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?

If I run as admin I get error compomemt 'comdlg32.ocx' or one of its dependencies not correctly registered. a file is missing or invalid.

I'll have to copy them manually, do I copy the runway files over as well as those?

Ah, grrrr. Just unistalled and reinstalling RC4 as I thought I had done something wrong with administrator settings when installing it. Actual answer lots quicker than that. Grrrr again!

Hi, I have recently purchased FSX-SE and when I used to use FS9 I used RC4.3 without any problem. I have downloaded and registered RC4 with a new registration key, that worked fine. I need to run Rebuild Scenery DB first of all but it does not recognise the path C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\FSX as the location of my FSX file (and it is correct). I get runtime error 75, can't find path. I have downloaded the latest version of FSUIPC, and that seems to be working. What can the problem be? Thanks, Paul

Hi I purchased FSX-SE on steam when it was £5 and have recently installed it. For now, my hardware is not able to run it properly and until I get a new PC later in the year, I need to run it with autogen switched off in order to get a contant usable 30fps out of it (oi, stop laughing at the back!). Until now I've been using XP9 with IVAO for all my flight simming which is great but it is nice to have everything, planning, ATC, AI aircraft all under one program with FSX. However, graphically it looks very poor minus autogen compared to XP9, the tiling is repetitive, bland and kind of "bleached out" looking so I've been considering buying a replacement texture program to improve it, maybe ORBX or more likely GEX. Does anyone have any experience of using these without, or with minimal autogen? Do they make a significant improvement in the way that FSX looks? All the screenshots I've seen to demonstrate both of these have dense autogen set which isn't an option for me. Can anyone post a screen shot of GEX or ORBX without autogen so I can have a quick look. Also, apart from these two, what are the other alternatives? Thanks, Paul

Hi, Have it working now, thanks. Slightly different way around, have to go windowed via keystrokes, start RC, and then full screen via menu, if I do it by keystrokes, the RC window disappears. Also it only works on max resolution but great to have it back. Thanks, Paul

I'm using a much lower spec machine, and the improvement in FPS is more noticeable for me, from 12-20 before to consistently around 30 FPS now

Ok, for me while PC is probably down towards the lower end of the spectrum having used SE for a couple of days, it is a huge improvement on both FSX (admittedly without the service packs) and P3d v1. 30% increase in FPS and much more stable across the board. There may not be such an improved performance on higher spec machines huge improvement for me, as in something better than FS9 is actually usable.

Thanks a lot I'll try that tomorrow. Paul

Hi, RC4 doesn't seem to want to work with new Steam edition FSX. I didn;t have any problems before with FS9, FSX or P3D but now it says something about bad IPC data when I try and use the new (and much better) Steam version of FSX. Is it to do with FSCUIP? Do I need to replace that with an up to date version? Any help would be welcome as its back to default ATC for now. Grrr! Thanks, Paul