Jump to content

JonP01

Members
  • Content Count

    329
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

85 Good

About JonP01

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Australia

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    Other
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I've found that so long as I do not exceed an LOD of 6 then it doesn't matter what third party scenery or aircraft I use - it is fine. I think the GUI maximum of 4.5 was set quite conservatively in FSX:SE and probably could have been higher. But for me anyway, that is the biggest variable and it shows in terms of loading times too (compared to the default 4.5). I do understand Dove Tail did a fair bit of work with efficiency, performance and memory usage and like others have noted, it is good enough for me not to have to worry about going to P3D.
  2. Maybe I am missing something here so sorry if I am stating the obvious. You say you only have a keyboard and mouse so I am guessing you are possibly using the Mouse as Yoke functionality? That being the case you have to temporarily toggle from using Mouse as Yoke to regain the clicking function on any switches and dials in the cockpit.
  3. Well after several days full time on this issue I am now convinced it is either an unresolved bug in FSX (FSX SE) or a deliberate "bail out" in the AI engine code so that if there is some conflict the AI engine cannot resolve, it simply flings the offending aircraft into indefinite straight line flight. It only seems to happen when the aircraft is instructed to do nothing apart from touch and goes for a sufficiently long time that another aircraft impedes it's ability to use the standard circuit pattern without making leg "corrections". You would think at worst in the case of such a conflict it would variously extend the downwind / upwind legs or at worst do a missed approach but it doesn't even do that. Thankfully it does not happen (so far as I have been able to tell) if you instruct the AI to simply do some touch and goes at the end of the flight if it arrives early and it definitely does not happen - ever - if you simply tell it to do the standard "19 minute" taxi, circuit, landing and taxi back. And this is not just a problem with my own files - I've been testing other files and packages and exactly the same thing happens. There are probably a fair number of traffic files out there where not all the flights actually happen or are otherwise truncated or broken. It would be interesting to see if this still happens in P3D.
  4. I have been on a Winter project hand-making AI for those airfields where the stock plans either do not exist or they were third party add-on airports with no traffic to begin with. Everything seemed to work fine with the stock airports, though with those I did not really do anything much more than add flights between airfields and in some cases added touch and goes at the destination airport to fill in time if they ran "early". All the testing on these worked out fine. But with my third party airports (coincidentally or not) I am having great trouble getting the AI to simply do touch and go circuits. I have tried all sorts of "workarounds" but get the same result. After about 20 minutes to half an hour - despite being capable of continuing their circuits and not having fuel or other problems, they see to abandon the circuit altogether, fly away and just keep flying....presumably till they run out of fuel 600 nm away.... I have even "copied" the exact method used by the ORBX traffic add-ons for aircraft doing circuits on their airports I own and even tried to add traffic at those ORBX airports. Same problem (though it happens also with their AI). Again, airport to airport plans are flawless. I have also had the problem "trigger" if another aircraft is coming into join the circuit from another airport - suddenly the AI doing existing circuits seems to think it has been bullied out of the circuit and again runs for the hills, never to turn around. I have even managed to "break" a circuit if I am following an AI aircraft in close proximity, so I believe this might be what is happening. Yet we are only talking about three AI aircraft at any one time - these are not busy airports to begin with. The only work around I have found is to add one flight plan for every 19 minute "circuit" which is the default circuit time used in the AI Flight Planner traffic utility. So in summary: 1. All my airport to airport flight plans work fine 2. All my airport to airport flight plans work fine even when adding touch and goes at the destination airport 3. I cannot get aircraft doing ONLY touch and goes to work for more than about 20 minutes to half an hour. They just scamper off into the distance. 4. It is not due to a lack of parking spaces. 5. I am fully aware of aircraft "limitations", making sure the chosen aircraft can handle the terrain, runways, runway length, altitude and that time ia allowed to complete flight plans allows for weather conditions, traffic build-up, etc. 5. I am seeing this happen systemically - even on "official" traffic files - but you have to sit there and monitor the aircraft for a while to confirm when a flight plan "breaks itself". As I say, my "workaround" sort of works only because if a flight plan is "broken" a new one will take its place within half an hour. I am really wondering whether this is just a limitation / bug within the FSX AI engine and that people do not necessarily notice because they still see the skies full of aircraft and aircraft still doing circuits. But they are only doing circuits till their flight plan "breaks". And once that flight plan "breaks", it will not renew again until the chosen cycle starts again.
  5. I am a huge Milviz fan - own and fly regularly four of their aircraft and I have hundreds of hours in the FSX version of this Beaver. To me the shadowing looks very odd though - like the dash and gauges have their mascara running. Maybe there is some refinement needed but it just doesn't look realistic - I think the P3D version looks much more natural but as I say, this is an in progress shot I am assuming.
  6. Or the Milviz Bobcat. Now that is the most stick (yoke in this case) and rudder taildragger I have ever simmed.
  7. Hi, I did email REX support about this but only got a generic (seemingly "bot") reply that actually didn't answer it. And I did join their "Discord" forum but when I registered and went to the site I could not find anywhere to post anything. So sorry if I have missed something in that respect. Anyway, my question is: does the licence for REX Airports HD extend to two (or more computers) as does my FSX:SE Steam licence? I have FSX on my main simming machine but also another (obviously licenced as well via Steam) copy on my laptop. Their licence says it covers different sim products but not if it covers more than one physical machine with the same sim on both. And since there is obviously some sort of activation involved I would rather know ahead of time if it is going to refuse the second registration attempt. Thanks
  8. Thanks for the suggestion airernie. I have done exactly that. Downloaded the FSX updated aardvark models and some generic repaints and then substituted those for the original entries in the stock Microsoft traffic file. Works a charm (had issues though till I realised the Sim= parameter points to the airfile!). I have kept the original Microsoft MD83, Dash 8 and PA-28 as they are fine and I have no problems with them. So now I have gotten a pretty good effective boost in processing power by significantly reducing AI CPU cycle demands and with no practical losses since those low poly AI are really just as good as the Microsoft AI when you take into account their purpose for being there. I never wanted to get into traffic editing because I am more interested in the core simming experience first up. The AI are really only there for me to help in keeping in practice with other aircraft around me and having to "fit in" so to speak. But this process was an easy fix relatively speaking and probably just took me a day to work out how to do it and get it done. So now the frame rate tanking once I have landed are a thing of the past! I cannot believe how much processing power AI takes away in this game. I guess back in 2006 Microsft expected single cores would be running at 16 Ghz by now and be 10 times as fast as what they were back then! Not sure any computer will exist in my lifetime that lets FSX:SE run absolutely flat out, everything hard right with complex add-ons...
  9. I think it should be a priority (and habit) of every serious flight simmer to make a full drive image of their newly built machine at the outset with nothing but the OS installed. Then, if and when they run into updating or any other issues down the track they have an untainted installation to fall back on. I have several drive images - firstly the one I mentioned above. Then another image which is just my flight simulator installed "exactly as downloaded" but not added to in any way at all. Then yet another which is a 100% stable and fully working install with add-ons and tweaks. Then yet another again which contains more recent updates that are considered a WIP (because no flight simmer is ever "done" - at least for more than a few weeks...). This way it takes me ten minutes to resolve the seemingly unresolvable (and I needed to go back to one of the images just tonight otherwise I was in for a world of pain trying to fruitlessly track down where I have gone wrong in the last few days with my "WIP" setup). But quite honestly, having hung around flight sim forums and gaming forums for overy 20 years now, it astonishes me that so many do not make full drive images. It is a one off expense for the software and 15 minutes work to make an image or restore one.
  10. Yes, I found with my own experiments that I could at least get the ATC to use the flight number. To be honest that might simply be the best comprise if I want to avoid going all the way to new voicepacks, changing traffic files etc. In the end when I am looking around the sky, I care about the flight number reference anyway since the traffic is always too far away to see the livery anyway (I mean at the point in time when it matters in the sky).
  11. Since the only aircraft I ever fly are my A2A and Milviz aircraft, it seems a waste to have to devote processing power to the stock Microsoft 747-400 and 737-800 aircraft etc when all I ever use them for is AI. I could use something like the Aardvark models instead and would then likely be able to shift the traffic slider a bit further to the right. But since I do not want to muck with new traffic flight plans (I am perfectly happy with the stock Microsoft plans), I am concerned I might hit a snag when it comes to the repaints, since from what I can tell there are no repaints for low poly AI aircraft to match off against the existing Microsoft fictitious airlines. So if I were to go to all the trouble of setting up a whole lot of new aircraft.cfg files for the substitute AI (and then modify the stock aircraft.cfg files to prevent a "doubling up" conflict) am I then going to run into problems with the ATC dialogue in that I will not hear the real world airline names being used? For example, I might substitute Qantas for Orbit, American for Soar, etc and then have to do a one for one substitute for each of the original Microsoft textures for each aircraft to match. Now I seem to recall there was some list going around of what valid real world airlines work with the stock ATC voice pack but I did some unrelated experiments on that last month (when adding an Antonov payware glider) and I could not ever get the ATC to use the airline name (for ATC purposes only obviously) that I gave it even though it actually matched the Microsoft fictitious listings. I mucked for hours trying everything and gave up. So can I actually do what I want to do and thus successfully use the stock traffic files and stock ATC voice files with these add-on AI using real world repaints? And will the ATC then use the correct airline name so long as it is one that is known to work with the stock ATC pack? I realise I can experiment but after trying to even et a simple glider to work properly with the ATC last time, it would be very time consuming to start experimenting if I can simply ask here first - just in case it is a lost cause from the outset and I have to look into other options. Thanks
  12. Sorry to bring this thread back up but I am not sure people should be specifically blaming P3D or P3D upgrades for this happening. It happens in its grandfather - FSX SE as well. I have repeatedly done tests on this and the level of drop depends on time flown, distance flown and how great a system workload the destination airport is. And this is in FSX SE - it is not just something that has popped up in P3D. But I think the reason people may not notice so much on older software (and maybe P3D v4 vs 5 or even FSX SE vs P3D v4) is that you do need to really be pushing the envelope of system performance at the time to performance drops. It might sound obvious but if you already have a performance buffer, you may not notice the problem, especially if you are running vsync or half vsync. The fact that people are noticing this in V5 is to be honest I think more because V5 is capable of hitting the system harder.
  13. I am in the market for a monitor to replace a very old 18.5 inch 16:9 1366 x 768 pixel screen, however since I really don't care for larger monitors (the 18.5 is too small obviously though), I am looking at a 24 inch screen since that seems to be the decent entry level for where "proper" gaming monitors begin. Since the one thing that has annoyed me to this point is LCD motion blur (and any artifacts that may arise from that or from mitigating firmware algorithms found within monitors), I found this motion blur test interesting (link at bottom). Since as a simmer, however, consistently high frame rates are simply not possible, I am more interested in how monitors might perform when running the test below at 60 frames per second at a monitor refresh rate of 60 hz. For the record, the three LCD monitors I have in the house failed this test dismally in that I was completely unable to read any of the words in this "game scrolling test". In either direction and even at the minimum speed of 960 pixels per second (which in turn in much slower than the panning speed I might use in a first person shooter but perhaps similar to my panning speed in FSX). Although I do not have a CRT monitor to test I assume if such a monitor were used the text would be perfectly readable though. So I am wondering if anyone has a 1920 x 1080 monitor which runs at 60 hz and at 60 fps, is the text in the demo below readable? My hope is that perhaps a typical "1 ms" monitor might make the text readable versus a "5 ms" monitor (not that from my research those numbers necessarily mean much more than perhaps the 1 ms one will possibly have less motion blur than the 5 ms one all other things being reasonably comparable. If I find that "1 ms" monitors people decide to test here do not make the text readable at 60 fps / 60 hz then I am probably wasting my money on a "fast" monitor given I simply do not see frame rates higher than 60 to begin with. Certainly at 144 hz / 144 fps I would expect the text to be readable but that sort of setup is not really relevant to me even though it would be very relevant to a hardcore "gamer". https://www.testufo.com/framerates-versus#photo=dota2-bg.jpg&pps=1920&framepacingerror=0&direction=rtl&framerate=60&compare=2&showfps=1
  14. So now that I understand the technology and what is happening I disabled completely the AMA and the funny colouration went away but the result was a pretty bad image in fast moving 60 hz / 60 fps refresh rate gaming (and 60 hz is that monitor's limit). Though the colour problems went away, the cure was far worse than the disease! The AMA setting of "High" is by far the best compromise versus "Off" or "Premium" - something most reviewers it seems have said of BENQ monitors. Does not really effect FSX that too much because like most people I run half the refresh rate and at 30 fps and with the relative lack of speed of objects in FSX versus first person shooters, etc, the problem doesn't really show up. You can still see it when panning around high quality payware cockpits but not on "basic" cockpits like the stock ones. But I guess I have now had my introduction to "monitors really matter and this is why...". At least I can console myself that reading old reviews this monitor was never intended for gaming. I guess next stop is to get a proper gaming monitor though the fact is they will also have these sorts of problems to one degree or another and in the end it will come down to which monitors are the least compromised and which have enough adjustments to tailor the user's taste towards suppressing what annoys them the most.
  15. Yep, here is a Youtube video showing precisely the problem (not my monitor or video but exactly the same issue).
×
×
  • Create New...