Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

372 profile views
  1. I can't even get my joystick AND keyboard to work at the same time. If I fly with joystick (I do) then I have to go into options and change to keyboard for any assignments I have on keyboard to work.
  2. What about additional voice packs? I purchased a handful of them for use with Pilot2ATC and they worked fine there. In FS2020, I’m only hearing 1 voice and all others are just mic clicks like others are reporting. I’d like to be able to hear/use the additional voices I purchased. How and where do I verify FS2020 is seeing those voices? I’m using live ATC if that makes a difference ... but also where do I find models for the Live AI? I had an A380 parked next to me at KPDX (home airport) and I assure you, no A380 would or will ever fly into KPDX as it’s not equipped to handle.
  3. I have no sounds from buttons/switches/alarms inside the cockpit. I can only get engine 1 to show heat, but will never actually ignite. no torque, no response at all from engine 2 for startup. not even sure about engine sounds inside cockpit because I can't even get that far. Even clicking the "ready for takeoff" state will not ignite #1 or even do anything with #2. Sounds work fine with every other aircraft, addon or stock, so it's not an issue with my speakers or settings.
  4. YAAAY!!! Thank just made me happier than a 5 year old at Christmas in a well-off family! lol Thanks for making such a great program!
  5. It will have to do. Great program. Are there any thoughts to implementing it in the future? It's about the only thing I can see that would make the program better 🙂
  6. Very new to P2A so forgive me if that has been asked before - Does P2A talk to and receive replies from AI traffic in the sim? If so, how to set the settings for that because I'm doing my first flight with P2A and I'm watching a ton of traffic moving around on the ground at KSLC, but I hear none of them :( I don't really want to have "ATC background chatter" because to me, it takes away from the realism if you're listening to aircraft that aren't near you or getting instructions that are not correct.
  7. I don't even have W7 in the XML to begin with, that's why I said I thought it was static. I'll add your code in and see what happens.
  8. It really is a simply answer tho. Don't think too much into it, and just read it as face-value. If some has the 9700k, what are you seeing for FPS on average? What addons are installed if any that you are getting those FPS? Where are your graphics setting sliders? If some has the 9900k, what are you seeing for FPS on average? What addons are installed if any that you are getting those FPS? Where are your graphics setting sliders? With just that info, I can make an informed decision of which one would be better. I'll have more than enough RAM, a z390 mb, and I have a Nvidia GTX1080 GPU so the only thing I need to know about is which processor has been doing better for people who use them in P3D ... it really is, just that simple.
  9. You're missing the point. Yes, both will do fine, that's obvious. But the point is, is there really a justification to spend the extra money to get the 9900k and if so, what is it in relation to P3D? Will it offer an improvement in P3D compared to the 9700k and if so, what? What would the difference be as far as what I would see on the screen. I don't want technical terms that 9xxx has xxx processing power and can be overclocked to xxx with a xxx hyper-threading blah blah blah. I don't care! What is the difference between them for what I see in the sim? I have neither of them, and I would like to hear from those who have one of them and what their experience is from it .... that is the point. None of that has anything to do with a "value conclusion" on my purchase, nor does it pertain to what I do with my money. Do you have either the 9900k or the 9700k installed? Can you provide me with factual data that will show that in relation to how P3Dv4.5 is currently (don't even have to use addons) that 1 is drastically better than the other? I am simply asking exactly what I just said - is there really a justification to spend the extra money to get the 9900k and if so, what is it in relation to P3D and how it will run? Will it offer an improvement in P3D compared to the 9700k and if so, what? I am not leaning more in any direction, and the question remains to be answered. Would I get better performance from P3D with the 9900k? Would it offer me more FPS and if so, about how many with the base P3D installed (no addons). I really don't understand why people on AVSIM feel it is sooooo important to say that someones desire to obtain more knowledge about something in the FS world as a waste of THEIR time ... everyone will have different opinions and that is their God-given right, that does NOT make it "bantering" or "debate" or useless information as others have said. This is a place for other to learn new things, share ideas, obtain good information, and help the community continue to grow and stay alive. The way everyone on here is constantly so stuck-up in their egos and power-trips just makes me want to put a drastic and sudden end to this passion I've had for the past 20+ years, and I feel that way because of how everyone on here treats their companions. It seriously sickening. My mother taught me "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." ... Please, just do that. I don't want to here your opinions about ME, what I spend my money on, my understanding of computer hardware, components, your excitement about a sim that's not even out yet, or anything else other than ........ is there really a justification to spend the extra money to get the 9900k and if so, what is it in relation to P3D? Will it offer an improvement in P3D compared to the 9700k and if so, what?
  10. I got that one fixed, thank you! I'm trying to manually place one for W7 and there is a couple other in the satellite gates that the jetways are either showing as static like at W7, or are in the wrong position, Like W5 looks like it would be turned too far away to work. I'm just not sure how to exactly read the line of code with the coordinates on it for the StandLocation: Here is the data from W5 unchanged: <!-- StandLocation;49.017174281179905;2.540879398584366;205.0;18.0--> ... I know the 1st number is the Lat, the 2nd is the Lon, but what is the 3rd number and the 4th number? Also, If I make a SODE jetway entry for W7, the static one will still be there which is a bummer. W7 actually has 2 jetways in the scenery, but only 1 is even close enough to be used but it's static.
  11. I'd be going from a i5 3570k @ 3.4GHz. No overclocking or changes to BIOS settings from default for the most part and I see an average of 10FPS at Taxi2Gate LFPG in the PMDG 737 running UTLive, GSX, and REX texture direct/REX Sky Force 3D. All the other addons haven't been used at LFPG yet because I'm still trying to customize the parking positions in GSX to there may be a slight reduction in FPS from that average once all addons are in play. I would assume that going from the 3570k to either the 9700k or 9900k would be a massive improvement, but what I'm most looking for is FPS improvement with higher settings. I'm tired of single digit FPS with mid settings and the FSL A320 is unflyable with what I get out of it right now. Both would be able to offer me better FPS overall, but the drawback to the 9900k is that I'd have to get a really good cooling system for it on top of the additional $100 in price difference. That's really why I made this thread; I want to be sure if the additional cost of going with the 9900k and a good cooling system would be worth it over going with the 9700k and a standard cooling system. When you take that into account, it's a big price difference but for what? The cheapest liquid cooling system on Newegg.com runs about $85, while the mid-range ones run for about $150, and the high end ones run over $300. Assuming I get the 9700k and a $100 cooling system, that would put the total cost for the 9700k at about $465. The 9900k with a better cooling system would run about $645 ($150 cooling system). So that's a $180 increase in price total. So is the $180 increase really worth it? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Yes, I'll get a better CPU, but does the additional benefits of the 9900k compared to the 9700k really make a difference worth $180 in P3D?
  12. I’ll say this once an for all ... when the announcement was made the MSFS was going to be a new project at E3 2019, it was announced at the same time that it would likely be a subscription service ... we all know flyawaysimulation.com and here is the quote from them regarding the announcement - “While the video and artwork scream Xbox, we should also be able to see it released on Windows using the Xbox Game Pass. Xbox Game Pass games are cross-platform compatible so can be used on both Windows and Xbox with a subscription to the service (which we believe is monthly).” So yes, at the time of the announcement, MSFS is assumed to be a subscription service and that is verifiable over a number of different sources. https://flyawaysimulation.com/news/4953/ also, I asked what CPU would be good for P3Dv4.5 and beyond, meaning P3Dv5, v6, etc. MSFS even if sold as a single purchase is still some time away where we don’t even know the system requirements, plus time to get bugs fixed plus time to get addons developed for it. By then, I may need to update hardware again if I decide to go that route. I am asking about P3D and was clear about that since the OP. The discussion of MSFS is done on this thread. Fee free to open a new thread about MSFS if you fee the need to discuss it further. This thread was was intended to be a topic of Which of 2 CPUs would be a better and more cost effective purchase. We seem to have gotten way off topic. So again, if you want to discuss what hardware will be best for MSFS, make a new thread and stop hijacking this one. This is about hardware for P3D at its current state and projected state within the next 2-3 years Furthermore, Yes, some of you will have a higher knowledge of technical terms and overall function, and although it is useful to know those differences and informative to me, that does not give anyone the right to speak to another as if they are vastly inferior to themselves. That kind of comment is both rude and extremely insulting and I’m sure that’s not what avsim wants from their users or anyone else aimed at someone who is here to learn. I will provide you with my sources where I came to the info that I have, but to insult me for that source is just flat out wrong and a direct personal attack towards me when it is not my knowledge, but the quotes of numerous different tech websites I am quoting. I would appreciate it if we can keep this on topic, and clean of any bullying/rude comments/insults going forward.
  13. All my info comes from other forum topics on the same CPUs, and from tech websites ... if my knowledge of it is therefore a "obvious misunderstanding" you'll need to take that up with the ones who wrote the comparisons and the articles on the products. https://www.techspot.com/review/1730-intel-core-i9-9900k-core-i7-9700k/ " we have the Core i9-9900K" ... " and we also have the i7-9700K which is basically the same CPU, but crucially, with Hyper-threading disabled." -- "Basically the same CPU" "The Core i7-9700K packs the same eight cores but can only process 8 simultaneous threads." -- wanted to point out that the terms "treads" and "hyper-threading" were used by the same author, in the same article, referring to the same thing. " Overclocking these 8-core parts to 5.1 GHz wasn’t easy, it required 1.375v and a massive liquid cooler, you aren’t hitting this frequency with a 240mm closed loop cooler, 5 GHz is probably off the table as well" -- Why bring up if the 9900k is better because it can hit 5GHz if it can hardly do it with a custom industrial cooling system? " Looking at the multi-threaded results the 9900K saw an 8% performance boost while the 9700K saw a 7% boost. I should also note that I have two 9900K samples and both struggled with the 5.1 GHz overclock. They could boot into Windows at 5.2 GHz and run a few basic tests but anything more would result in the blue screen of death, even at 1.45v." --- Again, mentioning that yes, the CPU can hit 5GHz but only to boot into windows and not much else before BSOD. Due to time and how much we already have to cover, we’re going to show the gaming performance of just half a dozen titles. Starting with Assassin’s Creed Odyssey the 9900K boasts frame time performance by just 4% at 1080p when compared to the 8700K while the 9700K was slightly better providing a 7% increase." --- 9700k actually gives better frame time performance in some cases. " test gaming performance with the 9900K and 9700K overclocked to 5.1 GHz. Interestingly we see no performance gain when testing with Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, even at 1080p. We’ve found in the past overclocking the 8700K lead to almost no performance gains at 1080p with the 1080 Ti and the same appears true with the RTX 2080 Ti." -- overclocking shows to make almost no difference so why do it and risk damage? That's just 1 of the MANY articles and reviews I have been reading ... so again, if its an "obvious misunderstanding" you'll have to blame them, and blame Intel for listing the comparison as "Cores/Threads" which is what I was referring to as "the difference" in the chips ... 9700k = 8 core/8 threads 9900k = 8 core/16 threads ... see the difference?
  14. MSFS is going to be a subscription service ... meaning you pay a monthly fee for having the scenery on Microsoft's Clouds. That's pretty crappy right off the bat because that failed with Microsoft Flight, and I don't see many people wanting to pay a monthly fee for the simulator platform. The only subscription I have for anything in my sim is my Navigraph subscription which is a pretty good deal since I have all the charts and it keeps all my aircraft and other addons up to date on AIRAC cycles. That's $100 a year, or $8.33 a month ... I can assure you Microsoft will be charging more than $8 a month for the sim. so here's where I'm at with MSFS: 1) if you want to pay a monthly subscription to get nice looking scenery but no addons, then go for it, but not my cup of tea. 2) Since the subscription would be to have the scenery on the Azure Public Cloud (Microsoft owned cloud service), and streamed to the user, would you still need a high end computer since the info isn't even being stored on the computer, but instead being injected into it? 3) If a high end computer is still needed, it would take a quantum computer with alien technology and an Intel i382 99999999999999999999k CPU @ 642.8GHz with a few trillion threads to give a constant 30+ FPS using real world photo scenery and satellite images and tons of 3D both in and out of populated areas, all being rendered without a stutter while flying at 100+ knots 1,000 feet above the ground (every MSFS preview trailer is a GA plane flying low around a city or mountains). Yes, the trailers look amazing, but lets face it, you can achieve the same level realism and even more in P3D and not have to pay every month for it. I dropped a ton of cash into P3D, but once it's done, it's done. I don't have to pay every month to LM, PMDG, Aerosoft, GSX, REX, Active Sky, ChasePlane, FSL, FSUIPC, Flight 1, ORBX, etc. ... I buy them 1 time, and it's done. Yes, LM and XP11 have their current limitations, but they are constantly adding more and updating. Until we start using 128-bit simulators, there really isn't much updating that needs to be done with the codes for existing add-ons to keep working with P3D. I guess it's a safe bet to say that I will look into MSFS after it's been on the market for a bit and see how people are reacting to it and if developers are even doing anything for add-ons (if only a small handful of people are subscribing to MSFS, why would a developer spend money for something the users may not even get?) ... but I can guarantee that I will NEVER make a subscription service my base simulator for flying. If LM and XP11 decided to go that route, I'd be done with this all together.
  15. @BillS511 I'm look specifically at get F84 ... the parking position is too far to the right for the default T2G jetway to reach. I tried doing an exclude in GSX for that jetway to add a GSX jetway but the T2G one is reluctant to go away. Maybe because GSX excludes within 1 meter but that gate may be further away, but I don't want to exclude gates that work fine around F84 either. Also, I'm not sure if there is a GSX gate that would fit there properly with the height at which the jetway or bridge would connect properly to the scenery. Just be looking at the position with the default T2G jetway, looks like that gate height is in between the standard heights and the "Higher" or "Upper Level" gates where the standards will be too low and the upper will be too high. Since there is only 1 model (but different lengths) of the Sloped bridge, that bridge would have to be a perfect match to work without there being pieces sticking out somewhere. I'll keep trying the exclude and see what I can manage.
  • Create New...