TheRedBaron

Oh ok. That sucks...it would have made things really easy!

Just curious. If everyone uses a TU-95, like this one: http://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/files/2549/fsx-tupolev-tu-95ms-bear/ Wouldn't we win by a massive margin?

I am running a stock 8150, and I'm quite pleased with it. I can get around 15 FPS with scenery, autogen maxed and all traffic at 50%, water high 2x, REX HD textures, Project Airbus A320 on the ground at KLGA. In flight, I can easily get 50-85 fps.

I think it is kind of sad when I can run around using my computer for highly intensive computational fluid dynamics, and FSX manages to take it down :( It really is quite a sight when I see my CPU eat science for breakfast, only to balk at FSX.

What is your preference? Low and slow? High and fast? That is the first question when dealing with two radically different aircraft like this. And then there is your pocketbook too...

I have to agree...A Concorde is going to cruise at Ma 2.0 and 60,000 feet. The stratoliner on the other hand...

I'm assuming you are a regular GA flyer since you have a stratoliner and the Concorde as big planes :lol: (Not to be mean--I just generally consider aircraft the size of and larger than an A330 "big" B) )

I personally love the aerodynamic innovation Airbus is going for with the adaptive flap system. That should theoretically increase its efficiency by a huge margin, especially in nonstandard conditions.

Interesting "discovery": I decided to run FSX using the overlay options in Nvidia Control panel, and I can set AA up to 32x(4xSS, 8xMS)+FXAA with zero fps hit. It offloads everything to do with AA to the GPU, so I have it running at like 80% usage.

Hi! Sorry for not replying! I just saw this lol--yes, sort of. I have joined the Project Airbus team, and as of now, I am doing some dev for the effects on the A330/A340 project. However, I am still planning to do a release for anyone to mess with later on.

Have you looked at Word Not Allowed's tweaking guide (and implemented any of it)?

I used to fly BWI-RIC, which is about 120 mi...generally topped off at 20,000 feet in an A320. Any higher was just plain useless--I once tried 30,000 and was told to descend before I reached it. For 80 mi I would recommend around 15,000-18,000.

Perhaps a RAM upgrade might help...you have fairly slow RAM by today's standards. DDR3-1600 isn't that expensive anymore. Overclocks work (With adequate cooling), but will only shorten your processor's life.

Ok, I figured it out! I can use DxtBmp to convert my BMP files to the correct format! Now I just have to get the code right :). (Especially since I destroyed my best code in a fit of rage :P)

I hope so! It's just been foxing me lately :P. I really want to be able to release some freeware that just makes FSX more fun for everyone...

Are the fuel pumps left on? If you turn them off for some reason...the engines shut down (unlike older versions of the Special Version A320)

Try using ModelConverterX to locate the effects embedded in the .mdl. I think you should be able to change the light parameters in there (I have been trying to make headlights for the service vehicles, so that's how I know)

Hello all, I am currently attempting to create a 3D light effect in FSX (Similar to the Shockwave 3D lights). I have managed to create the proper .fx files by simply creating a whole bunch of sprites one in front of the other. However, the effect only works with the default effect textures. I can use fx_2.bmp to create the volume, but I really dislike the way the actual sprites look. So, I have tried creating my own, but simple .bmp files don't seem to work for volumes. Does anyone know how to make .bmp files like the fx_2.bmp (with the odd distortions)? I have no clue why that is needed, but experimentation has pretty much left me with that. Thanks in advance! Also, moderators, I had no clue where to put this in the MSFS forum, so if you feel the need to move this topic, I am sorry for any inconvenience.

Use resource monitor. It's built into the Windows OS: you can monitor all kinds of stuff like Disk I/O, CPU usage, CPU frequency (percent of max), RAM usage, and Network usage.

I guess they lost interest? That can happen. Or they are working on a new product. Or they simply don't agree with the "quirks". I mean, there are still plenty of people who seem to be happy...An update/ expansion/ improvement like with REX would be nice.

Yup. I think it was a good effort, but I mainly dislike the strobes. While realistically coloured, they *can* be super-bright. Like others have said before, the lights are realistic, but (generally speaking) only in clouds (or smog :P ).

Yup. Like I said, the main issue is that the lights are overdone. I am currently messing around with trying to make 3d lights of my own (to suit my tastes), but it is VERY difficult. If anything comes out of it, I'll probably upload the effects to the library...But as of now, the only results have been a crashed sim. :rolleyes:

It is a pretty nice product, but I do feel like the lights can be a bit over-done. They are great, but the volumetric effects are so exaggerated (in my opinion), that you feel like you are flying in a cloud.

Hi, I'm just getting into making FSX videos, and I was wondering what the best recording program is (for playback from fsrecorder). I currently use MSI Afterburner, but I get my framerates easily slashed in half, or at the very least, dropped by 5-10 while recording. Since FSX doesn't use the GPU more than around 30%, I was wondering if there were any good (and free) recorders out there that can pretty much run on the GPU using CUDA. Thanks!

Sorry--I meant a clean install. I know it can be hard, but if you use registry cleaners and really carefully sweep your system, this should work. I have done this before, but once again, due to FSX's unpredictable nature, there is no way to really know the best option.