FSX transition phase one

Skybird · 10-07-11, 05:18 PM

Testing FSX since two days over here. After FSX Pro installation, terrible frames. Adding Acceleration Pack, had me searching for hours to get beyond the non-activation error, until I found a solution on the web. Messy work by Microsoft there, costed me much time and nerves. 1 hour of defragmentising after 45 minutes of installation - you don'T have that kind of procedure too often. However, after Accel Pack went fine, I noticed frames spiking up, and with default Baron, KingAir and Jet Ranger having frames in the alpes and with an Innsbruck Approach scenery of 20-50 in heavy weather. I am careful so far with settings, normnal autogen and 30-40% traffic, the world looks empty compared to my full upbeefed FS9 with lots and lots of traffic, but it also means that I seem to have the reserves to dare installing GEX Europe, REX 2, UTX Europe, and FS Global in the coming weeks, because I could imagine that the better part of my VFR flying will be taken over by FSX in the coming months. The Aerofot Discus Glider btw works great, with an external thermal and ridge wind generating tool, I have already deinstalled Condor, all soaring from now on will be done in the Alpes, with the Discus. A superbly modelled plane, it seems to me.

I am cionfident that the PMDG 737NGX will work, even if some tailroiung of settings would be needed. I also checked some Mega-Airport sceneries without traffic, and had frames in the high 20s to the 40s.

A traffic addon I will add just at the very end, if there are sufficient reserves left.

The Hornet is surprising great fun to fly! And the Jet Ranger maybe is not too realistic, but user-friendly. In FS8 or FS9 it was pointless to try helicopters in manual flight.

The transition from FS9 to FSX will take me some longer time until all old addons are being implemented in FSX as well (some of them are still under developement). I expect for the forseeabvle time I will use both simlators, but I can now imagine a time when I will be satisfied by FSX alone completely.

If you know Condor, or like gliders, check that Discus. It'S a great package. Avism gave it it'S Gold Awarda, and some other sites did so as well. Didn'T expect soaring to work so well in FS, though by help of an external tool.

There is a Harrier for FSX, and it also looks tasty. Anyone knowing it?

http://www.aerosoft.de/_php_projekte...harrierjumpjet

Skybird · 10-12-11, 05:24 PM

I'm a lucky dog, I assume. I found reasons to cautiously assume that maybe - maybe - my system would be able to run FSX with carefully set options and addons at acceptable frames. What I found was more and more reason for optimism, and finally daring to go for it all.

To the horror of my wallet, I have accelerated the buildup of my FSX installation. Not only did I install all the addons for airport sceneries that I already had for FS9 - the DVD contained the FSX versions as well - but today I spend the whole day long installing three dozen GB of data from FS Global 2010 (mesh), Ultimate Terrain X Europe (landclasses), Ground Environment X Europe (textures), and REX 2.0 (weather and environment). Then I used the Realair Marchetti to test it in heavy weather in the Alps. And couldn'T believe the frames I still was getting: still easily going to 30, and if deactiviating the external limiter, even up to almost 50. Which did not change when going to night flight and lights all on. Wowh!

It is hereby officially decided: at least for VFR flying, I will completely move from FS9 to FSX. My system is such that it is absolutely safe to do so.

Just at German Airports and Mega Airports scenery I get frames during taxi that are in the range of 12-25. I also use nio traffic addon, and the default traffic at only 40%. The world feels a bit emptier than in FS9, where I use Traffic 2005 at maximum settings, almost, and have a very crowded planet.

I am confident that regular flight operations with high complexity airliners like the PMDG planes is possible over here. How it is to have them at the gate at MegaAirports, remains to be seen though, maybe I will set up two configs, one for VFR, and one for IFR high complexity airliners. Taxing at 12 frames can be tolerated - clicking in a virtual cockpit at that frames starts to become problematic. But at least for VFR, FSX is a safe option to use.

I am glad for the CPU and RAM (8GB) that I have chosen in Spring this year, when I bought a new system. I had read that the - back then - new i5 2400 would do an unbelievable job at bringing almost as much performance like the much more expensive new i7 at higher GHz, and since then I have seen this to be true again and again - it has not failed me on anything I have tried, not even graphic killer applications like Crysis maxed out (with a GTX 460 with 1 GB).

I am also happy to see that the FSX does a much better job at using all four cores, although I read that it is not optimised for it. Maybe some of the tweaks I attached also help in that.

It's the dawning of a new FS era over here.

Maybe I get the Cheyenne again, and maybe even the PMDG 747, in wait for the 737NGX.

Boy, this has been a very expensive month over here. Maybe no more new planes for the moment. Yes, I think its better.

10-07-11, 05:18 PM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,457 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	FSX transition phase one Testing FSX since two days over here. After FSX Pro installation, terrible frames. Adding Acceleration Pack, had me searching for hours to get beyond the non-activation error, until I found a solution on the web. Messy work by Microsoft there, costed me much time and nerves. 1 hour of defragmentising after 45 minutes of installation - you don'T have that kind of procedure too often. However, after Accel Pack went fine, I noticed frames spiking up, and with default Baron, KingAir and Jet Ranger having frames in the alpes and with an Innsbruck Approach scenery of 20-50 in heavy weather. I am careful so far with settings, normnal autogen and 30-40% traffic, the world looks empty compared to my full upbeefed FS9 with lots and lots of traffic, but it also means that I seem to have the reserves to dare installing GEX Europe, REX 2, UTX Europe, and FS Global in the coming weeks, because I could imagine that the better part of my VFR flying will be taken over by FSX in the coming months. The Aerofot Discus Glider btw works great, with an external thermal and ridge wind generating tool, I have already deinstalled Condor, all soaring from now on will be done in the Alpes, with the Discus. A superbly modelled plane, it seems to me. I am cionfident that the PMDG 737NGX will work, even if some tailroiung of settings would be needed. I also checked some Mega-Airport sceneries without traffic, and had frames in the high 20s to the 40s. A traffic addon I will add just at the very end, if there are sufficient reserves left. The Hornet is surprising great fun to fly! And the Jet Ranger maybe is not too realistic, but user-friendly. In FS8 or FS9 it was pointless to try helicopters in manual flight. The transition from FS9 to FSX will take me some longer time until all old addons are being implemented in FSX as well (some of them are still under developement). I expect for the forseeabvle time I will use both simlators, but I can now imagine a time when I will be satisfied by FSX alone completely. If you know Condor, or like gliders, check that Discus. It'S a great package. Avism gave it it'S Gold Awarda, and some other sites did so as well. Didn'T expect soaring to work so well in FS, though by help of an external tool. There is a Harrier for FSX, and it also looks tasty. Anyone knowing it? http://www.aerosoft.de/_php_projekte...harrierjumpjet __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

10-12-11, 05:24 PM	#2
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,457 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	I'm a lucky dog, I assume. I found reasons to cautiously assume that maybe - maybe - my system would be able to run FSX with carefully set options and addons at acceptable frames. What I found was more and more reason for optimism, and finally daring to go for it all. To the horror of my wallet, I have accelerated the buildup of my FSX installation. Not only did I install all the addons for airport sceneries that I already had for FS9 - the DVD contained the FSX versions as well - but today I spend the whole day long installing three dozen GB of data from FS Global 2010 (mesh), Ultimate Terrain X Europe (landclasses), Ground Environment X Europe (textures), and REX 2.0 (weather and environment). Then I used the Realair Marchetti to test it in heavy weather in the Alps. And couldn'T believe the frames I still was getting: still easily going to 30, and if deactiviating the external limiter, even up to almost 50. Which did not change when going to night flight and lights all on. Wowh! It is hereby officially decided: at least for VFR flying, I will completely move from FS9 to FSX. My system is such that it is absolutely safe to do so. Just at German Airports and Mega Airports scenery I get frames during taxi that are in the range of 12-25. I also use nio traffic addon, and the default traffic at only 40%. The world feels a bit emptier than in FS9, where I use Traffic 2005 at maximum settings, almost, and have a very crowded planet. I am confident that regular flight operations with high complexity airliners like the PMDG planes is possible over here. How it is to have them at the gate at MegaAirports, remains to be seen though, maybe I will set up two configs, one for VFR, and one for IFR high complexity airliners. Taxing at 12 frames can be tolerated - clicking in a virtual cockpit at that frames starts to become problematic. But at least for VFR, FSX is a safe option to use. I am glad for the CPU and RAM (8GB) that I have chosen in Spring this year, when I bought a new system. I had read that the - back then - new i5 2400 would do an unbelievable job at bringing almost as much performance like the much more expensive new i7 at higher GHz, and since then I have seen this to be true again and again - it has not failed me on anything I have tried, not even graphic killer applications like Crysis maxed out (with a GTX 460 with 1 GB). I am also happy to see that the FSX does a much better job at using all four cores, although I read that it is not optimised for it. Maybe some of the tweaks I attached also help in that. It's the dawning of a new FS era over here. Maybe I get the Cheyenne again, and maybe even the PMDG 747, in wait for the 737NGX. Boy, this has been a very expensive month over here. Maybe no more new planes for the moment. Yes, I think its better. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.