[jhb_airlines] Re: FSX

  • From: "Bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:34:50 +0100

I don't agree with this idea of locking down FS to a theoretical 27.7 fps. I
ran tests of this back in FS4 days and found that the frame rate isn't just
about screen refreshes but actual sim performance too. Flight performance
calculations limited to 27 per second make the aircraft behave very poorly
compared to higher values. Once you get up to 75 or more you can see a
marked difference in how the aircraft behaves - it is so much more fluid.
Admittedly this has little value when poling a big tin bird around on
autopilot all the time but it would be a serious shortcoming in aerobatics
with a highly agile aircraft.
 
I also hate to say this but I bin a lot of aviation charts and data here
too. Having got the latest half mil (and a good few quarter mil too) the
last lot went to a car boot sale. Most of the AERAD supplements go in the
bin too as they are not worth hanging on to. Truth is that printed stuff
goes out of date faster than the data we have in FS and most isn't worth
keeping. If FSNav could be run as a stand alone application I would say that
no printed data would be worth having.
 
Having said that I've just got the latest Bottlang UK and Ireland airfield
plates for the VFR manual and so the spares will be kicking around for a few
days. Note that these are not IFR pages so no instrument procedures are
included - it is pure VFR flying stuff. An example of a plate is here - 
http://www.flugplatz-scharnstein.at/images/BottlangAirfieldManualLOLC1.jpg
 
http://www.flugplatz-scharnstein.at/images/BottlangAirfieldManualLOLC2.jpg
 
The pages would be loose as I don't have a spare binder. Pay the postage and
anyone is welcome to them - just send me an email off list.
 
bones
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alex - Reheat.org
Sent: 15 October 2006 23:19
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FSX


Frank, 

Yes indeed it does, however as I have my FPS set locked at 25 as long as I'm
getting that I'm not really going to turn anything off. I seem to recall
27.7 fps being proven as the highest the human eye can process so anything
above that is wasted. Not sure on that exact figure. 

Its always worth keeping an eye on eBay for Half Mil charts. I bought the
full UK pack, just expired, for 9.99, seems quite common for these to come
up. I've got a couple over the past years. 

Anyway, I've given up for the evening now, had a really good afternoon with
FSX. (Well actually I spent half an hour out in the english channel in the
speed boat until a loose drag net found its way around my prop and put an
end to that) 

Its just been a brilliant surprise how its all worked. I've had so many
problems with FS9 blurred textures recently and other things, its just
refreshing to have it all working, and performance improved in this new
platform. 


Alex


franklyn fisher wrote:




Alex 
I note you have AI aircraft turned full on, suggest you turn it down or off,
you should see a marked improvement. works in FS9 anyway. 

BTW, VFR aeronautical charts cost a lot more than £1.50, nearer £13.00(for
the 1:500 000) I have the South and North, but have as yet to get the
Scottish. Jeppesen cross border charts (1:500 000) £10.00 (as per my
TransAir catalouge). 




Alex - Reheat.org wrote: 


Hi Frank, 

My only changes from the default currently are: 

Dynamic Scenery slider set one notch down from default 
"Aircraft casts shadows on self" turned off 
AI Turned up to 100% 
Weather refresh rate turned down one notch from default 
Resolution set to 32 bit instead of 16. 
Scenery Mesh turned up one notch from default. 

Thats about it I think. There really aren't that many problems. In fact I
can't replicate the problem displayed at Teeside! I've tried everything.
must be a unique combination of settings. 

And those of you FS Commander FsNAV users should spend £1.50 on a map and be
real men ;) 

Its all about tweaking i think. 

Alex 

franklyn fisher wrote: 


Alex 
How about a rundown on what you changed, and it's effect. 
So far, the biggest criticism, has been about the scenery, or rather the
bugged version, the scenery designers are going to have a big headache
sorting that out. 
That and FSNav/FSCommander and FSUPIC, will those with the previous paid
versions have to pay again? 
Not worried too much about machine spec. But having seen those screen shots,
makes me rather dubious. 
Frank 


Alex - Reheat.org wrote: 


Ok, this has indeed been a strange day 

Started out by buying FSX, getting home, installing and being disappointed,
very much so infact. The FPS I was getting really  left me feeling let down.
2 hours of playing however sorted this. One setting changed at a time,
restart and see if it helps. 

I now have a hard time to get the FPS to go below 20FPS. 

My FSX is now vastly outperforming FS9 by a silly amount, it looks better
acts better and is more stable. 70% of the default aircraft are payware
quality. The UK Mesh really is rather good and at default settings is just
as good as most payware mesh packages. The UK Autumn textures really are
awful however, flick it on to summer, and all is good. 

I'm going to spend tomorrow porting all of my XML Paneled (SP?!) aircraft
over and I really think that, from now on, I am going to be doing 80% of my
flying on here. 

I think I allowed myself to be poisoned by all the naysayers, it really
isn't bad. Its just as good as FS9 + Addons straight out of the box. 

My machine is most certainly middle of the road these days, please don't not
buy it because you don't think it will run. It really will. Right now I'm
speaking to someone running it on a 1.8ghz PIII getting 15FPS quite
comfortably. Its most definitely usable an will certainly give you a better
experience than FS9 is currently. 

A rather surprised Alex 











Other related posts: