Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

190 Excellent

1 Follower

About ArjenVdv

  • Rank
    Member - 1,000+
  • Birthday 01/31/1995

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The Netherlands

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

4,099 profile views
  1. It is not the sound settings, it happens to me as well. Why would older products work for 5.1, and the newer products would not? It seems a bit illogical to me that the 747 and 777 do not work for 5.1 because they are newer. I would expect the opposite in fact!
  2. We are at P3D V4 and after so many years of "development", this platform is still crashing? Unbelievable.
  3. Best to worst: MD-11 737 NGX 777 747 Very strange how, with every release, everybody is mentioning how PMDG's newest release is performing the best. Yet, I have had all planes installed on three different PCs, including a laptop, and the relative results are all the same, and therefore I find it hard to believe that people are reporting the 747 as the best performance. I would rather classify this as placebo. In other words, newer releases should perform worse, which is logical, considering that a more recent release means that the plane has more advanced technology and graphics. Also, a newer release is adapted to more modern system components that are more likely to handle the software sufficiently. Yes, absolute differences might be observed across different systems, however, I don't see any scientific explanation for a difference in relative performance. Unless of course, they all differ in their demand for resources. If one plane is highly GPU-depedant, and the other is highly CPU-dependant, then you might observe such differences. But considering that all PMDG planes are super CPU-intensive, they should all perform in the order mentioned above.
  4. We definitely need a good regional jet. Something between a regional turboprop and a 737 / A320. There is litterally not a single good one out there! An Embraer 170 - 195 would be a very good choice.
  5. The problem is very likely your settings. I for one have seen settings that might be causing this problem. Look at your shadow settings, they are set pretty high. You have set simobjects shadows to on, with some pretty high shadow cast distances. This might explain your problem: many Aerosoft airports have certain objects and vehicles in common, which shadows are maybe not handled properly by the sim, and causing those stutters. I would try turing off all shadows. Then start enabling shadows for your aircraft first, then maybe terrain with a low shadow cast distance. No need to set it to 20000 meters.
  6. Unbelievable that we still have to make stupid workarounds for our sim to work properly. We are in 2017! Yes, I know this is LM's fault. Recently my PC broke down, and this time I will no longer reinstall FSX on a new system. And considering many developers have cancelled plans for XPlane, it's either going to be P3D or nothing at all. I currently have the budget to build a new 2000$ system and buy all P3D addons, but these things are holding me back from taking the plunge, it's starting to look like another 10 years where we have to spend 25% of our flightsimming time to resolving problems. It is not normal for games or simulators to crash all the time. I also play racing simulators and with add-ons running in the background writing telemetry. I have driven hundreds of hours on these racing simulators, and never ever have I experienced a CTD. My time in FSX however saw random errors of all types, such as API.dll, MSVCR120.dll, ntdll.dll, kernelbase.dll, and the list goes on. 95% of my flight where trouble free, but whenever I encountered a problem, it took hours and sometimes days to solve it. Often when people are reporting problems, one of the first reactions is "There must be something wrong with your system." I always cringe when I see that. A well-developed application should be able to handle some system instability, and not crash because of every single tiny thing.
  7. I had the exact same thing happening to me a while ago. I always used to be running FSX in Windows 7, until I upgraded to Windows 10 last summer. Didn't really play FSX during that period, but as soon as I got serious about it again, I noticed VSync wasn't working. Note this is FSX and not P3D. A solution was never found, until I rolled back to Windows 7 and it was working again. It allegedly had something to do with my type of hardware (Intel Sandy Bridge) having some kind of problem in Windows 10, a problem I can't remember anymore, it's in that thread somewhere. Anyway, I don't think I am good help here, because I had this in FSX and couldn't solve it, but just wanted to let you know you're not the only one. And by the way, Vsync 1/2 does not work in P3D, at least not it its current state. I wonder if LM will ever be able to get VSync 1/2 to work with their pseudo full screen mode? Or is this technically impossible in any application?
  8. BP=0 does not take any effect in DX10! Maybe you should try in DX9, and see if it works. The problem is with DX10 is, is that it will perform worse than DX9, if you were used to running DX9 with BP=0. BP=0 in DX9 will give you a huge performance increase, but because it doesn't take any effect in DX10, you'll actually experience worse performance. However, let's say you have never made any changes to BP, or used to have it on with a RejectThreshold setting, you'll not get the performance boost in DX9, then switching to DX10 will give you an improvement. So all in all, DX10 relative performance depends on where you came from. Just a simple random comparison, with made-up FPS numbers: DX9 default / BP=1 DX9 with BP=0 DX10 30 FPS 40 FPS 35 FPS DX10 should perform right in the middle of DX9 default and DX9 BP=0. About the add-on manager: It does indeed make unwanted changes in your fsx.CFG, that might cause instability issues and CTDs. Always keep a copy of a tweaked fsx.CFG that gives you good results, so you can overwrite it any time a third-party program makes unwanted changes. That is very likely due to setting Water to HIGH2x, which will give you those cloud shadows.
  9. Definitely OFF if you have a good graphics card. I am not entirely sure, but BP=0 will make sure everything is sent directly to the GPU. If you have a bad GPU, that cannot handle that, you'll likely get artifacting. Bufferpools ON will give you better stability, which is recommended for weaker GPUs. Switching it off will increase performance by 25-50%. If you get artifacting and flashing, setting water to HIGH 2x should help with that. RejectThreshold is useless if BufferPools are off. So don't worry about that. Your current setting is the one you want.
  10. Not many 717s in Europe. Would love to fly the CRJ, but let's see how well Aerosoft will do. As far as I know their VNAV (or the Airbus / Bombardier equivalent of that) is not realistically modelled.
  11. I am going to jump in and give you this advice: FTX Global + FTX Trees + UTX will be the perfect combination. FTX Global is superior to GEX and absolutely amazing. It improves FPS and helps with blurries. FTX Trees is great too. But then I got FTX Vector, and obviously I expected the usual great quality from ORBX, but was highly disappointed. I noticed the roads were extremely inaccurate and some of them where even missing. In my area there is a road that leads into a city, and with FTX Vector it justs ends randomly in the scenery. Also, this road is on the wrong side a of a canal. UTX however, depicts these roads perfectly, and has even modelled the roundabouts that are there. I also bought OpenLC Europe, and again was highly disappointed. Where FTX Vector doesn't do much to performance, OpenLC is a little bit of a recourse hog and might causes very annoying microstutters. I am never experiencing microstutters but this is the only add-on that made things horrible. Even the ORBX Regions run perfectly smooth, even though it causes an FPS drop. A friend of mine has OpenLC as well, and he had the microstutters too, but he considered it as "smooth has silk". It sometimes surprises me how people only look at FPS and still perceive microstuttery motion as "smooth". I recommend buying UTX, as far as I know it does pretty much the same as FTX Vector + OpenLC together. In my opinion, it even looks way better. The only downside is that UTX covers only a continent or region, such as Europe, USA, Canada, and the Caribbean, while FTX Vector covers the entire world. For textures get FTX Global, you'll not be disappointed.
  12. Turn off "Aircraft casts shadows on the ground." I can remember my AI traffic not showing unless I turned this off.
  13. I wonder why no one is mentioning a CRJ or an Embraer? We all know short to medium range turbojets sell like warm sandwiches. It is also a good opportunity to finally develop something different than a Boeing. Boeings will always be my favourite but I'd like to see something else, some plane to operate Regional / Cityhopper flights with. I hate using the NGX for this while in real life an Embraer, CRJ, or Fokker is used. Fokker, would love one those too, would sell well too, though probably only in the Netherlands (KLM has loads of them). By the way, for some reason I don't see the other products being ported over into X-Plane, although I'd love to see that...
  14. I recently reinstalled my OS and it activated just fine?
  15. A bit off topic but one question, I am interested in the FSLabs A320, how much worse is its FPS compared to PMDG? Let's say you get 30 FPS in the 777, what would it be in the A320?
  • Create New...