Buzz313th

I added some stuff to my post above...The "flameout" option in the NGX should just simulate a temporary loss of fire in the engine. After the failure generation has done that, it should allow for a normal relight with a free spinning engine. IMHO, you shouldn't have to disable the failure to get the engine to windmill and relight through normal means.Maybe the "Flameout" failure was coded by PMDG in such a way that the method they used to stop the engine stays active, thus, not allowing a normal means of relight without having to manualy deactivate the failure?Big edit.. I'm a doomass... :) Just reread your post above and realized you said the flameout failure resets itself. Thats good, sounds like they coded it perfect. So can you relight after a flameout?JB

Yah... 150 knot headwinds will make the engines spin when the planes on the ground. Just tested. Instruments display about 3.3 N1 and 10.6 N2.And just did a relight at 17k, on both engines after shutdown just by windmilling, with all the bleed ducts closed.Should work for everyone... Hopefully.1. Load up default panel state in NGX (engines and systems on)2. Slew to 2403. release slew4. Turn off all bleed ducts and close crossover4.5 OOPs forgot most important... Kill fuel for both engines LOL5. Ignition switches to flight6. Check out fan and core rotation7. Switch one engine to cont8. Give fuel8.5 should see Fuel flow kick in as soon as the valves open and then get a relight9. Repeat for other engine.The NGX generated failure "Flameout" should douse the fire and allow for a relight through windmilling and crossbleed. All the other failures that kill the engine probably render the guts useless and like Kyle said below, will keep it from spinning.On that note... It would be cool if heavy precip or severe turbulence would cause a random generated flameout in the NGX if "cont" isn't selected.. I'll leave that for another "Feature Request" Post. :)JB

After you guys shutdown the engine normaly, without any failures.... Are you able to get any rotation out of it at all when airborne?I might be thinking of another addon, but, doesn't the engines spin when the aircraft is on the ground, not moving and there is a wind present that is somewhere inline with the intakes?JB

I'm not sure ASA, ASE, or AS2012 actually magnifies icing. You will however have more control of the weather Asigning the levels of severity for icing when it does create an icing level. Go into weather options in AS and move the max and min icing level sliders to max. I believe this will allow AS to make any icing layer it creates severe.You can check this by looking into the fsx weather screen after AS creates the weather and look up the assigned icing level.Let us know what you find out.JBSent from my iPhone using TapatalkJB

+1 for Zoos setup. It's a real organized class act.Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkJB

Yeah Zach, those were the prime 95 tested stable voltages. As I said in an earlier post I didn't get bsod's until the chip got unstable which required higher vcor for stability.JBSent from my iPhone using TapatalkJB

I asume your not using Load Line Calibration for your overclock, or maybe you are. My load voltages were the ones I mentioned and I used Load Line Calibration in the bios to be able to maintain an even Vcore, instead of what most people recomend, which is turning it off. I read the articles as well on the old dual core chipsets that LLC was bad as people thought the VCORE would spike as it came down to idle from load, but I did more research and found that it was very well implemented on my old motherboard and it was safer than not using LLC as without it, you would have to bump your idle vcore way up to accomidate the vdroop to get your target vcore at load.Lets just consider my old Q9650 to be a bad chip. That would probably explain most of it. :( JB

But thats what those articles are talking about. It's not only voltage that will cause it.. It's freq and heat as well. Have a look at that article and then also search for "quantum tunneling".I wish it was dust and seasonal change.. I checked that stuff before replacing the gpu and reinstalling the OS. Trust me, the last thing I wanted to do was build another computer. I just couldn't understand why the computer would slowly lose performance with everything being the same. I read all the OC forums where if you ask about CPU's wearing out ppl will tell you your crazy... They would say that it's a solid state device and they dont wear out, that it was impossible. That sooner otr later it will fail all together, but it would never wear out.I believed that until I read the articles, still a bit skeptical, that is until I did the cpu swap.JB Very true.. But for me, my system upgrade cycle is every 3-4 years. So whether it's important to others is really not my concern, or I won't lose sleep over it.. But for the small few who don't want to replace the rig every year or so, have a look at those articles and make your own decision.Last thing I wanted to do is force an opinion down anyones throat, especially an opinion thats not even mine. I'm just trying to pass on info that I felt was credable enough to pass on to others.JB

Ok fair enough then... Lemme paint a picture and you tell me if you think this was Silicon degredation...My old Q9650, running at 3.6 for 2 years ran great Vcore at 1.20 and core temps never exceeded 55c. Then I started noticing that I wasn't getting the same performance as before on FSX. Addons the same as I always tried to do tests with apples and apples instead of apples and oranges. I picked up a new water cooler and better case (Cooler) and overclockable memory (was running 1to1 on the FSB to memory before). Took the OC to 4.05 with Vcore @ 1.28 and max core temps never exceeding 58 on prime 95 and FSX 52c. Wow, the comp ran better than before. Got the NGX, was completely happy. After two months, started seeing performance come down. Upper frames were great, but lower FPS was dropping significantly as well was average and the experience started getting choppy. Started getting an FSX crash here and there, maybe a Blue screen once in a while. Reinstalled windows, reformatted, changed gpu's, memory, dowclocked, upclocked upped voltage, memtest, the whole gamut. Started doing some research. Found those articles, decided to change out the CPU and see if it was infact wearing out. Borrowed a Q9650 from a freinds video editing machine that was about as old as my computer, but has been running at 3.0 for about 2 years. Turned on FSX and walla... Same performance and better than I had years ago. Didn't change a damn thing except swapped out to another processor same exact model.I forgot to mention that when my cpu was at 4.05, I had to up vcore a couple hundreths of a volt every couple weeks to keep it stable. as vdroop was getting a bigger margin.Decided to buy my i5 settup and take the Q9650 and make a FSX MP server.What do you think the cause of the lower performance and increasing rate of instbility was?JB

I've manually overclocked my last 3 systems. An E8400, q9650 and this one the i5. All on different Motherboards. I am not a Benchmarker and only OC for FSX. With that being said, I guess I am very new to OCing.Outa curiosity, did you read any of the articles from the link's I posted, or search for "Silicon Degredation cpu"?IMHO, you can credit or discredit my statements. I am only repeating what I have read from what seems to be very credable sources.After thinking about it, I'm not saying anything that people haven't already heard, except for the idea that CPU's don't hold 100% integrity throughout their life until one day when they finally croak. My statements are simply reiterating from another source, that CPU's wear out and when they do they are slowly dropping in overall performance and the harder you push them, the quicker they will wear out.Here lemme grab the link incase you didn't see it.http://www.anandtech.com/show/2468/6And I quote from this linkAnd highlight the error parthttp://www.tomshardware.com/forum/300350-31-overclocking-life-expectancyBest answerI'll just post my standard wall of text for these questions.Why does OCing dmg a CPU?This is a bit hard to understand if you don't know some basics about electron orbital theory and quantum tunneling?I'll assume you know nothing so I'll try to keep this as simple as I can. You'll have to take my word on a few facts though.Normally, electrons stay around their atom's and don't go wandering off. So in a CPU, they'll stay in one transistor and not move to others. However, if you've learnt about quantum mechanics, you'll know it's actually possible for electrons to escape from energy wells, even infinitely deep ones, it's just very uncommon. In a process known as quantum tunneling, electrons can pass through solid matter and be ejected out the other side.Now, a transistor in a CPU is made from alternating + and - doped and undoped silicon. Once in a while, an electron will escape and bury a couple atoms into an adjourning transistor, and if this happens enough times, eventually all the way through to the adjourning transistor before coming back to it's orbit.Keep doing this and eventually an electron doesn't come back, but stays attached to an atom in the adjourning undoped section of silicon. Over time (usually years), this tunneling causes a hole to be formed between two adjourning transistors and allows free electron flow.This bypasses the "gates" between the transistors and as a result, the computer will misread this resulting in an error.This process is called silicon degradation and eventually results in a complete CPU failure.Now, as to where overclocking comes in.If you know about electron orbital theory, the more energy an electron has, the more likely it is to leave it's orbit and tunnel. IE if your CPU is running hot, or has a considerably higher voltage going through it, electrons tunnel in much higher numbers. As a result, the more you OC, the faster you make those tunnel which cause silicon degradation.In addition, if you increase the voltage enough, you can actually physically destroy the silicon lattice of the gates within aprocessor. Don't make me explain this cuz I can't without lots of math.Now, on to OC and HeatIn a CPU boosting F, has a very minor, almost insignificant heat increase.It's v increase that dramatically increases heat.I'll just quote myself againPower Dissipation = PD in WattVoltage = VoltFreq = HzC= Capacitance in FaradsTotal PD in Watt = C x F x V^2As C doesn't change (ok it technically does, but for the sake of keeping the math simply we can assume it doesn't)If you actually plug in numbers and graph the function, the heat increase due to a freq increase is minute compared to the heat increase from a v increase, as one increases exponentially, the other linearly.Indeed, the more you increase the V, the less the F part of the equation is relevant to the total temp.Looking at real world data, look at the power usage increase in Tom's i5 efficiency article.http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 500-7.htmlEach bump was a constant 10mhz clock speed increase, but due to the exponential nature of the voltage increase contribution to PD, the graph is not linear, and power usage does not increase until you start seeing large v increases.Power usage directly translates into heat.As for actual temps, it's more complicated than purely based on power dissipationCpu temperature = (Total PD in Watt) x (HSF's Thermal Resistance inC/W) + (Ambient Temp in Celcius)For comparison purposes the resistance and ambient can be considered constant (technically not true once again, as resistance changes slightly with temp, and ambient increases with more heat output).In your specific case, the answer is not so much the 200mhz F increase, but how much v increase you'll need to attain it. If there is no v increase, life of the CPU will be minimally impacted.There is no easy way to tell how each chip is affected as due to imperfection in the manufacture process, the degradation rate vs v or f graph would be unique to each chip.JB

LOL, I thought he always started with "Captains". JB

As mildly tenacious as I might be :( , I asked around other venues to see if I could find an answer to weather or not simulating a more robust icing model is possible from an addon aircraft.One person, whom I assume has experience with FS development answered...The link to the forum post below..http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?p=326415#post326415So if he is correct, then it's just a matter of how badly, a developer wants to include the icing model in the aircraft package. JB

I believe you would need an empty mapped area on the VC to map it to. So you could replace something, or sneak it in somewhere there is room.I'm not sure really. Haven't tried. It would be cool to somehow place it behind you as you turn left, like on the breaker panel. So as you turn around to look at the leading edges of the wings, you would see the gauge.Maybe someone else can chime in if this is possible.JB

I didn't make it up, I read it. It didn't specifically say "It would take clock cycles away from FSX". One of the articles, maybe not one that I posted, explained that as the cpu degrades it will produce more eronious errors. These errors are corrected by the OS/CPU by using system resources. If the errors can't be corrected, then system instability occurs. It also mentioned that the higher cpu load, frequency, heat and voltage is, will determine the frequency and quantity of errors.Look it up yourself JB

LOL, thanks for the compliment...You will probably do just fine... But remember that CPU's just don't all of a sudden fail.. They slowly get there. And your CPU will never run better than when you first get it.JB

All of my knowledge regarding is based on the few articles I have read on the web about silicon degredation.It's my understanding that the cpu manufacturers will warantee their chips at the clock speeds they recomend. So if you have an I5 thats got a three year warantee at 3.3-3.7, then you can pretty much bet that it will last that long at those speeds. Degredation occurs at any speed, it's just accelerated at higher temps and frequencies.To answer your question... The higher performance you get outa FSX for a given chip is directly related to cpu load. If you are running unlimited with no FPS limiter than your asking one of your cores to pump out as many frames as it can, thus the main thread/core will always run at 100%. If you limit your frames to 30, but your cpu can pump out 50, then your asking less of your cpu and thus not hammering on the poor thing as hard, thus you will get more life outa it.You have to first ask yourself what you want outa FSX. Then once you have a performance goal, set your computer up to achieve that. The higher your performance goal, then likely, the harder your gonna be hammering on your cpu and motherboard.So if 50 frames is what you want, then set it up that way. If your happy with 30, then downclock till you get that consistently with a fps limiter.Temps and frequency are the end result of your goals. JB

Be carefull overclocking too much, My own experience is that you get deminishing returns and slowly destroy your processor.I just put together a brand new I5 system from a Q9650 system and after a bunch of research, I realized that I had slowly but surely killed my 9650 eventhough my temps and frequency was not excesive by any means.It's my understanding, that both High frequency and temperatures will degrade the silicon in a chip. As this happens, the chip will start producing eroniuos errors and start correcting itself. It will use clock cycles to correct and take those clock cycles away from FSX. This was my first sign as I started seeing my lower frame rate limit drop out significantly over a few months.Not to toot my computers horn, but I am running the I5 system with all the sliders maxed except autogen (one click away from max) and water (Low 2x) at only 4.0 and only when I run the NGX. (All my other addons I can downclock to 3.3). My vcore at 3.3 is 1.12 and at 4.0 it's 1.24. My performance target for FSX is a consistent 30 frames locked and under the most demanding situations I will get very quick dropouts to 25-28. Most importantly, the sim is glossy smooth and my track ir panning is smooth as well.Lemme see if I can find a link to silicon degradation, so you don't have to take my word on it.http://www.tomshardw...life-expectancyA little old and outdated, but probably still valid with todays chips..http://www.anandtech.com/show/2468/6Theres more if your interested, just search "silicone degradation cpu"Personally, I use the Asus Ai program that allows me to change clock speed in windows. The Bios is setup to boot into a very cool 3.3 and then before I play FSX I change to my OC profile to 4.0 if using the NGX. Then after I'm done, I downclock to bios settings again. I'm hoping to get more longevity out of my chip this way.JB

Yeah, he's a really good guy and very level headed individual, pretty tallented video editor and extremely tallented developer. A few years ago I had the chance to sim with him on a mp server both in his L39 (Flying back seat/front seat in shared cockpit) and beside him doing formation flying and syncronized aerobatics. He's had his private for a while and when he was doing research for the project, he actually rented an L39 for a few hours so he could duplicate the flight model in FSX. Shared cockpit was a priority of his as well as smooth performance in a MP environment. He's describing the FSX vanilla icing effects. The gauge will help accelerate those effects and add Clear ice from freezing rain and on some FSX aircraft actually induce uncommanded pitch and roll events if the icing gets bad enough. I haven't tried FSCaptain yet, but that utility is suposed to add engine flameouts from ice breaking off the inlets and into the fan if the engine AI isn't on or it's failed.JB

Thanks for the reply Ryan..Keeping fingers crossed.JB

Hey Rudy...No, actually. I have the demo, but I'm not interested in any of the other features of FSCaptain other than the Hazards pack and since the Ice gauge we are talking about was made by the same developer as FSCaptain, it works quite well without the extra bloat.I have posted on the FSCaptain forum inquiring if the developer would be interested in making the Hazard pack available as a payware addon seperately from the other FSCapatain features. He answered another question, but did not in regards to the Hazard pack. Maybe he's thinking about it.. :)So to answer your question Rudy, I am using his Ice Gauge found here....http://library.avsim.net/download.php?DLID=135386JB

Kyle, just so you know some of the limitations I'm finding in this gauge....Freezing rain won't acumulate unless you are actually seeing FSX generated rain and temps are freezing. Snow has no factor.Ice from light to severe icing conditions will produce ice, but not only when you physically fly through visible moisture. You can set a cloud layer to few or overcast and as long as you are in the layer, ice will acumulate. Obviously this is a crutch of FSX and as far as I know one of the biggest limitations to the FSX weather engine. IMHO, this is ok as you don't wait to fly through visible moisture before you turn on your AI equip, you do so before.Again, for me good stuff.JB

Thanks for the reply Ryan,Honestly I didn't notice any bad mojo round here. Or maybe I just came to the thread too late and something was deleted?It's not a 100% accurate simulation of what we would expect on an NG, but it does bring 30-50% accuracy and it's better than nothing.Just landed Denver and durring the approach, descended through an layer of severe icing and then a lower layer of freezing rain, all with the AI off. Vref at F15 for landing called for 153. To meet a propper attitude on a stabalized approach required quite a bit more throttle than normal as well as 25 more knots of airspeed. I was happy with the results. I forgot to check the ice weight for a refference before taxi and when I remembered I was already at the gate and OAT was +7, so some if not most of the ice weight had melted off.Good stuff.JB

A few posts up are the results on the NGX for the test I did with the ice gauge. You will see that it simulates some of the flight dynamic changes that you would find when you acumulate ice. I have done 2 tests and now I am doing a third on a flight to denver with simulated icing conditions along the way and it's working out very nice. I am not seeing anything to indicate it has any adverse effects on the NGX. It is also simulating quite well the effects of freezing rain. The Anti Ice is not removing the effects of this unless you descend to warmer air. For me this is a very nice partial/temporary solution for a realistic condition that did not exists before. No eye candy actually. I placed the guage on one of the panels and decreased it's size to one pixel and it's not even visible.Considering this is a utility both not designed for the NGX and external, It seems possible to go further with the structural ice simulation, possibly bringing more if not all the effects of icing to a particular aircraft addon. Again, maybe a developer can chime in. Well after 2.5 tests so far, I haven't seen anything to indicate it has messed anything up other than enhance the imersion and add a bit more reality to my simming experience. Excellent, I'm sure if they wanted to bad enough they could pull it off. Then you might be a believer. Your loyalty to PMDG is extrordinary. I'm sure it makes them very proud to see their impact on some in the flight sim community.JB

They are inbound and outbound vor radials selected through the 1 and 2 course selectors for the tuned Vor stations.JB

You got my vote entirely.Maybe you should mention it over at their forums. The DC-8 seems like it would be right up their alley.Alot of the forum members would probably agree with you and Scott might think the DC-8 has enough historical significance to keep the idea in his hat.JB