Peter, is this using a mod to the FSX.cfg file? If so, what line have you entered and have you avoided the crashes that some users mention? I understand that's caused by insufficient memory being reserved for XP.
Gerry Winskill Peter Dodds wrote:
XP can access about 3.5Gb of memory apparently. I have 4Gb installed. Coupled with a Q4 processor and 768Mb Graphics card, my new PC runs FSX like s*** off a shovel! Also, it loads in about a minute. I haven't seen performance like it in years. Some Cix members are speccing up a machine which would eat mine for breakfast, but it costs Â£1,500. Not sure I see the point in that (for now). On Sunday, after 3 months parallel running, it moved into No.1 slot in the Network. The big bonus is that everything else runs lightning fast too, including crucially Word to pdf conversion, which i do a lot of. Peter*From:* "Frank Turley" <frank.turley1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> *To:* <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *Date:* Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:04:17 -0000 Gerry, I'm using 4G of memory with Vista 32. Frank T.----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerry Winskill" <gwinsk@xxxxxxx>To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:33 AM Subject: [jhb_airlines] FSX CrispynessThree things seem to dominate forum discussions, as the factors most affecting FSX performance; Core numbers, Graphics Card Memory and system RAM. Of thes, I've already got a decent processor and graphics card bot increasing the RAM would involve a change to Viata 64 and that's a steptoo far! Since I can't access more RAM I decided to minimise the load on my existing 2Gb. I've mentioned this before.So, why repeat it today? I've just been taxiing out for takeoff, at TM's current project, Greenham Common. I couldn't help noticing that some of the new buildigs' textures weren't as sharp as I'd expected. Then I spotted that the normally realistic nearby AutoGen trees were a bitfuzzy. I tried the effect of reducing AG, switching off AI etc. Mytexture quality sliders are already at max. None of the changes made any difference. In this sort of situation the next approach is to think whatelse may have changed, since it was all sharp.Over the weekend I've been playing about with a mix and match version of Heathrow. I've been doing the same thing at London City. Because I'm intending to try a flight to Canada, I've also put in third party fields at Keflavik and Toronto City Centre. Last week I started a flight from Leeds...... So, I did what I have been supposedly doing for some time; I exited FSX and went to the library option. There I worked my way down the list, unticking the fields I mentioned, plus a couple of others. It doesn't seem logical that Toronto should influence anything in the UKbut FSX is said to have an illogical liking for loading far awaysceneries. That leaves me with UK VFR and four of Tony Meredith's plus Ted Andrews Kirkbride enabled. Also ticked are all my farm strips, plusall the non airfield stuff like UK ANO and refineries.Back to the Saved situation at Greenham and everything was now razorsharp! It works and it's a zero cost improvement. Al I do next time I want to make a routine flight is alter myScenery.cfg file, to change from False to True the relevant lines on my intended start and finish airfieds; if they aren't Default fields. I'llalso change Greenham from True to False.The way in which FSX hides the Scenery.cfg file is convoluted, so I havea shortcut to it on my Desktop. Open this and it can be edited and saved, ready to be effective in its revised form, when next FSX is booted up.So, if you suffer the blurries and have already used the known tweaks,this route is well worth trying. Gerry Winskill-------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.comVersion: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1779 - Release Date: 10/11/2008 07:53