Wightleal

VOLKSWAGEN............

I have seen many references to incorrect matching between the VIEW and the SOUND being heard. Pressing Q twice to turn the sound off then back on is sometimes suggested as a cure. In my experience the only repeatble way to ensure that the SOUND is correct when the VIEW is changed is to press Q twice BEFORE changing the view (don't ask me why!). Would someone cleverer than me be able to write a script which sends a sequence of commands equivalent to Q,Q,S from the keyboard, either from a hotkey on the keyboard or from a joystick button?

Aerodynamically correct stall and spin behaviour True thrust vectoring

An inherent bug in FSX can cause the sound to become mis-matched to the view. This can be corrected by pressing Q twice, which switches the sound off then back on. I tried to automate this correction by allocating a button on my controller to emulate keyboard button S followed by Q twice. The code in the FSUIPC.ini file is as follows: 7=P0,7,K83,8 8=P0,7,K81,8 9=P0,7,K81,8 I checked the codes for the keyboard keys by letting FSUIPC choose them, and they agree with those published in the FSUIPC Advanced Manual. However, when I press the designated button #7, the simulator retracts the landing gear! I would appreciate any assistance! PS I forgot to say that neither button S nor button Q were emulated at all.

Thanks, Jim. I've looked at the fixer and I think I'lljust turn off DX10 until I'm more familiar with Acceleration. I haven't noticed any improvements over DX9 as yet!

I thought I'd try re-installing Acceleration. All good now, even with DTX10 enabled. Very strange. However, I did notice some flashing artifacts that weren't there pre=Acceleration.

I thought I'd try re-installing Acceleration. All good now, even with DTX10 enabled. Very strange. However, I did notice some flashing artifacts that weren't there pre=Acceleration.

Oh dear! I recently installed FSX for the first time, and after setting bufferpools=0 consistently achieved 30fps locked to half refresh rate. Then the Acceleration pack arrived so I installed it straight away. Guess what? My fps halved! I double checked I didn't have DX10 enabled, then I ran fs9 on the same pc which still sat at a solid 30fps. So I uninstalled Acceleration, and the FSX fps stayed at half what it had been prior to installation. I then restored the system to pre-Acceleration status, and lo and behold - solid 30fps once more. I really want to use Acceleration. Any ideas anyone?

Oh dear! Acceleration pack arrived so I installed it straight away. Guess what? My fps halved! I double checked I didn't have DX10 enabled, then I ran fs9 which still sat at a solid 30fps. So I uninstalled Acceleration, and the FSX fps stayed at half what it had been prior to installation. I then restored the system to pre-Acceleration status, and lo and behold - solid 30fps. I really want to use Acceleration. Any ideas anyone?

First of all, thanks to everyone who took the trouble to respond to this topic. Since then I have purchased a core i7 all-in-one pc, and, on a whim, FSX, partly because I think available copies are disappearing fast. My experiences so far are as follows: I now have FS9 and FSX running at a rock-solid 30fps locked to 1/2 display refresh rate. Most of the sliders in both are fully right, and FS9 looks stunning, everywhere. FSX is impressive out of the box to start with, but the ground scenery and autogen in areas I'm familiar with are appalling! (I live on the Isale of Wight in England). There is an eggs and apples issue here - over the years I have installed many improved sceneries and textures to FS9, and my FSX is sub-vanilla (I'm awaiting the Acceleration upgrade). It is clear that to get FSX to look as good as FS9 in Europe I'm going to have to spend some money. I would appreciate some advice on whether to go for ORB-X (it gets the most votes I could find on the web), or whether later packages are better. Finally, getting back to my original post, is FSX more like real flight than FS9? I have absolutely no idea!

I've been using/modifying/adding to/contributing to FS9 for many years, and it looks and feels much better now than when I started. But I am enthused by videos of P3D and XP10, which seem to be the front-runners for anyone wishing to improve their flight simulator experience. However, when looking for help in deciding which way to go myself, the bulk of the discussion I can find concerns the visual appearance of the sim. There is almost no in depth discussion about which provides the most realistic flight dynamics; indeed, there is often an off-the-cuff remark to the effect that "the FD is not perfect but is better than.....". I have (very limited) real world pilot experience, including solo, in gliders and Austers, and having tried several iterations of FSX (demo) and Flightgear (demo) in addition to my own setup, I am inclined to think that Flightgear feels more realistic than either of the others, despite the fact that its visuals are nowhere near as sophisticated, (and it's buggy!). I would be interested to know if anyone shares my opinion. I will probably invest in an eye-candy rich replacement for FS9, because the visuals are important for immersion, but I think there will remain a slight disappointment that the sensation of flight could be improved.

The 4GB patch installer automatically backs up fs9.exe.

The patch installer automatically backs up fs9.exe.

I just installed the 4GB Patch in FS9 without any trouble. The difference is very significant. Previously laggy scenery areas are now lag and stutter free. And in one instance (the Isle of Wight), previous susceptibility to freezing with GPS showing seems to have been cured. Thank you NT Core!

Living on the Isle of Wight I have watched the rise and exit of Britten-Norman at Bembridge, who have now moved to the mainland. I thought there may be some interest in the AVSIM in supporting this charity: http://www.ivanberrymandirect.com/bnaps.htm