ricardo_r

Is it just me or the apron textures aren't rendered just as nicely as in the older sims? They look like lower res and jagged, with a generic tarmac mask on top of them. For comparison: https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/71084-brussels-international-preview/page/36/&tab=comments#comment-974185 It's also noticeable on other devs previews. Also that sunset like lighting looks a bit too warm, a bit overdone IMO. Other than that this new sim looks miles away better than anything else.

Ok, so I followed a lead regarding a possible corrupt .NET framework 4.5 preventing Catalyst from installing correctly. I've made a complete clean installation of .NET 4.5, but still Catalyst wouldn't recognize my video card, but hey, since I was desperate already, I've decided to try latest 13.11 Beta4 drivers. I installed them manually, on top of 13.4, through device manager. Guess what... FSX back to normal. Today, when I fired FSX, it seemed good for a few moments but eventually it got sh***y again! <_<

Thanks for your hints, Charles! Will have to check those links later. Just two side notes... First is that the integrated Intel GPU is always on load, even in desktop, despite I'm using my ATI card as the only source of image, no second monitor connected to the MoBo. As per GPU-Z, it's running @350MHz core clock and @800MHz memory clock. Shouldn't it be completely idle? Second, in default Friday Harbour flight, FSX is using between 25~30% CPU. I'm not sure if this value is normal, will have to check with the iGPU later. Very strange indeed. Newer, more GPU demanding games such as COD Black Ops 2, F1 2012, PES 2014 are running perfectly fine.

Hi gents! Yesterday my FSX went crazy performance wise. I didn't fire up FSX for a few days, so I can't remember exactly if I did anything in my system that would affect FSX's performance (I've been doing some experiences in Gmax, though I don't see how can it affect FSX in any way). By low performance I mean low frames, stuttering like hell and lots of glitches while panning view. Here's my system btw: Intel i5 3750k @stock (yes, I know... :rolleyes: , since I bought it, I didn't have the necessary time yet to learn on how to OC it properly); ATI 5770 1Gb RAM 8Gb system RAM Asrock Z77 Pro4 First thing I did was to backup current installation and settings folders, try a clean FSX.cfg, then a stock Scenery.cfg+scenery cache deleted and finally a full vanilla FSX+Acc installation. No tweaks, no scenery, no mods whatsoever. No good here. Then I tried to install latest ATI drivers (13.9), which, I don't know why but it didn't actually update the drivers, so I fully uninstalled ATI's drivers, through either setup manager and a program called "Display Driver Uninstaller". Now whenever I try to install 13.9 or 13.4, the setup manager won't recognize my video card. Anyway, I went on and installed the drivers alone manually, through device manager. It didn't any good either, even worse as now it doesn't install properly. Then I went through i5's integrated HD4000 GPU and guess what, FSX running on full power again. Even with my full FSX installation+settings. On other games everything seems to be normal with the ATI. Does anybody have a clue? Thanks in advance! :wink:

Thanks for your answers! :smile: Guess I'll go for this: I know the 8350 is doing really well on other games, but FSX is a whole different beast. AFAIK, the 3570k is basically a 3770k with no HT and a few less cache (2Mb) and FSX really makes no use of HT. Bear in mind this is all I've been reading, so if I'm actually wrong please correct me. :smile:

Hi all! Currently my specs are a Core2Duo E7500 @2900 (stock), 4Gb DDR800, ATI HD5770 1Gb and I'm looking forward to this upgrade: (Memory will be 2x4, not 1x8 as shown) As for the graphics card, it will be upgraded in a few months, probably to a GTX660. Although, I'm still a bit apprehensive on choosing this i5 instead of a FX 8350. This is mainly because despite everyone talking great things about the Intel chips, I'm still to find a report proving the 3570k is powerful enough for FSX+addons, instead I read some posts here and there of 3570k owners reporting they have i.e. 15-20fps on heavy sceneries with low autogen, low AI traffic, etc... Here and here I see two nice testimonies on the AMD's side. Also other people on other forums are talking good things about the 8350. I'm mainly looking into flying with addons like NGX, MJC Q400, REX, AI traffic (AIG packages for that matter), some Aerosoft's Mega Airports and alike. According to those 8350 reports, can the 3570k really beat the AMD chip? Thanks in advance!

Ah, ok, my idea was wrong. Understood now!Thanks again!

Hum... I've tried these settings but it got worse, here's a sample @KLAX:I've also turn off the Diskless mode just to check if Tileproxy is indeed downloading LOD18 textures, and it is, but God knows why FSX is not showing them properly.For the LOD Radius issue, as far as I understand, it can also be handled by the level_mapping setting within Service.x configuration, right? Although it isn't the issue so far, as the ground right bellow my aircraft is all blurred.Thanks again Loyd!:smile:edit: forgot to say, during the tests any kind of security software is active (just in case there could be some interference...).

First off all, thanks for answering!:smile:The FSTiles (FSEarthTiles, forgot the "Earth" in the original post) imagery looks pretty much or even exactly the same as the source imagery (on FSEarthTiles you can choose the resolution you want to compile your .bgl with. I chose the highest setting).I didn't post level settings cause I wasn't sure about permissions to post or not server related content (more specifically its addresses), but here are those settings:min_level=9max_level=19level_mapping=9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19(Virtual Earth, by the way...)I believe these settings depict the maximum resolution for the given place (Aveiro, Portugal, like 1.1m/pix I guess...). The tile I took with FSEarthTiles has an area of about 4~4.2sqnm and the correspondingly .bgl "weighs" about 45mb. Also my screenshots were captured less than 1km southbound of the starting airfield which means Tileproxy didn't have to load much imagery. But anyway how can I know the source imagery resolution?My computer is an Intel Core2Duo E7500@2.93 (stock), 4Gb DDR2 RAM, ATI HD5770 1Gb DDR5 RAM and I'm running a 10Mb Internet connection. FSX settings were exactly the same in both pictures, just changed FSEarthTiles' layer priority between them two.Once again, thanks a lot for your help!:(

Hi all!I'm new to Tileproxy and I'm having some problems on running Tileproxy flawlessly under my FSX. The problem is that the photoreal quality presented in my installation is not as good as it should be. To better show you what I mean, here are two screenshots captured in the same exact place, except one is Tileproxy's ground and the other is a tile I took from the very same map service with a program called "FSTiles", in which the last one shows how it should look like.Tileproxy:FS Tiles:As you can see, under Tileproxy the ground looks very blurred.At first I let Tileproxy use my self made configuration (configured through Tileproxy's setup wizard), then I tried the pre-configured .ini file, then back to my own config and no matter what, it always looked the same. Dunno what else can I do... I've even increased "Fiber_frame_fraction" and "Texture_Bandwidth" values on FSX.cfg and nothing... The service map version number is also up to date according to the map versions' topic here at Avsim.Over other places from where I've seen screenshots with amazing ground quality (like Fresno and Florida at Tileproxy's homepage), my ground also looks as bad as in the picture above.Here's my config file: What am I missing here? Can someone help me please?:rolleyes:Thanks in advance and a very merry Christmas to everyone!:(