minimums retard

" Anti-Social Media! " Sorry, that made me laugh This^

This is why I need to become a pilot ASAP.

It's definitely not accurate. The default FS Flight Planner is not recommendable, and in any case if you had checked your values by hand using the correct fuel burn values you wouldn't have run into that problem. I think the best thing you can do right now is to do some research on flight planning and real world procedures, you will never run into these problems again, whether you're using software or not. Check the fuel burn values in the aircraft.cfg, then use that for your planning (or edit them if they are wrong), and calculate it manually - see if the same thing happens. You don't need to adjust fuel burn for climb or descent, as when you climb you gain potential energy which is regained during descent, effectively cancelling each other out. However you will need to add taxi and contingency fuel, and I like to calculate a base reserve of 5% of my route fuel burn on top of that too. Good luck, hope you guys get it resolved.

Very well said! Definitely agree with these. I thought upvotes/votes on posts would be a good thing though? Why is it bad? (I don't use reddit so I wouldn't know) And especially the unrestricted bandwidth = awesome x1000000000 I've tried downloading stuff from other libraries before - usually the download just drops out because of the low speed. Avsim is the only flight sim forum that I've participated in a more than negligible amount, and definitely the forum I've participated in the most even outside of simming forums. I think a big part of that is because they encourage people to sign up and actually use the forum instead of just read it and also that members are very helpful and and friendly overall (there's going to be exceptions no matter where you go, might as well keep the expectations realistic). It's an absolutely huge forum and it's taken a long time for me to realise it's true value (I probably still don't fully comprehend it), it was only when I really started to contribute to and follow some topics that I realised and built up a respect for the full scope of it and massive amount of effort and time people have put into this place and making it what it is. I think maybe that's where some others may have gone astray, but we won't go into that, I'll just finish by extending a huge thank you to all those involved in that process.

I'd completely forgotten... FS98 was the bomb! Time to reinstall that badboy and see how many fps I get lol Thankyou so much for posting! And yeah, that screenshot compared to back in the day... wow... we're living in the future

How did you calculate expected fuel burn? When asking a question, make sure you provide enough information so that people can actually help troubleshoot your issue. I've never heard of fuel for larger planes being measured in litres before, I was under the impression they used kg's or lbs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gq68u-f6X0

I personally am waiting for Skylake as I heard they are going to be a big step up from Broadwell. I could be wrong however, my research was pretty slap-dash. Woops I didn't realise broadwell had been delayed. I'm thinking now to wait for Broadwell/Skylake and maybe get Skylake but if Broadwells are really cheap (they probably will be), that could be a good chance to get an "extreme" CPU for cheap.

Haha nice! Reminds me of my new motto: "if it's not broken... don't fix it!" I've learnt that one the hard way.... lol Happy flying!

Hahaha I know the feeling toooo well. Did that fix it for you?

Oh wow I'd never heard of these guys, and they even have an A380 that doesn't look terrible! And just a few days after I spent hours merging a VC into the Project Airbus A380 lol. Thanks!

I recently had this problem! Was trying out DX10 and it was great first time - clearer picture and 20-22 fps in the same situation. then the next time I booted up the sim it dropped to 9 fps lol. so I reverted back to DX9, making explicitly sure that every single setting was exactly the same before I switched to DX10 (I'd backed up my cgfs etc), and then I was still getting 9 fps. Then I accidentally hit the window title bar which very quikcly resized the screen and I saw the FPS jump up to a more normal level. It has happened again since then and same thing, resizing the window a few times seems to make it go away, and this time i hasnt come back. I think I read somewhere it refreshes your shader cache or something. Anyway, might not have an effect, but worth a shot. No worries at all btw, after having gained so much knowledge and expertise from this forum and other places on the web, it's my absolute pleasure to be able to help someone else with their FSX troubles. I just hope I'm not actually just a noob and sending you on a wild goose chase haha.

Very true, I also forget that it's probably a case of if they made the textures more detailed it would probably just insta-kill the VAS. Nice, that's a good length flight, I meant the designer/creator of the model not the flight departure though haha, sorry I should've been more specific.

Hahaha those last few pages where a joy to read, loved the does FSX exist or not bit, cheers people, and Rob, your comment about add-on complexity for large airports - spot on! And I have a medium to low end system so I know all about the sacrifices lol.

Wow that is nuts, I was wondering if it was really just hail and apparently it was http://avherald.com/h?article=48188170. Crazy what weather plus a bit of velocity can do.

Great shots! Where is that Dreamliner from? The only thing I thought was a bit jarring is the buildings, the colours/textures seem really flat and over exaggerated, but maybe I'm just not used to having that much visibility when flying over London. As Ian said, the river looks great though. Thanks for posting!

You probably already know all or most of this and have read it all before, but in case you haven't, you need to calculate it for your CPU and preference, it's a very specific value. AM maps the FSX process threads to your CPU cores by using a binary number (eg. 12 = 0000 0110, So cores 1 and 2 are running the FSX process) . If you have hyperthreading off I have found the best results come from AM = 14 with allocates the FSX process to cores 0,1,2 and leaves core 3 for other processes; 14 = 0000 1110 i.e. HT is off so all the virtual cores are deactivated and the fsx process is assigned to cores 0,1 and 2. I don't understand how 80 could work for your system as 80 is 0101 0000 and therefore it is sending fsx to only 2 virtual cores that you don't have enabled via HT. It's probably just resetting to default once it loads or something. I would also suggest if your card has 2GB of RAM or more to replace the rejectthreshold and poolsize with bufferpools=0 or usepools=0 (they do the same thing). Either that or set usepools=1 and try leaving the poolsize at default (don't set it in the cfg at all) and setting a small reject threshold of about 256KB, however your system should be powerful enough to handle bufferpools=0. I wouldn't be surprised if the stutters are more to do with how your graphics card and CPU are communicating/managing resources rather than the CPU behaviour itself. I've found ASN can affect frames a bit (which is understandable, the detail is incredible, it's just less obvious when you can't see half of what it's doing lol) and tbh I think 60 is pretty good, however what conditions is that under? Are you flying, on the ground, is it stormy, what are your traffic settings etc. Are you using FSX Gold, Acceleration or Steam Edition? And also, small detail, but I believe you mean 16GB* of RAM lol. Anyway good luck, hope you get it sorted, and remember to not to expect too much from FSX. It's an old program and from what I can tell even with a system like yours it's still going to need some leeway and a bit of love to get running smooth. For the record I have i5 3570K stock, GTX 660 OC, 16GB 1333 RAM and Win 7 x64 and FSX:A on seperate SSDs, in cruise I'll get up to 60fps (limited in NvI), on the ground I'll get 18-20 in a dense area, and my traffic is only on 16% and GA on 2%, road vehicles ~10%. I had to bring my settings right down to get it smooth but I've found a balance where visually it looks appealing and realistic enough for me to be happy and also performs well enough so that my short final isn't a slide show. IMO it's about finding which settings you can lower while still maintaining the same level of illusion/immersion. That is awesome! I'll be keeping that handy, what a time saver. Thanks!

So I was looking for 737-400 cargo capacity (for BA thought not Qantas lol) and I came across this which many of you may find useful to make your loading and planning more realistic. https://www.qantas.com.au/cargo/pdf/AircraftCapacity.pdf edit: just realised that's only for freight I think, hopefully it's still useful to some. edit 2: OK here is the real deal http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/737.pdf

Well, I couldn't work it out. Antarctica was too cold and dry lol. I've got ASN set to historical and there was a storm at EGJJ so I went there and got some icing in the default Cessna, then swapped to the 77W (mid air at 70kias lol) and at first the speed gauge read zero but 2 secs later I was in a rapid descent with a climbing TAT and then below freezing level. I flew around for about 30 mins after that through the clouds using the just completely incredible weather radar (all planes need this!) with all the anti icing off, then with the bleeds off, and didn't notice anything major other than the turbulence, tried climbing and descending, flying slow (and with flaps) but yeah if its happening I didn't notice it. Can any of the PMDG staff clarify whether the 777 will pick up on ActiveSky/FSX icing "zones"?

Well apparently.... "Does ASN simulate icing? Yes. We actively depict appropriate icing conditions in cloud layers appropriately. It is up to FSX/P3D and/or the aircraft being used to depict such icing effects. In default FSX icing effects, the pitot tube is effected quickly (requiring use of pitot heat) and airframe/prop icing are also simulated at a slower effective rate, but they do reduce lift performance after some time in icing." I haven't noticed it yet though. Might go and do some testing in antarctica! B) brb

Wrote something but it didn't look as funny in text as I imagined and I don't want to accidentally offend anyone, nvm lol.

He didn't quite do that though, he said people using a fake name

Just about every fix for every bug is publicly viewable on this forum... It's like a 10,000 page FAQ. If that's not accessing support then what is...

Oh cool, yeah I thought it must be there somewhere, I've had it happen to me with the default aircraft plenty of times. Didn't notice the aerodynamic effects though, just the airspeed instantly dropping to 0 lol (I assume IRL it happens slower?). But maybe that's because I probably put the pitot heat and possibly anti ice on whenever it happened. You'll be happy to hear Kyle (I hope) that I found a somewhat of a solution to my privacy concerns, I got the idea from another member who did the same and mentioned it in one of the original threads about name signing. What they did (sorry I can't remember your name but you're a genius) was put their name in an image and put that in their sig. Which is especially handy because I've forgotten my username for the support site and when i tried to get a reset link it said "no user associated with this email or something", and then I tried to email the helpdesk and it bounced back and said I had to be logged in haha. (I'm definitely using the right email - I've got the order confirmations in my inbox) It's not urgent now anyway and I can make another thread for that in a different topic if you'd prefer, however I'll need to recover my account details at some point. Also sorry for being a stickler about the privacy thing it's just a very unusual procedure (for me) and I have read many stories about Avsim getting DDoS and someone tried to hack their servers - who knows what they would use the data for. I personally would suggest against people putting their names in plain text. In a low res image I can live with however. Thanks for the great planes!

I thought so but I had to be sure cheers