Tom Wright

This is the Bojote tool: http://www.venetubo.com/fsx.htmlYou just need to run your CFG through it and download the new one. Makes quite a difference to a lot of systems. I no longer use it since upgrading my PC as strangely enough I seem to get better performance without it. Is just one of those things that works for some people and not for others and takes a bit of experimentation. If I can overclock my i7-920 to 4GHz, you should easily manage that with your 960. If you don't already get a decent aftermarket CPU cooler and wind the speed up on that chip! Cannot stress enough the difference you see in FSX with just a few more MHz!Also I used to have a GTX 285, and while it's a good card, it was showing its age compared to the new ones. Particularly with detailed scenery and lots of autogen, it struggled to cope. I replaced it with a GTX 560 Ti, and am very happy with the boost. People will always say don't bother with graphics cards for FSX, it's completely CPU dependent, but I feel that's not entirely true. IMO you need a perfectly balanced system - its very well clocking your processor really high but then you also need a fast enough graphics card to be able to cope with the faster draw calls. True it doesn't take advantage of all the features of modern multi core graphics cards, but a card with decent clock speeds on is essential.

I'd say pilot error too. If the prop levers were still set to a low RPM when he maxed the throttles, the engines could likely have failed. Asking the props to maintain a low RPM whilst throttling up the engines can completely destroy the engine internally - you're asking it to do something it doesn't want to do (naturally at high power the propeller wants to turn faster).

The prop lever sets the required RPM by adjusting blade pitch.However, if you increase power on the throttles there will be more power turning the prop than there was before. So what will happen? The speed of the propeller will increase. So, as an automatic response to an adjustment in engine speed (throttle), the pitch of the blades will adjust again to maintain the required prop RPM.There isn't a direct connection between the prop lever and the blade pitch, or the throttle and the blade pitch. All the prop lever does is allows the pilot to set his desired RPM, and all the throttle does is controls the speed of the engine. The blade pitch itself is controlled by a computer which responds to some input - either movement of the prop lever or a change in engine speed.

Constant speed prop means just that - it turns at a constant speed, independent of the engine speed.Compared with a fixed pitch prop like in the simple Cessna 172, where increasing the throttle also increases the RPM of the prop. With a constant speed prop, you set the desired prop RPM using the prop lever, and this will remain constant regardless of throttle position / engine speed. There is an automatic process which adjusts the pitch of the blades to maintain the prop rpm as a response to change in engine speed.

It's actually pretty simple. In addition to the throttles (which control the power, or torque delivered by the engine) you also have the Prop levers, which control the speed (RPM) of the propeller by altering the pitch of the blades. In most aircraft, you take off and land with the propellers fully fine (full RPM, or levers fully forward). This gives the props the biggest 'bite' and thus more power, but also makes them noisier. During climbout, its standard procedure at thrust reduction altitude to reduce power, and reduce prop RPM. Note it must be in that order - you always reduce the throttles first before reducing prop RPM, otherwise you can overboost and cause damage to the engine. When you reach cruise, you set cruise power on the throttles and bring the props back a little further. In the manual for the aircraft there is usually a table which contains the cruise power settings and prop settings for particular altitudes. The props usually then stay in that cruise position until somewhere on the approach when they are moved back to fully fine for landing.Feathering a propeller is usually done after an engine failure to stop the propeller spinning (windmilling) in the wind (causing drag). The blades of a feathered prop are angled flat so they present the least obstruction to passing air.

Give it a go! The instant I selected it the frame rate dropped suddenly, but after a few seconds they picked right back up to 30FPS!

Well that was odd.. anyone able to explain why going from FXAA to the highest quad render HDR AA settings gave me an extra 10FPS? lol

I've got an EVGA Superclocked GTX 560Ti. It's got pretty high clocks: 900MHz Core Clock, 2106MHz Memory Clock (1Gb DDR5), 1800MHz Shader clock. Ok, it's not a 580, but i'm quite surprised at how low my settings in XPX have to be to get a decent frame rate, given it happily runs FSX maxed.

I found bringing objects from none to 'a lot' halved my frame rates from 60fps (with nothing) to 30fps. I'm not sure if this is normal, but it's clear that 3D objects in XP10 are very heavy, far worse than FSX.

I personally think it does. UTX and GEX still is 'generic' land class, whereas with the photo scenery you are actually flying over a real landscape. If you combine it with TreeScapes, which adds autogen trees onto it to populate the forests, it looks very realistic.

As far as I know all ENB is is a HDR mod for Direct X games, like FSX. X Plane 10 already has built in HDR, so there would be no need for ENB. Plus as said above its OpenGL.

100fps is MORE than adequate! You only need about 25-30fps for a smooth experience. I doubt you'd even be able notice any more than that if you weren't looking at the numbers.

I'd be perfectly happy with the FPS you're seeing Word Not Allowed! I'm following the advice in that link to the blog, and have turned everything right down as low as they'll go, and now FPS is stable at 60 but understandably everything looks hideous! I'll put each one up one by one and see where I get to!

Hi!First post in the XP forum. I own the full version of XP9 but never used it that much as I always tended to prefer using FSX. For a change, I downloaded the XP10 demo to try it out, and am quite impressed. I like the shadowing and the clouds. I'm not enormously fond of the new scenery but it might grow on me! One thing i'm struggling a little with is getting an acceptable frame rate. Coming from FSX, which has always been known to be a dog when it comes to performance, I expected XP10 to be very zippy and quick, but this doesn't seem to be the case. In the demo area of Seattle i'm struggling to get 20fps at times. System spec is not exactly slow: Core i7 920 @ 4.0GHz, 4Gb RAM, EVGA superclocked GTX 560 Ti on Windows 7 Pro x64. First I turned off AI, which helped a bit. I turned the clouds down to 20% and the shadowing down to 'Aircraft 3D only', and objects, trees and roads are on 'Tons', airport detail is 'default' and road traffic is 'Siberian winter'. Generally FPS is around 20fps, however near airports and in flight moving the viewpoint to a particular area (I haven't managed to figure out a pattern as to which areas looking at lowers the fps) it can be as low as 13fps.Any help would be appreciated!Thanks!Tom

I have no intention of switching from FSX. Prepar3d looks interesting, but its far too expensive to be a viable option for me and I don't want to get tied into monthly subscriptions. However, with regard to the people asking why some are so desperate to find an alternative, one must bear in mind as others have said that FSX is 6 years old, and was built on an ancient engine to begin with. Third parties have done wonders within the confines of what is possible, but there will come a time when the underlying architecture restricts any further enhancement.

Yes as others have said its a limitation in the way the FSX engine works. It is set to load the objects a fixed distance away and when you reach that distance they just appear. It does not have alpha fade, like the more sofisticated sims do, where objects fade in smoothly as you approach them.I believe that adjusting the LOD radius as others are suggesting will not make a difference. This will only alter the distance at which terrain textures are loaded (a fix for 'the blurries'). Autogen load distance is fixed and cannot be adjusted.There is one tweak in Bojote's CFG which affects autogen. If you look down the file you will see a line SMALL_PART_REJECT_RADIUS=X. If you take this out, it will stop objects appearing at close range, but will not affect objects in the distance.

You could, or a cheaper alternative would be to try Shade (Google 'Shade FSX')!It's a small price, but it makes a big difference to the sims look and feel. It's slightly different to ENB, but I now use it instead. It's also far easier to customise as it has a number of preset themes, a bit like REX. It's certainly cheaper than upgrading your video card!

Lucky you!I'd clear out the Bufferpools tweak whilst trying to solve the problem. I don't use it anymore as although it did give me higher overall FPS it generally made it less stable. Use the native resolution of your monitor (mines connected to a HDTV so 1920x1080 (1080p) is what I use.I don't think low memory usage is a direct cause for low FPS performance. Usually it's the inverse, when the memory becomes too bloated things start to slow down. If you increase your rendering settings (AA, AF etc) you will definitely chew up more memory. Also stock FSX with no add ons isn't much of a burden on todays modern systems. If you start putting add ons into the equation which introduce lots more autogen and high resolution textures you'll also increase memory usage.

You're treading dangerously here and I don't think you quite get what being a Beta Tester means!! By writing what you've written here, you've violated the terms of the NDA. The Beta you've been given is a pre-release version which has only been made available to a select few. It is supposed to be highly classified, and down to Microsoft alone to reveal information on the product when they decide to do so. Game development is a highly secretive business. As a Beta Tester, you have a responsibility not to disclose any information about the product at all or divulge any opinion of it until after the product has been released.

If they made Prepar3D less than $100 i'd buy it today. $499 is, in my view, completely unreasonable!

Just uninstall the mod and it should be fine. To flush the shader cache, just increment these numbers by 1:SHADER_CACHE_PRIMED_10=1693500672SHADER_CACHE_PRIMED=1693500672Or just delete the fsx.cfg file altogether and it'll create a fresh one on the next start.

Have you looked in Event Viewer to see what the faulting module was? It may give a clue as to whether it was memory related or otherwise. Most CTD scenarios in FSX are memory related.

If you're happy and it's smooth at 40 then leave it at 40!I think 30 is just about the sweet spot for most people. To be honest higher is not necessarily better, it's all about smoothness rather than big numbers. I personally cannot see any difference between 30 and anything higher, and actually I can run it quite happily at 20 without thinking "this is too choppy"!Also bear in mind that most modern LCD monitors only refresh at 60Hz (or 60FPS), so anything higher than that is completely pointless! think I read somewhere that the optimal FPS is half the refresh rate of the monitor, hence 30.

My PC has been heavily overclocked for more than 2 years and is perfectly fine!

Best advice I can give is overclock that CPU. FSX seems to favour a high CPU clock speed, and with that CPU you should be able to hit 4GHz if you have a decent aftermarket cooler.And don't max the settings. Even the best hardware on the market will struggle with all the settings maxed. Things you might need to drop a notch or two are autogen and water.