DickB

I have a question - I have an external frame limiter (can't recall which right now). Will that cause problems for this tool ? Does it need to be disabled ?

I'm a bit puzzled. I only have FTX Global installed, yet I think I am seeing autogen buildings that are very different (and better) than the FSX default. Am I kidding myself ? Or maybe it's just that they are better placed on the new textures ?

I have to disagree. I do all my flying around 1500ft, and the FTXG textures are excellent IMO, even down to approach and landing. Sample image below:

+1. I installed and run FTXG with no problems at all and it is excellent where I fly (northern Europe). I do not use Vector, but only because I already had UTX installed. Note that I have no other ORBX scenery. You will read that some who have other ORBX regions installed have seen problems with FTXG (and Vector and OpenLC for that matter). So be sure you can back it out if necessary.

As usual, I arrive at the station just in time to see the train pulling out. Just spent the morning convincing myself that the jump to DX10 would be a sensible move for me (given that I fly old FS9 a/c) and now I find the opportunity's gone. That'll teach me. .

Agreed. As with most things in FS, it depends on your point of view. And here on AVSIM we have so many views ! :smile:

That's about it Dave. I am pretty happy with what I've got, but always looking for improvement. Subject to cost of course. I'll continue to keep my eyes and ears open. Now back to do some flying !

With respect, Glenn, I do understand all that. FTXG made a massive improvement to the region where I fly. by replacing the default FSX textures. These are called and placed on my system by UTX/ST landclass. (The default FSX landclass would call them too, though less accurately.) I understand that OpenLC has the potential to improve it even further by 1) mapping the FTXG replacement textures more accurately and 2) calling and placing the additional custom textures you mention, , but as yet I haven't seen anything to persuade me to buy. I can see that it makes an enormous difference to other parts of the world which have not been covered to the same level of detail by other products, but I don't fly there.

Is that a comparison between OpenLC and UTX/ST or between OpenLC and FSX default ? If the former, some comparative images would be nice. I have no doubt that OpenLC with FTXG will be a massive improvement over FSX default.

I understand all that. It certainly has the potential to look better. But all I can say is that with FTXG/UTX/ST the area that I fly (northern Europe) looks pretty damn good to me. I'd need some convincing to switch to OpenLC. And I've seen the screenshots.

What I expect to see from a good LC product (from any altitude) is an accurate (but not photo-real) representation of the kind of scenery I would expect to see if I flew over that area in the RW. i.e. towns where there should be towns, forests where there should be forests etc etc.

I'm not a photoreal fan - too flat and blurry for the height I usually fly (1500ft). I also have UTX and ST for my LC, which seems pretty good where I fly (Northern Europe). But if OpenLC turns out to be more accurate (without breaking anything else), then I'll buy it. Yet to be convinced though.

I'm confused. Maybe it's me, but I can't see much difference between the before and after shots - except that the after shots seem to have a higher contrast, which is not what LC is about. Am I missing something ?

It may be a background process, but I think the 30 secs frequency is significant. I noticed a while back that my CPU utilisation went sky high for 30 secs every minute, even when I was sitting on the tarmac cold and dark. That was eventually diagnosed as FSX refreshing its scenery, which (I'm told) it does at this frequency whatever else is going on. My rig/setup (tuned to Nick N's guide) seems to be able to cope with the extra load without stuttering, but it looks a close run thing. Then again, I don't fly demanding aircraft like NGX or into busy modern airports with lots of AI.

Couldn't agree more. Acronis has saved my bacon more than once.

There was certainly a problem with UTX whereby land tiles were showing in the sea off the Isle of Wight. Check over on the UTX support site at Simforums. As I recall, it was a problem introduced with one fix level and then fixed in another.

FTXG effectively replaces GEX. I run FTXG with UTX and FEX and am very happy with that combination where I fly, which is northern Europe. Others will have their own view !

Not a full add-on ATC product as such, but probably worth mentioning Multi Crew Experience, which allows you to talk direct to FSX default ATC or Radar Contact.

Thanks Bert !

In what section of FSX.CFG would the MAX_ASYNC_BATCHING_JOBS line appear ?

One thing I think we can be fairly sure of - whatever MS is doing/has done, it's unlikely they are doing it for our benefit :mellow:

Installing ORBX FTXG does indeed cause this kind of problems at some airports. The problem seems to be that ORBX have changed an FSX texture which some/many airport developers use as the grass background to their airport scenery. Previously, this texture did not have autogen (trees etc). With ORBX FTXG it does, and these sprout up all over the place unless the airport has specific exclusion polygons. If you are skilled in the use of ADE, then you can often fix these airports yourself. If not, you are dependent on the airport developer to resolve,

It might be an idea to ask this question on the AVSIM MCE Support forum. I have MCE, but I don't use that function.

Hang on guys. All the OP wants to do is talk to default FSX ATC. That doesn't require support for any specific aircraft. I've asked the MCE devs to comment on this.

Multi Crew Experience is definitely what you need. I use it only for ATC and it's brilliant. But I have the full version, so I can't say what the Lite version does. No doubt someone else will be able to confirm.