wolftrack777

+1 Wolfgang Holzel

I would love to see a FlyDubai.....:(

Hi Tom, thoroughly agree with you about high FPS. Around 30 and smooth is just fine. My point is, when you try to land at an airport that is modelled as realistically as ORBX Tamworth for example, at high graphic settings a computer will slow down enough to make it unenjoyable. High frame rates at altitude will slow down drastically when you approach an airport or a city. I would like to prevent that from happening. If Tamworth, for example, or any other airport/scenery was being driven by it's own dedicated core, as it were, the slowdown shouldn't happen, and you could maintain smooth flight all through landing and taxiing in. With the standard of add-ons out there today, this is hardly possible at decent settings to get the most realistic effect, especially with weather and traffic going on. A lot of people are waiting for the 737NGX or Captainsim 777. How are those going to perform at airports like Melbourne or Brisbane? If these things were running externally on dedicated cores however.....Thanks for your reply!Regards, Wolftrack777

Really...............helpful....................! No, I'm cool. Just think that externally coding our add-ons would make life easier, no? :(

No, I haven't. Try that when I get home....I just know I uninstalled REX2 from my old 4-core setup because any clouds would kill the frame rates, so it was clear blue skies for me. FSX runs on my new one using just one core, as per normal, I think when I load REX2 onto that same core it'll probably slow things up badly. I'll give it a try though. Using two different cores sure got some jaw-dropping results though. Which gave me the idea about doing all add-ons that way. Cheers!

Hi guys,having recently had a new computer custom-built for FSX and trying to get my head around the incredible amount of info out there about tweaks and overclocking etc etc, all in the name of getting FSX to run at a decent FPS, I have a question......(I am not a computer expert, by any means....you're all welcome to laugh at this if you like...)My new system : Intel i7 990x @3.47GHz 6 core/12 thread, Sabertooth x58 MOBO, nVidia GTX 580 1,5 GB graphics, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 1 TB HDD (nothing overclocked yet)One of my first flights on my new system was from ORBX's Cessnock to Tamworth on the MILVIZ C-310 and using REX2 for some weather. Having assigned REX2 to a different core using FSPS, my computer delivered a beautiful flight at 60FPS (locked at 60, same as my screens refresh rate). The way I understand it, assigning REX2 to use another core from the one running FSX is the reason it ran so well, and possible because REX2 is an executable (.exe) which runs outside of, and parallel to, FSX. My question is, what if add-on aircraft and sceneries were developed the same way? (as executables, running outside of and parallel to FSX) Theoretically I could then assign a different core/2 threads to each add-on I need for the flight? For example a flight from ORBX's Melbourne to Brisbane, using PMDGs Jetstream 41 and REX2 for weather. If I were able, via a simple software interface, to assign FSX one core, Melbourne another, Brisbane another, the J41 another, and REX2 another, would the performance of the whole lot not be great??? I would then have the power of each core running a seperate element of the flight. Just an idea.......could it not be done that way??Thought I'd throw that out there and see what you guys think? Or am I on the wrong track alltogether? As I said before, not much of a computer expert........