FSX Update

One thing, I have discovered, on my current flight in the Beech from
Nashville to Dallas.

As mentioned previously, I now have autogen set to "normal". When looking
around, from the VC, with my Track IR3 Pro, the framerates would take a good
hit, hence causing some stutter upon looking around. I have anti-aliasing
set to "on", and in my video card's software, had it set to 4X ( along with
ansio at 4X). I also have filtering set to ansio in the sim.

I reduced the AA to 2X, and the AS to 2X, and noticed absolutely no
difference. I still wonder, if these settings outside the sim in the vid
card software, determines the actual aa and as rate, or if that is hard
coded in the sim?

Anyways, I turned AA off in the sim ( left ansio on), and that made a good
difference for me . Not so much as looking ahead in the VC, more so, in
being able to look around with my Track IR3 Pro. Now, my framerates stay
higher, and I do not get any of the stuttering - at least not so far.... and
autogen is still set to "normal".

Just thought I would mention this, for any Track IR users that get
stuttering when looking around, if you do, might try turning aa off in the
sim and see if that helps. I run at 1280x1024, not sure I would even see a
visual difference with aa on, especially with my older eyes.





--
Don
 >> Stay informed about: FSX Update 

"Don Burnette" <d.burnette.RemoveThis@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:h8mdnZ30VoQg3xnYnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Just thought I would mention this, for any Track IR users that get
> stuttering when looking around, if you do, might try turning aa off in the
> sim and see if that helps. I run at 1280x1024, not sure I would even see a
> visual difference with aa on, especially with my older eyes.

The artifacts are hard to miss once you know what to look for, and then
they'll pierce your eyes with alacrity forevermore. You'll hate me for
pointing them out, so you'll have to ask a second time before I send it.
Sometimes, ignorance is bliss.
 >> Stay informed about: FSX Update 

"Mike Young" <boat042-spam.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KFXgh.14041$wc5.11626@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette.TakeThisOut@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:h8mdnZ30VoQg3xnYnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Just thought I would mention this, for any Track IR users that get
>> stuttering when looking around, if you do, might try turning aa off in
>> the sim and see if that helps. I run at 1280x1024, not sure I would even
>> see a visual difference with aa on, especially with my older eyes.
>
> The artifacts are hard to miss once you know what to look for, and then
> they'll pierce your eyes with alacrity forevermore. You'll hate me for
> pointing them out, so you'll have to ask a second time before I send it.
> Sometimes, ignorance is bliss.
>
>

Ok, let's stick with ignorance is bliss for now! I am enjoying the
smoothness .




--
Don
 >> Stay informed about: FSX Update 

Ok, finally made it and landed at DFW.
Certainly, my longest flight to date. I even did it in real time.

With auotgen remaining on " normal ", and Anti Aliasing remaining off, my
framerates stayed do-able.
They dropped down into the mid to upper teens on landing, and still stayed
fairly smooth.

I just flew into this airport this past week for my work, and I must say it
looked pretty realistic in the sim.

I would like to eventually move up into the large passenger jets, have been
handling the Beech with no problems, any suggestion on what would be good to
move up to next? I do like, having the Garmin GPS.



--
Don
 >> Stay informed about: FSX Update 

Don Burnette wrote:
> "Mike Young" <boat042-spam.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:KFXgh.14041$wc5.11626@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>> The artifacts are hard to miss once you know what to look for, and then
>> they'll pierce your eyes with alacrity forevermore. You'll hate me for
>> pointing them out, so you'll have to ask a second time before I send it.
>> Sometimes, ignorance is bliss.
>>
> Ok, let's stick with ignorance is bliss for now! I am enjoying the
> smoothness .
>

Don Burnette, Oedipus of jaggies.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

TheSmokingGnu
 >> Stay informed about: FSX Update 

Don,

Next up (for small jets) would be either the Lear or if you want some amount
of passengers try the CRJ or Embraer. All of them are freeware small twin
jets and depending on the model they can carry between 45-70-90 passengers.
For payware you can go the Cessna Citation X which is a great little plane.
No I dont have it but I know some people who do.

The CRJ from Premier Aircraft Design comes with a great panel and sound.
The Embraer has some panels available on either Avsim.com or Flightsim.com

I fly both but I'm partial to the CRJ (Canadian Regional Jet). There
manufactured up North of us in Montreal.

Here is a shot of me in a CRJ 700 on approach to Perth in the OZ scenery
download.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v497/TIA2077/Perth.jpg

Premier Aircraft Design go here: http://www.premaircraft.com/index.html

Mark G
Not4wood

"Don Burnette" <d.burnette DeleteThis @clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:N6idneoN56SB_xnYnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Ok, finally made it and landed at DFW.
> Certainly, my longest flight to date. I even did it in real time.
>
> With auotgen remaining on " normal ", and Anti Aliasing remaining off, my
> framerates stayed do-able.
> They dropped down into the mid to upper teens on landing, and still stayed
> fairly smooth.
>
> I just flew into this airport this past week for my work, and I must say
> it looked pretty realistic in the sim.
>
> I would like to eventually move up into the large passenger jets, have
> been handling the Beech with no problems, any suggestion on what would be
> good to move up to next? I do like, having the Garmin GPS.
>
>
>
> --
> Don
>
 >> Stay informed about: FSX Update 

Thanks Mark!

However, it appears of those mentioned, only the Lear would be for FSX?
I will give it a shot. Nice pic!





--
Don


"Not4wood" <no_mgottes DeleteThis @spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
news:X9%gh.1492$cx4.531@trndny09...
> Don,
>
> Next up (for small jets) would be either the Lear or if you want some
> amount of passengers try the CRJ or Embraer. All of them are freeware
> small twin jets and depending on the model they can carry between 45-70-90
> passengers. For payware you can go the Cessna Citation X which is a great
> little plane. No I dont have it but I know some people who do.
>
> The CRJ from Premier Aircraft Design comes with a great panel and sound.
> The Embraer has some panels available on either Avsim.com or Flightsim.com
>
> I fly both but I'm partial to the CRJ (Canadian Regional Jet). There
> manufactured up North of us in Montreal.
>
> Here is a shot of me in a CRJ 700 on approach to Perth in the OZ scenery
> download.
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v497/TIA2077/Perth.jpg
>
> Premier Aircraft Design go here: http://www.premaircraft.com/index.html
>
> Mark G
> Not4wood
>
> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette DeleteThis @clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:N6idneoN56SB_xnYnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Ok, finally made it and landed at DFW.
>> Certainly, my longest flight to date. I even did it in real time.
>>
>> With auotgen remaining on " normal ", and Anti Aliasing remaining off, my
>> framerates stayed do-able.
>> They dropped down into the mid to upper teens on landing, and still
>> stayed fairly smooth.
>>
>> I just flew into this airport this past week for my work, and I must say
>> it looked pretty realistic in the sim.
>>
>> I would like to eventually move up into the large passenger jets, have
>> been handling the Beech with no problems, any suggestion on what would be
>> good to move up to next? I do like, having the Garmin GPS.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Don
>>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: FSX Update 

"Mike Young" <boat042-spam.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KFXgh.14041$wc5.11626@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette.DeleteThis@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:h8mdnZ30VoQg3xnYnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Just thought I would mention this, for any Track IR users that get
>> stuttering when looking around, if you do, might try turning aa off in
>> the sim and see if that helps. I run at 1280x1024, not sure I would even
>> see a visual difference with aa on, especially with my older eyes.
>
> The artifacts are hard to miss once you know what to look for, and then
> they'll pierce your eyes with alacrity forevermore. You'll hate me for
> pointing them out, so you'll have to ask a second time before I send it.
> Sometimes, ignorance is bliss.
>
>

Well d*$#, ingnorance is no longer bliss!
You are right, now that I am more comfortable with the sim, and paying more
attention , I definitely see the difference, so I have turned AA back on.
Only problem is now, with autogen on , even with sparse settings, I just get
too much of a framerate drop when looking around with my Track IR3 Pro,
causing significant stuttering while looking around. I cannot live with
that, so, I have once again, turned autogen off. Now, with my framerate
target set at 26 fps, even while looking around, it only drops a couple fps,
if it even drops.
I have decided for me at least, I prefer being able to run with AA on, and
do without autogen.

I know some are pretty unhappy with the performance of FSX, but I
personally, don't mind having a sim that will grow with you, as you add
better hardware in the future. I do look foward, to being able to run with
autogen and higher settings, at some point in the future. But I am enjoying
it for now...

But, I still will install FS9, probably today, load up the same flight as I
am doing in FSX, and do some comparisons.



--
Don
 >> Stay informed about: FSX Update 

"Don Burnette" <d.burnette DeleteThis @clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:k-ednXXVUqKkMRvYnZ2dnUVZ_ragnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
> "Mike Young" <boat042-spam DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:KFXgh.14041$wc5.11626@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette DeleteThis @clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:h8mdnZ30VoQg3xnYnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> Just thought I would mention this, for any Track IR users that get
>>> stuttering when looking around, if you do, might try turning aa off in
>>> the sim and see if that helps. I run at 1280x1024, not sure I would even
>>> see a visual difference with aa on, especially with my older eyes.
>>
>> The artifacts are hard to miss once you know what to look for, and then
>> they'll pierce your eyes with alacrity forevermore. You'll hate me for
>> pointing them out, so you'll have to ask a second time before I send it.
>> Sometimes, ignorance is bliss.
>>
>>
>
> Well d*$#, ingnorance is no longer bliss!
> You are right, now that I am more comfortable with the sim, and paying
> more attention , I definitely see the difference, so I have turned AA back
> on.

It's possible to overdo it, too. My graphics card is just loafing along;
FSX can't feed it fast enough. Forcing 8x AA, supersampling, and super-duper
hyper anisotropic filering didn't cause any frame rate loss, but turned the
sharp graphics on the plane to a smeared mush instead. The "CIRRUS" on the
Extra's wings is an easily viewable example of that.

> But, I still will install FS9, probably today, load up the same flight as
> I am doing in FSX, and do some comparisons.

I'd love to hear how it goes, especially your subjective views on the
graphics.
 >> Stay informed about: FSX Update 

"Mike Young" <boat042-spam.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7lAhh.32977$qO4.27786@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...

>
> It's possible to overdo it, too. My graphics card is just loafing
> along; FSX can't feed it fast enough. Forcing 8x AA, supersampling, and
> super-duper hyper anisotropic filering didn't cause any frame rate loss,
> but turned the sharp graphics on the plane to a smeared mush instead. The
> "CIRRUS" on the Extra's wings is an easily viewable example of that.
>
>> But, I still will install FS9, probably today, load up the same flight as
>> I am doing in FSX, and do some comparisons.
>
> I'd love to hear how it goes, especially your subjective views on the
> graphics.
>
>

Thanks , I will keep ya updated.


--
Don
 >> Stay informed about: FSX Update 

"Mike Young" <boat042-spam.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7lAhh.32977$qO4.27786@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
> "Don Burnette" <d.burnette.DeleteThis@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:k-ednXXVUqKkMRvYnZ2dnUVZ_ragnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>> But, I still will install FS9, probably today, load up the same flight as
>> I am doing in FSX, and do some comparisons.
>
> I'd love to hear how it goes, especially your subjective views on the
> graphics.
>
>


Ok, I installed FS9, then updated with the 9.1 update. I then gave the
partition, a good defrag. ( these MSFS's, tend to be pretty fragmented after
an install ).
I then went in, and set the display settings close to what I have in FSX,
autogen to " none", and framerate target to "unlimited", so I could see the
framerates I would get, wtih autogen off, as I have it set in FSX.
There are some things different between the two in graphics settings, so
may not have been exact.
I then loaded up a flight, with the same plane, that I had flown already in
FSX this morning.

First off, whoa, my framerates were through the roof. Over 100 fps when
taxiing at the Nashville airport in the Beech. ( this Beech, in FS9, did not
have the GPS - yuk).
So, I then immediately start adding auotgen in, and kept adding it during
the early portions of the flight, stopping at very dense. Framerates still,
were in the 70's+... Not a single stutter.

So obviously, on my system, I would not have much performance issues, at
least with the stock install. ( no add ons ). The performance, was far, far
greater, than FSX on my system.

However,,, I just don't think it looks near as good. Even with autogen in
FS9 on "very dense", compared to FSX on "none". I don't think it
"feels" as good either, at least on initial impression. I have not spent
that much time with FS9 yet, but in comparison to me, the scenery, planes,
look much better in the default FSX, versus the default FS9. The response
feels better to me in FSX, I would call it more " realistic", on how the
plane responds to input from the stick, but, I have never flown a real plane
either, so let me clarify that. The airports, runways, look much better to
me.

I will finish my flight I loaded up sometime tomorrow, and see if any of
this changes. I don't know, while I sure wish I got better perfomance in
FSX, at least for now, my preference lies in FSX. I am sure I could add a
lot of payware/freeware scenery, planes, etc, to make FS9 look a lot better,
just don't know if I want to go through that at this stage.

Just my initial impressions, of comparing the two, on my system.



--
Don
 >> Stay informed about: FSX Update 

My final comparison of FSX to FS9.
Keep in my , I am no veteran of MS Flight sims, like many of you. I am a
relative newcomer, to both FSX and FS9 ( updated to 9.1)

Just finished the same flight in FS9, that I had flown in FSX.

During the flight, I really cranked the graphics up, pretty much all the way
on most everything. Autogen all the way, dynamic scenery all the way,
increased the terrain mesh, etc. Performance was still spectacular, even
when landing at the airport. I did have one game crash with FS8, it froze
up, got a black screen, and the engine sound kept coming and going. Had to
reboot the pc. Thankfully, I wasn't too far into my resumed flight, so I
just reloaded it and off I went.

Cranking the display settings way up, certainly made it look better, but
still, was lacking in my view, compared to FSX. Way lacking.

FSX, to me, just looks a whole lot better, even with lower settings, and
autogen off. And I can live with that.

I am going to stick with FSX, and hopefully will be able to get better
performance, either through a patch and/or hardware upgrade in the future.
At least that gives me something to look foward to.

I am glad I reinstalled FS9, to satisfy my curiousity on which I would like
better in comparing graphics and performance. I will leave it installed for
a while, just in case, but I doubt I will be going back to it.

If I look at a stock install, of FSX, and compare it to a stock install, of
FS9 - to me, FSX is a huge improvement. Yes, at the cost of performance, but
luckily there are many tweaking options, to allow one to tweak it to run on
their system.
Please note, this does not take into account, all the nice add on scenery,
aircraft, etc, that are available out there for FS9. I am sure , there are
folks that have a lot of that installed, and then I am sure, the difference
would not be so great. Since I don't have any of those addons, I cannot
comment on how close it is to FSX with them installed.
I am only speaking of my impressions, of the stock FSX versus the stock FS9,
on my particular system.

With FS9, autogen set to it's highest, anti aliasing on, and pretty much
everything max'd out, my framerates, cruising at 4,000 ft, were around 100
fps, dropping down to 50-60 upon landing.

With FSX, autogen set to " none ", and anti-aliasing on, all the sliders
for the most part about mid-way I would say, some a little higher, some a
little lower, I average probably around 30-40 fps cruising at 4,000 ft,
dropping down into the low to high teen's while landing.

Both flights I flew, in VC only, using my Track IR3 Pro w/ Vector Expansion.

And as I mentioned previously, to me FSX just feels " better". I like the
way, the airplane responds to my input on the stick, better than in FS9. The
control inputs, on the stick in FS9, to me feel like they are on a wire, and
I do not get that feeling in FSX, feels more like what I would imagine a
realistic feeling would be...

My base system:
Athlon X2 4400+ running just below 2.6 ghz ( overclocked )
MSI K8N Neo 4 Plat socket 939 mb
2 gb Corsair LL PC3500 ddr ram ( 2ea x 1gb running in dual channel)
Saphire Radeon X850XT PCIe 256 mb video card
Soundblaster XFi gamer soundcard


Perhaps this information might be useful, to some with similar systems,
contemplating on moving up to FSX.

--
Don
 >> Stay informed about: FSX Update 

Don Burnette wrote:
> My final comparison of FSX to FS9.
> Keep in my , I am no veteran of MS Flight sims, like many of you. I am a
> relative newcomer, to both FSX and FS9 ( updated to 9.1)
>
> Just finished the same flight in FS9, that I had flown in FSX.
>
> During the flight, I really cranked the graphics up, pretty much all the way
> on most everything. Autogen all the way, dynamic scenery all the way,
> increased the terrain mesh, etc. Performance was still spectacular, even
> when landing at the airport. I did have one game crash with FS8, it froze
> up, got a black screen, and the engine sound kept coming and going. Had to
> reboot the pc. Thankfully, I wasn't too far into my resumed flight, so I
> just reloaded it and off I went.
>
> Cranking the display settings way up, certainly made it look better, but
> still, was lacking in my view, compared to FSX. Way lacking.
>
> FSX, to me, just looks a whole lot better, even with lower settings, and
> autogen off. And I can live with that.
>
> I am going to stick with FSX, and hopefully will be able to get better
> performance, either through a patch and/or hardware upgrade in the future.
> At least that gives me something to look foward to.
>
> I am glad I reinstalled FS9, to satisfy my curiousity on which I would like
> better in comparing graphics and performance. I will leave it installed for
> a while, just in case, but I doubt I will be going back to it.
>
> If I look at a stock install, of FSX, and compare it to a stock install, of
> FS9 - to me, FSX is a huge improvement. Yes, at the cost of performance, but
> luckily there are many tweaking options, to allow one to tweak it to run on
> their system.
> Please note, this does not take into account, all the nice add on scenery,
> aircraft, etc, that are available out there for FS9. I am sure , there are
> folks that have a lot of that installed, and then I am sure, the difference
> would not be so great. Since I don't have any of those addons, I cannot
> comment on how close it is to FSX with them installed.
> I am only speaking of my impressions, of the stock FSX versus the stock FS9,
> on my particular system.
>
> With FS9, autogen set to it's highest, anti aliasing on, and pretty much
> everything max'd out, my framerates, cruising at 4,000 ft, were around 100
> fps, dropping down to 50-60 upon landing.
>
> With FSX, autogen set to " none ", and anti-aliasing on, all the sliders
> for the most part about mid-way I would say, some a little higher, some a
> little lower, I average probably around 30-40 fps cruising at 4,000 ft,
> dropping down into the low to high teen's while landing.
>
> Both flights I flew, in VC only, using my Track IR3 Pro w/ Vector Expansion.
>
> And as I mentioned previously, to me FSX just feels " better". I like the
> way, the airplane responds to my input on the stick, better than in FS9. The
> control inputs, on the stick in FS9, to me feel like they are on a wire, and
> I do not get that feeling in FSX, feels more like what I would imagine a
> realistic feeling would be...
>
> My base system:
> Athlon X2 4400+ running just below 2.6 ghz ( overclocked )
> MSI K8N Neo 4 Plat socket 939 mb
> 2 gb Corsair LL PC3500 ddr ram ( 2ea x 1gb running in dual channel)
> Saphire Radeon X850XT PCIe 256 mb video card
> Soundblaster XFi gamer soundcard
>
>
> Perhaps this information might be useful, to some with similar systems,
> contemplating on moving up to FSX.
>
Thanks Don,
You have a very similar system to mine, a x2 4800 (stock speeds), 2gb
RAM, asus7800, asus mobo with onboard sound.
Benchmarks about 7000 in 3dmark05.
I have spent a fair few hours trying different settings with my system,
and also a friend running a similar spec machine, and we found the
easiest gain in fps is to turn down the AI traffic. Cars, boats and
service vehicles, as well as the air traffic seem to make a big
difference, and with them turned down (I had originally had them turned
up nearly all the way) I have managed to get autogen back up to sparse,
which makes a huge difference to the feel of the scenery. My frames
average 12-20 (its capped at 20) in busy areas, but I admit I haven't
checked it out at altitude with it unlocked. I have had a very quick
dabble with over clocking the video card (which put 3d05 up to 7370),
and I think that gained about 2 fps.
I'm sure as the months go by we'll find the best tweaks to get more out
of it, and hopefully the patches will help out to.
I like the look and feel of it so much this is the first MS FS I've
stuck with for more than a couple of weeks. Up until this, Flight
Unlimited 3 was my favourite, but I think as a gamer not a pilot in
training, what I wanted from it was something else.

J.
 >> Stay informed about: FSX Update