be left behind. I'm well aware of this. Maybe sometime in the future, an HW solution is available in the market able to run FSX according to my preferences, who knows? I can say I've tried to move to FSX several times (as I did successfully from FS98 on). In the meantime, I have such an enjoyable FS9 setup that I can say if no more addons were released from this point on, I would still be extremely satisfied for years to come.

I don't disagree with that. But in the end it's a matter of user perception isn't it? I don't run Flight Sim to test the ammount of polygons it can render, I run it to get an experience that I consider matches my perception of reality. And I consider flying with these AI settings a higher priority than enjoying other FSX-only technologies that FSDT are bringing to the table. They look great, and many of those are real breakthroughs, but my aspiration (again, this is my personal view) for a realistic experience puts a full AI simulation at a higher priority. Also, I believe that most FSX AI native models do not increase model complexity versus their FS9 versions. I wasn't criticizing the optimization of FSDT FSX sceneries, as I said, they run very smoothly with no (or dramatically reduced - under my subjective criteria) AI, this is an issue with FSX and it's ability to run AI settings similar to the FS9 environment I use.

Just for the record, I was using QWings Avro jets (FS9 and FSX versions for a more direct comparison), Active Sky injected weather, REX, and of course, KDFW being a major American Airlines hub, around 95% of the AI aircraft are FSX native ( AI Aardvark revised Boeing and MD8x FSX models). Currently there are no Airbus FSX models, but they are very scarce in this scenery. I have an i7 920@ 4,2 GHz, an GTX 680 4GB, 6GB RAM, Windows 7 64 Bit. FSX runs fine for me IF I don't use AI. I just don't like flying ultra realistic addons in to ghost airports Best regards

Hi Umberto, I'm not debating about the merits of FSX. I'm an FS9 user, so my point of view will disagree with yours. I'm just trying to help this user to have good FPS on your scenery. It's a great one, so I think it's worth the effort. It is possible to have good frame rates in KDFW FS9. In fact, my experience is way better in FS9 in comparison with FSX. Using full custom AI, with almost 80 AI aircraft parked, QWings Avro jet in VC, FS9 offers me 35-45 FPS while FSX under the same variables gives me 12 to 15. My point is, and allow me the criticism, while FS9 vs FSX debates are always interesting, let's not skip the point : why does this user experience such bad FPS? Is it a config issue, is it a problem with the scenery, is it something he should look for. The standard answer should not be : move to FSX. Even if that's your oppinion - which I disagree, but nevertheless respect - I think the user is entitled to recieve support for his FS9 issues. As I said, FSDT FS9 has fine performance, and a computer that could run it in FSX, for sure can handle it in FS9. Best regards

Hi, Not sure if this is your case, but are you using ENB ? In my experience ENB can affect performance on some sceneries more than others, and if I recall, KDFW was one of those bad cases. Best regards

That may be true for some systems, but many should run fine. The fact is FSDT claims that many FS9 systems can't run their sceneries, and offer texture resizer tools to downgrade them. But I would recommend that before you downgrade your experience, search your scenery for dxt3 texture files without alpha channels. This is a MAJOR performance killer, and unfortunatelly is very common on FSDT sceneries. Sad that they consider themselves "state of the art" and never miss an opportunity to mistreat their FS9 user base, while failing to provide a product without this basic mistake.

I honestly can't believe that people are taking a side against Rob without knowing the full story. We're not talking about some unknown guy, this is the same Rob that went out of his way sorting out technical issues with this product. As many stated, for many, a not working product was turned in to the most enjoyable Airbus experience available to date in all sims. This is the same guy who analysed your FS9.cfg and fixed it, in many situations, case by case. So, not knowing the full details on this story, I will at least ask for some respect for Rob. I think that he as earned more than enough credit for that.

Totally agree, but I wouldn't put FSDT on the same bag. I own almost all their airports and the tendency for rushed, unpolished ports from FSX to FS9 has been increasing. The support also reflects that mindset, you feel like they're doing you a favour by offering an FS9 version, regardless of the fact you are a paying customer. Want a good example? http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=6473.0 Now German Airports, Sim-Wings, Flytampa, Drzewiecki or Uk2000 are a class of it's own, and in my oppinion, they offer the best sceneries for FS9. Regarding HESH, it's a shame that FSDG chose to treat FS9 this way. This was a must buy from me, and now I'm undecided. Specially after seeing that the photo scenery and autogen can be added in a couple of hours, with good results.

Just for the record, Rafal doesn't have any obligation to offer you help. Maybe next time you openly ask for support, first make up your mind if you are willing to accept it.

I know what you want! :LMAO: Indeed, at first I thought that it was just some kids having fun. When I've started to see established developers following the same path, I realized that this is lack of civism and a just reflex of our society. For example, it troubles me that people demand PC upgrades of over 1000€ as if it was the most natural thing to do, regardless of the current economic scenario. Lot's of people lost their jobs in the last few years. In the place I live, unemployment rate is over 15%. This is the world we are living in, some people living in highly developed countries are struggling to fulfill their basic needs. We must put these things in perspective before ostracizing someone that doesn't have the latest offer from Intel or isn't able to replicate their current FS9 payware library in FSX. Best regards

Really unfortunate. There are lots of examples of this kind of behaviour around this and other forums, even from devellopers. http://forum.avsim.net/topic/374032-qualitywings-bae-146/ http://forum.avsim.net/topic/370687-fs2004/ Why can't all respect each one's choices? Am I forced to fly at 8 FPS at EGLL just because everyone says it's better for me?? I'm currently building my 5th PC since FSX came out. I have an akward feeling that this may not be enough to run FSX satisfactory and according to MY preferences. Sorry for the off-topic. I really recommend the Leonardo Mad Dog if you're looking for a complex MD-80 Best regards

How many traffic BGLs do you have active in your scenery folder?

Sure... Let me just start up FSX on my 4,5Ghz machine and fly an approach to FSDT KJFK, with heavy AI (over 1500 traffic BGLs), with several weather layers, with dusk lighting, and flying a complex aircraft. A wonderfull and non problematic 10 FPS. I'm not saying most aren't pleased with their FSX experience, just asking for some respect for others which are not satisfied with it's performance and can get a better experience with FS9. By the way, those conditions would fit the PMDG 777 perfectly. Best regards