thea330flyer

Nevermind, its fixed.

Recently I went from the HDD to an SSD and the performance is great. I also moved FSX to the 128GB ssd as well so that it loads faster. I would like to know how to fix errors that pop up everytime I start FSX that do with add on scenery not being in the scenery.cfg. I get a message like this: Local scenery directory (G:\Games\FS10\...\FlyTampa) in scenery area.129 not found. I looked at the scenery.cfg multiple times and did not find that entry. Please bear in mind that I get this error for the following sceneries:

-Fly Tampa Athens

-Maldives X

-Fly Tampa St Maarten

-Fly Tampa Dubai Rebooted

My other add on sceneries like Heathrow X or Frankfurt etc are all ok.

Nevermind, I found my solution. What I did was to go to where the FSX folder was and set the permissions for that folder so that I, the user have full control/rights of FSX. Then I started and made a flightplan, no crash. :lol:

I do not have REX running in the background.

Recently made the move from FS9 to FSX I wanted to just to test out a few things. I wanted to create an IFR flightplan on FSX, after everything is done and saved, everything stops and crashes. I have deleted my fsx.cfg a couple times and restarted fsx to let it rebuild the cfg file but nothing has changed. Any solutions to this?

I agree with Dave. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say if there is uncertainty on whether the 200ER will be developed, I may even pass (GASP!) on the 777 series. I really primarily desire the 200ER. I know it's getting old and all, but I can guarantee you that the way our USA operators "fly their aircraft 'till the wings fall off'," the -200ER will be flying for a very long time. And since there really isn't a direct replacement for the 200ER on the horizon (LR doesn't count...little interest from operators), I'm sure Delta, UA, and AA will be flying them until at least 2020 or later. I count the -200ER as just about as iconic in the US as the 767 was/is.

Without question the -200ER and -300ER models should be developed. There are far more of these models in service than there are -200LRs.

 

I'll even go a step further. If PMDG decides not to develop these, then I will definitely have second thoughts about purchasing their 777. This would really be a shame.

 

Dave

This poll has no value.....the B777-200 standard and ER should have gone first out of the box.

Then 200LR and 300ER should be expansion.

But then again, it is. Business strategy, like Apple IPAD, they could have thrown everything on the first generation, but people keep buying every time a new generation is released.

Just my two cents.....

 

And yes...I love to see th 200ER.

 

Kin M.

(klax)

The people have spoken unanimously. 77L has a small fraction of operation(s) compared to the -200ER model. Only Emirates, Qatar, ACA, Delta, Air India, and PIA operate that model. Don;t know if the 200LR model gets the same type rating as the -200ER series but like everyone said before, the 200ER will get used a lot esp. on VATSIM or virtual airline flying such as Virtual BA. If that has not convinced PMDG in the future then...

Thanks for the feedback. My FSX settings are not on ultra anyway, my weather settings are pretty high but nonetheless my CPU can handle it. If I can just push it to 3.7Ghz it should get more out of it. One question: does AI affect FPS? I use World of AI on FS9 and it did not affect performance, not so sure on FSX but I will use World of AI as well.

I would like to know before I upgrade my video card, how does the GTX 560SE model do in terms of FSX and my Phenom II X4 @ 3.6 Ghz? My current ATI card is wearing out and cannot handle FSX very well and keeps overheating. My lowest constant FPS I recorded is when I load aerosoft Madrid scenery, my average is 3 FPS. I am also planning of putting FSX on an SSD but thats another subject.

I ask specifically for this Nvidia card because the 550Ti is on the weaker end of things and the GTX 560 is a little over my max budget and I do not want to stay with AMD/ATI. Reason is, that Nvidia seems to be choice card for FSX over AMD, so I am not willing to take chances.

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814500241

Cheers.

I have that for FS9 - not that I knew how to fly it back then ha. What happened to it?

I tried it not so long ago. Its still full of bugs, errors, CTD's. Its on v1.3 now but things have been passively silent at their forums. I fly with FSX now, waiting for a near perfect airbus model(s) to be finished. There you have it. Back to the topic of 777 now.

At the state it's in now I'd say don't buy it, however the next version is it officially out of development; being V1.0. So it could improve! They may have demos you can try :-)

Absolutely. Anything with "beta" is to be avoided, esp. flight sim models. Airsimmer A320 is a perfect example of beta gone wrong.

77L - Base Pack

77W - First Expansion

77F - Second Expansion

 

Then the 777-200/ER and possibly 300 Non-ER's will come later. I think they said if there's enough community interest. However with the B747 V2 and what else is after, I bet we wouldn't see the 200ER for at least a year or so. I love them all - I think I'll fly the 300ER the most!

That's a shame. I'm glad the 77W is getting released but I fly the -200ER frequently, I have never flown the -200LR. If the -200ER is not coming out for at least a year, is the Captainsim 777-200ER any good? I know I'm not supposed to talk about other developer aircraft or mention them but most of Virtual BA long haul routes are done by the -200ER model.

In my opinion, of course I want the 777-200ER. It is used by British Airways and Virtual BA, not to mention so many other virtual/real world airlines. I don't know which models PMDG is going to release first, but I would be happy if the 777-200ER and 777-300ER were released and then the -200LR as an extension.

NO-ZERO stutters

Ok, then it looks like it is worth investing in an SSD, what do you think of this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227812

Also, I want to ask if going to a GTX 550 Ti can smooth things out on FSX as well?

That IS one thing that will eat up write cycles... It isn't like defragging an SSD ONCE is going to kill it. :lol: - But, doing it over and over again will significantly reduce the lifespan.

 

Also, SSDs don't have any difference in speed when fragmented. Defragging an SSD will make 0 difference in performance.

From what I have read so far, SSD's help a lot with stutters in FSX. I want to know why that is though? Yes it loads things faster but should only the OS and FSX be installed on the SSD or can add-ons like aircraft and sceneries go on there as well?

I just don't want people to get the idea that if they use an SSD, it will rapidly degrade. Honestly, by the time an SSD begins to degrade for a regular user, way newer tech will already be around. It would take years of constant use to wear one out....

I was going to ask the same question on this forum concerning SSD's. Having never owned one before, I want to look into one as I am currently suffering from constant stutters, since the whole limited writes issue is no that big of a deal. Currently I have two HDD drives, one is C:\ and the other is G:\. My FSX is installed on G:\ which has more space but nonetheless I get stutters. I am planning on upgrading my video card to a GTX 550 Ti but I do not know whether that will be enough for more FPS. And yes, I do understand that SSD's increase loading times but not FPS.

How is the GTX 550 Ti? Good enough? Kind of on a budget here.

AMD CPU + AMD GPU is a bad combination for FSX.

Understood.

your CPU is going to hold you back big time

Because there is the possibility of bottlenecking. Mine is @ 3.6Ghz while yours is 4.9Ghz, a big gap in speed/frequency.

Windows and FSX will load slightly faster, but your frame rate is unlikely to change unless you have something seriously wrong with your current Windows install.

Guess I will give it a go and upgrade.

That being said, Win 7 is a better O.S. than Vista, especially if you go 64-bit so it's not a bad idea, but because you're running Vista Basic 32-bit you can't just upgrade to Win 7 Ultimate 64, you would have to reinstall from scratch.

I am fully aware of that. Going from 32-bit to 64-bit always requires a clean install.

So the question is, do you want to go through many hours of work for something that doesn't really solve the problem at hand which is FSX performance?

Lets concentrate on performace.

I have two hard disks, one is C:\ and the other is G:\. I installed FSX on G:\, will that make an impact on performance? I have the directory set to G:\Games\FS10.

NVIDEA & W7 64bit in an ideal world

I am really considering going for Nvidia however I have an AMD CPU and I have heard that Nvidia video and AMD CPU creates a few problems, but I am not so sure on that claim.

you could do with more Video memory

Yes, I am planning on upgrading soon, Nvidia or AMD? But more importantly, Vista or Windows 7? Really wanted to get an answer for my question above.

I recently made the move from FS9 to FSX and as I went from a constant 60+ FPS to around 20-40 FPS I started thinking: what if Vista is causing the decrease in performance? Currently, I run Win Vista Home Basic 32-bit and on FS9 I used to get 60+FPS on my current hardware(see signature). Since I do have a copy of Win 7 Ultimate 32-bit lying around, if I upgrade to Win 7 Ultimate will I see some sort of improvement in FPS?

I have already tweaked the fsx.cfg a lot to work more efficiently with my current hardware. If you want to know what kinds of addons I use, you can see my profile.

If I need to upgrade to a 64-bit, will there be any changes or not? I do plan on replacing my current video card.

Iim going to give my review on this evolution upgrade, i actually got ONLY the update for the vol.1 edition (whats a little around $20 worth of a small investment?)I did a small test flight around frankfurt, except heres the catch, i did it with the project airbus model (i never, ever, fly with the wilco model), yes, i just copied the panel and put it in the PA airbus A320(no merge at all, and it flies near-perfect).First impression: absolutely nothing newSo here is what i thought while flying:-not even a adequate difference from deluxe model-the HUD is a bit hard to read-the FMGC will draw curves only on the SID-Still a lot of work to do on this model-not an evolution if nothing is really changed-needs more features in systems, esp. in FMGC-where oh where is the weather radar?:Confused:i bought this also because i do believe that there will be a service pack sometime in the near future, i dont see how people say the A/P is screwed up, because i flew it and the A/P works fine, speed also holds great, and i never ever had a 6000ft dive(maybe in the wilco model, its screwed up, but i dont know). i personally dont care for a VC, because neither wilco or PA have a good one, and it will be a while if we ever get a good one. i just care about systems and getting from point A to point B. As i have probably stated before, wilco are the only ones who have pulled a legitimate airbus plane and it works(OK), so even if everybody loathes them, just remember, making an airbus simulation is a lot harder than it sounds, i even have my doubts about them. So there you have it, my advice is: if you are just trying to get a small taste of what the so proclaimed "evolution series" has to offer, get ONLY the update and not the whole pack. and if you dont want anything to do with this so-called legitimate upgrade, then continue flying your 737's and 757's.:(

The Airbus is a really popular aircraft and I think that's why there could be so much candor about the issue. We all wish there was a suitable add-on for the Bus out there. However in this instance, regardless of this fact, the Wilco move with this Airbus Series Evolution "product" or rather cheap paid non-working patch has been appalling not to say a complete rip-off from a product that already presented problems. I can't help but wonder:Are they going to leave it like this? Are they going to charge for a future upgrade to fix this? Is what has happened legal in the UK or anywhere else? Are they going to come out and say something about it? Do they really think we are all stupid? They could at least pull it from their website and throw it into the trash, leave the old one as it is, apologise to their customers and give a voucher for the value we spent so we can get something else that's useful, perhaps a little entertaining or that works, if they sell such a thing.Never been so let down from the purchase of a product that I, and I'm sure many of us simmers, waited for so long and so eagerly. I think these Wilco people had a bumpy ride due to the non working weather radar, crappy rudder and non-smooth lateral navigation track display; also lost their descending profile coming down at 7000ft per minute, and when they were just about to land with great effort and cross wind, they forgot they had crappy rudder and crashed at all of us in the face! ""Too low terrain, flaps, too low terrain, retard, retard, retard!"

so, its really that bad eh? to be quite honest, i really expected more functionality from the panel and also the ND to draw "curves" when going from one waypoint to another, that is all i really wanted, since i have merged the wilco panel with the project airbus plane. its a shame really, i really hope there is going to be a service pack or something, then maybe i will consider buying this product. but after reading the reviews, i think i will continue to fly the deluxe version and have a peace of mind here.what i dont understand here is that why is it always the Airbus planes that always have these issues and not the Boeing planes like the PMDG 747 or the 737?

Your explanation is clear enough.I am ,however,afraid you are totally missing my point.You told me you saved the files without mipmaps.I was just telling you ,saving these files without mipmaps is useless because the textures in the zipfile you downloaded ARE saved without mips already.I downloaded the zipfile myself and concluded the files being saved without mips by the maker of the download.So telling you saved them without mips and that cured the problem is nonsense.The problem may have disappeared , why?? thats still a mistery to me.LeenPSPlease DO NOT publish a "fix" for the upload.There is nothing to be fixed in the first place.Second ( and in fact most vital!!): Never publish a fix for something somebody-else created.It`s his creation and reworking and republishing his work at AVSIM or somewhere-else is not allowed without his permission.

The texturefiles within this download are NOT saved with mip-maps, I wrote.So, what you are saying ?????Saving tham AGAIN without bitmaps does not work.???The fuselage textures in the zipfile are 1025Kb wich means they are without mips.With mips they should be 1366Kb.Leen