rayharris51

Fex 2.0.4 was released a few months ago and is compatible with P3D v3.3.5. I happened to have it back from 2009, and was able to update it to this version. I was gobsmacked how good it looks in P3D. Even in my 2008 shots I looked at recently, taken in FSX Acceleration, FEX it looked far better than most of the shots I've seen here or could get myself even with REX TD4. I have ASCA and AS16 and I now use FEX 2.0.4 with ASCA and AS16. It looks as good as it gets for me. Not able to upload screenies right now due to lack of time but maybe soon... If anyone still has FEX, give it a go - like to know what you think. Ray

I can't upload images from here, but I just had a scary flight in a B200 from AYPY to a little island offshore PNG using ASCA and AS16. From over 100 miles out at 20000 feet I could see a clear line of huge thunder showers. 110mi visibility is perfectly feasible in AS16/ASCA That was very scary, thundery showers with wind shear on approach with heavy rain and and turbulence as well as smooth performance and the general realism it engenders is a big shift up in immersion from the previous generation. I'd like to see rain bands at the bottom of showers, so keeping my eye on Rex Sky Force...but otherwise v happy so far. We all survived, albeit a couple of pax lost their breakfast. Ray

+1 I use PTA shaders with Adamski's HD mod in P3D 3.3.5 and As16 + ASCA. Wouldn't go back to anything else....

Some downloaded both products. Clouds are dynamic so alive probably only seen a limited subset.mseeked a bit more like soft clouds than the previous Rex non soft set I was using. I set 2048 low level,clouds and 4096 upper level. Clouds look less popcorn like, although I'll need to do more testing as the cloud tops were well above the FL140 I was at. Flew from PAJN to PAGY. What I did notice was the water colour was v interesting. Nice green, blues and silver in the Fjords, much nicer than Rex. The sun is the same tiny blob though. Bout time someone did a realistic sun for P3D...! The atmospheric scattering also looks different to Rex, although I am using the PTA shader pack. Again diffraction and mist looks different. Can't quite decide on that. Hope this helps people. Certainly no regrets for changing. Ray

V nice I'm That Scotflight? Sorry - is that Scotflight?

They're very natural and crystal clear - great shots

Hi Damian Thanks, and if so then this looks very promising, and hard to resist Some videos showing the higher cloud structures would be great .... Kind regards Ray

All good, but the focus seems still to be mainly on various exotic cumulus storm and low - med level clouds. I just wonder if they will include Alto Cumulus, stratocumulus, cirro cumulus and other important mid level clouds, at the moment this is a big gap in realistic rendition. Funnily enough we used to see a sort of alto cumulus as far back as FS2004... But rarely since. If this product could get rid of Cumulus clouds appearing at 15-25,000 and replace them with realistic mid level clouds then they have my vote - + more stratiform clouds... Also thick layers of Cirro stratus in weather fronts right from 30,000 down to 3,000 nimbostratus stratus layers would be good, if not a little challenging on performance no doubt. Interesting developments though. Ray

Hi Martin, No idea why you can't get register for an account on their forums - have you tried? In my experience Kat is usually responsive and helpful and you should have received regular emails like the one below. This is the latest info I can find on the Phantom: vA1.160114_E is the latest installer. You will be notified of the next iteration by your vendor or by following the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Support Phorum The Phantom support forum is another account which I can't log onto it either, so can understand your frustration. Not sure if this helps. Did you quote your order no and details etc when you sent them emails? Ray

I've just installed 364.72 driver With the previous driver (361 something) I was getting around 30 fps in an add on GA (lancair) now 60-70 fps. I have i5 4690 GTX970 8Gb. This is P3D 3.2 in PNW , REX 4 TD plus ASN but not soft clouds

Hi I got mine working with full screen perfectly in both FSX and P3D. All I did was set all files in FSX directories to be read and write. However, I forgot to do that in P3D but it still works anyway. For me the mouse-over spot altitude of ground relief is brilliant, as well as VOR sends to NAV1 or 2 etc. I have FSC anyway so don't need it any more as a flight planner. Ray Ray

Hi ORBX experts, Really enjoying my new FTX Scotland scenery which I only just got the other say. This is an initial impression which was a slight (and only) annoyance. I fly a lot in the Hebrides (eg Barra) and Skye areas, and NW Scotland and although today is 29th November, all the ground textures are covered with snow and it looks like Alaska. Not perhaps being the greatest expert on W Scotland and I'm not suggesting it never snows in Scotland, I do believe that snow on the ground in that part of the world is rare, particularly when the temp today is 8 degrees C. It would be understandable for the textures to show snow if it was minus 2C, but could we not have snow free winter textures in that part of Scotland unless the weather dictates otherwise? It is not an arctic climate and should depict a cool moist Oceanic area, something like Vancouver Island perhaps, with snow on the mountains. Or am I missing something? Otherwise a terrific product! Thanks Ray

Hi All, Just wanted to say a big up to Rob at Realair. I did something really stupid last week, in a late night bleary session - I am a Duke Turbine owner. Thought, great - must take advantage of the upgrade to the B60 Duke v2, It didn't work of course, and neither had my brain, I'd downloaded an upgrade to something I didn't have (the B60 piston Duke v1). I had sent a message to RealAir asking for help, but when I found out in the morning what I had done, I wrote it off as a stupid mistake and a waste of $30. doh! Later the same day Rob wrote back saying they had decided to give me the V2 Beech Duke anyway at a discount (just this time though!) and that I should be more careful in future (It does say no refunds for mistakes on the website....). 110% customer service! Needless to say the Duke v2 is just about the best GA sim I have ever tried - can't speak highly enough of it. It has detailed systems modeling, superb FDE, incredibly responsive and realistic, beautiful cockpit graphics and liveries and a rare sensation of actually flying through the air, and that is a really difficult to capture in a simulation and is an absolute joy. 110% quality! Best of all it rocks for frames on my antique dual core 3Gb rig with the nVidia GTS250 card. Thanks RealAir! Ray

Hi Claudio I don't have the PMDG, but a quick look around would suggest there's a lot of info out there from people with similar types of problems with the PMDG, and they have quite often found ways to solve them which may help you. Have you been on the PMDG forum and asked a PMDG person? That would be your best bet. The fact no one answered you here might be because they wondered why you were asking this forum instead of going the PMDG route, or why you hadn't done some research yourself first maybe? :-) Ray

Hi I have both, and haven't flown the old one since I bought the new one. It is different, perhaps a bit more of a challenge to master, esp the AP and managing climbs and descents. It is worth the trouble though because it is much more realistic, (as far as I know) than the old one. It also looks better; VC is excellent. They also seem to have got the Flight model right first time, the old one took several go's, if anyone remembers. Really there's no comparison, I could say much more, but look for yourself. If you need a twin bus for bush flying this is a must. PS I also have the BN2 Islander - which is great - but horses for courses, Try landing the Twin X at Lukla and you'll see what I mean. Hope this helps Ray

I bought it because its very cheap and I was curious and happy to twiddle. I already use DX10 with Alacrity PC, which works really well and is free. My FSX CFG was tweaked this year using Bojote's free service (also recommended). My first attempts halved the framerates I was already getting at CYLW (ORBX) with the Beech Duke. (13 down to 6 then 9!) I have a very old PC which can still run FSX in most parts of PNW/PFJ/SAK, but who knows, there may be a setting that will help - worth some time anyway. Some observations: 1. You have to back up your FSX config - it doesn't provide an auto fsx.cfg back up option from what I could see. 2. I wasn't clear whether it has a bona fide external Frame limiter and whether it would work with DX10...but it does seem to work, 3. FSPS doesn't seem to care whether I am running DX9 or 10, 4. Although first results were unpromising I am happy to twiddle until I get results. Not sure if its fair to call it snake oil, but it ain't necessarily gonna solve your FSX problems either - the marketing suggests otherwise 5. The manual says if this doesn't work it's time for new hardware, equally I could just go back to my old FSX CFG :-) Well OK its early days, but If you have a system that is already smooth and working well, I guess don't bother. Ray

Hi, Commiserations..we've all been there - several times in my case. Don't waste any tears. Yes its a pain but every time I've re-installed, what I get is better than what I had before. I'd even go as far as to say that a completer re-install every few years is essential. What's the error message you get/got when you get a blue screen? That should give you a clue, eg whether its hardware or Windows related. Then google the error message... Hope it helps and good luck. Ray

Hey I have a 5 year old PC (core2duo 3GHz) with an ancient GTS250 graphics card and 4Gb of unmentionably old memory. I enjoy 20+ fps in Orbx SAK and PNW with Beech Duke and Twin Otter in FSX, as much as I do in exactly the same areas in FS9, but with iFly 737s, in Glacier Bay, Tongass and Misty Fjords (which incidentally are epic in FS9). Don't get depressed if you can't do everything in FSX on awesome h/w, it seems v few can at least not those outside NASA. Both Sims are massive achievements on domestic h/w. When they work they give immense satisfaction and enjoyment. When they don't well...you'll need med insurance (if you're not British). They haven't sussed that Flight Sim related stress shouldn't really be treatable on the NHS yet. But neither of these Sims would be up to as much if wasn't for the amazing community of flight sim experts, designers, artists, graphics experts, IT and aviation professionals, that we are so lucky to have with us. I simply don't know any area where such a varied and skilled group of people work to help their community globally as our lot do. So thanks.... Ray

Systemutt whatever... .... that sucks, Xplane Shmexplane. FSex... I got totally smooth frame rates, realistic systems, incredible graphics and a completely immersive experience today. 360 head movement (huh?) and as for the airports man you gotta see it to believe it.. Yep I'm off to Germany today on a A319 from Heathrow (T5 with hostesses and everything, real food) Follow that punks! (lol sorry couldn't resist and yes the Gulfstream looks cool)

Hi Virtpilot Not sure of the technical explanation, something to do with how AMD cards' shaders work as you suggest. It is fairly well understood that AMD cards do not handle clouds at all well in FSX compared to nVidia. It's a shame you chose AMD, perhaps on the basis of cost; but from what I've seen on the Forums nVidia 560ti or 660ti cards are a reasonable choice for FSX. There may be some optimisations though, perhaps others can recommend. I have a Win7 64 laptop with a crappy AMD card on board, and it dislikes thick clouds in FSX even more than I do on real planes :-) Not sure if this helps. Ray (no pseudonym available..)

Happened several times to me and it really is not so bad once you've done it once. Performance has improved every time. Make sure your original download files and licence codes on the PC are backed up on another disk though. Unless the disk fails its prob recoverable, but if you can be bothered, or its really important to you, maybe clone the disk so it can be restored as is onto a new disk. I take mine into a local repair shop and they usually bring it back from the dead. I blew an EPROM in the mobo once and had to start all over again aaargh! Hazard of the job though Good luck! Ray

Interesting thread. Oculus Rift sounds decidedly cool - a 3d headset for FS2004!! Come on developers get your dev teams out of the pub. A gaming platform is only as good as its community (and this is an excellent and entertaining one for sure), As long as consumers stay interested, the game lives on regardless of the survival of the original producer. FS2004 was a great platform 9 years ago, and today it's even better, because the original platform is buried under layers of subsequent community/commercial products, that 's why it's lasted so long.The mistake MIcrosoft made was to try to control the action rather than continue to support it. Simmers are like musicians (indeed they are often musicians, as in my case), I have used Cubase and other DAWS in the past, now I use Reaper. It cost $60 but I've since spent a lot more on my studio and plug ins. FS2004 cost me £30 in 2005, I daren't mention how much I have spent on case my wife or kids read this. In both cases the platform was a base for development, they did not try to control the community. This is different from say Logic and ProTools or Prepar3d, where the community is a business or commercial one, and customers dictate product direction. If you run a studio then you better use Logic and ProTools whatever your opinion. If you want an accessible platform for training and simulation Prepar3d may be on track to become a standard ( I also work in Aerospace!). Whatever it is, you ignore your user community at your peril, as sadly Microsoft found out recently with Flight. Most of us just aspire to be free souls who simply wish to be taken above the clouds and arrive somewhere else using our own skill, ingenuity and some immensely good immersive simulations and scenery. Whilst software companies cater for people like us, we foolish weak people with credit cards and paypal accounts will carry on spending. Long live our new toys! Ray

Hi The only thing I can compare your rig with is my own, which is an E6850 (not a Quad core, a generation behind the Q8200 I think), and my 1Gb GTS250 OC graphics card. Although graphics cards matter less in FS9 your card is definitely on the low side and may also impact performance. The older the card, the less benefit you tend to get from the newest drivers. What I would say is your CPU is slow, FS2004 is not demanding by modern standards but I have a 3GHz Dual Core and you have a 2.2GHz Quad core, I would probably do a bit better, exactly pro rata. FS9 neither knows nor cares about Quad cores it can't benefit from later architectures in any case.I have never seen 100fps although that may be because my 60Hz screen limits it when you apply vertical sync. However at EGLL or KLAX in full traffic and heavy cloud I will still be down to the teens - but smoothness and performance is acceptable.You will need to tweak for smoothness as FS9 is a b....er for the stutters even on fast rigs. This includes the famous 3Gb large address aware switch (covered extensively in these forums) and of course optimising your uservas (virtual addressable space) at the same time. 4Gb RAM helps a lot and a 64bit OS is better than a 32bit OS,Anyway you did not really specify what you mean by slow fps so I cant help any more than these general comments. It also depends what extras you throw at FS9, REX for FS9 or similar, having 1028 clouds, hi res water, ground environment pro and UT all add load.Hope this helpsRay

We're a very sensitive bunch here - the same sensitivity that sets our hearts aflame when we do a nice landing in FS9 with an Alaska airlines 737 on a grey sleety evening at Sitka RWY11 with a 15kt crosswind, lights up at the disturbingly different environment of Flight. We are unsure how to react.FS9 was all mood, with lots of room to let out imaginations soar. Nowadays FS9 also looks and feels amazing (sometimes). Flight though does look amazing but also reigns in our imagination, and instead of leaving us to create our own world, does it all for us - in a little bubble one Island across.No wonder we are exercised about it. We Brits of course do not show our emotions in public, we keep a stiff upper lip and scream in silence :-) (aaaarghhhhh!!)Like me, most of you probably get your kicks at least some of the time by doing something few of us can in real life - piloting a large aircraft from one hub to another - maybe the more remote the better and the worse weather the better (Yakutat in a 737 or Reykyavik in a 757 will do). For those whose excitement or satisfaction comes from doing that, Flight will never do the trick.Those who prefer bush flying in GA may be happier with FSX flying around the Orbx world, Lukla or Hawaii occasionally, but if you are in the UK you may be very unhappy not to have an airport like EGKA (Shoreham) to fly from. You can also do all that in FS9, but Flight will never do that for you - at least for a long time probably - it is almost certain to be US centric for some time yet...So Flight will do little to give us adventuring souls any real fulfillment or excitement once we have done the missions - which do look good by the way. But thanks for the honest and informative appraisal of Flight and an instructive video. I have downloaded Flight myself and it seems to work well on my E6850 machine. Once I get the hang of it, I may give up that B200 flight from Ushuaia to Base Marambio or Juneau to Yakutaut in a 737, for Flight. maybe once or twice, but probably not that often.Ray

Just an additional note which may help: I stupidly decided that 260.99 was a bit pedestrian and tried to re install 290 beta. I then got a constant 'Install Failed' message with everything I tried. Tore out what remained of my hair for a couple of days but eventually after trawling the forums, applying various tweaks and completely purging my machine of all directories, left over NV files, using reg cleaner, CC cleaner, Drive Cleaner Pro and much penitent time spent in Safe Mode, I almost went for a complete Windows reinstall.Finally I went back to 266.x. and it reinstalled the driver with no problem, so I guess I'm stuck here for the time being. Interestingly I still get a 'Low on Registry space' error message sometimes, even though I have rebuilt and increased the size of my page file (which was one suggested solution).The lesson is that if everything fails and you can't install any drivers post 270, the 260s may still install hopefully. Hope this helps someone not to mess around with graphic drivers too much. If anyone needs advice having had similar problems, I would be happy to help if I could Yours, leaving everything alone and just flying for the time being...Ray