Kronovan

Note: you can launch the Steam version of Active Sky Next from a shortcut or batch file. When you start Active Sky Next from the Steam-Tools menu, you're really just doing the equivalent of starting a shortcut. ASN is typically installed to steam under the following folders: \Steam\steamapps\common\FSX\DLC\364340\ . The actual ASN file is named ASNext.exe. So to do what Steve is suggesting you'd just replace the "\Program Files (x86)\HiFi\AS_FSX\AS.exe" part of that command line with: "\Steam\steamapps\common\FSX\DLC\364340\ASNext.exe" . Of course if the drive you have Steam installed to is different than C:, you'd need to change that as well.

I encountered issues with ASN when just uninstalling and reinstalling FSX:SE to a different drive on the same PC. From what I could find the ASN installation is tricky for 2 reasons 1) ASN on Steam doesn't install like a regular game or app, but is configured under the Steam-Tools menu; 2) Addons / DLC are managed differently under FSX:SE in comparison to boxed FSX. My problem was that the shortcut for the "FSX Active Sky Next Configuration Tool" on the Steam-Tools menu, continued to reference the previous install folder. The only way to get it to run error free was to create a desktop shortcut to ASNext.exe and start it from there. There's a Steam-Tools button under Properties > [LOCAL FILES] to move a tool's install location. However, not being able to find any doc on it I didn't want to risk further problems, as I initially had issues with ASN entries in EXE.XML and DLL.XML not being correctly written. That could very well be the way a Steam tool relocation is meant to be handled though. As to having ASN on a networked PC; something I noticed is that there's an "as_connect" entry for ASN's as_btstrp.dll in the the FSX DLL.XML file. You can find that file in your \Users\username\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\FSX\ folder. On my PC it's set to an \364340\as_srv\ subfolder in FSX:SE's \DLC folder; not sure if the numbered folder is the same on all PCs. There's also an "as_btstrp_config_manager" entry in the EXE.XML that references the same \DLC subfolder. Those might very well need to be changed to reference a Network share where ASN is installed on the 2nd/remote PC. You'd also need ASN to make a networked SimConnect connection to the main PC running FSX. Be WARNED, that invalid entries in the DLL.XML or EXE.XML files can cause other addons to fail to load and even cause FSX to crash on startup. If you try editing entries in either those XLM files, always have a backup! With my experience with how finicky the ASN files are, I'd echo the advice of Ray and recommend just running it on the same PC. If you really need to have it on a networked PC, I'd recommend opening a ticket with hifisimtech's support, which I've always found to be 1st rate.

I don't own PrecipitX, but did notice it for free at the ORBX storefront. I mostly do bush piloting with floats and amphibs, so a lot of what PrecipitX has to offer doesn't have much appeal to me. I'll resist the temptation to download yet another freebie. 😎

Nevermind; I found this thread at the FSDreamteam CYVR forum and the FSDT reps response describes what's likely going on in FSX:SE for me. So despite my having multiple CPU cores, the CYVR scenery addon can't make use of them when loading. Wow that it's still a problem using the scenery in Prepar3D v4, which is now 64 bit. Makes me very glad I didn't fork out the $200 for that sim.

Thanks for the feedback Steve. I was experiencing some terrible performance after upgrading to my GTX 1660. It turns out that Ground_Shadows=1 was set in my FSX.CFG - could have sworn I'd disabled it. I wouldn't have noticed, if it wasn't for the DX10 Scenery Fixer's diagnostic finding and flagging it. So thank you for thinking to build that into the Fixer's Controller applet. Disabling ground shadows improved performance considerably. After typing my earlier post, I did recall there was mention of CPU Manages Buffers vs GPU Manages Buffers in the Avsim FSX config guide. After finding and reading that section again, it suggested that allowing the GPU to manage buffers for more recent gen GPUs might be a better approach. So with a video card now that's gens newer than my CPU and motherboard I enabled it. WOW what a difference! Features in my scenery that were previous frame rate killers can now be enabled without a single dent in performance. I get a constant 30 fps (Vertical Sync is set to 1/2 refresh rate in my Nvidia Inspector FSX profile) even when rollin my wheels along the roofs of skyscrapers in cities for which I have enhanced scenery. The explanation in the Fixer's manual about anti aliasing was very helpful, as it allowed me to make my Nvidia Inspector profile settings symmetrical to the fixer's AA setting; currently set to 8xCSAA. I've still got a few issues, i.e. my instrument panel texture sometimes disappears when popping out of my plane for an external view when flying within my ORBX EU Wales terrain. That hasn't occurred in any other regions, including those within my UTX Canada terrain coverage. It seems to happen more often when it's raining and cloudy and for longer when the both are heavier - that texture always does eventually reappear. I'm using Active Sky Next with the Scenery Fixer and have it checked in the 3rd Party menu. As well as TrackIR and Orbx FTX Regions. Anyhow, I'm very happy with the look and performance I've managed to tweak out of FSX:SE. The DX10 Scenery Fixer is an excellent tool that really helped me get there.

Well looks like I partially fixed my problem - the dreaded Ground_Shadows=1 was set in my FSX.CFG. Darn it, I could have sworn that was disabled! I still get the temporary 25 second freeze on flight start near CYVR, but everything after that is now running much smoother.

After installing FSDreamteams's CYVR airport scenery, I'm experiencing a screen freeze for about 25 seconds when starting a flight anywhere near CYVR - even starting at Vancouver Harbor aerodrome 7 nm away. I also get about a 5 second freeze when I get close to the runway on approach. I get acceptable performance for FSX:SE for the most part just about anywhere else (including flying over ORBX EU-Wales terrain), but I really struggle for frame rates around Vancouver CA. I also have Ultimate Terrain X Canada installed. Prior to installing FSDT CYVR I was only getting a mid-high 20 fps around Vancouver, but not the dismal high teens I now occasionally experience post CYVR install. I've already disabled many frame robbing settings in UTX and I chose all minimums on the FSDT CYVR install. So I don't think I can do much for further tweaking either. I'd prefer not to use UTX Canada as my impression is that it's poorly optimized for the city of Vancouver, but unfortunately I need it to support aerodrome addons for my province; important to me as I'm a fan of seaplanes and bush piloting. I also have the FS Global 2010 mesh installed. FSDT CYVR requires the GSX 1 & 2 trial to be installed, which is an addon I wasn't familiar with. I wondered if it might be part of the cause, but I've tried taking off from SFO where the GSX trials are supposed to also work, and got acceptable performance. It's funny because with the demo of FSDT CYVR I didn't experience these freezes. I don't have a powerful PC; i5 2500 4 x 4.33 Ghz, Sandy Bridge mobo, 16 GB DDR 3 RAM, Geforce 1660 w/6 GB DDR5. I get much better frame rates in X-Plane 11 for the same airport and vicinity even with details set to high though, so such poor performance in FSX doesn't seem right. I have another thread in the DX10 forum about settings that aren't enabled in my FSX.CFG file. So if anyone thinks this might be related to missing config file optimizations, I'd appreciate if you could take a look at that thread too. Any ideas or suggestions as to what might cause this, would be much appreciated.

I was using Steve's free DX10 shader fixers on Win7 Ultimate 64 with terrific results with FSX:SE. Either when I upgraded to Win10 or replaced my Video card, I lost in-cockpit shadows. So...wondering about the status quo of Steve's fixers, I discovered an updated and more feature rich version was being sold online again and bought the DX10 Scenery Fixer and Cloud Shadows patch without hesitation. I now have terrific shadow and lighting effects in my cockpits again and the sim overall. Something I've noticed, is that when I access "Fsx Settings" from the DX10 Fixers Controller's menu, there's a lot of FSX.CFG settings, some of which I wasn't aware of. Some of them I've set, but over half are blank. I just upgraded from a GTX 680 w/2 GB DDR3 to a GTX 1660 w/6 GB DDR5, so I'm thinking I might need to set some of these or change them, but the "Avsim Basic FSX Configuration Guide" I originally used for my FSX.CFG tweaks didn't mention them. Meanwhile, a graphic of that FSX Settings form is in the DX10 Fixer manual, but no explanation of what the settings actually do? I'm hoping someone here can give me some feedback. These are what I have set in my FSX.CFG: CPU Manages Buffers (UsePools=1) (enabled/selected) Graphics Texture Bandwidth = 4096 Texture Bandwidth Multiplier = 80 LOD Radius = 4.500000 High Mem Fix (grayed out, but set as "HighMemFix=1" in [GRAPHICS] section of FSX.CFG) ProcessorAffinityMask (enabled/checked) Core1 (enabled/checked) Core2 (enabled/checked) Core3 (enabled/checked) Force VC Shadows (enabled/checked) I'm not sure why Core0 isn't checked under processor affinity masks - is that correct or a mistake? These are the settings that are not currently set in FSX.CFG: GPU Manages Buffers (UsePools = 0) (disabled/deselected) Should it be enabled instead of CPU Manages Buffers for a more capable Graphic card? PoolSize = NOT SET Reject Threshold = NOT SET Display TextureMaxLoad = NOT SET Swap Wait Timeout = NOT SET Max Async Batching Jobs = NOT SET Fiber Time Fraction = NOT SET I don't have a powerful CPU or motherboard: i5 2500 @ 4 x 4.33 Ghz, socketed onto a Gigabyte Z68XP-UD3 Sandy Bridge-DT XE (unfortunately a CPU and mobo replacement are currently a possibility.) Any info or suggestions as to whether I should make change/tweak some of the FSX.CFG settings, would be much appreciated.

Yes you did indeed state that and that's exactly where you're spreading misinformation and still are. What in fact has recently been released is XP 11.40rc1; the 1st release candidate for the 11.40 beta. There's a difference between a release candidate and a full release. When I saw your comment that XP 11.40r1 is out I read that as I should; that the 1st public release for 11.40 was now available. Then I wasted time running the installer and checking for a public update that didn't exist. Sorry, but I don't see your need for the "YOU" emphasis. I wasn't getting personal at all, but merely highlighting that what was released must be a beta candidate. Like me the OP doesn't sub to betas... So a beta release candidate 1 doesn't explain the notification they received.

OK cool, I misunderstood you there. I'm hoping that 11.50 might get me a frame rate increase on my long-in-the-tooth PC. Unfortunately I don't have the $ to upgrade or by a newer simming rig anytime soon, so if the 11.50 move to vulkan can get me even 5 fps more, I'll be thrilled.

I run the X-Plane Installer and check for updates a few times a week. I don't sub to the betas and according to the installer 11.36 r2 is still the most recent update. So unless my installer is broken, what you're reporting is a Release Candidate 1 for the Beta. Not a big deal, but the OP specifically stated that they don't participate in betas.

Is Vulkan's performance that much superior on AMD or other non-Nvidia GPUs? My son and I have experienced the API on Nvidia equipped PCs running these games under Windows 7 & 10... The Talos Principle The Surge 2 Wolfenstein New Colossus Doom (2016) Total War: Warhammer 2 ...and my son with F1 2017 (Linux) on his dual-boot gaming rig. Our experience was that those games performed on par with, or better to similar games and looked equivalent. That said, I didn't personally play those shooter-action titles, but my son had no complaints about performance or visuals. 😉 I mean the Talos Principle in particular is visually gorgeous at moments, despite having been around for some years. If X-Plane 11.50 can match my other Vulkan-Nvidia-Windows experiences, I'll be a content camper.

This is a bigger disappointment for me in light of how well TrackIR support was implemented by Microsoft-Aces Studios for Flight Simulator X via their Simconnect API. I have the already mentioned Elite Dangerous, DCS and ArmA 3 and they definitely have decent integrations for TrackIR, but IMO aren't as skillfully done as the fluid, flawless 6-DOF head tracking in FSX. X-Plane 11 once the 3rd party X-Camera snapin is installed can deliver something equivalent with some added functionality, but that involves a fair amount of additional configuration. Donning my flight cap + T sensor (yup I'm a holdout that has yet to embrace the Pro clip) is just part of my daily ritual of simming. I'm simming on a withering potato of a PC these days, so I really wasn't a day 1 candidate for the Windows edition of FS2020 anyways. When I eventually do purchase a new PC though, unless there's TrackIR support I won't be buying it. I may still buy the Xbox version to run on my son's XB1 X once it's available, but that'll be for casual, couch flying only.

I share your skepticism, but I wanted to point out that Microsoft currently has a sizable install base to draw upon for potential sales. Firstly; going by Steam sales alone, based on the numbers quoted by steamspy FSX:SE has sold in excess of 1 million copies on that service. My buddy that works in videogame marketing who has access to the actual numbers, tells me it's closer to 1.5 million. Many of those are repeat customers who bought the original boxed edition or FSX Gold, but there would no doubt be some new customers included in that number. So the Windows install base is almost certainly larger - who knows how much larger? Some fans posting in the MFS forum here who've bought into the Microsoft hype, have been claiming it's an absolute that FS2020 will be an exclusive for the new XBox Project Scarlet which debuts in 2020. I disagree, mostly because MS have garnered a nice sized install base of roughly 40 million for the various editions of the XBox 1. Not nearly the install base they had obtained at this point in the XBox 360 life cycle (about 70 million), but a healthy one none the less. I don't see them turning their backs on that pool of customers, albeit it might only run optimally on the newer XBox 1 X and be throttled back for the original and S editions. FS2020 will no doubt appeal to a small fraction of that XB1 market, but even so it's very possible it could do sales on that system in the mid 100k's; maybe even as high as 1 million. So IMO MS has a potential market numbering in the millions and an opportunity to recoup a good chunk of development costs in the first few years.

I tried using that technique for TrackIR with my Twin Otter, but it simply wasn't feasible for some sections of the overhead control panel, due to them being so far back. Note this comment I made in my original post: "Meanwhile, trying to view the overhead panel in my new DHC-6 Twin Otter is like a new found form or medieval neck torture - ouch! " That was in reference to using TrackIR. With TrackIR disabled, those sections of the overhead panel were easy to view by using the view movement and zoom keys. That allowed me to move into position to set my quick looks, which were then flawlessly imported by X-Camera. I have used that pause technique however, with good results when using TrackIR with other GA and combat flight sims.

While all true, the Flight Unlimited IP was acquired by Electronic Arts when Looking Glass Studios shut down. With increasingly better competition from Microsoft, those assets have since just sat in some digital vault on a EA server. Why they never chose to do anything with the IP when releases of GA flight sims slackened - well...they're EA, so I don't think I need to say any more than that. Yes that's what I recall too. IIRC Take 2 Interactive did do an assessment for a new Fly! release, but it the end it didn't survive the deep-6ing of the GoD label in 2004.

lol I'd say me too, but I doubt my simming potato/PC could run most of the payware folks would give away. The way I see it, if Laminar Research could survive the 1-2-3 punch that was FS2002, FS2004 and FSX, then they'll almost certainly survive FS2020. As I said recently in another forum, FS2002's autogen and improvements in scenery alone likely killed off Fly! and Flight Unlimited, yet Laminar Research's X-Plane soldiered on. That leads me to believe they have a good business model, whereas Terminal Reality's and Looking Glass Studios' were lacking. Given that so many flight simulation fans own multiple simulations, I don't see the point in the argument that FS2020 is going to be an X-Plane killer, so don't click that X-Plane 11 purchase button. As I said before in this thread; I've seen too many fumbles and promises-in-the-pipe that didn't pan out for Microsoft's digital entertainment, to hold my breath. It'll be great if FS2020 lives up to all that Microsoft is hyping, but I'll believe it when I see the finished product. As well, with both Lockheed Martin and Laminar Research having sales in the professional simulation market, I expect both will continue to fly on once FS2020 is in the air.

OK that makes sense and I can see why some folks don't favor it as an ATC solution, due to it running externally and not being able to control AI aircraft. For me though, where I'm often flying bush planes in rural locations, that wouldn't be such an immersion breaker.

Well I hope their efforts extend to water physics and visuals. I've only owned XP11 for a few weeks, but If there's one disappointment I could list, it would be the status quo for the floatplane and amphib experience. I can't even tell when I'm moving on water and when I've landed on it and water often looks as smooth as glass and creates no audible sounds. As much as I'm amazed to say it, my float and amphib experience in FSX:SE with the aid of the Accu-feel plugin was superior. There's really no comparison between the 2 experiences. [Edit] I do applaud LR's move to Vulkan. I helped my son get the F1 2017 (used Vulkan) installed on his Linux PC and the games look and performance was impressive; especially considering that PC wasn't well spec'd. Sadly, Codemasters didn't continue with support for that in recent releases.

Great news and I'll no doubt get it. I was eyeing the FSX edition and was waiting for it to go on sale now that's it's available as DLC for FSX:Steam Edition. This will save me from making that purchase though.

Is your experience there using RC with X-Plane 11, or another flight sim like FSX or Prepar3D? I ask, because I know my nephew was able to use RC with FSX for seaplane aerodromes, by contacting a control center. I was under the impression though, that RC4 + RC4toXplane snapin would only interact with XP11's internal ATC, with the snapin translating that into FSX equivalent ATC commands? So if that is indeed how the snapin works, wouldn't it still be bound by XP11 limitations for ATC? [Edit] I just created a XP11 flight plan with a departure from the uncontrolled airfield of LFNQ (Mounlouis la Quillane) with a destination of the uncontrolled airfield of LFYS (Sainte Leocadie.) It worked and I got a frequency for an area control centre in southern France. So it looks like XP11's built-in/stock ATC can handle such airfields and I imagine the RC4toXplane snapin would correctly translate that into FSX ATC commands. I saw the blog posting made in February, where the XP11 team was calling for testers with real-world flight experience with seaplanes. So with such changes and testing now likely on the boiler, I'm thinking I really need to report that bug with CYHC. BTW thank you Bjoern for checking into that seaplane aerodrome.

I did a series of tests last night and confirmed that Quick Looks are indeed disabled when you have TrackIR active. You can't create them and you can't access any you've already created. My tests involved disabling the X-Camera snapin and also leaving TrackIR disabled under XP11's Settings > Graphics. Starting a flight under those conditions I was able to both create Quick Looks and access them. When I re-enabled TrackIR under Settings > Graphics, the Quick Looks no longer worked and I couldn't create any new ones. Disabling TrackIR again, I then re-enabled X-Camera and started a flight for the same plane I had created those Quick Looks for. X-Camera prompted me to chose to import thosee Quick Looks and even after enabling X-Camera's TrackIR support I was able to access them. And here's the beautiful thing; when accessing them in their converted X-Camera form, TrackIR is temporarily suspended so you don't suffer any frustrating movement while trying to click an instrument. Pressing what was the [numpad 0] Quick Look -I believe it's a default pilot Quick Look- returns you to the pilot seat with TrackIR re-enabled. So...based on that alone, IMO for pilots using TrackIR that want to use pre-configured looks/views, X-Camera is a mandatory snapin. There's of course lots of other handy features and possible uses for it. 😉

Thanks for the info. Well I can file a flight plan for the waterlane at CYPK (Pitt Meadows), which is only about 10 nm away. That's aiport also has runways and helipads too, so maybe that's why. I tried a test plan where I entered CYHC as the destination on a flight departing from CYPK, and got a warning along the lines of; entering a seaplane port for a destination is not allowed. I could have sworn I'd done that before, but I might be confusing that with a flight plan I created in PlanG and then opened in my DHC-6's GPS. At this point, with so many hits and misses I'm wondering if RC4toXplane or another ATC solution might be a better option. l'm not sure if another ATC plugin/solution would be permitted from using seaplane aerodromes too?

That's good to know. Like PBest I'm struggling with that aspect of the RWD Twin Otter too using a Saitek Throttle quadrant. I created a profile for helos that has collective mapped to my throttle quadrant, so I was thinking I could do something similar for the DHC-6. Your comment confirms that though and I'm going to tinker with my throttle in settings.

I'm trying to file a flight plan in a DHC-6 Twin Otter at Vancouver Harbor, but when I enter the correct ICAO of CYHC in the "File Flight Plan" window, I get the error message "You do not appear to be at that departure airport." I'm making sure that when I create a new flight I'm choosing CYHC Vancouver Harbor. I've tried starting in sealanes and at a ramp (in this case a dock), but it makes no difference. As well, when I click the Flight Configuration Window Icon, the "Flight in Progress" dialog box always lists "CYHC, custom sealane or ramp that was selected." I've noted that when I first display ATC, all of the frequencies listed on the right are for Vancouver International (CYVR), with the exception of Vancouver Area Control Center. That's wrong because Vancouver Harbor has its own control tower - only 1 of its kind in Canada. Selecting that area control frequency doesn't make a difference though, I still get the do not appear at that departure airport message. When the "File Flight Plan" window displays, CYVR is always listed as the default departure ICAO regardless of which frequency I select in the initial ATC window. It's as if XP11 thinks CYHC is CYVR, despite my twin otter floating on the drink of Vancouver harbor. If anyone has any ideas why this is occurring or knows of a way to resolve this, I'd really appreciate hearing about them.