ArjenVdv

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!

We are at P3D V4 and after so many years of "development", this platform is still crashing? Unbelievable.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Turn off "Aircraft casts shadows on the ground." I can remember my AI traffic not showing unless I turned this off.

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...

I recently reinstalled my OS and it activated just fine?

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?

Yes it will have effect, although I am onlu sure about FSX. That's the whole problem with the water setting, it will effect performance massively when set to MAX2x, and yes also above land. LOW2x should look nearly the same, except for cloud shadows AFAIK. Again, use the bufferpools tweak. Will increase performance by 25-50%. Onlu works in DX9 though!

Do you have this in your fsx.CFG: [bufferPools] PoolSize=0 ? Only works in DX9! Dont use water higher than HIGH2X.

I just don't understand how some people people with state of the art systems only get 18-23 FPS? How is that even possible? I am running high settings (everything one notch off ultra, except for LOD, global texture resolution), and I am getting 30-60 FPS. On FlyTampa EHAM 30-40 FPS. Going onto IVAO with some weather might lower it into the the mid to high twenties, but 18 FPS? Also running FTX Global and UTX.

It's quite unlikely they are going to do yet another Boeing. A CRJ or Embraer makes perfect business. I'd love an Embraer, I see them at my local airport (KLM), and they are used for the smaller destinations. I currently have to use the NGX for that and that feels a little unrealistic.

I fixed the problem. The problem was the newest NVIDIA driver. I reverted back to driver 350 and it worked fine. Re-tried 376 and problem appeared again. Reinstalled 350 and works fine again. Proves again new drivers can possibly create problems. Yet Jim Young mentioned he always cringes when he sees people making assertions about NVIDIA driver updates causing problems...

Hello people, After recently having fixed a problem by reverting back to Windows 7, another (minor) problem started happening. The problem is that the screen sometimes flickers between FSX and the desktop. This does not happen within the sim itself, it only happens when I click "Fly now", when the sim has finished loading, when entering and exiting the menus, and when closing the sim. It flickers maybe two times for one second, and in between, I can see the desktop sometimes. During every flicker, I can hear popping sound through my speakers simultaneously with the flicker. Also happening if I unplug the speakers. Because it doesn't happen within the sim itself, it is no big deal for me, but it kind of gets onto my nerves everytime I enter or exit the sim. Anyone else seeing this on Windows 7? I can't recall this happening on Windows 10 or previously on Windows 7.

It's best not to use the Inspector limiter at all. It is kind of "weak", and still allows for spiking as you mentioned. The best thing to do is using the internal limiter, which downside is that is supresses your FPS. So as long as you cannot maintain a stable FPS number (20 FPS for 1/3 refresh rate) it will not be smooth. One advice: on a few add-on planes such as the PMDG planes, you can get away with not using any FPS limiter whatsoever, and VSync 1/2 refresh rate should still be 100% smooth, as long as you can maintain a stable 30 FPS. One requirement is however to set the refresh rate of the displays to either 15 or 30 in the CDU, otherwise you might get stuttering. Unfortunately in the default planes and planes you can achieve high FPS with, FPS is going to spike a lot because it is very eager to go high. These are the situations in which you are definitely going to need the internal limiter.

I think you missed part of my post. What I meant to say was that vanilla DX10 does indeed perform better than vanilla DX9. From my experience those 20% are kind of close. However, add "PoolSize=0" to your fsx.CFG, and you FPS in DX9 move will increase 25-50%. Run DX10 mode, and PoolSize=0 will not take any effect, so performance will stay the same. So all in all DX10 is faster by default, but DX9 is faster when optimally tweaked. This is what I mean (just using made-up FPS values here) No tweaks: DX9: 50 FPS DX10: 60 FPS PoolSize = 0 DX9: 70 FPS DX10: 60 FPS So it just depends on how you tweak both of them.

Are you using Windows 10, amd is your system a bit old?

First of all, you don't seem to be willing to lower your settings. Maybe I am wrong, but I think you don't get the point. You don't seem to understand that it is not possible to run high-quality graphics on a system that is roughly 10 years old (if not more). You seem to be a little hostile to the advice given here. One thing about "Minimum system requirements" Minimum system requirements tell you the system specs that are minimally needed to run a game at low settings. If you pulled all your scenery, traffic, and weather sliders all the way over to the left, and disabled all your NVIDIA Inspector settings, you would be getting 30 FPS+. See? Your system specs are sufficient in running FSX. The only thing is, you will have to sacrifice something a lot. When you said you reduced your SGSS settings from 8x to 4x, I laughed a little because you don't seem to realize how weak that system is, and how much of a killer 4xSGSS is! I have a system that was considered "state of the art" back in 2012, and it barely runs 2xSGSS in cloudy conditions, let alone 4xSGSS! Do you see what I mean? Also, flying without NVIDIA Inspector settings, is really not that bad in my opinion. I flew with internal anti-aliasing and texture filtering for years back in 2010. What do you value higher? FPS or image quality? Your choice. DX9 and DX10 should indeed perform pretty identically, or DX10 even a little better, assuming the bufferpools tweak is NOT used in DX9. Bufferpools do not take effect in DX10. You mention the tweaks do not work for you. Note that HIGHMEMFIX=1 does nothing to performance, it only serves to improves stability. As someone else said, AffinityMask=xx should not be used, because your CPU is only a dual core. If you don´t like the blurries, increase your FFTF to the default of 0.33, instead of the 0.15 you have set right now. Higher is less blurries, lower is more FPS. Also a choice you have to make. The only tweak that should significantly improve your FPS, is the bufferpools tweak. I had a similar system as yours back in 2010, and this tweak worked the same for me. Could you please post another copy of your fsx.CFG, so I can see how your tweaks are currently applied? One important advice. DO NOT upgrade that system. Boldly said, that system is obsolete and worthless, upgrading it will only put it out of balance and might introduce system instability. Secondly, you will have to deal with compatibility issues. Look at your RAM, it is of the DDR2 type, most modern RAM sticks are DDR4! I am assuming you are pretty young, so you´ll probably only have a budget for a low end system. But building a modern low budget system is still a better idea than upgrading an obsolete one! My last advice, I repeat, get rid of all your NVIDIA Inspector settings. That system is not even close to being able to run those settings! Only use default anti aliasing and texture filtering on that system!