Spartan0536

Ok, Gold has been bought. It´s a new copy, so I think the Code hasn´t been used before. 

 

That problem has been fixed. Onto the next question: What to take for AI traffic? I´m a huge Ai traffic fan, I used to sit arround at big airports and just see them take off and land. I used pretty much all the "World of AI"-packages. Do you agree?

Ok lets keep 1 thing in mind...

AI = Frame Killer, now that's not to say that with an appropriate balance you can't achieve good frame rates, its just something to keep in mind, I think most people prefer to set AI to 10-20% for lower frame rate impact.

Freeware is definitely going to be WOAI, they are excellent and of course free.

Payware I have heard that Ultimate Traffic 2 is the way to go, here is a link to the product: http://ut2.flight1.net/, the quality of AI in UT2 is reported to be much better than WOAI, and this program does not use AI Traffic Files as well, if you are willing to drop money on AI for realism I would suggest UT2, if not then WOAI all the way!

This story brings back my memories of flying on a Delta MD-90 in summer 2011, probably my first and last time on the Maddog.   The leg was KPHL to KMSP, and KMSP to KSJC.   At KMSP, there was a slight delay due to technical issues, and after the captain of the flight made his announcement to the passengers at the gate, we had a brief talk about the old bird.  He mentioned that the aircraft is so aerodynamic, flaps/slats have to be dropped as early as 250kts during approach!    Also, with the engines at the back the cabin was much quieter than most airliners with wing mounted engines.

 

I've followed the fleet changes at Delta, and was sad to see the DC-9 40/50 retired, but when I see the 717 in DL colors, it looks almost identical from a distance.  I remember thinking about picking up the Leonardo MD-80, but I didn't feel like learning about a new aircraft when the PMDG NGX was due to arrive so shortly. 

TDFI has a 717-200 in the works, next best thing to an MD-90-30, in fact its a direct upgrade, it is on my "TO BUY" list for sure.

You will need to boost your ram voltage a bit.  I'm running mine at 1.6 and they have been trouble free.  

 

jja

Perhaps I am getting confused by his question, if he is stating that he currently has that Ballistix RAM and its not running the timings right by default then yes, he will need to adjust the voltages to the MFGR specs; however if he has other RAM and is trying to "OC" the timings then he will need some good tweaking to the voltages to get those timings down.

Well, last time I had to activate FSX (some 3 years back) it gave me some irritating messages about the server would not answer or something else. I don't really remember the correct phrase. When I booted in save mode it all worked at the first try.

 

And no, I mean "Professional Edition". At least that's what's it called in Germany. I think I'll get the Gold Edition with everything inside.

Gold has everything in it, I have Deluxe which comes with the possibility of ATC control. Gold will definitely help you out a bit more, its a little bit easier to install as it comes with the service packs, however aside from the new missions, a few new default planes, and the fact it comes with some service packs on it, its really not that different from your "professional" copy. The only issue I have encountered when I just recently installed FSX was that my key had been used 3 times for re-install/activation and so I had to call Microsoft and get a renewal for free, the whole process took about 5-7 minutes.

This is your QVL for that motherboard...
http://download.gigabyte.us/FileList/Memory/mb_memory_ga-78lmt-usb3.pdf

Different RAM will run at different timings, speeds, and voltages. So if your current RAM is 11-11-11-28-2T and your new ram fits your motherboards voltages and has a timing of 8-8-8-24-2T then you should be fine. According to Gigabyte's website you need to make sure you are running 1.5V DDR3 modules, your motherboard will natively support DDR3 1600 with that FX-8350 CPU.

Ballistix Tactical: http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/ga-78lmt-usb3/CT3556891

Ballistix Elite: http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/ga-78lmt-usb3/CT3556927

Personally I prefer G.Skill RAM, I love my new Sniper Series DDR3 1866 memory, albeit I am running 9-10-9-24-2T, its pretty darn quick though. After all is said & done sometimes you have to check values in your BIOS to ensure that you are indeed running the right voltage, speed, and timings.

...then as you have clearly pointed out,, having to deal with lazy CONSUMER MENTALITY, Im sure you can deal with XPlane's UI. I can grantee you its a lot simpler then Windows 8 UI.

 

 

 

yep, I would have to agree with you....FSX is far far superior at producing OOM's, CTD's, blurries, stttuutttters, autogen behaving like popcorn...yep, FSX is far far superior, can't argue with that!

I never stated that I would not take the time, just stating that some consumers are not willing to do so, some people even think setting up stuff for FSX is too much of a hassle. In fact WarThunder is so popular because you can take a mouse and keyboard and just go shoot stuff, while DCS is infinitely superior but can take time to setup a HOTAS correctly to your desires.

Addendum: One of the most frustrating things about setting up FSX is .cfg tweaking, IMO tweaking a programs .cfg file should never have to be done by the consumer, but then again we are talking about a Microsoft program so.....

Delta never operated the 717 in the past.  They did sell a bunch of DC-9-30's to ValuJet (who later became AirTran), but the 88 717's they are leasing from Southwest will be the first time Delta had the 717.

Oh crap, I was thinking of the MD-90's they had and still have, d**n it....

This is by far the lamest excuse for not using a new program. Its clear that what people want is irrational and altogether counter productive.

 

Its crap like this that guarantees we'll be stuck with the QWERTY keyboard until kingdom come.

I think you got a little butt hurt by my post, point is whether you like it or not what I typed is true, its a consumer market and lots of consumers prefer ease of use. I did NOT state that XPX was bad or was a failure, I just stated that some consumers will not use XPX due to the UI not being streamlined. Don't like it? That's your deal, this is CONSUMER BUSINESS, tough, you want to do something about then, then try, I will not stop you.

Case & point, I am a professional windows technician, I advise my customers to buy cans of compressed air and spray the inside of their case when turned off and unplugged at least once per month. Sounds simple, and it is, fact is 90% of my customers DO NOT do this even after I advise them, especially the ones who have a dirtier environment near their systems. Do you know why this is? BECAUSE IT LOOKS TOO FREAKING COMPLICATED AND TAKES TOO MUCH TIME FOR THEM. People are generally lazy and want things handed to them right then right there, again this is a CONSUMER MENTALITY, don't like it, deal with it.

I think you have that backwards. Delta is getting all of AirTran's 717's because Southwest doesn't want them. Southwest only wants to operate 737's to keep their operating costs down.  Boeing inherited the MD-95 program when they bought McDonnell Douglas. Since the design was pretty much finished they decided to continue and produce the airplane and designated it the 717 since they skipped over it in the past. They dropped the program because it was too similar to the 737-600 and didn't want to undermine their own product.

That's why its IRONIC, initially Delta sold AirTran most of those 717's, now they are buying them back, if that's not a spitting image of irony I don't know what is..

The only reason I bring up the UI so much is that for many users a properly made UI is a make or break point. The same thing can be said about cars, many people do not want to drive manual geared cars anymore, its mainly your automotive enthusiasts that like to drive "stick", most people want automatic transmissions. User Interfaces for programs are about the same thing and this is where XPX falls short. This does NOT make XPX bad, it just makes it less desirable to others as they have another product to choose from which as a more friendly and familiar UI. 

The MD-88 is still a great plane, however Delta will need to invest some serious time and money into overhauling the MD-88 to more modern standards. Many of those 88's have more flight hours on them than some pilots have been living on this planet; however this is not inherently a bad thing, it just means that they most likely will require a total tear-down and rebuild than just a standard upgrade here or there. As for the B717-200, it is effectively an MD-95, sadly the 717-200 never really got popular like the 737's or even the 757/767's even though they were newer and came standard with glass cockpits, personally I think Boeing might want to look into expanding the 717 line and give it some of the new upgrades, this should be a big hit with Southwest as they are now operating AirTran's fleet of 717's (ironically many of them are ex-delta's).

I will leave you with this.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R0CViDUBFs

XPlane 10 is superior in terms of stability and coding to FSX, anyone who flies a lot in FSX knows this to be true. However FSX has the market hands down when it comes to both Freeware and Payware content, there is just so much more of it, some of its bleh but some of it is awesome, same goes for XP10.

However if you fly in FSX and have lots of freeware and payware for it, I STRONGLY suggest P3D v2+ (I use + as well its a live development product), the main reasons for this are....
1. Product familiarity

2. Portable content from FSX to P3D

3. Better performance and stability in P3D over FSX

4. P3D is a live development product, albeit so is XP10, but FSX is not.

The only arguments P3D has over XP10 are....
1. 1000% better user interface, 1000 might be a bit much of an exaggeration, but XP10's UI pales in comparison to P3D's and this much is true.

2. More content available either natively or through porting from FSX.

3. If coming from an MSFS environment P3D has much better familiarity over XP10.

Active Sky Next's ATIS needs to be enabled in the ASN Options area, once its enabled you tune into...

122.00 for Closest ATIS position

122.025 for Destination ATIS

I have never heard the ASN ATIS report the active runway.

is there going to be any difference whether I got payware (Registered) or free copy of it?

The free copy will still fix that G3D.dll error, and it will connect certain payware addons to FSX, it will however have limited functionality. You will not be able to customize it for controls, or wind smoothing, ect....

I have set my "Affinitymask=14"

 

One thing i'm concerning about right now is the FSUPIC is it important to have it or not? What it does to the Sim once I install it??

FSUIPC is one of the best tools for FSX, especially if you use a Yoke, Throttle, and Rudder system as it allows you to completely customize the controls to a far greater extent than FSX allows. It also has other benefits such as wind smoothing, and as for crash fixes I shall quote Word Not Allowed himself....

 

 

Pete Dawson, a maker of FSUIPC utility for FSX, has implemented a g3d.dll crash fix into his product. The fix that is implemented covers one of the crashes only – it is NOT all miracle g3d.dll crash fix.

FSGlobal Real Weather decodes and imprints the WX conditions pretty accurately, however I think with all the other features that come with Active Sky Next makes ASN the king of WX simulation.

I think there are differing opinions about this tweak. From what I have read, it isn't a universal solution for everyone.

 

 

The recommended setting for a quad core CPU (without HT) is "14".

I have an 8 core system, I just posted my stuff on here, I did not do ANY calculations for him, I did however state that there is a method to calculating your AffinityMask however. As for the Bufferpools, generally most people who run higher end GPU's seem to get better performance with the BP=0 tweak, this is tested many times by Mr. Word Not Allowed, and many others.

I use Kostas FSX Page (I don't think I can be banned for this....I hope): #####.wordpress.com . You can get that UIAutomationCore.dll file from his webpage, his tweaks are pretty much spot on and will help you get the most out of FSX, keep in mind that you will need to find out where your system stands as far as numbers go.

Avsim also has a complete FSX tweak guide here that covers many of the things that Word Not Allowed does, I am not sure if that will also tell you how to tweak graphic profiles with AMD cards though, I know that Word Not Allowed's page DOES NOT cover AMD cards.

As for the tweaks that I run, its pretty simple...

UsePools/PoolSize=0 -> this makes your GPU handle more of a load than your CPU, this is essential to attaining better frames.

HIGHMEMFIX=1 -> was SUPPOSED to be added by Microsoft but they dropped the ball AGAIN, its essential, and no one with common sense would dispute this.

Fiber_Frame_Time_Fraction=0.15 -> This is a wonderful tweak that when set correctly will give you an FPS boost, the lower the number the better, however too low a number will cause stuttering, autogen loss, and system crashes so finding that "magic number" is important here.

AffinityMask=254 -> This is what we use to get FSX to run certain cores if you are running a multicore system like 99% of us are today. There is a calculation method to this and remember you DO NOT want all cores running FSX, you want at least 1 to be running background processes, I prefer Core 0 to do that for me.

Addendum:
This is especially for ATI/AMD Video Card users...
ForceFullScreenVSync=1 -> Be sure to place this in the [GRAPHICS] section; this comes courtesy of Bajote otherwise known around here as J e s u s (hey-sus), pretty much just about every FSX tweak he wrote is solid gold.

I am using Plan G v3.1.1, its freeware and its basic compared to lots of others, however I do have it synced with my FSX including 3rd party airport scenery so I get accurate manual flight plans in FSX, I know lots of people use PFPX though.

GOOD NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I've just formatted my whole system, re installed WIN7 64bit, then installed a fresh copy of FSX then fly for about 5 minutes, then installed FSX ACCELERATION pack then restart the computer. 

 

finally, I've maxed out almost every thing except the traffic

 

look into the attached pictures!

 

now the last one is what did the MAGIC!!!!!!!!!!

 

BEFORE i DISABLE IT THERE WASN'T ANY THAT IMPROVEMENT, AFTER DISABLING IT i NOTICED HUGE IMPROVEMENT!!!!!!!!! 

 

The FPS was almost stabled at 35-50 over the big cities!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

And I've got around 90-150 FPS OVER small cities!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Thats unblivable!!!! I've never touched any CFG files

Ok I know 1 thing that can kill frames and smoothness is AI traffic, generally the autogen traffic, I fly in multiplayer only so I leave my stuff all at 0 as it does not matter to me anyway. However it seems you are using 2D panels, this will inherently give you better frames as it does not have to render another high detail 3D environment.

4096 is to high for that card  - should be this TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024

Remember that 4096 being set does NOT guarantee 4096 textures unless the 3rd party program/aircraft has 4096 textures installed, using REX4's 4096 airport ground textures is the ONLY reason I use TML 4096, all of my clouds are 2048 and I get 25-29.9 FPS on average with minimal stutters, and this is on an EVGA GTX 560Ti 448 FTW.

You can't have asked many people. I have had numerous OOMs at a LOD radius of 4.5.

OOM's at LOD of 4.5??? That's now the first I have heard, I run ORBX and FlyTampa Scenery with Carenado & Other high quality payware aircraft and I have yet to have an OOM with a LOD of 5.5, I know that PMDG Jetliners use more memory than most others, perhaps that might be the issue is HD scenery, HD Textures, and High Fidelity aircraft would cause an OOM at 4.5, but that just my 2 cents.

I think his mention of the GTX 280 was a simple typo instead of a 780.

That is likely, its what I get for taking a Benadryl and continue typing, stupid allergies....

 An R9 290 should be more than fine, pretty close to a GTX 780.. It's all in the setup and there are plenty of happy AMD video users around. It takes time to tweak and find what works for your system, don't rush it.

 

 No offense to the GTX 760, but that would be going too far backwards..

As I stated I am not that familiar with AMD Video Cards, I specialize in Nvidia, just never liked Catalyst Control Center. However my reference for a GTX 760 was made because he was looking at an Nvidia card which is 10x inferior in performance to a 760 series, if he paid for an R9 290 the equivalent to a 780, then by all means get a 780, or if he really wants he can shell out the money for a Titan Black. AMD cards are most certainly capable of giving a good flight experience in FSX, same can be said for certain AMD CPU's (hell I have an FX 8350 and it does well) thing is that Nvidia cards do inherently perform better than AMD/ATI cards do in FSX.

Why your GRAPHICS section has only two lines? Where is the rest of it?

You mean the one I have now which is the R9 290 is good enough?

That's not my whole Graphics Section, it has many more lines than that, however those are the specific TWEAKS that I have in that line.

Personally I would go with an Nvidia EVGA/MSI/ASUS GTX 760, that card will pretty much ensure you have solid frames on many modern games. As for FSX it will help you with HD textures for Clouds and other stuffs, just remember its still more based on your CPU performance and that i7 4970 you have is a beast for FSX.

Also many people who make As Real As It Gets videos heavily edit them, they generally record at half rate then speed the video up for smoothness.

Can you please explain what are the tweeks to be adjusted?

I already have Highmemfis=1 and bufferpools=0

 

Thats all what I have

Here is what my config looks like for some of my tweaks.....

[Display]
BLOOM_EFFECTS=0
TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=40
UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=30
WideViewAspect=True

[Main]
DisablePreload=1
FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.15

[DISPLAY.Device.NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti  .0]
Mode=1920x1080x32
Anisotropic=1

[GRAPHICS]
HIGHMEMFIX=1
TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=4096

[TERRAIN]
LOD_RADIUS=5.500000
MESH_COMPLEXITY=100
MESH_RESOLUTION=25
TEXTURE_RESOLUTION=29
AUTOGEN_DENSITY=4
DETAIL_TEXTURE=1
WATER_EFFECTS=5

[BUFFERPOOLS]
PoolSize=0

[JOBSCHEDULER]
AffinityMask=254

My Affinity mask is set to have the first core or Core 0 on my 8 Core CPU run background tasks, all 7 other cores are running in FSX. I also prefer to use Mid 2x for water animations as it will reflect the Sun/Moon, Stars, Your Aircraft, and Clouds but not any of the terrain, this helps keep frames up and still simulate a "living environment". As for Max Texture Load being at 4096 which is the highest FSX can go, I use REX4 and their airport textures can be set to either 1024 or 4096, so I like my HD airport textures, if you are running default you could just use 2048 as most HD aircraft are set to use 2048 textures. I also like to use DXT1 and DXT 5 textures in the game as they greatly improve performance and they still look great. I also prefer to use a LOD radius of 5.5, some people like to use 6.5 but using that in some really detailed environments can cause OOM's and I have never really heard of anyone getting OOM's at 5.5 or less. 

Pay attention here....

I use an Nvidia Card, so I use Nvidia Inspector to change my graphics profile for FSX. I use Nvidia Inspector to handle to Anti-Aliasing and the SuperSampling as well as locking my VSync to 1/2 refresh rate which is 30 because my monitor is a standard 60Hz monitor. So with my VSync locked to 30Hz and FSX set to 30 Frames I get good performance, now for you using AMD Catalyst I have no clue how to set that up, someone might though.