flex42

That might really be the case since i have a GTX570 - certainly not the newest model - but with the settings set up pretty low it should hanlde it.

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

I hope they develop something that the airport doesn't take about 5seconds to load when approaching it - that might be horrible in a busy online environment. I noticed that these loading-moments get longer with every scenery they release - in CYVR it feels like an eternety and i always think it crashed.... Other sceneries of that size don't have these (noticable) loading times (like OMDB, KIAD,...)

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!

Flytampa has recently stated that they are done with FS9. All for good reasons.

Do you have a link for that? As far as I'm aware, YSSY is planned for FS9.

Except Flytampa's airports don't have the awesome ground textures/shaders that FSDreamteam does (or moving jetways, or dynamic shadows). And they are NOT DX10 compatible. Yes they look pretty nice but its obvious that they arnt as advanced as far as FSX only features are concerned.

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'm SO glad they don't FS9 it.

 

Since FSX users are the VASTLY OVERWHELMING majority right now, developing to be still compatible with FS9 means they would have to limit the FSX version in what it can do, which instead IS a "great offense" to FSX users, because by keep using FS9 methods and technologies in FSX, we undermine the quality of the FSX version of the product, and we are killing our future, because we can't keep innovating with new stuff because, if you haven't noticed, with *each* new scenery we added a new feature, which is constantly putting away from FS9, at to the point that with KIAH, there's now way we could do it in FS9, other than redoing from *scratch*, as if it was another separate product.

 

quote from Virtuali http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=7358.msg64749#msg64749

 

AMEN brother.

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.

<br />For example, WofAI traffic... If the original modellers AND the WofAI folks gave permission to do so, why couldn't we keep updating them with new paints, new additions to their fleets, new flight schedules etc? Of course, the reality is that many of us will probably be doing that anyway for our own use... As long as permission has been given, couldn't we then upload them to AVSIM so the whole community can benefit?<br />

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.

Not true. Nothing is better in FS9, not even performance. Not anymore.

 

It's old, superseded and should just be forgotten.

: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.

The fact that the FSX fan-boys cannot keep out of the FS9 forums speaks volumes. :biggrin:

 

I would like to see the mods putting a ban on the likes of Mr Pinto etc from using the FS9 forums.

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?

I do like FSX because at 1-3000 feet in a small airplane, like I do in real life, it looks much better than FS9 especially in ORBX country and I have good performance. IT is also very immersive with all the stuff going on on the ground with people walking around doing their stuff.

 

BUT I fly mostly on VATSIM in airliners or bigger props and at FL150 and above good looking ground textures is nice to have, but not important. Instead I appreciate a stable sim that I can thrust will still be running a few hours later when I land. And eg KORD from FSDT looks basically the same in FS9 as in FSX, but I have 40-50 higher FPS in FS9 and the smoothness that brings is very important to me. I do miss the so far greatest airplane add-on for MSFS, PMDG 737NGX, but I still have extra-ordinary planes like LevelD, PMDG MD11 and 747, Maddog, Aeroworx Kingair 200, DF727 and many more that are more than enough to keepnme busy and happy.

 

The iFly 737 for Fs9 may not be quite on par with the PMDG737NGX, but it's still extemely impressive. Then I have Activesky Enhanced, REX, GE Pro and others that pushes FS9 close to FSX. Not to mention SB4 that actually works in the sim...

 

Would I prefer to use FSX and throw out FS9? Probably, but it's just too much fuzz to get it working and It's just a reboot away from behaving nicely to getting gremlings into the sim. I have lots of add-ons for both sims so that is not the issue. And I ALWAYS fly in VC with FS9 I simply rather sit in a 3 hour session with the iFly 737 with slightly less systems depth but with high fps, than in the superior PMDG 737NGX in a sim with 15-16 fps that can stop working anytime.

 

And I DON'T have an old computer. It's not superquick but still an i7 2500K@4,5 GHz, 6 GB RAM and a Asus 660 Ti videocard running Win 7 64 with only flighsim stuff installed. I am actually fed up with FSX fan boys saying FS9 is just for simmers with old hardware who flies in 2d cockpit only!!!

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.

Holy moly, 5 to 8 FPS at FSDT's Zurich. How is that possible?

 

This is the mystery of FSX, how some people with great rigs get such rotten FPS while others with older hardware get good FPS. I've got that same scenery and get easily 25+ FPS even with all the traffic maxed out, but no cars on the highway. Can't blame you for going FS9 with FPS like that, I would most likely do the same.

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.

The original Feelthere Airbus Series love it or hate it is the best represented Airbus for FS9. Airsimmer doesn't work for many people including myself plus it doesn't include the whole series.

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.

To assume companies will forever cater to an 8+ year old sim is, in my mind, unreasonable.

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?

Maybe, but they are comparing the same aircraft. If the FS9 version of the same aircraft in FSX had 25% sales, that's a pretty sound number. Actually, I seem to recall that number --or something close to it-- thrown around when PMDG decided to stop FS9 development.

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.

You mentioned you want to fly for the realism of flying a/c that mimic their real world counterparts, you need to check out the stuff by A2A, RealAir, and PMDG's latest offerings. Having FS9 still installed on my rig, I can tell you that those developers FSX a/c are way better than anything I have ever flown in FS9. However you also said that you put "AI simulation at a higher priority", assuming you prefer lots of AI than actually how an a/c flies.

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.

That's simply means your FSX AI, even if "95% native", were either too complex or, even if they were native, they weren't so much optimized. Saying "80% AI" also doesn't say anything, without comparing both their schedules and complexity settings in the FS9 and the FSX version of the AI package you were using AND comparing their number of polygons too. If FS9 is drawing 100 AIs at 80% with 2000 polygons each, and FSX is drawing 200 AI at 80% (because the schedule might not be the same) with 5000 polygons each, it means FS9 is drawing 200K polygons for the AIs while FSX is drawing 1M of polygons for AI so, even if FSX did that at HALF the fps, it means FSX WAS FASTER, because it was doing 5 times more work, in only double the time.

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.

Such comparison aren't saying anything, unless you both indicate your system AND what you installed in FSX. Meaning, how many of the addons you listed are fully using FSX (were those 80% AI entirely FSX native ? ), which includes everything, scenery, AIs and airplane used.

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

KDFW is incredibly good performing in FSX, which is why we went ahead with KLAX and pushed those techniques even further (KLAX use shaders even on the buildings, not just the ground), which is why KLAX in FS9 is even worse compared to the FSX version which looks much better, which also why we decided that KLAX would have been our last product for FS9,

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

Okay no duplicates, I'll see if any other scenery is impacting my FPS

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

As I recall, KDFW was optimized for FSX and ported to FS9... Make sure you have installed the latest version updates and go to the FSDT site and download the texture resizer they furnish - the DFW textures are large and will slow down some systems in FS9. The FS9 Addon Manager doesn't provide the performance adjustments that are present in FSX.

 

DJ

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.

Look at the German Airports Team, Sim-Wings, FlyTampa, Drzewiecki Design, UK2000 or FSDT (except KLAX, that's another story).

Their FS9 products are fully blown versions with only those limitations that really exist from the technical point of view and are impossible to jump over. And that is so clear and fair!

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.

I don't want to try it!!!!! All my other aircraft PMDG, WILCO, iFLY etc work ok with my setup , I have 3 joysticks connected and all have axis assigned, none of my other payware products have any problem with that. I WILL NOT make any exception for Airsimmer, that's why I will make a refund, and I will buy QW Bae 146 which, I don't think will have any problems with all my joysticks setup.IF Airsimmer will make the airbus to work like all other products I WILL BUY IT again, I LOVE AIRBUS SO MUCH!!!!!

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 think we should have more females around in the forums.

I know what you want! :LMAO:

Unfortunately there is something wrong in human nature. You can see it in other aspects of life too.

People throwing stones (or worse) at people believing other religions or prefering different love.

Groups of 'fans' kicking someone's head just because he crossed his fingers for another football club.

Or, in a lighter version of course, the old 'Airbus vs Boeing' I bullsh#t.

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

Ian, now I must be the only FS9er not having the QW146 yet!

But I promise once I overcome my general graphics problems, I will add it to my virtual hangar.

Most people seem to enjoy it, so I see no reason why I couldn't too.

Especially when you read threads like this, seeing how FS9ers are treated by many FSXers:

http://forum.aerosof...rport-toulouse/

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

I use a 3.06 GHz quad, flying into FSDT Chicago with heavy layers of clouds, AI traffic at 100%, REX 2.0 lighting and the NGX.

My framerate is around 35.

 

It is possible.

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

Of course. Long gone are the problematic days of FSX... Which weren't a problem at all, there was just lack of info towards setting up FSX properly.

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