Jump to content

untoweechja

Members
  • Content Count

    221
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Neutral

About untoweechja

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

787 profile views
  1. Same here with a GTX980, but I'm not averse to scaling back the eye candy a bit and I do 90% of my flying in the Majestic Q400, which is very frame rate friendly. Even as a perfectly happy user of FSX:SE for several years, I'm glad I made the jump to P3D.
  2. Additional fuel for the fire: This is on Aerosoft's Facebook page this morning -- "Due to a seminar, the whole company is out of the house today and tomorrow and therefore not accessible until Monday." Not joking.
  3. I second Dave's FSX:SE recommendation if you plan on sticking with FSX. Much better performance.
  4. True, but I can see two very useful scenarios where this makes sense: First, an interested buyer could find out if his or her hardware is up to spec. Second, I haven't bought the 747. I'm sure it's a stellar product, but I know I won't fly it much. I might take it for a couple spins if I could rent it, though.
  5. I'm not so interested in 'doing it by the book' that this has any appeal to me. Hopefully it's an optional feature.
  6. Exactly. Dovetail has no grounds for an encroachment claim: You can't poach customers away from a product that, by any reasonable standard including their own admission, has yet to exist. I was willing to show Dovetail my money when they showed me a complete simulation platform. They couldn't do it because the 'sell them a bare-boned product, then milk 'em dry with DLC available only through our sales channels' model does not work in this niche. Their business model killed them, nothing else.
  7. A new 'product line' implies something other than a new aircraft or sim platform to me. IMO there's a market for high-quality flight controllers at a price point between Saitek/Logitech and Go Flight/Virtual-fly. Something like the Thrustmaster Warthog, but for commercial airliners. Maybe that's it?
  8. I don't have XP11, but I do have the Warthog. Unless you have the means to get into GoFlight or Yoko the Yoke territory it's the best value out there in my opinion. I deliberated long and hard on this two years ago and decided I could either spend $200 for Saitek junk bound to wear out within months (read the Amazon reviews on the X55 and X56) or $400 for quality that will most likely outlive me. I have not been disappointed with my decision.
  9. I have to agree with this. I bought a new machine last year and got FSX:SE thinking it would 'hold me over' until I could afford P3D, but I'm quite satisfied with it. When/if P3D goes 64-bit maybe I'll jump ship, but until then I'm in a happy place right now. Steam puts it on sale occasionally, so you can buy it for a song and a dance if you don't want to pay full price. Regarding the original question, I'm sure I'll buy the 747v3 for Steam, but probably later this year when I have the time to dive in.
  10. I'm a former AMD user. You can spend days looking for magical, esoteric tweaks but it's highly unlikely you'll ever find them. I've been there. You have to compromise--there's no other way around it. Here are the three things that helped me most: 1) Autogen: Set it to "Normal" and learn to live with it. I know this isn't good news, but it will help more than diving in and messing with your *.cfg files. In my opinion, this is the only real "tweak" that has a significant impact on an AMD CPU. FSX is optimized for Intel, that's the sad truth. I'm not knocking your hardware, though, because I lived with it myself for more than four years and enjoyed it as best I could. 2) Steve's DX 10 Fixer: It will give a little boost to your frame rates, but it will also make lower frame rates smoother and more tolerable. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this will move some of the load from your CPU to your GPU as well, so you can better utilize the beefy 1060. This might also help you bump the autogen up a notch. 3) Water effects: Set it to "Mid (1.0x)" With your graphics card the DX 10 fixer might allow you to move it back to high. This will not help as much as the two above, but if you want to squeeze every frame possible out of your hardware this will have a positive impact. Good luck, and I hope this info helps. Hopefully some other FX users can give you additional advice. I was working with an old graphics card on my FX machine (550ti), so maybe there are some tweaks out there for your GPU that will make more of a difference.
  11. Another Vote for Civ VI, I still think Civ IV with the two expansions is the best of all time, but Civ VI is solid out of the gate and does not feel half baked like Civ V did upon first release. I wish someone would make a worthy successor to Railroad Tycoon II, that was perhaps my favorite PC game of all time.
  12. I wouldn't uninstall any sim related hardware, but you might want to get a couple more opinions.
  13. I have the CS L-1011. I wouldn't consider it a study sim, but it is a solid offering and definitely not 'sim lite.' It has a few things missing but none of them are critical IMO. Though it looks like it has dual INS systems, it is two instances of the same unit and it has some shortcuts if you don't want to spend your whole flight entering LAT/LONG coordinates. You can add the freeware CIVA INS and get dual units if you want, but it has to be used via pop-up window and cannot be integrated into the virtual cockpit as far as I know. There is an excellent, detailed tutorial written by Tom Beckett in the library if you want to dive in deeper than the Captain Sim documentation. He also provides a few tweaks to the flight model to make it a little more agile. I don't have the Just Flight version either, but from what I've read on the forum the CS version is generally regarded as the better of the two. I don't know how well the flight model conforms to the real thing, but it does feel and handle like the big bird that it is. It has an excellent virtual cockpit and the modeling of the DLC is very well done. I do fly it regularly and enjoy it. Unless you know you won't be happy with anything less than a study sim it is well worth having, IMO.
  14. The CS L-1011 is one of my favorites, and is seriously underrated in my opinion. You can also use the Flight 1 GTN-750 in the CS L-1011. There are instructions for setting it up on the CS forums. You are limited to using it in a popup window, but it does work. You do have to enter your flight plan into the GTN-750 manually, but that's so easy it's not a big deal. If you don't have or don't want to use the GTN-750 you can load an FSX flight plan into the stock INS as described above. The MilViz 737-200 also gets airtime in my sim world, especially at night. It's night lighting is arguably the best of any aircraft available in FSX. I always fly this one 'old school' and never use the FMS. I don't have the PC-12, but I feel safe in saying you can't go wrong with either the CS L-1011 or the MV 737-200.
  15. Hi James, and welcome to AVSIM. Of the three systems you have listed the third one is the best because it has a discrete NVIDIA graphics card. I recently ditched my AMD machine and second charliearon's recommendation above: You'll get much better performance out of FSX on an Intel machine, even if it's a couple of generations behind the latest-greatest. I was able to get acceptable (for me) performance for 'low and slow' GA flying out of my old AMD machine by dialing back the eye-candy and using Steve's DX 10 fixer, but flying any study-level tubeliner (with the exception of the Majestic Q400) was usually an exercise in futility. You can certainly make an AMD machine work (I used mine for nearly four years), but there's no question that FSX benefits from Intel CPUs.
×
×
  • Create New...