Eevun

Good luck with that Watermouse. A piece of a friendly advice, though: get ready to spend more hours tweaking FSX to work properly (on a powerful rig) than actually flying, prepare your wallet for a huge hit if you plan on having a similar visual quality of Flight and last but not least (quite contrary, perhaps most important), don't expect to have as sophisticated flight model / physics as in Flight. If you purchase some high quality aircraft by 3PD , it will improve your experience tremendously but still, some things even 3PD cannot control and therefore the fidelity of flight model itself is not that great. In the other hand, you have the whole world, custom weather and more aircraft to fly with. Now, i don't intend to sound bad, but i think this thread went slightly off tracks due to criticism and personal dislike expressions that have nothing to do with Alaska DLC for Flight. There were already a lot of threads made by people who just love to post how they are giving up on Flight, dislike Flight and / or criticize people who actually enjoy it. Cheers

I have i5 2500k @4.0Ghz, 8gb of DDR3 ram@1600mhz, asus p8z68v motherboard and a gtx570. I always run Flight with nVidia inspector that overrides Flight's settings and have "custom=1" in Flight.cfg in order for the overrides to take effect. My in game settings are Maximum for scenery quality, sharpness, shadow, weather and water. High for scenery density (not because of the performance, i just don't like having zillions of trees, doesn't look that natural but maybe i'm crazy :D ). My nVidia inspector settings are: limit frames per second 60, maximum pre-rendered frames = 2, Anisotropic filtering = 16x and Antialiasing = 8xMS (multi sampling). For the most part, it runs 60 fps steady but with occasional drops over heavily dense areas and when i record videos with Fraps. Stuttering also occurs but rarely, once in several flights and only for few seconds. Here's an example (watch in original resolution or 1080p): The only problem is that same video clip runs at 60fps when i play it on my computer, yet on Youtube it fluctuates from 35-60. Annoying. Cheers

Twin Otter would be a nice addition. Also, is this post #25? :) Cheers

You are welcome :) Glad we saved you some time. Cheers

I guess we need 2 more now. Your turn Fsxkitty :) Cheers

Hey Ghostkyle, I haven't actually used it since the temperatures in Hawaii do not go that low but i'm guessing we will use it a lot in Alaska. Pitot heat prevents pitot tubes (small devices that measure air speed) from freezing. In real life, if pitots fail, the airplane and the pilot do not have any way of knowing how fast they're going and it automatically means that autopilot or autothrottle stop working. It also makes the flight very risky (especially in larger aircraft) since one can easily go into stall and such. Cheers

There you go Don, i am just helping out reach the page number 6 :) Cheers

This information might have to do something with that mission "Hawaii photo tour"! I remember clearly that your passenger guides you to a remote location where there is a movie set! If i remember correctly, the set is on Kauai and immediately after he directs you to the coast of Na Pali :)) Very interesting find Keith. Cheers

Thanks a lot Azure :) I will give it a try for sure! Cheers

Yes, i know what you're talking about. I was also wondering how do they make it look so smooth. I record with Fraps at 60fps but what you're talking about is not related to that. It's like they have some sort of a camera addon or some tweak for some shots. The only advice i can give you is to try using middle button on mouse and ctrl+w(a,s,d and q or e). The keyboard camera / eyepoint movements is the smoothest one you can get. Try experimenting. I will make a short clip right now and try it myself :) Cheers

Interesting! Reminds me of a cartoon title a little bit :) Cheers

Wow, now that is a great find! Thanks for sharing. Can't wait to see how that looks on a big screen. So that would actually translate to approximately 1/64 shutter speed at 24 fps. I might be wrong but that is going to look a bit too crisp, would you agree? Cheers

I always enjoy good screenshots, and i loved your captures guys :) Here are some of mine: Cheers

Exactly. I'm in a similar business as yours (i own a small video production company) and am an independent filmmaker as well, so i know all there is to know about frames and their rates :) Also, even though Hobbit is shot at 48 fps, we have no idea what shutter speed is Peter going to use. Should he stick to the general rule for digital cameras and DSLR's, he will go with approximately twice the value of framerate. If he chooses to leave the shutter open for a longer time, who knows, maybe he manages to introduce us to a new "movie standard" since he's lobbying for 48fps quite aggressively :P Personally, i'm a true 24fps addict when it comes to movies and i don't think that i am changing my mind about that any time soon :) I shot videos in a wide range of framerates varying from 24 to 2000 (Weisscam) and i still find myself in love with traditional 24. Good luck to Pete, though, can't wait to see those 30 Epic cameras in action (hoping to get my hands on one soon). Cheers

Most movies are shot at 24 frames per second as it gives the best overall feel and look. When you play a video that was shot in 30 fps, you get that "amateur" look as it was shot with a cell phone or a cheap camcorder. Cheers

I know, spring has just started but one can dream, right? :) I so wish Alaska comes next week :P Cheers

With all due respect, 20 frames never looks like 60; no matter how smooth or constant it is :) I do agree, though, that constant frame rate does appear much smoother than the one that fluctuates, so constant 20 will look smoother than 30 jumping to 60 and back. Still, it's not just about the appearance. Reaction time is much better and command inputs are correct when you have 60 frames since the refresh rate of the monitor is 60 hz for the most of us. Cheers

I agree with Fastcarfastplane. It does make sense to charge more since it is way bigger than Hawaii but the argument about terrain complexity is also quite true. As a user, i would love if price was 20$ but something tells me it might cost more than that. I will purchase it for sure, i just hope we get some bug fixes (mostly multiplayer ones such as clouds disappearing when you alt+tab and come back, incorrect plane model of a friend you're flying with, disconnecting and reconnecting to the session always resets your weather to clear skies, etc), one plane capable of transporting more than 4 passengers and a cargo one that can carry over 2000lbs of cargo. That would be awesome. Still, i see no reaction from you guys about the alleged release date my friend mentioned. I, for one, am thrilled and would be delighted if they released it next week :) Cheers I understand why you're saying that but this is a friend of mine with 100+ hours logged in Flight already, my very good real life friend and a true flight sim enthusiast (also a son of a commercial pilot flying B737) :) So, it's not like i read on some forum that someone's friend posted that his friend read somewhere..... :) The only problem is he couldn't remember the address when i asked him and he wouldn't go through googling it again :) Regarding the article, i didn't say they were guessing. I was just curious if you guys thought they maybe had some information we don't and were simply hiding it behind words such as "presumably" or "let's say". With that said, of course i did understand the price comparison part and intention :) I simply thought there might be something more to it. Time will tell. So, i am sorry if i was misleading you guys, that wasn't my intention. I am just thirsty for any information regarding the upcoming DLC. Cheers

@Mickel, That's a cool thing you did; helping a newcomer understand some basics. I am always up for multiplayer flying (preferably jobs but free flight is also fine) so you can add me. My gamer tag is "Turbofolkrolla". Unfortunately, i don't have many observations from multiplayer since i only fly with my good friend and we flew once with Kabronicus, which was really fun (he seems like a great guy). So, feel free to add me, guys and see you on the runway :) Cheers

Ok guys, do not take this for granted but my friend told me yesterday he read somewhere DLC is due sometime next week! I asked him about the source but he couldn't remember since he was browsing through many pages, found that rumor on some but he later closed it so he couldn't remember the address. Now, don't take this post the wrong way, i was merely telling you guys what i heard and was wondering did any of you stumble upon that particular rumor or any other? Btw, in a Gamespy article i read yesterday, they mention the following "When you consider the upcoming Alaska DLC could be released at a presumed $19.99..." So, do you guys think they know something we don't or they're just taking a shot in the dark? Cheers

LOL, i remember this because me and my friend were flying with you in a multiplayer session. We were landing at Lanai first and you were flying your Stearman. We waited for you to land and then started another flight to Kahului. That was fun :) Hello Don, I am not a weather expert myself so i don't know if those wind speeds are realistic for thunderstorms but i love flying that weather theme (i said this in probably 5 threads at least :P ). It gets very tricky during a descent but even during cruise, it can give you a lot of trouble if you're flying with passengers. That is actually the main reason for my satisfaction percentage being only 70% :) It can be very tiring to do long flights during this weather so i usually pick flights that are shorter than 80nm. I can imagine your frustration when you realized you didn't reach the checkpoint. The only thing you could probably do is restart the mission, use "skip to waypoint" and just repeat the final and landing :) Anyway, if you don't like isolated thunderstorms, make sure to try stormy weather as it is somewhat friendlier when it comes to wind speed but will present you with a moderate challenge to make a smooth landing, trust me. Another interesting one is "Squalls" of course. So, i suggest doing few flights during different seasons since conditions differ quite a bit. Have fun flying :) Cheers

I must say that would probably be a fun test to conduct :) However, i don't know how to work with flash so i can't use those animations from the given page :( Still, i am sure most people would notice a difference between 30 and 60 frames since it looks completely fluid on 60 frames, while on 30 fps version, there is a decent amount of motion blur involved and it doesn't go that smooth :) But then again, it might be just my assumption. I would love to see that test in practice :) Cheers

You are right about that. People's vision does differ to some extent but that's not even that important. I think the main reason for this is that some of us are used to playing everything on steady 60 frames which makes everything perfectly smooth and any transition, even the slightest one (5,6 or 10 frames) makes a big difference. However, that is quite individual. I play Battlefield 3 on regular basis and i would not settle for anything below 60 but not just because of the aesthetic side of things, it has much more to do with hit registry and if your framerate fluctuates, you are at a big disadvantage compared to someone with steady 60 frames. It's just how their engine and net code are designed and are codependent. But when it comes to flight simulations, i will agree with you again that it presents much less of a problem because you don't need any drastic or extremely fast input since you're flying a plane. So, even on 30 frames, FSX and Flight do look smooth enough to play. However, if there is a chance to get it to run at 60, then it is just perfect (in Flight, i have that luxury most of the time and my frame rate dips only occasionally in highly dense areas but not below 49 with my current settings). So all in all, it does come to each person's preference; some will be more than happy and satisfied with 20 frames, while others will not fly below 50. We all need to accept each other's right to an opinion. I just think Zinfinion was pointing out that there is a clear difference between 30 and 60 frames and meant nothing bad towards anybody. It is just his right and his choice not to accept anything below a certain frame rate. Cheers

Thanks for the links. However, be careful when you overclock with stock cooler. I will look into the voltage thing now. Cheers Take a look at this simple http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html Cheers

Hello Tom, That is a common misconception :) Human eye can see much more than that. It can see around 200 frames per second. There are many tests that prove that. Here's the link to an article that explains it pretty well. http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html The main thing is which frame rate makes it look smooth and it is directly related to refresh rate of the monitor, amount of detail in the picture and few other things. Cheers