garrett_frank

The thread that Jay links to shows that people have attempted to adjust and change the waves so that they don't look so bad. Like you, I'd rather just get rid of them altogether. The problem is, though, that deleting the wave fx files (including the ORBX ones, if you have them) never seemed to fully get rid of the waves. It's somewhat difficult to explain but I'll just say that when you would initially load a scenario, they'd be gone but after slewing or flying around, they'd come back. I almost wonder if they're hardcoded into the sim or something. Regardless, deleting effects files can sometimes induce stuttering as the sim searches for an fx that it knows it should be processing. Creating the dummy texture file addresses both issues.

Yes. I've done just that for the same reason. There are some effects files you can delete but I don't recommend that method. Instead, find the files named fx_swoosh.bmp and fx_swoosh2.bmp in your P3D>Effects>Texture folder and delete them. Then, replace them with dummy files. Eg, simply create new text or notepad files, rename them appropriately and then change the file extension to .bmp. Should be good to go!

This is a very interesting explanation. I've had this happen too and immediately checked VAS and it was within limits. Thanks for passing this info along, Jay.

I also found that CPU benchmarks performed lower on Win10, with the exception of 32-bit (which we don't want to use!).

Once you know the coordinates, you can create as many custom views as you want. And yes, setting them to "tower" will have the camera follow the user object. And it just so happens that I have two for TNCM, one at the Sunset Beach Bar and one on Maho Beach generally. You can thank me later Add these to your cameras.cfg: [CameraDefinition.012] Title=TNCM Maho Beach Guid={835BFC1C-1A03-994A-A176-49318FEB094E} Description=Planespotting view on Maho Beach. Origin=Fixed InstancedBased=No SnapPbhAdjust=Swivel SnapPbhReturn=False PanPbhAdjust=Swivel Track=Track ShowAxis=No AllowZoom=Yes InitialZoom=1.5 SmoothZoomTime=1.0 ShowWeather=Yes XyzAdjust=FALSE xyzRate=0.25 xyzAccelleratorTime=0 Transition=No ShowLensFlare=TRUE Category=Custom FixedLatitude=18.03950533 FixedLongitude=-63.1207568 FixedAltitude=2 InitialPbh=0, 0, 0 CycleHidden=Yes [CameraDefinition.013] Title=TNCM Sunset Beach Bar Guid={839BFC2C-1A03-954A-A176-49318FEB098H} Description=Planespotting view on the deck of the Sunset Beach Bar at Maho Beach. Origin=Fixed InstancedBased=No SnapPbhAdjust=Swivel SnapPbhReturn=False PanPbhAdjust=Swivel Track=Track ShowAxis=No AllowZoom=Yes InitialZoom=1.5 SmoothZoomTime=1.0 ShowWeather=Yes XyzAdjust=FALSE xyzRate=0.25 xyzAccelleratorTime=0 Transition=No ShowLensFlare=TRUE Category=Custom FixedLatitude=18.03836725 FixedLongitude=-63.1206250 FixedAltitude=3.2 InitialPbh=0, 0, 0 CycleHidden=Yes I do use these with FT's TNCM and also be sure to check both the cameradefintion number and Guids to make sure they don't conflict with any other cameras you may have. Enjoy!

Pete, let me go ahead and preempt BBS' response to you: You're clearly an idiot that isn't smart or privileged enough to use their product. It's completely your fault that the software doesn't work. In fact, you may very well be using a pirated copy. There, that should about do it.

"Please stop downloading our products because it's costing us more in bandwidth than we expected." That's a new one to me.

10% is certainly nothing to scoff at but I'm skeptical of the claims. Intel themselves seemed to have indicated they were merely optimizing the production processes and lowering the heat/power signature. If it was a die shrink or architecture changeover, I'd believe it but this just isn't adding up. Regardless, if you find yourself in a CPU-bound scenario at around 15fps (a threshold I don't like dropping under) and you take half of the 10% improvement to FSX/P3D's Core 0, you've only gained three-quarters of a frame...

Interesting. I see the FMA notification for it but the aircraft, regardless, veers off the runway. And I'm kind of done interacting with BBS. Those guys are top-notch A-holes: Attempted to download yesterday using a download manager which not only failed, but likely indicated to their system that I had attempted a ton of downloads (that's how download managers work, to my knowledge). In getting them to reset my download link, I was met with suspicion and quite the attitude.

Lol. Can anyone get rollout to work?

Still disappointed. Granted it's .15 from being done, but still. Where to begin? Oh, yeah, the VC looks like my niece drew it.

Definitely the PMDG 777-200LR. Room for hundreds of Missuses and all of their friends. Can almost connect any two points on the planet and, if loaded lightly, could get in and out of any airport with a runway equivalent to the aircraft's wingspan.

I could be wrong but I wonder if the word "crush" was read incorrectly. I think Kyle and I are roughly the same age and "crush" is usually a positive. Thus I would figure he meant--and is correct--that most GPU dependent games scale multiple GPUs well and there's an obvious benefit. To the OP: I would advise against it. I added a second 780Ti SC about a year ago essentially just so I could go from SGSS 2x to 4x in P3D. It was essentially wasted money (I needed to upgrade my PSU too). Also keep in mind that, as Kyle alludes to (but doesn't say explicitly)--there is some CPU overhead required to sync 2 GPUs. I found that, in P3D at least, I lost about 10% of my processing power. That all being said, I view SLI in P3D as a clear net-negative. Unless LM or nVidia (I can assume no one here seriously considers AMD cards for FSX/P3D) can get things to scale better, then it's a lost cause. And I simply don't know enough as to whether that's even possible, can the GPU-dependent elements of the game engine itself even be improved to scale better at all? Hope this helps.

Ah, good to know then. Something's definitely off.

I think the question we've failed thus far to ask from you, Tomasz, is what phase of flight were you in when you saved the scenario? And/or what was going on? If you were in anything but flat and level cruise, I would think that your falling from the sky is merely an extension of saving a scenario whilst in a precarious angle of attack...

Tip of the day. I've never done that before; I just let the aircraft goof around until loading is complete; usually nothing bad happens. This will work with the the 777 as well? No issues?

I seem to remember a "test" showing something like this virtually every time a new chip is released. Always ends in disappointment.

Oh, and the Level-D 757 lol.

I get what Ryan's saying. Regis9 hit all of the high points but forgot the TFDi 717.

This, plus a thousand. Or whatever kids are saying or writing these days. Rule 1: rule out anyone that says they're a pilot.

Easy. Cape Town.

Wait, why did I forget about iFly even though I own it? Man, rough day. Maybe the fact that I forgot it should indicate something... oh well...

That wasn't quite my point. Yes, the Airbus is a good value but, more importantly, the market for a narrow-body Airbus in the FS world is different by the mere existence of a reasonable substitute. I sort of wonder if PMDG's NG and 777 are so popular not because of their complexity or anything else, but because they're really the only serious choices for an NG or 777. I guess that was my point. Apologies for not being clear, I haven't been with it all day.

The problem with comparing the FSL to PMDG is, with regard to the latter, there is no Aerosoft equivalent of the NG or 777. What I mean is, there aren't any NG or 777 models that, while not as complex, are at least well-developed, look good and certainly had some skill and care put into the development. In my opinion, that renders null a lot of the arguments about complexity. The fact is that there is indeed a quality substitute for the FSL Airbus that is cheaper, well-supported, includes all of the variants, albeit not as complex. For PMDG's mainstays, there are some freeware 737s and 777s and, of course, there is the CaptainSim 777... hardly a substitue even if it is cheaper... So essentially, if you want an NG or 777, there's really only one choice. For a narrow-body Airbus, there are two. And one is significantly cheaper and has some things going for it. Thus there are at least two points on the continuum of value/complexity scale.

That's a new one to me. Why not ask at the official ORBX forum?