David Bourne

This is SO true! Seen so much of this, this week.

Frame Rates reported here seem far too low, for the given scenarios. I mean for MS FSX and FSX:SE. Exactly. If people choose to use this one single user's exercise as a "conclusive performance benchmark" (bold claim!) then that's absolutely up to them, but I think far more compreshensive and empirical tests would be needed than these, to claim "conclusive performance benchmark" results. I've already done some unofficial ad-hoc personal tests of my own, that suggested FSX:SE was around 10% faster than MS FSX. That's on an i7 2600k system with Win 7 64bit and a ATI card.

I've continued to see a good benefit from using:- [bufferPools] UsePools=0 RejectThreshold=524288 .......in FSX:SE .....but it's depenent on your graphics card and your own configuration. I've also put:- [JOBSCHEDULER] AffinityMask=84 ....into my FSX_SE.CFG file. No other tweaks.

I'm inclined to agree here. FScene is a very very old product. I'm sure I first bought it for FS9 back in around 2004.

I think it flies nicer too Gregg. It has a heavier feel than most of Carenado's aircraft. Just feels 'real' where some of their offerings do feel a little like the 'flying textures' that some people talk of. If you go for the 340 Gregg, I'd highly recommend this too ;- http://www.flightsimstore.com/product_info.php?products_id=2094 It's the C340 that Carenado based their avionics fit etc on.

I own them both and feel the C340 has better overal VC texturing, immersion, and sounds.

That's strange. I wonder if it's because your FSX path is non-standard? .... Eg. not in the Program Files (x86) directory. Can't really see how that would cause an issue, but perhaps. Yes it will be good when Orbx offer a solution. I saw them talking about a possible "toggle" switch that will point the Orbx products between standard FSX and FSX:SE.

But you don't own/have it, right? So how can you opine on something that you haven't experienced. The "huge" improvement may not be quantitative, evidenced by a sexy long change log, but may be qualitative, as evidenced by the updated VS compilers being more efficient and providing smoother performance. Surely, skepticism is good if it's backed up by an empirical approach; ie.. trying out and experiencing the thing that you're trying to build a case/opinion on? Without trying it, your skepticism just has no logical base at all.

Some of you 'hurrumphy' blokes are hilarious. You've got someone like Pete Dowson in this thread saying he's been in to source code, as part of his FSUIPC work, and that he believes FSX:SE is faster. And yet you're still compelled to tell those people that have bought FSXSE for £3.99 / $5 that they're wrong, and in one case pretty immoral as the money should have been spent on a donation. :rolleyes: - have you any idea how arrogant that sounds? It's $5 ........ if you decide to pass that up, where you have someone who knows more about FSX's "insides" than pretty much anyone else in this community saying it is faster, then do it........... but please, don't tell those of us who've spent a coffee's worth of cash on it, that we're the fools here. :wink:

Thank you SO much Pete, for getting this out so quickly! You're a gent :smile: Hi Jim, ORBXLIBS (v141207) worked fine for me. Same parallel install as you (FSX:SE installed after FSX). Here's the automatically corrected path, shown on the installer:- ========================================================== UK2000 Xtreme Sceneries Gatwick, Manchester, Bristol, Newcastle, Doncaster, Stanstead, Edinburgh - all fine with regards installation and usage. :smile:

Yes, that's very true and valid. I've just been reading on the Orbx forum how apparantly people who have installed FSX:SE alongside (and after) the boxed FSX seem to be having the best time, where installations and file paths are concerned... (this is what I did. I was going to unistalled boxed FSX today, but I'm now scared to!! ). People who uninstalled FSX (or never had it installed in the first place), and just installed FSX:SE, seem to be having the problems where some installers are not automatically finding the FSX:SE file path.

You don't have to tweak FSX:SE's cfg file but you certainly can. I've personally added the following; [bufferPools] UsePools=0 RejectThreshold=524288 [JOBSCHEDULER] AffinityMask=84 ......because they've always gave me the best results available on my system. They're working great on FSX:SE too.

Thanks Rick! ================================== Aerosoft Stavanger, Trondheim, Tromso All install automatically to the correct new file path, on my system, and work find in FSX:SE Airports of Norway (Freeware) Installed manually / added to FSX:SEs scenery library manully - works in sim fine. Denmark X (Freeware), and Vidan Airfields (payware/freeware) All install automatically, and work fine. IRIS Simulations Jabiru J160 Installs and runs fine. Ants Airplanes P92 Eaglet Installs and runs fine,

\/ \/ \/ \/

$5 dollars is not wasted where there's an opportunity that it may run better for you than the boxed version. It does have some fixes and changes and no they're not all just FSX.CFG tweaks - for example, HIGHMEMFIX has been integrated, but it's not in the FSX_SE.CFG file, so it's integrated into one of FSX's DLLs I guess. Also, there is the possibility that Dovetail will make further improvements and changes. P3D is not the automatic replacement for FSX, otherwise every FSX user would by now have moved to P3D. For ATI card users, P3D2 really does not run well at all (same goes for XP10 64bit BTW). No Supersampling AA, and poor performance and frame rates. There's no right answer, we're all just offering opinions but I'd say $5 is too good an opportunity to miss, to buy into a version of FSX that is in the custodianship of a current developer / vendor.