flytn

Zach, great shots! Do you mind sharing your adjustments with the FXAA tool? I am trying to get that kind of look. For those of you that have used this for awhile, what exactly is the relative effect of the AA tool within FSX? I guess what I'm asking is a "4" with the FXAA antialiasing equivalent slider equivalent to 8xS in the nvidia inspector? Or 8xSQ? I hope that makes sense.

Just tried this, wow. Not only do I like the effect better than ENB, but the interface is so much more simple. This one is really a must have!

Just downloaded and I'll give it a shot tonight. Thanks!

Just wanted to bump this thread and ask a quick question... I noticed that FXAA has options like blur, HDR, bloom and so on. Is this a potential replacement for ENB? I am getting fed up with the constant CTDs, and this seems like a decent alternative. How is the performance of FSX with this running? Any noticeable difference? Steve, can you post some screenshots of it in action? Thanks!

I hadn't thought about Teterboro... thats mostly GA right? I like having EWR if I do continental flights, but I am with DVA so I haven't done that much. I saw a gain of roughly 5 or 6 fps, which took me from 17-18 to 24 or so in the NGX on the runway facing toward the terminal and KLGA.Back when FSX was released I kinda hoped the mission system would allow a kind of modular approach to building a flight... such as if you were doing a flight into a congested area you could drop airports not used, certain AI flight plans, and so on in an effort to reduce stress on the system. In hindsight that would have been too complex.

Works like a charm! I'd love to do more flights into LGA but I wish there was an option for a really good payware scenery... the reviews of imaginesim have me a little wary. FSDT JFK has me spoiled now and I'll probably be only using that for any NY area flights.

Awesome, just sent you a pm. Thank you!

Thank you CoolP, I will try the exclusion method... would a program like ADE be able to accomplish that without too much trouble? I have done some poking around on their forum but some of the scenery design stuff is over my head. I think I'll need to do some studying...

Hi everyone, did some searching for an answer and haven't found a solution yet so I'm hoping someone out there might have an idea. I am trying to find a way to "turn off" an airport in its entirety, in other words wipe the whole thing out and just have the flat polygon instead. The purpose behind this is that I recently purchased FSDT's JFK and am getting ok fps except when I am facing KLGA. This makes approaches from the west a little tougher, and since I don't fly into La Guardia, I figure it is easier to get rid of it. I do have AI running but shutting that off doesn't seem to help. Any simple solution to this?

Hamoody, that is great! Once you get it the way you want, it feels great to turn off the FPS counter and "fly and forget"! Like Zach notes, the FPS limiter in inspector is excellent, and has worked better for me than two other external programs.Zach, totally agree with you on attitude thing. The "more is less" autogen oddity was something that showed up on my system however, which seemed completely counter intuitive and worth mentioning. I think in the end all of this tweaking comes down to personal preference... what works for one might not work for anyone else!

With the OP's robust system (even if it isn't OC'd) I would strongly argue AGAINST dropping the autogen slider... see what Nick N has to say about that below. Drop water to Low 2.x, get ride of the auto and boat traffic first. To support this, if I run autogen at anything less than extremely dense my performance actually SUFFERS. Strange, but it seems consistent with what Nick describes below.From- http://www.simforums...topic29041.html I can relay this advice: One of the biggest mistakes people make is the thought that lower sliders = better perfomance. FSX is NOT a game, its a simulator and requires thinking a bit outside the box to tickle the hardware by the software settings and get it to run sweet 1. DO NOT use the autogen restriction lines in the configuration file for buildings and trees if you are using SP1/SP2. In most cases those lines will throw off the priority system and make the sim run/stutter worse. 2. Believe it or not, ZERO autogen slider can make frames drop, how? Same reason as above. Try to maintain at least 50+% (DENSE) however very slow systems may need to limit that to NORMAL/SPARCE or even OFF (off = rare must be very slow hardware) Keeping the autogen slider at DENSE or greater actually tends to raise frames. Going too high for the installed hardware and Scenery Complexity/weather is where perf starts to really drop Many can run a 3/4 (very Dense) Scenery Complexity with a 3/4 (very dense) autogen silder however your mileage may vary. The important part about this slider is if your hardware is not very slow, keep it at a minimum of DENSE This slider can also be changed mid-flight as well. There are times when you may fly out of a scenery friendly hub, into a very large urban area hub which may require this slider to be dropped a notch Good systems can run 3/4 to 100% depending on the scenery involved and GEX USCAN can go a long way in helping with that performance. Autogen was laid out in a optimal way to reduce CPU overhead.

Hamoody, we essentially have the same rig. As others have said, OC that mamajama! I have my i7 at 4.5 right now and am hoping to save up and get some better cooling to push it to 5 at some point. I'm not an OC'ing expert, but I've learned that if you do, go through the bios and don't leave HT on. Its benefit to FSX is marginal if any, and it increases temps. A couple of questions... how much fooling around with the cfg file have you done? There may be some tweaks you can apply that *might* help, but be careful going down that route as they can introduce some instability as well. Also, check out this link - http://www.simforums.com/forums/nhancer-settings-for-new-drivers-updated-v1932_topic36586.html. This is a little old but still helps.I went through a tweak fest a couple of days ago and I discovered the single biggest limitation to performance on my machine was vsync (that is, having it on). I have one scenario that I use for testing, which puts the QW 757 right above JFK flying toward Manhattan at dusk with LaGuardia visible. UTX, GEX, REX, etc all active. With vsync on I was seemingly stuck at about 19 - 23 fps. Off, it jumped to 29 - 32. There is a little bit of tearing but it was worth the smoothness. Good luck with the tweaking and testing!

James and Joe, thank you for those links!

LOL, unfortunately I think you are right! It seems to me that anyone who gets seriously interested in aviation through Flight will end up "graduating" to FSX, X-Plane, Prepar3d, etc. I remember my flightsimming path going something like Pilotwings, F/A-18 Hornet, A-10 Cuba, MS Flight Sim 5 (I think that was it... ran it on a Mac PowerPC), FS 2002, 2004, FSX...

True, but there was probably some discussion of the general nuts and bolts of how and why they modeled the product the way they did. I guess what I'm after is gauging how much (or how little) their expectations for the success of the product took into account the broader flight sim community. Tom A seemed to suggest they knew full well that they would not be generating fans among the "hard core" flight sim community, but we're the group with the highest propensity (and financial ability) to buy addons. If that's the case then they shot themselves in both feet... a limited sim that represents Pilotwings isn't going to hold the attention of gamers who want first person shooters or depth of adventure like Skyrim, and it won't attract attention from those of us that could support the pay as you play model. Just looking for some "why" among the "what".