VaporizedSteel

Playing FSX:SE on Windows 10 using the Saitek X52. A few problems arise that I would normally expect to patch by adjusting the 'control' settings, but I have some difficulty. First of all, the null zone. This is a slider in the FSX settings > controls > calibration (tab) > advanced controls. There are several sliders including one that sets the null zone for different control surfaces and engine throttle. It's supposed to be slided within a range of 0-100 percent. Set at 10 percent for example and the throttle would have to be moved to 10% for positive throttle. Below it would normally engage thrust reversing. However, this doesn't really seem to work with my Saitek X52. There is a bug. besides the ones in my garden that is. The null zone slider does nothing for me for some ludicrous reason. Adding to that is that the physical null state of my throttle lever is not actually 0% throttle. More like 1-3%. This means that craft with a lot of thrust to weight (like the F18) will roll on the lowest throttle levels with my Saitek X52. Using the Keyboard F1 (default) for zero throttle is the only way to actually cut the throttle and stop any rolling. Now, the null zone slider for throttle should workaround this problem. But like I said, changing that setting does absolutely nothing. Same goes for the null zone parameters of aileron, elevator and rudder. Yes, mysteriously so. Weirder actually. The X52 joystick has to be moved about 10degrees in x and/or y for the pitch, roll and yaw to have any effect. This is very annoying on high maneuverable aircraft, unlike a 737 or 747 for that matter, FYI the only aircraft I used this controller with, which is why I come here complaining now as I tried using it with i.e. the F18 as I've never tried this before. Basically I have to move the joystick several degrees before I get a pitch, roll or yaw moment. Again, this is something I'd expect those sliders to adjust, but that doesn't happen *aheum* work. This means I have to move the joystick several inches from back and forth just to change controls from pitch up to pitch down. The end result in actual practice is that I have to be sculling the joystick left/right - fwt/aft to change from one axis of control to the other. This is problematic in aircraft with high maneuverable control. And seeing how bad those sensitivity controls are set at I'm quite impressed how I managed to fly my 747 with it so far. What do I need to know and do right, please tell me?

Scratch the OP Sorry I feel ill for having posted this because the answer to the problem was quite simple and mundane. I forgot something after years of not playing. I haven't yet ran into this problem because I haven't yet done very long flights since I returned to FSX and it's related to the realism of the Opensky 777 plane that I just completely forgot about. Even although fuel is still being displayed I forgot to put the crossfeed valve to open as it only shows fuel in the right tanks while the left tanks are empty. Yet that still doesn't explain why FSX automatically switched to unlimited fuel and easy realism as one side of the tanks ran out. Is there a way to make FSX not do this? The problem occured right after disabling unlimited fuel that my aircraft engines flamed out and thus all the other systems. Now that the valve is open it flys fine.

SOLVED I played FSX since 2008. Although I haven't played it prior to few weeks ago for about several years. During my years of playing FSX I have never experienced what I have experienced today. Although It might have something to do with my unorthodox flight profile. This unorthodox flight is a simulated flight from EHAM (Amsterdam) to YSSY (Sydney) without time acceleration. Meaning that FSX ran for about 12 hours straight (4 hours from YSSY) in the Banda/Arufara Sea. It is there that things went haywire. I regularly check on my fsx session to change course etc and see if everything is ok. I play on hard realism settings and I fly in a Opensky 777-200ER with Air france paint. The first thing I realized is that the realism settings went from hard to easy without me changing any settings. It happened just like that in the background. I was especially ###### because I had to recalculate the actual fuel loss and add fuel in the "fuel and payload" settings because my 777 failed to burn actual fuel for 1 hours straight as it flew on "unlimited fuel" due to the automatic settings change from hard to easy realism. It gets weirder though. Having fixed that and saving my flight I went back to doing other stuff at home. When I came back I saw that the autopilot was disengaged and I went from 39.000 feet down to sea level. Again with the realism settings automatically switched to easy so I didn't crash but jumped across the sea in a uncontrolled direction. I thought, what!?!?!? .... maybe I actually forgot to engage the autopilot after fiddling earlier with the realism settings. But then I realized I never touched the autopilot. I also saw that my "Attitude Director indicator" was completely bugged out and the autopilot meters where blacked out. But all the instrument panel settings are completely ok, and identical to how they were when it flew normally for thousands of miles. Here is a picture that shows it. Activating the autopilot turns on the blacked out meters but doesn't solve the bugged out ADI. It then continues to fly on autopilot by the settings as it does normally but then it bugs and fails again after 30-60 seconds. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE!? EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention something which is also visible in the screenshot. The engines also failed automatically. They can be restarted and auto fail at the same moment when the autopilot auto fails. Plane suddenly became completely unusable. It works again after restarting FSX and reloading my flight. But not after reloading my flight in the same session. So it must be a bug. I just wanted to show how ridiculous this is. Maybe theres a actual answer for why this happens. SORRY FOR THE WALL OF TEXT

Must have been reading the instrument panel options without my glasses or something. Or I'm still having to reaccustom to the FSX GUI since I haven't touched it for 3 years. I forgot I could navigate all the instrument panel options within the fsx title bar = (left alt > views > instrument panel) The FMC panel is there, rare I couldn't find it earlier. Oh and I have FSX SE. I have no more questions, thanks for your help and have a nice flight :smile:

No engine fire set on the failure settings lol. I found the fix for the sparks. I had to remove opensky_spark.fx file from the "effects" folder. Any chance you guys already did this once before? Because I would find it odd that I need to take this step and others don't. I found the fix on another forum suggesting that the sparks happen due to bad collision programming making the game think that the aircraft has crashed the ground or suffered from a tailstrike. I assure you this is not the case because it happens right after I try to taxi and sometimes even when I spawn. @Chariearon No working FMC panel, but in the VC it is part of the interior, but not clickable. None of the available 2D panels is a interactive FMC. You sure you got the same panel that I have? If yes, I do something wrong

I got windows 10 (x64) with FSX SE. I have this posky model It has also this panel installed to get the panels working properly. Plane works fine, but it has a constant animation on the engines with red sparks as if they are constantly crashing or on fire. This shows you what I mean. Any clues? 2nd question: Both 2d and Vc panels work but it only gives functionality over default cockpit functions like in the default FSX aircraft. I don't require all the other functions yet. I just returned to FSX after a while of not playing it, and I probably buy a PMDG by the time I want to incorporate FMC's into my whole simming experience. For the moment I will survive without it. But if there are plugins that may add FMC functionality and anything else then I'd liked to be told by someone. EDIT: Prefix should be FSX - SE and not MS. I can't edit this after posting the thread, maybe allow users to do this, thanks :=)

To answer to your first warning. In all honesty. I'll briefly inform you on the following for getting to know me better. When I ask a question and somebody tries to answer it whether I receive the answer as bollocks or whether it could get me into trouble it is still always appreciated. Fact remains is that I actively seek new computing adventures and that I could screw some screws the wrong way. That are consequences of my own applied tweaks. And even if I were to assume that all my data would crash by a mistake. Don't think I would not return back to give it a retry regardless in terms of length in reinstall operations. Answer to 1: Wicked! Answer to 2: Wicked yet again! Yeah, the 1terabyte drive is divided into a 300Gb fsx partition and a 700gb partition (well actually a bit less on both but I'm sure you know all about harddisk formats) And the 700gb partition is more or less unused. A test backup! Never thought about that while that felt quite transparently obvious when you mentioned it. Euhm... you just mean the Acronis true image home bootable live CD? Yeah I have that, and quite honestly I actually thought you had to use the bootable CD for a windows partition backup. And that it wasn't even a matter of safety but just pure posibility. Roger! To 1: I could, but I also have a 1Terabyte external harddisk. To 2: I figured something like that To 3&4: Will do To 5: Yeah somewhat holding it, but heck, I would have the maps backed up right. To 6: Can I hold my breath now where I feel it's more applicable!? To 7: Will do To 8: If it doesn't you can expect more posts from me. Yeah I figured I could. I think getting some practice with acronis aswell as verifying a FSX partition backup can ensure me into a safe backup of all my partitions. That will definetely be my first step. I also read the manual where many questions may be answered about Acronis. If you have any further input please tell me. Like any differential import thingies on the second final lap of the backup (meaning the complete multiple partition backup) Thanks so far I have one more question about a acronis image backup. I have my harddisk defragmentated with defrag software. think you already figure the question here So does the backup also write the data to defragged harddisk clusters and blocks? Or does everything get's fragmented again?

Hi there, My Goal and Harddisk / software setup!>> I need some advice here. I want to backup (image) 2 harddisks. I will use the program Acronis True image home. ^^That is if the above program suits my intended wishes. I have a 500gb western digital caviar blue 64m/7200rpm harddisk where windows is installed (including programs and games) Total sized that is used = 158gigabyte. I also have a 1000gb western digital caviar blue 64m/7200rpm where FSX is installed. However... FSX is actually located on a 300gb partition. The 300gigabyte partition that only holds FSX software uses a total of 57gigabyte of actual space. In total I have the windows partition 158gb + FSX partition 57gb = 215gb of used harddisk space. I want to image both partitions on a single 500gb backup harddisk. I'm starring in the dark though NOTE:I have apart from windows backup never used other imaging software (like acronis) And I don't know if I can image two partitions on 1 harddisk. And later put the same backup partitions back to their original drive with their original drive letters. I have to know the procedure specifically and if acronis true image home supports this, because both register keys, shortcut files, and file locations should match the initial setup like file paths or else installed programs become corrupt like FSX. I must aquire the benefitial procedure of doing this (if possible) because once complete I will test the backup to see whether the backup is succesfully configured. And If I fail at backuping it properly I might need to reinstall everything again which defeats the backup purpose. One glitch I imagine that would suffer my idea is that regardless of the actual used space (215gb) the addup of partition sizes is 500 + 300gb. Would acronis calculate that size as the requested harddisk size for system storage (thus 800gb "= to large"). Or can I just assign new partitions on the backup HDD with the acronis live CD and physically image the actual occupation of real bytes from and to the backup HD. "Remember, the backup harddisk is 500gb" I hope I wasn't to elongated in my TS. If you by sad chance do know a setup for creating my desired backup goal but it isn't done with acronis true image home then I might still see chance to get the software. I just can't get my answer from browsing the web so I felt I needed to start a topic for clues. I hope you can help me out.

Ofcourse, he may not have tried it. But If those are the benefits, gloud fog seen on earth when zooming out. And smoke from factories are my only benefit (whether the 3.0 hack brings issues or not) then it's not valuable at all really. I don't care at all for those benefits. In fact If I were the FSX designer chief programmer I wouldn't even order those pathetic perks to be incorporated in the system. So that is it then? If there are further benefitis to shader model 3.0 (in ati's case it's notorious hack) I see no reason to have it installed. Is this the fuss NickN is going berserk all about? Or is there more....

Like I said, I'm a post amateur on this although not completely a down syndrome on these subjects. But is A shader model not just a model that either works or completely doesnt work (either of the 2). According to you the óne (namely nvidia) has a edge on either processing, imaging, using the shader 2 model better then ATI. If this is true then how does this edge on nvidia card image itself on the FSX monitor. In other words what are the graphical differences between ATI. Surely the 3.0 shader model ATI hack solves this (this = what is that exactly? Meaning = I'm dieng for a answer) So what are the downsides to this shader hack. My guesses... -My computer crashing. -My monitor to go black everywhere / anytime -strange game glitches -overrides by newer ati drivers -bsods -corrupt files Questions regarding the above fears.... is the shader 3 model hack uninstallable by keeping all the original ati driver files intact? Or is non of the above fears true and does the hack actually work? And then again, what does it improve apart from a new working shader model. The shader model is just the name. Are their comparable graphics (links) that compare these differences (links to pictures perhaps)

As far as I know I read all NickN massive post regarding tweaks, help etcetera. Including that one. And that one is one of those sources that I mentioned where people (NickN in this case) was swearing Nvidia over ATI. As for extreme overclocking. My I7 920 is a bad C0/C1 chip. I couldn't get it much further above 3.5ghz even if I used LN for cooling. And that is the exact that I read. So is this still true? So is dazz ******* Altuve's shader 3.0 mod a solution for what NickN claims a Ati card failure. And what does the hacked shader file do what all nvidia cards seem to do that Ati doesn't. The answer to that question might aswell get me closer into knowing what nvidia does better in fsx over where ati fails at. Clearly assuming from a post amateuristic standpoint (that means me) that it fixes shader model 3.0 for ati what nvidia supposed to do by default. How that nvidia leap presents itself in better graphics or performance?!?!? You tell me!?

This is turning into a ATI VS Nvidia topic. And you know what, I really dont care at all, please keep going on. Even such topic result in valuable informative replies. Although Im not the moderator to judge that. But do keep in mind that I personally don't and never did see any of the 2 brands over the other. My question wasn't whether Nvidia was/is better then Ati or the same question in reverse. But the question was to determine the better for the simulator in specifically. Nvidia could kick the fsx engine upside over while the Ati could kick the Crysis 3 engines up side over. In the latter case I could not care as it's not my intended question. But really, go on. I hope I didn't work as a interruptor in the debates.

Roger! I get as low as 15fps with my mentioned platform some very rare spikes down to 10fps but also mostly around 20 in highly dense areas. With GEX, REX, FTX and UTX that I didn't mention as of yet and some airport addons. I'm still having Orbx on my wishlist yet to obtain B) Haha lol, although quite honestly, I dont think that will be the course. I have owned dozen of Nvidia cards. Although since the old Nvidia 8000 series I only had ATI. Not sure why I would ever go from nvidia to ati. And would now go from ati to nvidia but wouldn't return back to ATI :lol: Something should miraculously go wrong with AMD/ATI for that to happen :unsure:

That's very good to hear... Probably ATI isnt "BAD" but it's a little less good from what I hear. but that still wonders me why I hear all those controversial calls towards ATI. They don't actually say ATI is bad. Just that it's less good for FSX specifically. NickN actually said that. Not that he is god and all but just saying for relating the cryout from what I hear a trusted person. Then how does this result into benchmarking I wonder? Oops, you replies when I answered. So that quality difference is just something from the past!?

Hey guys and girls :lol: Ok, this is my computer system. 750watt psu 6gigabytes 1866mhz ram intel core i7 920 @ 3.5ghz. 7200rpm harddisk. ATI Radeon HD7850 I don't have any issues in the way FSX runs. That is that other sims or games run much more rapidly. But having seen various videos and complaints I consider my smoothness quite acceptable if nore more. Having read various guides online made that possible. Im referring to guides like most notoriously NickN guides but other guides aswell. I have read all those guides aswell as just reading random peoples opinion on the internet. And all these people say that Nvidia is better in FSX then a Radeon GPU. But that Boggles me upside over for the following reasons. -It's said that FSX is like double as intensive on the CPU rather then on the GPU. -My FSX framerates have only increases after I performed my overclock profile from 2.67ghz to 3.5ghz. ^^ Thus meaning the CPU bottleneck was pumped in with more juice to generate a higher framerate ^^ My GPU just freshly followed suit on a uphill climbing CPU. -Just noticeably there must atleast be some kind of difference between ATI and Nvidia on the FSX simulator. Something I might notice to if I could atleast compare the two equivalent GPU brand cards for a test. But I can't since I don't own a Nvidia card. So I was wondering if people could tell me why nvidia is better in fsx. You might infact turn me over to the other side :ph34r: But quite honestly. Before I buy a GTX 6 or 7 series I will first upgrade my whole intel MB/RAM/CPU to something like a Haswell platform. Which isn't anytime soon, I was just wondering about the difference between ATI and NVIDIA for FSX