mixen82

correct, it doesn't matter what CPU you have, in the beginning there is some tweaking work to be done, with either Intel or AMD.

Ah I see, and yes - that is confusing indeed. But it also might indicate that there is more to do than just changing those values.

And there is absoutely nothing wrong about it. I have done exactly that.

Hi untoweechja, I'm afraid there is just no way to achieve that. As I mentioned, at the moment AMD cannot stand a chance against Intel. Even with massive overclocking AMDs don't come even close to their Intel counterparts. Don't get me wrong, for more than 10 years I have been an absolute AMD fan, as they offered great performance at a very reasonable price. For a pretty long period of time, they were even better than Intel, reaching the same or more performance of their direct counterparts from Intel, but at a much lower clock speed - and a much lower price. But that has changed. Intel judt did an oustanding great job developing their Core CPUs. I am not saying that AMDs are bad, absolutely not. They offer very good performance at a very attractive price. But fSX is one of those programs that are highly dependent on CPU power. And because of this you wanna get every little bit of CPU power you can get. And Intel delivers just that: Massive CPU power, which AMD at the moment just isn't able to deliver as well. As soon as AMD offers the same amount of performance with the same low power consumption and with all the other advantages that Intel offers, I see no reason why I wouldn't switch over to AMD again. It's been just one year ago when I built a new rig. For the first time since the very late 1990s I chose an Intel CPU. As a matter of fact, I even had a guilty conscience taking an Intel CPU, as I was loyal to AMD for such a long time. All I wanna say is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with AMD, it's just that Intel offers the superior product at the moment, CPU-wise. cheers Mike Totally agree, couldn't say it better. Hm maybe except for two things: First, I would prefer a Corsair Case ( Graphite 600T or above ), but that is up to everyone's own taste. :biggrin: It's just important that the case is capable of high airflow. A standard case just won't fit. Second, I would go for a a watercooling option. Why? Simple: Better colling capacity ( especially when extensive overclocking is made ); capable of cooling all components of your rig, not just the CPU, and last but not least: a watercooled rig just looks cool. But of course a decent watercooling is not cheap. cheers Mike

Hi Harald, I have checked the versions. At this moment, the only V1.2 model is the B737-400, all other models are still V1.1. But it seems that there is no difference between those two versions on the matter discussed. Before posting I have watched a B737-400 landing ( V1.2 ), and it was behaving just like the other ones after touchdown. Unfortunately, it's not only the Boeings that have this problem, but also the Buses. I have read the links you provided and I find it very interesting - and not confusing at all. As I understood what they are writing, with "decreasing" they meant to decrease the amount of throttle used for reverse thrust. According to that post, a min_throttle_limit of -0.45 means that the plane will use 45% thrust for the reversers. So by INcreasing the value to -0.25, you are actually DEcreasing the amount of thrust used for reversers to 25% of max thrust. cheers Mike

Hi flamer, you are right. Intel is quite expensive and so are motherboards for Intel CPUs. I would follow with Flyer10's advise. Wait a little bit longer and save your bucks. With the advantages that Intel CPUs have over AMD ( at this time, there was a time when AMD was better, maybe that time will come again, but at the moment, I don't see that coming ) this jsut is a no-brainer. For example, AMD CPUs have a much higher power consumption than even the fastest Intels. But the biggest advantage is the fact that even an AMD FX8350 ( 8 cores @4GHz ) has a really hard time to come close to an Intel Core I5 3570k ( 4 cores @3,4GHz ). And that with a much higher power consumption. There are more things to mention, but to make a long story short: At the moment Intel justs eats AMD for breakfast. I know, it is a hell lot of money, bit it's definitely worth waiting a little bit longer to go with the Intel CPU. BTW: What are you using at the moment, I mean CPU,Mainboard, RAM? cheers Mike

Hi flamer, I would take the Bulldozer FX 4170. But in general I would switch over to an Intel system, although that would mean that you would have to invest into a new motherboard as well. But at this time, there is no AMD CPU that can compete with it's Intel counterpart. And I'm saying that as an former AMD fan who switched from Intel to AMD with the very first Athlon CPUs, one year ago I switched back to Intel, as their Core-I CPUS are much better and much more efficient. cheers Mike

I have just tried it with the FAIB B737-700w and it seems that it works! The plane is now behaving much better after touchdown. Thanks John for the great tip. :dance: :drinks:

Hi John, cool, thanks for this tip. I have tried something similar, even if not that "detailed". What I did was: I copied the .air file from an AIA aircraft into the folder of the matching FAIB pane. Then I changed the Sim= entry in FAIB's cfg file to match the new .air file. I did that because I assumed that the .air file would have an effect on the takeoff and landing behavior ( as a matter of fact, I also have a problem with AIA's takeoff behavior, but that's a different story ) of the airplane. But I was wrong, it didn't change anything. So I changed everything back to the "original" state. But as soon as I am back from today's work I will try your tips :Peace:. cheers Mike

In that case I would suggest it's an electrical grounding problem with your mainboard. Have you made sure that the mainboard sits perfectly aligned on the mainboard tray before screwing it in? I'm asking because if it is not perfectly aligned, the screws or the motherboard standoffs could touch some electrical lanes on the mainboard ( some of those are pretty close to the screwholes ), leading to a short circuit. To check that, I would primarily check the screws and standoffs closest to the I/O panel of the mainboard as that is the most likely spot with power and data lanes going to the USC ports. I once had a similar problem with a customers' PC and it turned out that the customer did not align the standoffs 100% correctly. After fixing it, everything worked just perfect. Have you already tried to plug your BOSE system to another USB port?

Maybe it's just because I'm still running FS9, The FAIB model is intended for FSX, and even though a FS9 model exists, it's still originally intended for use in FSX. Maybe in FSX the model is behaving more "normal". But for now, I still hesitate switching over to FSX ( I know, even FSX is getting old by now ) because I have put 10 years of work into my FS9. And personally I think, there is still some life in FS9 which can be squeezed out of it. :-)

Hi Harald, yes, and that's the "problem" here. The FAIB models just look fantastic. I guess I'm the only one who stopped converting to the FAIB models due to this glitch. Perfectionism sucks ....... :unsure: cheers Mike

Hi Harald, I'm afraid I must disagree here. I have attached two images, one is a FAIB A319 exiting way too early after landing in KIAD, the second one is a FAIB B737-800 after landing in KIAH. The AFCAD-files aren't the problem, as I spend several weeks for each airport to create a highly realistc AFCAD file. cheers Mike FAIB_A319_Exiting.pdf FAIB_B738_After_landing.pdf

Totally right. And like you, I tend to prefer addon soundcards. But as I mentioned in my previous post, it kind of depends on how the system is used. But it is also a fact that lke any other component, onboard sound has improved and made huge steps over the last decade.

I do not agree with this very general term. And I agree with your statement that putting an addon soundcard into your rig might even be a downgrade to sound performance. But I used to work in a computer store from 2000 until 2008 and PCs are my second big hobby besides aviation. And I made the experience that onboard soundchips, especially on lower end mainboards, tend to not giving satisfying sound quality if you are an ambitioned gamer, which I am. There are many games where one can find the exact same problems that the OP mentioned. Adding a high quality addon soundcard solves those problems in 95% of all cases where problems occur. I do not believe that the onboard chips themselves are bad, but in most cases poor drivers are the problem. In addition, the sequence in which drivers are installed after reinstaling Windows or whatever OS one uses might produce problems. I just made the experience that with high end addon soundcards you get some good drivers. But I totally agree with your statement that there are quite a few people who, on one side, want to get themselves an addon soundcard, but on the other end want to save any single buck they can. Those people end up with buying a lowest end card which in many cases don't just not solve their problems but makes it even worse ( you wouldn't believe the things I have seen on that matter during my time in the computer store ). Unlike firehawk I don't generally advise people to get an addon soundcard. It depends on the usage of the system. A person who just uses his rig for surfing the net and doing a little office work just doesn't need it and the onboard sound is more than enough. Of course a music technician ( like my brother ) just needs sound hardware of the highest end segment to fit their needs. cheers Mike P.S.: hope my post doesn't go too much off topic now. :rolleyes:

Hi Kramerdc9, I would suggest you install FS and all of it's addon scenery onto the SSD instead of the HDD. FS will benefit significantly from the speed of the SSD (as any other program does). The issues with SSDs regarding their lifetime have been solved with modern SSDs. Regarding the sound issue: The onboard sound chip on your Mainboard is OK, but nothing special. I cannot say if FSX and the Realtek chip like each other or not since I still run FS9. But in any case I would recommend you invest in a separate soundcard. If you don't need "the-best-of-the-best-more-performace-than-any-living-human-can-imagine" - card, they are not very expensive. I wouls suggest a Sound Blaster Recon 3d or comparable. That card is at about €50.- here in Germany. I don't know where you live, but it will probably be at the same price at your place. If you live in the US, it's maybe even a little bit cheaper. Like Luke said, bad drivers or electrical grounding problems are the most likely reasons for your sound problems. The nVidia inspector is a control and monitoring software for your graphics card and has nothing to do with your sound hardware, unless you use a monitor with speakers connected via HDMI ( which I doubt, as you mentioned your BOSE speakers ). The nVidia Inspector is just a tool to monitor your VGA card(s) regarding clocks, temps and specs, and is able to override the VGA driver settings with user defined settings. Nothing sound related. Hope this helps. cheers Mike

Hi folks, although this thread is quite old now, I have to give my 2 cents too. A few months ago I started to replace my AIA AI repaints with their FAIB counterpart. And first it totally blew me off. The visual appearance is just great ( we are talking about AI models ). So I moved on replacing. But then I noticed something: While I was jsut viewing AI traffic departing and arriving ( I just love sitting there at an airport an watch ), I noticed that the FAIB models are slowing down much to fast after touching down, resulting in an unrealistic early turn of the runway. Well, I see that it might make sense to keep the runway clear for other traffic, but it is just not realistic. On very long runways the FAIB model even turns off the runway before the end of the touchdown zone markings. Since I love realism, that just doesn't work for me. So I decided to stop replacing the AIA model with the FAIB ones. Hopefully there will be a model update to fix that ( I doubt there will be such an update ). But again, on the visual appearance side, the AIA model just can't get even close to the FAIB one. cheers Mike

Oh men, I'm so sorry, I totally misunderstood what I was reading. Please accept my apologies, my English got a little bit rusty lately, as I'm not using it that often anymore since I started a new job. In addition, I haven't slept much the last days. I really hope that you accept my apologies. Man, I embarrased myself. I am really, really sorry.

Believe it or not. I'm the one who knows best what I do in my sim. And it's not like I didn't see that one coming. as soon as I describe something I do, what someone else isn't capable of doing, they don't believe it and call me pretender. That's what i meant with "P.S.: Please no bashing". All I do is trying to get AI Traffic as realistic as possible density wise. It's not my fault that some people don't have enough imagination to find "exotic" solutions for their problems. They just keep saying "You're a liar!" That's the kind of behavior that degenerates forums like this ( where different ideas from different people shall be discussed, and not bashed ) into ridicoulosness. With such behavior, one doesn't even want to come into forums to get in contact with others......

Hi Firehawk44 even if it sounds unbelievable: I only get very minor congestion at VERY large airports/areas e.g. LAX or ATL. Everywhere else it is ok. The main problem is, that if you use the flightplans to implement them manually ( which is what I do, because it's fun ), you have duplicate flights from time to time. Finding and eliminating those is really tough and take a lot of time. The result is that at the largest airports congestion increases, resulting in overflow traffic using Cargo ramps to park. I react by putting overflow gates into closed hangars, assigning them to the airlines that have their homebases at the particular airport. not an ideal solution, I know, but it helps. And usually those hangars are remote enough, so that normally you dont see planes taxiing in and out right through closed hangar doors. Still, you have slightly congested major airports ( and really only the biggest ), but by far less than what would be expected. At large, medium and small airports comgestion is no issue. cheers Mike

Unfortunately FSX is not going to be for me, it crashes all the times, with or without tweaking. Sometimes just CTD, sometimes with error message :( Very annoying program.

Hi FloG, thanks for the link. I totally missed that one :rolleyes: . I will now get into it and try the ones I haven't already tried. Regarding maxing out FSX: I just want to max out global AI traffic and airport sceneries. Ground textures in FSX already look better than even the best addon textures in FS9 ( except the colors in some areas, but that has already been solved ). cheers Mike

Hi all, first of all, I am new to FSX. I have been a simmer for the last 15 years and have my FS9 maxed out regarding visual appearance, AI traffic etc. I have changed my OS from Vista to Win7 and realised that there are some problems occuring in FS9 ( such as missing/not working textures, FS crashing to desktop when following AI traffic, amongst others ), so I decided to switch over to FSX. I now have real big problems getting it to work properly in regards of smoothness and visual appearance. I searched for some tweaking guides but found nothing really satifisfying. I also searched this forum but my search came up negative. If there are REAL useful guides, it would be greatly appreciated if the link to it would be provided. I don't think that my PC is the problem. The specs can be found here: http://www.sysprofile.de/id179229 The link is in German, but I bet you will find all entries right away Any help would be greatly appreciated, as I would like to get into flying FSX, but at this moment it just isn't possible. and I haven't even started to mod FSX ( Sceneries, AI Traffic,....) cheers Mike P.S.: Please no bashing.