revporl

I think its alright. I'm very impressed with the default scenery, I think the flight models (for default simple aircraft and the point of the game) are fine and the only thing letting it down really are the limited missions and the way that clouds and sky colours are rendered. As something which is really at the start of its development cycle, it's pretty good and I'm happy to keep investing in it. Of course it doesn't touch my FSX with its 20 or so commercial add-ons but I wouldn't expect it to. One day, maybe and hopefully, it will.

Ok, that's great. Will buy a couple of planes on payday then! Thanks for the quick reply, Paul

Hiya, I've just got FSX-SE up and running on a decent PC, have ORBX and is all looking great but fancy some better planes than the default. I've used Carenado planes a while ago in FS9 and thought they were v good but looking at the Carenado site, only a few of them are listed as working with SE. I would be after the Baron or B200 to replace the defaults, but neither of these are listed in the SE section. What is the issue with these, does it not know where to install them? is there any way of getting them to work? Thanks, Paul

Finally got around to downloading it (Dreamfleet B58 without RXP), it's really good flight model and the cockpit is lovely. Recommended for the £12 it cost. Thanks all for your help.

I can;t even install the actual aircraft though, because of compatibility issues. It seems that a version of Dreamfleet B58 without RXP gauges is available for around £10 so I think I'll just go for that. From what I remember, the aircraft itself is really good. Interesting that you say Dreamfleet no longer trading, but they appear to have a website still that you can purchase downloads from here http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/index.htm should I be wary of this? Thanks, Paul

Yes, Bert, that's the one, it was really good, it was Dreamfleet, not Aeroworx, my mistake getting mixed up with the brilliant King Air! They do a version without RXP gauges so I think I'll give that a go http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/Previews/B58/preview_lite.html

Hi, I don;t want the Reality XP Gauges, they're what's not working on my old CD copy of Aeroworx B58. Thanks though, I'll check that out. (Edit:Ah, looks like for FSX only)

I'm doing a lot of GA flying in the default B58 at the moment. I have the Aeroworx B58 but I'm on Windows 7 and the reality XP gauges won't work. Aeroworx also have a "Lite" version available fairly cheaply without the gauges, and there is a Caenado model available too, but this doesn;t have a 2d panel but is significantly more expensive. Is the Carenado model much better, is the Aeroworx "Lite" model worth getting or should I stick with default. The B58 does seem one of the better default FS9 planes, are the commercial alternatives worth the expenditure. PLease let me know what you think, especially if you've tried all three. Thanks, Paul

Yeah I understand that, but it's not a good thing from the POV of the public profile of the hobby. Yes, if you say that you prefer FS9 on the grounds of performance on the equipment that you actually own rather than the equipment you would own if you had £1000 to blow on a dedicated sim PC, you just get the likes of Jim coming on here going "Your choice is invalid because your computer is s**t! ", which is not just rude but completely irrelevent.

I agree with everything Camsdad says, it echoes my experience exactly. With regards to the hobby contracting somewhat, I remember around ten years ago, I used to see FSX and FS9 expansions in computer game shops with the PC games and in hobby model shops sitting alongside model railways and radio controlled aircraft, but not any more. It does seem that flight simming as a hobby is currently failing to acheive it's potential in terms of popularity, hopefully this will change with FSX-SE but it's not for me for the reasons I outlined earlier.

VAS is to do with memory allocation for specific applications isn't it? If FSX performs this more effectively, then surely it should run smoother than FS9 at higher settings, not be a stuttery, glitchy mess on a system that can run FS9 at consistent and smooth FPS with everything on the right. Yes, I tried all the .cfg tweaking etc, and that did help a bit, but for all the hassle, FSX isn't THAT much better, it's of a similar vintage to FS9 only it was released in a bit of a hurry and doesn;t work as well. One day, there'll be a new sim that isn;t based on FSX tchnology like P3D is, and has the traffic and ATC that X-Plane lacks (although from a pure flying pov, that is the best sim by a mile) and then I'll jump on the bus (or plane), until then its a no-brainer, X-Plane for IVAO and FS9 for solo simming.

I've spent the last few weeks tinkering and tinkering and fussing and mussing with FSX-SE and it's such a relief to get back to FS9, it just works! With FE and GEPro and FSWXPro and some good third party aircraft it's still a good sim. I think we tend to forget that both FS9 and FSX are old programs now and that there was only a couple of year gap between them, I've never been that convinced by the idea that FSX was a great leap forward, and it's always been a bugger to get to work smoothly and consistently.

Have downloaded, installed and registered the .ocx file but still have the same error message, any more suggestions?

Windows 7 64bit

Sorry, I've downloaded this, added it to the correct directory and registered it, but have the same error message. The .dll file is already in place. Any suggestions?