FSDreamTeam forum
Developer's Backdoor => Los Angeles LAX Backdoor => Topic started by: Kappa on September 28, 2010, 11:46:14 pm
-
.
-
As a reminder, I have LAX clearance if there is something you need photowise.
-
Amazing!
-
Looks like its off to a nice start. I'm pretty excited about this airport also.
-
Super duper! ;D
-
The layout looks great to start. Imprint of the ground work can begin and really work all the way up to the terminals etc. :)
-
Nice work
-
Looking good I still think you will have no problems converting this to FS9 :)
-
Looking good I still think you will have no problems converting this to FS9 :)
Let's hope so...
-
WOW that ground is crisp!
-
Amazing!
More Than I Thought Will Support FS9 Too ?
-
Go back and reread the first topic, its clearly written in that topic.
-
Go back and reread the first topic, its clearly written in that topic.
sorry but i didnt read would be make or not you tell me
-
They basically said if they can do an FS9 version to their standards, they'll release it. ;)
-
They basically said if they can do an FS9 version to their standards, they'll release it. ;)
thanks :)
-
well here is a video on the future project for Los Angles International Airport
http://www.lawa.org/uploadedimages/lax/video/PC111708/index.html (http://www.lawa.org/uploadedimages/lax/video/PC111708/index.html)
or you can find at here too http://www.lawa.org/welcome_LAX.aspx?id=1778
(http://www.lawa.org/welcome_LAX.aspx?id=1778)
on the right side pic of video click on it :)
-
They basically said if they can do an FS9 version to their standards, they'll release it. ;)
Yes, but we need to rehash this in every topic.
On the subject of FS9 versus FSX, can you put seasonal textures on your new ground layers?
-
On the subject of FS9 versus FSX, can you put seasonal textures on your new ground layers?
Taking into account that KLAX doesn't have a very high seasonal variation, yes, we have a way in FSX (only) with the new ground method, to alter the grass color dynamicall depending on season (or weather/precipitation) without duplicating textures sets for each season.
-
Taking into account that KLAX doesn't have a very high seasonal variation, yes, we have a way in FSX (only) with the new ground method, to alter the grass color dynamicall depending on season (or weather/precipitation) without duplicating textures sets for each season.
That's interesting I didn't know that.
Does KDFW have this buiilt into it as well? Here in Dallas we get a lot more seasonal change in vegitation and color during different times of the year than a place like LA or Miami does. In fact, it gets pretty damn cold here in the winter and we had close to record snow fall last year. It usually doesn't snow that much, but in the fall and winter all the grass dies and all the vegitation turns brown and yellow. I hadn't tested KDFW yet in the winter in the sim.
-
Does KDFW have this buiilt into it as well?
No, it doesn't. The system we are putting in place for KLAX is already more advanced than KDFW. We don't rest on our laurels...
No, we are not planning an update for KDFW, because it would require redoing all the ground from scratch and, at KDFW, it would impact too much on the fps, considering the huge area (KLAX is about half size of KDFW)
-
On the subject of FS9 versus FSX, can you put seasonal textures on your new ground layers?
Taking into account that KLAX doesn't have a very high seasonal variation, yes, we have a way in FSX (only) with the new ground method, to alter the grass color dynamicall depending on season (or weather/precipitation) without duplicating textures sets for each season.
what does it mean not for fs9 for fsx only :(
-
what does it mean not for fs9 for fsx only
That the method of having seasonal variations without having 4x the number of textures, doesn't apply in FS9, because it requires shaders materials, which FS9 doesn't support in any case. Which means, IF there will be an FS9 version, it will be one season only.
-
what does it mean not for fs9 for fsx only
That the method of having seasonal variations without having 4x the number of textures, doesn't apply in FS9, because it requires shaders materials, which FS9 doesn't support in any case. Which means, IF there will be an FS9 version, it will be one season only.
ok no problem :(
-
No, it doesn't. The system we are putting in place for KLAX is already more advanced than KDFW. We don't rest on our laurels...
LOL, that's good to hear, but at the rate you guys are advancing all the older FSX airports you have done like ORD and JFK are going to seem obsolete compared to the newer ones. Knowing what you know now, I wonder how much more efficient, FPS wise, airports like JFK and ORD would be if they were done like DFW and LAX?
No, we are not planning an update for KDFW, because it would require redoing all the ground from scratch and, at KDFW, it would impact too much on the fps, considering the huge area (KLAX is about half size of KDFW)
No problem, I wasn't even going to ask, lol. It looks good the way it is and beside the fact, a lot of use MegaScenery Dallas with it, which doesn't have seasonal variations anyway.
-
TO THE FS DREAM TEAM:
I live in Los Angeles, so, I'm obviously excited about a new LAX. I don't known where you guys are located, but I just bought a Nikon digital SLR camera, and I'd be happy to take airport pictures where needed (assuming, of course, that I can get access). It goes without saying that I love your stuff. Mike Gutierrez. North Hollywood, California
-
what does it mean not for fs9 for fsx only
That the method of having seasonal variations without having 4x the number of textures, doesn't apply in FS9, because it requires shaders materials, which FS9 doesn't support in any case. Which means, IF there will be an FS9 version, it will be one season only.
ok no problem :(
That's ok, I can live without the having seasonal variations. I don't care as long you will make it for FS9 as well... ;)
-
Does KDFW have this buiilt into it as well?
No, it doesn't. The system we are putting in place for KLAX is already more advanced than KDFW. We don't rest on our laurels...
Why not? You're in a business for making profit. If GM or Ford may use one chassis for various models, why FSDT cannot use one standard for various airports. I have no problems at all if KLAX will be built with a quality comparable to KDFW.
-
Seriously, how much time do U spend in airports in FS? maybe 10 to 20 min and then you are flying right? So why are we talking so much about some special effects? The "standard" look of DTW, ORD and FLL are good enough for me.. :)
-
Does KDFW have this buiilt into it as well?
No, it doesn't. The system we are putting in place for KLAX is already more advanced than KDFW. We don't rest on our laurels...
Why not? You're in a business for making profit. If GM or Ford may use one chassis for various models, why FSDT cannot use one standard for various airports. I have no problems at all if KLAX will be built with a quality comparable to KDFW.
Dimon it takes to much time updating other scenerys too the standard of klax, and you know that time cost money really sucks! honestly if anyone wins the lotto or has a couple million bucks I know were its going too fsdreamteam lol. it would have been cool if jfk and maybe even kord were updated in fsx with the shaders.
-
If GM or Ford may use one chassis for various models, why FSDT cannot use one standard for various airports.
That's not a fair comparison. Cars are made with common parts to save manufacturing costs. In what we do, using always the same *methods* doesn't save much time, except for time spent learning them, but that is a very small part compared to doing the actual modeling. And, once a scenery is released, the method used doesn't affect much "production" costs, as in case of industrial products. On the opposite, sales would instead decrease if users would notice too many reused elements from a scenery to another one.
I have no problems at all if KLAX will be built with a quality comparable to KDFW.
If we want to continue to stay on top of things, each scenery should be constantly better than the previous one. Especially with FSX, there's stil A LOT of potential waiting to be used, and we are just scratching the surface. We would have progressed much further, if there was no FS9 market to deal with.
-
On the subject of FS9 versus FSX, can you put seasonal textures on your new ground layers?
Taking into account that KLAX doesn't have a very high seasonal variation, yes, we have a way in FSX (only) with the new ground method, to alter the grass color dynamicall depending on season (or weather/precipitation) without duplicating textures sets for each season.
Cool. Thanks for the answer.
-
That's ok, I can live without the having seasonal variations. I don't care as long you will make it for FS9 as well... ;)
Is there even that big of a seasonal variation at LAX. I mean when you get to the mountains and into higher elevations around the valley, sure, but I would think there wouldn't be much change near the coast line where KLAX is anyway.
-
Wow, it's looking great! But, would it be possible to do a bit of the airport surroundings?
Most importantly the 405 Freeway? After all, you guys are the DreamTeam! ;D
pffffft
in n out. that is all that is needed.
-
Wow, it's looking great! But, would it be possible to do a bit of the airport surroundings?
Most importantly the 405 Freeway? After all, you guys are the DreamTeam! ;D
pffffft
in n out. that is all that is needed.
You left out the Proud Bird. ;)
BL.
-
in n out. that is all that is needed.
Thats why Microsoft made default scenery. When I'm paying for it, I expect eye candy.
-
in n out. that is all that is needed.
Thats why Microsoft made default scenery. When I'm paying for it, I expect eye candy.
That is exactly what I was saying. I would like to see not only the airport scenery, but also
outside the airport! The best example of this is FlyTampa's sceneries (I'm not trying
to make any comparisons).
yea you are right
-
I wish people could let the producers create the best software possible, look at the results and then judge them.
I think pre/under production criticism of creative strategies are over the top arrogant and impolite.
FSDreamteam please move on... Do what ever you seem fit to produce the best LAX possible ;)
-
We would have progressed much further, if there was no FS9 market to deal with.
- virtuali
SO NOT TRUE!!!
You make some extra sales in FS2004. The market is NOT getting smaller, and us FS9 enthusiasts (those without $6,000 to spend for a new computer) love to see quality products, like yours, still coming for the older sims. You know for a fact you make at LEAST 5 sales. AT THE VERY LEAST! Its not like it costs anything to make it for FS2004 too? Your not losing ANY money on that. I hope that your statement does not mean you are dis-continuing your products for FS2004, because I know at least 50 - 100 people that are going to be very upset if you are. FS2004 is not a dieing sim, and I will wager anyone who wants to challenge me that my FS2004 looks "out-dated."
Thanks for your time in reading my rant :)
(Sorry if this was offensive in any way)
-
We would have progressed much further, if there was no FS9 market to deal with.
- virtuali
SO NOT TRUE!!!
You make some extra sales in FS2004. The market is NOT getting smaller, and us FS9 enthusiasts (those without $6,000 to spend for a new computer) love to see quality products, like yours, still coming for the older sims. You know for a fact you make at LEAST 5 sales. AT THE VERY LEAST! Its not like it costs anything to make it for FS2004 too? Your not losing ANY money on that. I hope that your statement does not mean you are dis-continuing your products for FS2004, because I know at least 50 - 100 people that are going to be very upset if you are. FS2004 is not a dieing sim, and I will wager anyone who wants to challenge me that my FS2004 looks "out-dated."
Thanks for your time in reading my rant :)
(Sorry if this was offensive in any way)
+100000, And watch all these guys come out of know where with their...
"computer these days can run FSX for under $600"
"FSX Has better graphics"
excuses
Please, FS9 can looks just as good as FSX with a $200 computer running at Maximum settings...
-
oh do I love this flame war :)
-
Hey now, I was NOT trying to start anything, I was defending my point to the developers in hopes to get them considering their options...
-
Please, FS9 can looks just as good as FSX with a $200 computer running at Maximum settings...
Now that my friends is something I would like to see.
I think if that were the case NO ONE would be running FSX.
If you can make FS9 look like this video below, then I will sell my FSX computer tomorrow, go to Best Buy and find a cheap $200 rig and install FS9 and every available scenery on it and never look back.
BTW, a $6000 computer is not needed and this has been hashed out over and over. I'm running a $2000 system I had built 2 years ago that's got a E8400 overclocked to 3.85ghz and can fly pretty much anywhere I want in complex airliners into complex airports and suffer no issues, and that's running pretty high settings in FSX.
-
FSDT keep us FS9 users going :)
Sean
-
Granted, I am ready for everyone to say "THIS DOESNT LOOK AS GOOD AS FSX!"... Thats just cuz your jealous of my FS2004 ;)
(http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll58/FSpilotSlade/18760_306204955829_614405829_4831149_2576381_n-1.jpg)
(http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll58/FSpilotSlade/18760_306277665829_614405829_4831407_4840385_n-2.jpg)
(http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll58/FSpilotSlade/62808_10150096241895830_614405829_7415438_3812512_n-1.jpg)
(http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll58/FSpilotSlade/30290_442096820829_614405829_5764590_6119906_n-1.jpg)
(http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll58/FSpilotSlade/34493_473318365829_614405829_6556878_326875_n.jpg)
I think I made my point. So I will NOT post any more pictures, because this is not a forum where users are to be posting pictures. But, there is your proof, accept it, or deny it, no matter what, I know you think they look better than you thought...
-
Granted, I am ready for everyone to say "THIS DOESNT LOOK AS GOOD AS FSX!"... Thats just cuz your jealous of my FS2004 ;)
(http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll58/FSpilotSlade/18760_306204955829_614405829_4831149_2576381_n-1.jpg)
(http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll58/FSpilotSlade/18760_306277665829_614405829_4831407_4840385_n-2.jpg)
(http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll58/FSpilotSlade/62808_10150096241895830_614405829_7415438_3812512_n-1.jpg)
(http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll58/FSpilotSlade/30290_442096820829_614405829_5764590_6119906_n-1.jpg)
(http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll58/FSpilotSlade/34493_473318365829_614405829_6556878_326875_n.jpg)
I think I made my point. So I will NOT post any more pictures, because this is not a forum where users are to be posting pictures. But, there is your proof, accept it, or deny it, no matter what, I know you think they look better than you thought...
Great edits!
-
Granted, I am ready for everyone to say "THIS DOESNT LOOK AS GOOD AS FSX!"... Thats just cuz your jealous of my FS2004 ;)
Nice pics Slade ;D, From some of the vantage points you chose you made it hard to tell, especially with the editing.
With all due respect before you go nuts thinking I am dissing your screen shots, because i'm not, take those same sceneries you posted pics of, like the Kai Tak one, then take the same snap shot of it using the FSX version, re-edit them like you did in the FS9 pics and it will look even better, that's just the way it is. :-) There's no way to fake higher resolution, higher poly scenery/aircraft models, and more autogen per square area.
Now, i'm not saying your pics dont look good, because they do look good, they look great and your a master of editing with the extra photoshop enhancements, but you can only go so far with FS9 as far as texture resolution, etc. Umberto has been over all the things he can do extra in the FSX versions that he can't do in the FS9 versions due to FS9's limitations.
Take any of the FSDT airports, then take an "unedited" screen shot of it in FS9, then do the same for FSX. From experience I will say the FSX versions all look better since I have them installed in both sims. The same will most likely hold true for any scenery that is available for both sims. GEX is a good example for a "blanket" product that covers the whole US/Europe vs. GE Pro for FS9 that covers the whole world. I think it goes without saying that the higher res GEX textures look much better and sharper than the GE Pro ones do for FS9.
Sure FS9 can look good, especially in some areas, like the old KPDX by Vauchez, but I will wager that when the ORBX fellows finish the area it will look 10x better than what Vauchez put together 5 or 6 years ago.
The problem is, we can't fly in FS9 with it being photoshopped while we fly to make it look like your screen shots. ;D If that were the case I might not have jumped ship to FSX so quick.
Thats just cuz your jealous of my FS2004 ;)
No way, sorry.
I think I made my point.
Frankly, the only point you made to me is that your sour because of the possibility FSDT might not be able to continue FS9 developement.
Hey, its understandable, no one here is knocking FS9, well maybe a little, but what I mean is that not everyone has the resources to upgrade their rig to FSX standards. If I were the position of having spent a boat load of money on FS9 stuff and didn't have the financial resources to upgrade my computer and repurchase all my addons, I too would probably be a little bummed if one of my favorite vendors said they maybe unable to produce products for my sim. Then again some people may have the resouces but for whatever reason dont want to switch, fair enough, but then you suffer the consequence of having your sim left behind at some point by some developers.
The thing is, nothing last forever. Just because vendors slowing might start making FSX only products doesn't mean that your FS9 is going to stop working. In fact, for FS9 there is so much content as far as a/c and sceneries available for it, plus all the freeware, if no one ever made another FS9 product for years you guys would still be sitting pretty. Granted some of the airports might be a little out of date as far as newer runways or terminals.
I'm sure 3 or 4 years from now, all of us FSX guys will be bellyaching also that some developers will not be able to continue to make FSX products because they are too hard to backport from the Flight version or whatever the new or hot sim is at the moment. If you think things are getting bad for FS9 now, just wait another 3 or 4 years and it will most likely be much worse.
Anways, since this is the "LAX Backdoor", lets get back to LAX and look forward to it.
Regards.
-
Come on, it's pure VFR stuff. I have never tried to underestimated VFR power of FSX - it's pure beauty including ORBX. IFR large hubs + AI-traffic (that still uses FS2002 modeling standards) - it's completely different story. You should compare apples with apples - FSDT KJFK with full AI in FSX vs KJFK with full AI in FS2004. The same for EDDF, LFPG. The performance difference is just HUGE, with minimal visual and functional differences
This is taken from AVSIM Hardware Forum and it summarize mostly of what I have been trying to deliver all these years. Please pay attention to the guys's PC specs
What you need is to spend your money in a time machine... travel 50 years into the future... buy an extreme system... and go back in time... Posted Image
Even the latest 6 cores CPU from Intel can't deliver smooth FPS over detailed sceneries with all sliders to the right and running programs like REX 2 and Ultimate Traffic 2 at 100%... but... if you still want to upgrade your system spend extra cash to switch from an i5 system to an i7 system...
Let's hope that the new MS Flight solve all performance issues... Posted Image
Dexter...
My System:
Intel 980x @ 4.14GHz (133x31) | Asus P6T7 WS Supercomputer | 12GB Corsair Dominator 1600Mhz | 2 x XFX HD 5870 Crossfire | Intel 80GB X25M SSD | 2 x 300GB WD Velociraptor RAID 0 | 3 x 1TB WD Caviar Black | Asus Essence STX | Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-1800 | Pioneer BDR-205 Blu-ray Burner | Antec TPQ-1000 TruePower Quattro 1000W | Canon MX850 | Logitech Z-5500 5.1 THX (Toslink Cable) | Logitech G940 Flight System | Logitech G27 Racing Wheel | Logitech Illuminated Keyboard | Logitech Performance Mouse MX | Cooler Master Cosmos 1000 | Hanns-G 28" HG281D | LG Flatron 23" E2350V | Sennheiser HD595 Headphone | Logitech G35 Surround Sound Headset | TrackIR 5 Head Tracker | Roccaforte Ultimate Game Desk | APC Back-UPS RS 1500 LCD | Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit.
Cooling (2 Loops):
Koolance MB-ASP6T7WS | 2 x Koolance VID-AR587 | Koolance CPU-360 Rev1.2 | 2 x Thermaltake SR-200 Liquid Reservoir + P500 Pump | 2 x Thermaltake TMG2 | 2 x AquaBay M4 | 4 x Cooler Master 120mm Red LED Fan | Antec SpotCool Fan | Thermaltake iTube 9 3/8" Tubing | Thermaltake Coolant.
Flight Simulator Gold Edition Software:
UTX USA, Europe, Canada, Alaska | Ground Environment X North America, Europe | REX 2.0 | FS Global 2010 | Ultimate Traffic II | SceneryTech Africa, Europe, South America, North America, Indo-Pacific, Asia | PMDG 747, MD11 | Wilco 737PIC, Airbus A380, Airbus Series 1 & 2, Embraer Regional Jets, Embraer E-Jets Series 1 & 2 | Flight1 C310R, Cessna Mustang, BN-2 Islander, Audio Environment, Airport Facilitator X, FS Panel Studio | Carenado C152 II, C172N, C182Q, C182 RG, C185F & Bush, C206G, C208B, PA28, PA28RT, PA34, PA32R, F33A, M20J | RealAir Duke B60, Scout Package 2007 | Captain Sim 757 (200,300,F), 767 (200, 300, F), C130 X-perience, 727 (100 ,200, F) | FlyTampa Maarten Complete | Fly The Maddog Pro 2010 | Cera Bell 412 | Lotus Albatros L-39 | Iris Diamond Twin Star | Nemeth Designs BO-105, EC-135, EC-120B, MD500E, MD902 | Aerosoft Twin Otter X, Discus Glider X | FSUIPC 4 | FS Force 2 | Aivlasoft Electronic Flight Bag | FS Commander | Navigraph nDAC 3 | TA Software Plan-G | Reality XP GNS 530 WAAS, GNS 430 WAAS, GNS WAAS Unlimited, Flightline T, Flightline N.
-
IFR large hubs + AI-traffic (that still uses FS2002 modeling standards) - it's completely different story. You should compare apples with apples - FSDT KJFK with full AI in FSX vs KJFK with full AI in FS2004. The same for EDDF, LFPG. The performance difference is just HUGE, with minimal visual and functional differences
First screen is KJFK with WoAI at 100% under FS9 = 28.6 fps
Second screen is KJFK with UT2 at 100% under FSX = 26.1 fps
The fps difference is really nothing that would impact the scenery enjoyement, not to mention that 26 fps in FSX feels a lot smoother than 28 fps in FS9, because the texture loading distributed on several cores doesn't create much stuttering, and the fps is steadier, while in FS9 is constantly oscillating. And of course, FSX has more complex default scenery, and I purposely took the screenshots with the view oriented towards Manhattan so, FSX was way more penalized, in that spot.
Third and Fourth screen is the same test at KDFW. Again, the fps difference is not much, but the difference in visual quality in FSX IS huge at KDFW, since the FS9 version is entirely flat (FSX is full 3d terrain with elevated briges), the FS9 version doesn't have the animated skylink train and road traffic, there are no shaders on ground (they are difficult to see in FSX in a screenshot, you need to see them live), there are no custom animated vehicles in FS9, there are no animated jetways in FS9, and of course all the AI and the user airplane looks much better in FSX. I'm quite sure that, if we haven't used all those features in FSX and made an FSX version just like the FS9 one, KDFW might have been FASTER in FSX than FS9.
So no, the performance difference, even with big IFR hubs and full AI traffic (provided you use the right AI product, not something ported over from FS9), is not that big anymore on modern machines, at least not with OUR products, or when used together with other products which are really made for FSX and properly optimized.
-
Ok, I don't want to comment screens (I have a lot to say, but it's been said numerous amount of times already ;D) since they are waaaay.. subjectively presented, allow me to say that since I now how to show off a right angle with good FPS. ;D
The reality is that there is general consensus including both FS2004 and FSX experienced simmers that FSX performs much worse in IFR hardcore simmers environment that FS2004 and right amount of money to buy good PC is not the answer. Obviously there are several variation in FPS between various airports (for example your KFLL or LSGG clearly performs better in terms of FPS than KORD or KDFW), but the trend is too evidential not in the favor of FSX.
Anyway, I still keep my fingers cross for FS2004 KLAX and I wish you all the best.
Thanks
Dmitriy
-
no one here is knocking FS9, well maybe a little,
I know this was never your point and I'm not trying to argue but I don't understand why anyone would knock FS9. It was and actually still is a fantastic simulator provided you have some great addons, just like FSX. Granted, on modern machines, FSX can do much more and I'd love to have a machine that can handle it at the level my computer can handle FS9 (although at this point I might just wait to see what Microsoft Flight brings) but that just isn't a reality for me...mostly because I hesitated to make a purchase on a new computer when FS9 worked so well for me and it did its job.
So, the same can be said for FSX...why would you knock it anymore? I can understand people knocking it when it was first released because it really should have never been released like that if you ask me (even the higher end machine back then could really only handle low-medium settings and that just shouldn't be) but right now, FSX is a fantastic sim. It grew into its time.
So basically, why knock either sim like some people here do? You're just wasting your time. (Not you specifically cmpbllsjc...what you just said made me think of all this. :))
-
Man, Ive never seen so much division between one sim and another sim.
We all have to remember where we are in this situtation. We are the customers, not the deisngers. By my recgoning, the desigers have the final say in what is made and what isnt made, and what ever decison they make either side will just have to deal with it. Plain and simple.
-
Umberto I forgot your system specs was it a Intel Q6600?
-
On the performance standpoint it's all hogwash. It all boils down to user system specs. And I doubt the majority of FSX users systems can fully take advange of what FSX can offer.
Even my system, doesn't partially take advantage of all the great enhancements of FSX with flyable framerates and I have pretty good specs. That is why I leave FSX to VFR flying. My only beef is not about FSX it's about the situation of affordable technology to FULLY take advantage of FSX without a hit on the frames.
Those screenshots dont mean anything. Anyone can max/lower the sliders for a simple screenshot. Then return them back to normal when it's time to fly.
Believe me, I could take very good screenshots in FSX. But i'd be lying if I wanted people to think it looks that good when I am flying.
I really wish people would stop comparing the two.
System Specs:
Velocity Micro Lx660
Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium (64 Bit)
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition
3.33GHz / 8MB L3 Cache
Bus: 4.8 GT/s / Intel X58 Chipset
12GB DDR3 @ 1333MHz
2 x 1TB SATA
PCI-Express x16 Video Card
1GB ATI Radeon 5870
-
Those screenshots dont mean anything. Anyone can max/lower the sliders for a simple screenshot. Then return them back to normal when it's time to fly.
Please don't try to say I've cheated with settings: I've took the screenshots with the settings I always use in FSX, which are normal settings (not everything to the right), and in FS9 everything is maxed out. The spot is the same and the viewing position is about the same. I only turned off boat traffic, which is not really needed in IFR (or is it ?). I could get higher fps in FSX with some tweaks, like reducing the Autogen density or the small part reject radius with the FSX.CFG parameters, but I've always keep it as the default setting, because this is how I test our stuff in FSX: it wouldn't make any sense to test something that we have to sell, on a heavily tweaked system. Yes, if I had to *fly* I guess I would add some tweaks but, for the purpose of taking a screenshot, the fps obtained in FSX were already more than enough.
It doesn't make any sense to use FSX with everything to the right, some times the visual quality might *worsen*, because the system can't cope with the load. THIS is what people don't want to understand: sometimes a lower setting might *increase* visual quality, because what the system needs in FSX to give good resolution without blurries, is TIME.
Instead, there *were* FS9 screenshots which were posted before, which were visibly Photoshopped (just like that OrbX video was very well color-graded, and probably recorded at twice the speed and then slowed down in editing, to magically double the fps...)
I couldn't care less in this example to point out different image quality, other than the one implied in the different modeling of the scenery, I simply took the screenshots as I normally use FSX or FS9. My FS9 doesn't have any other 3rd party addon installed and for some reasons I can't use antialiasing in Window mode, but adding lots of 3rd party enhancements and antialiasing to FS9, surely won't *increase* its performances.
As I've said, I wasn't interested to prove anything about image quality. It has been said that on KJFK with full AI traffic, the fps difference in favor of FS9 was "huge". I simply proved is not. It might be with other products, but not at KJFK or KDFW, which are the largest and most complex sceneries we made so far.
-
Umberto I forgot your system specs was it a Intel Q6600?
No, it's a MacPro with 2 Quad-Xeon at 2.66 Mhz, with a 512MB ATI 4870. It's not a very good gaming system, because FSX can't really use all 8 cores, the clock speed is not that great and it can't be easily overclocked.
It's a developer machine, can't reach record performances (well it can, but only with rendering and video encoding, which are both heavily parallelizable tasks) on games, but the 8 physical cores are great when you need to run, for example, the Visual Studio debugger together with FSX, without slowing down the system. Or run a whole virtualized Windows running inside OSX.
A gamers i7, perhaps over clocked and with a better video card, would probably get better results in FSX, and it would be much cheaper.
-
Umberto I forgot your system specs was it a Intel Q6600?
No, it's a MacPro with 2 Quad-Xeon at 2.66 Mhz, with a 512MB ATI 4870. It's not a very good gaming system, because FSX can't really use all 8 cores, the clock speed is not that great and it can't be easily overclocked.
It's a developer machine, can't reach record performances (well it can, but only with rendering and video encoding, which are both heavily parallelizable tasks) on games, but the 8 physical cores are great when you need to run, for example, the Visual Studio debugger together with FSX, without slowing down the system. Or run a whole virtualized Windows running inside OSX.
A gamers i7, perhaps over clocked and with a better video card, would probably get better results in FSX, and it would be much cheaper.
Thanks Umberto my system is very low waiting hopefully to upgrade again need something cheap for now was surprised it was able to handle some things well considering its a Celeron but not your typical old one it does like a E5400 but unfortunately my cache is low so that is also other bottleneck. my motherboard is a very bad bottle neck for me. but hope to get at least in I5 I7. I gotta admit your Quad-Xeon at 2.66 Mhz handles fsx and fs9 well.
-
As for the screenshots, I was refering to the ones posted before not yours. I would not imply you would create settings for a simple screenshot. As for the shots you took, I have to be honest... they dont look that different to me... and the differences I did see... were minor to me.
-
The reality is that there is general consensus including both FS2004 and FSX experienced simmers that FSX performs much worse in IFR hardcore simmers environment that FS2004 and right amount of money to buy good PC is not the answer. Obviously there are several variation in FPS between various airports (for example your KFLL or LSGG clearly performs better in terms of FPS than KORD or KDFW), but the trend is too evidential not in the favor of FSX.
Dmitriy
How do you quantify or qualify what makes someone an "IFR hardcore simmer"?
Does hardore mean you need to have everything set to the max? Does hardcore mean always 100% AI? Or is it max cloud draw distance?
I always read in the forums that "hardcore IFR simmers" need 100% AI. Since when does IFR flying mean you need to have 100% AI? For me IFR has always meant Instrument Flight Rules not 100% AI, and IMC, to me means Instrument Meteorological Conditions which is basically flying on instruments since you can't see where your going by looking out the window.
Frankly, can anyone tell the difference between 100% AI and 90% AI at a large hub like JFK? Probably not. Beside the fact that most FS9 "IFR hardcore simmers" want to have AI sitting at every gate, which isn't really realistic anyway unless the said airport has had a weather delay and a bunch of flights just arrived and can't leave due to weather. Go to MSN maps and pull up the satellite view of KJFK which was taken during daylight hours and you will see that a lot of gates are empty, around 46 or so since I counted, and the airport looked to be at about 80% capacity.
The point I am trying to make with all this is that I am "IFR hardcore simmer" using FSX and have no problems using reasonable settings which are still higher than what FS9 provides at Max, but yet less than what FSX is capable of and I fly into all these large hubs flying by IFR rules and many times in IMC conditions and have no issues.
If you want to go into JFK with AI parked at each gate with a complex plane and everything set full right in FSX, then yes your right, there probably isn't a computer that will handle this. However if you want to go into the same airport with "realistic" levels of AI and settings that are higher than FS9 but less than max FSX, then most good computers running at greater than 2.85 ghz will get it done, I do it every day.
Sometimes I think FS9 and sometimes FSX "IFR hardcore simmers" are more into looking at AI and sight seeing at the hub after they land, than they are about actually simulating an IFR flight. After all professional flight sims used by airlines and flight academies to train REAL airline pilots don't even have AI, so would you consider them to be not "hardcore"? I doubt it.
I know this was never your point and I'm not trying to argue but I don't understand why anyone would knock FS9. It was and actually still is a fantastic simulator provided you have some great addons, just like FSX. Granted, on modern machines, FSX can do much more and I'd love to have a machine that can handle it at the level my computer can handle FS9 (although at this point I might just wait to see what Microsoft Flight brings) but that just isn't a reality for me...mostly because I hesitated to make a purchase on a new computer when FS9 worked so well for me and it did its job.
So, the same can be said for FSX...why would you knock it anymore? I can understand people knocking it when it was first released because it really should have never been released like that if you ask me (even the higher end machine back then could really only handle low-medium settings and that just shouldn't be) but right now, FSX is a fantastic sim. It grew into its time.
So basically, why knock either sim like some people here do? You're just wasting your time. (Not you specifically cmpbllsjc...what you just said made me think of all this. :))
Yeah your right I wasn't trying to knock FS9, I was just responding to the guy who posted the edited FS9 pics. I was an FS9 guy for years prior to FSX and even for about a year after FSX came out, in fact I still have FS9 installed, I just dont use it because I prefer FSX now.
I whole heartly agree, that I wish people would quit knocking each sim and just enjoy what they have. Will it happen? I doubt it, the debate will linger on for sometime to come until we have at some point a sim that the majority of us all use. But, even then I am sure there will still be some FS9 guys who will stick with FS9 for another 4 years. Heck, there was even a fellow who posted in the FS9 section of Avsim the other day who is still on FS2002 believe it or not.
OKAY GUYS! This isnt a debate forum. This is to show us what the progress is on the scenery. Granted, we all want different things, but hopefully we have all made our points, now its up to the developers, so lets just let the forum be what it needs to.
I agree, we've all had our say. Let's get back to LAX and stop arguing about the merits of our prefered sim. No one ever wins these arguments.
-
As for the screenshots, I was refering to the ones posted before not yours. I would not imply you would create settings for a simple screenshot. As for the shots you took, I have to be honest... they dont look that different to me... and the differences I did see... were minor to me.
As I've said, I didn't really wanted to point out the image quality in FSX, it was just a performance remark.
Both FSX and FS9 are capable to create nice screenshots, but FSX offers many visual effects which need to be seen live (like shaders, wet runways, refractions) to be appreciated, because the whole point of those effect is how they react to the eyeposition or the sunlight.
-
Guys, please stop the flame war, it's just pointless losing your time writing personal attacks, when you know they'll be inevitably removed...
-
As for the screenshots, I was refering to the ones posted before not yours. I would not imply you would create settings for a simple screenshot. As for the shots you took, I have to be honest... they dont look that different to me... and the differences I did see... were minor to me.
As I've said, I didn't really wanted to point out the image quality in FSX, it was just a performance remark.
Both FSX and FS9 are capable to create nice screenshots, but FSX offers many visual effects which need to be seen live (like shaders, wet runways, refractions) to be appreciated, because the whole point of those effect is how they react to the eyeposition or the sunlight.
Now that I 100% agree with, I just don't understand with my specs why I am not getting the "smooth frames" you seem to be getting. I just assume my specs are still not good enough. BTW, KJFK in FS9 on my system is getting about 40FPS with thunderstorms, 100% AI with PMDG 747. I just can't seem to get that in FSX. And my sliders are at default. Any lower and I miss out on those water effects etc. Now with VFR, with little to no traffic in a turboprop like the Lionheart aircraft, my frames are wayyy up. It's just the big airports I have the problems with which is why I stick to FS9 with the heavies. I am sure this will change with my next system.
I haven't tried Hawaii pack 1 in FSX yet but I am curious how the frames will act with the airports being small and very little traffic flying to them... i'll look into it.
-
Super Duper! ;D
-
BTW, KJFK in FS9 on my system is getting about 40FPS with thunderstorms, 100% AI with PMDG 747. I just can't seem to get that in FSX. And my sliders are at default. Any lower and I miss out on those water effects etc.
If you are using the PMDG 747 for FSX, I don't doubt you struggle to get good fps, but then we are talking about a product that clearly has performance issues, rather than a problem with FSX itself. Their MD11 is *much* better, and is not any less complex or sophisticated. I guess more care was taken optimizing the MD11.
-
BTW, KJFK in FS9 on my system is getting about 40FPS with thunderstorms, 100% AI with PMDG 747. I just can't seem to get that in FSX. And my sliders are at default. Any lower and I miss out on those water effects etc.
If you are using the PMDG 747 for FSX, I don't doubt you struggle to get good fps, but then we are talking about a product that clearly has performance issues, rather than a problem with FSX itself. Their MD11 is *much* better, and is not any less complex or sophisticated. I guess more care was taken optimizing the MD11.
True but the interrior textures in the MD-11 are not as good. I believe they down scaled the VC textures for performance...
-
BTW, KJFK in FS9 on my system is getting about 40FPS with thunderstorms, 100% AI with PMDG 747. I just can't seem to get that in FSX. And my sliders are at default. Any lower and I miss out on those water effects etc. Now with VFR, with little to no traffic in a turboprop like the Lionheart aircraft, my frames are wayyy up. It's just the big airports I have the problems with which is why I stick to FS9 with the heavies. I am sure this will change with my next system.
I haven't tried Hawaii pack 1 in FSX yet but I am curious how the frames will act with the airports being small and very little traffic flying to them... i'll look into it.
Newmanix, I just bought the PMDG 747 about three weeks ago at Fry's since it was only $30. On my rig, E8400 OC'ed to 3.85, 2 GB RAM, GTS 250 1GB video card, with AI turned off and bad weather (not completely IMC, but overcast and rain), and the PMDG 747, with FPS unlocked I get between 24 and 35 FPS, usually hanging around 27 or so, but it fluctuates when the FPS are unlocked. The same scenario with AI on (UT2 at 100%) I get fluctuations between 19 and 25, but usually staying around 22 or so. Still very flyable at that FPS. Clearly the PMDG doesn't get the same FPS as the LDS 767 in FSX, but its not that bad either.
Sometimes what I will do if I feel like the FPS hit is too much and I am using UT2, I can reduce the traffic density in game using a hot key without a sceney reload, or using the UT2 hot key I will kill traffic completely when on final, then as soon as I touch down, I hit the Hot key to turn traffic back on. Kind of like nothing ever happened if you know what I mean.
-
BTW, KJFK in FS9 on my system is getting about 40FPS with thunderstorms, 100% AI with PMDG 747. I just can't seem to get that in FSX. And my sliders are at default. Any lower and I miss out on those water effects etc. Now with VFR, with little to no traffic in a turboprop like the Lionheart aircraft, my frames are wayyy up. It's just the big airports I have the problems with which is why I stick to FS9 with the heavies. I am sure this will change with my next system.
I haven't tried Hawaii pack 1 in FSX yet but I am curious how the frames will act with the airports being small and very little traffic flying to them... i'll look into it.
Newmanix, I just bought the PMDG 747 about three weeks ago at Fry's since it was only $30. On my rig, E8400 OC'ed to 3.85, 2 GB RAM, GTS 250 1GB video card, with AI turned off and bad weather (not completely IMC, but overcast and rain), and the PMDG 747, with FPS unlocked I get between 24 and 35 FPS, usually hanging around 27 or so, but it fluctuates when the FPS are unlocked. The same scenario with AI on (UT2 at 100%) I get fluctuations between 19 and 25, but usually staying around 22 or so. Still very flyable at that FPS. Clearly the PMDG doesn't get the same FPS as the LDS 767 in FSX, but its not that bad either.
Sometimes what I will do if I feel like the FPS hit is too much and I am using UT2, I can reduce the traffic density in game using a hot key without a sceney reload, or using the UT2 hot key I will kill traffic completely when on final, then as soon as I touch down, I hit the Hot key to turn traffic back on. Kind of like nothing ever happened if you know what I mean.
And that's the very problem. I like my traffic. It's just a very big deal to me. And my point is with FS9 there is no trade off. With FSX there is, so I am just enjoying the best of both worlds. Don't get me wrong, I love FSX for my VFR flights are simply BEAUTIFUL but currently the buck stops there... Now since I got FSX, VFR flying in FS9 simply sucks!! So I have what I feel to be the best of both. After the move, the weading, and the new car, I will be in the market for a new system. By then, should be good enough to stop requesting FS9. Just one more year... i hope... Already dropped $2500 this year on a system can't afford to keep doing this.
-
[And that's the very problem. I like my traffic. It's just a very big deal to me. And my point is with FS9 there is no trade off. With FSX there is, so I am just enjoying the best of both worlds. Don't get me wrong, I love FSX for my VFR flights are simply BEAUTIFUL but currently the buck stops there... Now since I got FSX, VFR flying in FS9 simply sucks!! So I have what I feel to be the best of both. After the move, the weading, and the new car, I will be in the market for a new system. By then, should be good enough to stop requesting FS9. Just one more year... i hope... Already dropped $2500 this year on a system can't afford to keep doing this.
Well, that was at KJFK which is probably the worst area in the US as far as FPS, plus the hardest hitting FPS plane I own, and bad weather, and like I mentioned, even with traffic ON, still 19 to 25 FPS which on my system is still very smooth and no blurries.
However, at KDFW and most other big hubs like ORD, LAX, or even the stock LAX, using the same a/c since I have tried it at all of them, I can usually keep around 25 of higher FPS with AI on during arrival, hence not needing a tradeoff.
But if KJFK is part of every flight, then sticking to the FS9 version if you need 40 FPS is about all you can do.
Your milage may very, but I don't fly to JFK all that often and since all my other big hubs perform great it's a non issue for me personally and I haven't needed to make any tradeoffs.
-
[And that's the very problem. I like my traffic. It's just a very big deal to me. And my point is with FS9 there is no trade off. With FSX there is, so I am just enjoying the best of both worlds. Don't get me wrong, I love FSX for my VFR flights are simply BEAUTIFUL but currently the buck stops there... Now since I got FSX, VFR flying in FS9 simply sucks!! So I have what I feel to be the best of both. After the move, the weading, and the new car, I will be in the market for a new system. By then, should be good enough to stop requesting FS9. Just one more year... i hope... Already dropped $2500 this year on a system can't afford to keep doing this.
Well, that was at KJFK which is probably the worst area in the US as far as FPS, plus the hardest hitting FPS plane I own, and bad weather, and like I mentioned, even with traffic ON, still 19 to 25 FPS which on my system is still very smooth and no blurries.
However, at KDFW and most other big hubs like ORD, LAX, or even the stock LAX, using the same a/c since I have tried it at all of them, I can usually keep around 25 of higher FPS with AI on during arrival, hence not needing a tradeoff.
But if KJFK is part of every flight, then sticking to the FS9 version if you need 40 FPS is about all you can do.
Your milage may very, but I don't fly to JFK all that often and since all my other big hubs perform great it's a non issue for me personally and I haven't needed to make any tradeoffs.
What are your specs?
-
What are your specs?
I listed them in my first response to you but here they are again and more detail.
Win XP 32 SP3
E8400 OC'ed to 3.85
2 GB RAM at 1088 ghz
GTS 250 OC'ed 1 GB video card
Asus Maximus Formula mobo
PC Power and Cooling 750w power supply
Zigmatek cooler <----- Not 100% sure on this one. would have to get the big box that my case came with and go thru the empty boxes to check the make and model
Antec 900 case
Addons used:
* UTX USA * UTX Europe * GEX US/Europe * FEX * REX * ActiveSkyAdvanced/Evolution * SceneryTech LC * FSGenesis Mesh * PMDG 747/JS4100 * LDS 767 * RealAir SF-260 * Aerosoft F-16 * Nemeth CH-53 * Cera Bell 412 * Lionheart Creations Quest Kodiak/Epic LT * Wilco E-Jets EMB 170/190 * Captain Sim 727-100/200/Freighter * Captain Sim C-130 X-perience * MegaScenery SoCal/Pheonix/Las Vegas/Dallas * FlyTampa St. Marten * FSDreamteam LSGG/LSZH/KLAS/KFLL/KJFK/KORD/KDFW * Sim Giantes Gran Canaria International Airport * RGFlight Slazburg UK2000 * Gatwick Extreme * Aerosoft Madeira X/German Aiports 2/Nice X/Approaching InnsbruckX/Lisbon X/Gibraltar X * Cloud9 KMCO * Imaginesim KCLT/TJSJ/KATL * BluePrint KDAL * LatinVFR Toncontin * Tropical Sim SBRJ/SBGL/SBSP/SBGR * WOAI * Ultimate Traffic 2 SP1 * EZdok Camera * Setup FS-GS
-
Im sad...
I have a Duo Core @ 2.2GHz
and a nVidea 9800
No wonder I like FS2004 better! LOL!
-
What are your specs?
I listed them in my first response to you but here they are again and more detail.
Win XP 32 SP3
E8400 OC'ed to 3.85
2 GB RAM at 1088 ghz
GTS 250 OC'ed 1 GB video card
Asus Maximus Formula mobo
PC Power and Cooling 750w power supply
Zigmatek cooler <----- Not 100% sure on this one. would have to get the big box that my case came with and go thru the empty boxes to check the make and model
Antec 900 case
Addons used:
* UTX USA * UTX Europe * GEX US/Europe * FEX * REX * ActiveSkyAdvanced/Evolution * SceneryTech LC * FSGenesis Mesh * PMDG 747/JS4100 * LDS 767 * RealAir SF-260 * Aerosoft F-16 * Nemeth CH-53 * Cera Bell 412 * Lionheart Creations Quest Kodiak/Epic LT * Wilco E-Jets EMB 170/190 * Captain Sim 727-100/200/Freighter * Captain Sim C-130 X-perience * MegaScenery SoCal/Pheonix/Las Vegas/Dallas * FlyTampa St. Marten * FSDreamteam LSGG/LSZH/KLAS/KFLL/KJFK/KORD/KDFW * Sim Giantes Gran Canaria International Airport * RGFlight Slazburg UK2000 * Gatwick Extreme * Aerosoft Madeira X/German Aiports 2/Nice X/Approaching InnsbruckX/Lisbon X/Gibraltar X * Cloud9 KMCO * Imaginesim KCLT/TJSJ/KATL * BluePrint KDAL * LatinVFR Toncontin * Tropical Sim SBRJ/SBGL/SBSP/SBGR * WOAI * Ultimate Traffic 2 SP1 * EZdok Camera * Setup FS-GS
I'll look into overclocking my system... I have always been afraid to do that...
-
If you over clock your sys you better keep your eye on the cpu temp!!!!
-
Im sad...
I have a Duo Core @ 2.2GHz
and a nVidea 9800
No wonder I like FS2004 better! LOL!
LOL, it all makes sense now, just kidding of course.
On a serious note, I can see why you don't care much for FSX trying to run it at 2.2Ghz. Frankly, from me running it at everywhere from 2.53ghz to 3.0ghz then 3.60ghz and now 3.85ghz, I will say that FSX really shines when you can get either a quad or dual core to run it at greater than 3.6 ghz. Anything over 3.6ghz is just gravy and extra eye candy.
When I was running it at 3.0ghz it was pretty solid still, but I had to cut down on some autogen and reduce the scenery complexity sliders a bit, but was still able to fly the big hubs with a least 75% airline AI.
If mine runs great at 3.85ghz, I can only imagine those guys running i7's at 4.0ghz to 4.4 ghz with 6GB DDR3 RAM, that must really be sweet.
-
I'll look into overclocking my system... I have always been afraid to do that...
It's funny how we can presume, without actually knowing. This whole time I figured you and most everyone on this board and most FS boards for that matter are overclocked.
You know, this is the first computer system I ever OC'ed. Like you I have always been scared to try, mostly just because
a. I didn't know how.
b. I didn't know who's advice to trust
c. Read all the horror stories about people frying their CPU, mobo, etc.
That said, about 6 months after my rig was built I said what the hell, if I am ever going to really take advantage of FSX i'm going to have to OC so I might as well get it out of the way.
Frankly speaking, most of the pretty current hardware made in the last few years is pretty fool proof as far as overclocking goes. The bios is pretty easy to understand once you get into it and there aren't really a whole lot of things to adjust to do a basic overclock.
Not only that, but most of the current hardware is pretty safe in regards to frying. What I mean is that if you set voltages too high the rig probably wont even boot. You can even set some mobo's to shut the comuter down if certain temps get too high. Knowing that there are already some safeguards built in makes it a lot easier and less worrysome.
When I made my first attempt, I did a very mild OC from 3.0 to 3.4, then once I got the hang of it, I kept on increasing the multiplier and core voltage just a hair until I got to 3.85. Mind you I tested along the way using freeware tools like CPU-Z, p95, Realtemp, etc. Those tools let you run a battery of test to stress the CPU and RAM while at the same time monitoring temps. Once I got to around 3.6 ghz on my rig I opted to buy a $100 CPU cooler and then with the reduction of heat was able to get to 3.85 with no problem.
I could probably get to 4.0ghz, but I have a nice stable set up right now and plan on leaving it alone until I do my next hardare update. Surprisingly, as well as my current rig runs FSX, I am not really even that tempted to go out and get a new CPU, mobo, RAM and Win 7. If was really having performance problems I would have already done it, but at the moment I am really not sure if I would get that much more out of the upgrade over what I already have.
If you want to get started, you may want to talk to GEX co-creator NickN over at Simforums. He pretty much walked me through my OC when I first started and recommended the tools needed and recommendations on what mulitpliers and voltgages to start at. He's pretty much familiar with most mobos and their BIOS, so you could start with him. When he's not busy, he is pretty much willing to help anyone with OC'ing questions.
POST EDIT:
Forgot to mention the other common notion. A lot of non overclockers always say "..but it will reduce the life of the components".
I'm not saying that it wont, but as long as you keep the overclock in range of the temps recommended by your CPU, mobo, and RAM manufacturer, the reduction in the life of the components should be slim to none. I've been OC'ed for about 2 years now and my system is running like a champ and temps are always in check, even in the hot Texas summer when ambiant temps get warmer inside.
Beside the fact, how long are most of us going to keep the same rig anyway? If mine last me a good 5 years I will be more than happy and by then I will be way overdue for a hardware upgrade anyways.
-
May I ask you a simple question? Why should I overclock the hardware for the software released in 2006? It seems that you all, folks, lost a common sense. ;D
-
May I ask you a simple question? Why should I overclock the hardware for the software released in 2006? It seems that you all, folks, lost a common sense.
The computer from which I've posted the screenshot that clearly shows FSX having performances not too different than FS9, is not overclocked, and it's only 2.66 mhz.
Besides, the i7 is able to automatically overclock itself ( see "Turbo boost" ), by dynamically turning off unused cores and boosting the clock speed of the remaining ones. This is of course absolutely safe, since the total wattage remains basically the same.
So no, overclocking is not necessary at all, I'd rather research into using only 3rd party software that has been well optimized and is as FSX native as possible. THIS is the single best fps "optimization" one could do.
-
May I ask you a simple question? Why should I overclock the hardware for the software released in 2006? It seems that you all, folks, lost a common sense. ;D
Ok, fair enough smarty pants, let me ask you some questions before I answer yours since you generally seem to be argumentative, lol.
Why would you put any money into a sim (FS9) that was released in 2003?
Why should you buy aftermarket airports when FS9/FSX already comes with the same airports?
Why should you buy after marker aircraft when FS9/FSX already come with them?
Why should you buy GE Pro, GEX, BEV, or any photoscenery when FS9/FSX already has ground textures?
Why does anyone do anything to thier computer at all like add a better video card, better RAM, etc?
Enough?
Ok, the answer to all the questions I asked is the same, because it makes the sim look better and sometimes perform better.
Same reason why you overclock, because if its done right, it allows you to run the sim better and faster, thus giving you more headroom to add more autogen, scenery, AI, etc. It's no secret that the MS versions of FS have always been hungry for core clock speed.
The same thing applied years ago when FS9 first hit the market, a lot of people couldn't run it very well on the single core machines at the time that were running stock in the 1.X to 2.5ghz range and like you they refused to go to FS9 and stick with either FS2000 or FS2002. Finally, like with all the past versions of FS, it took time for hardware to catch up. It wasn't until around 2007-8 when hardware caught up that allowed FS9 users to really run FS9 at high levels with no overclock, so that was about a full 4 to 5 years. Until that point a lot of folks had to OC their single core Pentiums to get the most out of FS9, now you dont.
Pretty much the same thing applies to FSX, except that now chips aren't getting a whole lot faster as far as clock speed, but more cores are being added.
Like Umberto said you dont NEED to OC, but I can tell you from my personal experience it sure made a HUGE difference I my machine, but like everything in life, what works for me might not work for you.
We all know by now, especially if your the same Dmitriy that posts on Avsim under the username G-YMML1, that your not much of a fan of FSX and have no intention of ever switching to FSX, at least not for "IFR" flying. So if that's the case why keep pestering those of us that like it or use it?
No one is trying to twist your arm to get FSX or overclock your computer, it only came up because newmanix spoke about it so I offered my opinion, so why bother with the comments? Just stick with FS9 like you already have and you wont have to go thru the trails and tribulations of setting up FSX and getting it to work well on your computer. For others like me, it wasn't a whole lot of work and for what little tweaking I did, its paying dividends.
BTW, please don't question our common sense, especially when you didn't even phrase your last sentence correctly when you questioned it :-)
-
;D
Lack of reasonable arguments is almost always leads to the attacks on opponents' grammar.
PS. I'm not native-English speaker, if it was your question.
-
Ha-ha,
PMDG forums are flooded by Ryan (Tabs) comments that you MUST overclock if you want good results in FSX (it's so easy - even I can do that ::)).
Moreover, if you look at AVSIM hardware forums, you'll be surprised to find out that 90% of the questions are "how to get a good machine to run FSX smoothly", "Will I be able to run FSX with add-one sceneries and AI if I buy XYZ computer".And the most funniest topics are "I just purchased i7-980Extreme wit 24GB RAM and I still have 20FPS at FSDT KJFK with AI, REX, UT".
Grrrr...don't tell me that I just need to set-up the sim in a "right way" - I have been doing that successfully in last 12 year, until FSX showed up.
-
Ok, enough: my final word - no more FSX vs. FS2004.
I think we're all victims of MS rotten policy that as of now we have two fully reliable simulations platforms. Sort of like AMD-Intel, Nvidia-ATI battles that were common a couple of years ago.
Peace.
-
Lack of reasonable arguments is almost always leads to the attacks on opponents' grammar.
I wasn't making an attack on you or your grammer, just poking you a little since you were taking a jab at our common sense.
Your grammer and spelling overall is pretty good for it being a second, third, or fourth language :-)
Ha-ha,
PMDG forums are flooded by Ryan (Tabs) comments that you MUST overclock if you want good results in FSX (it's so easy - even I can do that ::)).
Moreover, if you look at AVSIM hardware forums, you'll be surprised to find out that 90% of the questions are "how to get a good machine to run FSX smoothly", "Will I be able to run FSX with add-one sceneries and AI if I buy XYZ computer".And the most funniest topics are "I just purchased i7-980Extreme wit 24GB RAM and I still have 20FPS at FSDT KJFK with AI, REX, UT".
Grrrr...don't tell me that I just need to set-up the sim in a "right way" - I have been doing that successfully in last 12 year, until FSX showed up.
Flooded about OC'ing might be a bit of an overstatement on their forum since I spend a good portion of my time reading their stuff every day, but the set up DOES have a lot to do with it as well, but the overclock for me was icing on the cake. I mean you can't take a computer with all sorts of junk installed on it, lots of non essential process running in the back ground, etc. Plus I have taken extra steps to mip map all my AI, use DXT3 clouds, and other performance saving things of that nature.
Like we've said before, FSX takes some horse power to run it at high levels and look/perform well if your going to use complex planes like PMDG, lots of AI, and complex sceneries, not speaking to FSDT's cause they are as optimized as you can get, but generally speaking of other addon airports by other developers. This is nothing new though, same thing happened when we went from FS2000 to FS2002 to FS2004 and now to FS9.
Ok, enough: my final word - no more FSX vs. FS2004.
Peace.
Thank God!!!!!
I agree, lets get back to the LAX which is what this thread it for in the first place.
Peace back at you ;D
-
I do know for a fact that my system has turbo boost. So what you are saying is, if my speed is 3.3GHZ and I want to push it to 3.6 or 3.8 GHZ all I need to do is keep it cool? I never know when of if the turbo boost even works. What I can say is FS9 and all of it's many addons with it only ever seem to use is 1 core out of the four... Maybe the system is taking them offline as Virtuali said? If the turbo boost is kicking in when I am using FSX it sure as hell ain't enough... I don't want to screw up this PC either... I will seek some more advice thanks for all your info. Very helpful. :)
I also use readyboost with a very high end 4GB SD extreme3. I know the system is using it bigtime but I am not sure how... Anyone understans readyboost and how it may help/effect FS?
-
If you run CPUID during FS2004 session, you may find out that CPU frequency is jumping up and down. I also have i7-920 non-overclocked and I remember seeing CPU frqncy around 2.80-2.90 while the default is 2.66
-
Oh come on, in the KDFW FSX image there are five ai traffic airplanes, and the fs9 image have all gates with ai traffic. Apples to apples for fs9-fsx comparison.
IMHO, you should tell us, that for devs, FSX is more easy and get more sales, and thats all. You are the seller and Im the buyer, if your product doesnt like me, I´ll dont buy it and end of story. But please, the FSX advantages over fs9 are ridiculous and the FPS disadvantage is very big. i7-980@4,4 + GTX 480 and 20 frames? Oh man.
For example, is FSX better than this fs9?
-
You guys man lol! I'm running in E3300 which is a Celeron not the old ones which sucked lol and I overclocked it too 3.20 which performs like in Intel E5400 the temperature's are fine my case is horrible performance is ok not bad at all considering the cpu itself cost only 50 dollars and it runs fsx and fs9 not wonderful but decent.
What I have personally noticed is that fsx loves anything 3.00 and above problems is its not only the cpu speed theres also something called the l2 cache and of course the front side buss speed fsb. my cpu has a very low l2 cache so it suffers in performance http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=42771 the I7 920 has a 8 MB cache and of course everything else is faster. the E8400 has L2 Cache at 6 MB and of course the frontsidebus speed is faster too. since the architecture of the I7 is new it is of course way more efficient in speed data etc etc.
One of the big issues were having at least for guys like me that like airliners is the aircraft that brings frame rates down which are not efficient in fsx. so while the scenery will be very good and effecent in frame rates that goes down the toilet once you have a very fps hungry aircraft. especially the gauges.
I love both fs9 and fsx in fsx its nice since you have access to higher resolutions I really do hope they can get at least klax for fs9 out hopefully. I admit it is very difficult unfortunately to get very high traffic with fsx since there is so many polygons like crazy working the cpu. but thats not are fault and more with the way the sim was made it was rushed out and
I don't think the aces team got to finish what they really wanted to with it. but then you have a huge problem continuing fs9 backward compatibly totally mess up the advances in fsx like fsx had when they wanted to keep backwards compatibly
-
For example, is FSX better than this fs9?
This is ED (edetroit). This guy is genius and that means that usual average standards do not apply there. ;D
-
For example, is FSX better than this fs9?
Stick to FS9 FAlonso22, nobody is gonna take it from you.
And yes, I still prefer my FSX, lol...
This is ED (edetroit). This guy is genius and that means that usual average standards do not apply there. ;D
LOL, for the first time ever I agree with Dmitriy ;D
What does Ed's video have to do with anything? He's a one-off that doesn't share his panels with the community, so its not like everyone is using stuff that looks like that in FS9. No offense to Ed since he's a really nice fellow and I enjoy his videos, but that's just his choice since he doesn't want to have to offer support for his work.
Anyways, even as cool as his panels are, it's still FS9. I'll still take my setup.
That's the beauty off the two sims, we can each use what we prefer so I wish we could just get back to the LAX preview.
-
As much as I tried to just fly with panels I cant! :D I need a vc it just feels better for me. ;) Ed loves his 2d panels which is cool. ;D sorry for draging this thread Umberto I dont know is there anyway to spilt it to the general forums?
-
You guys man lol!
LMAO, Aye dios mio hahahaha!!!!!
Yeah, I agree. For me VC's are much easier to fly and work in than 2D panels.
-
You guys man lol!
LMAO, Aye dios mio hahahaha!!!!!
Yeah, I agree. For me VC's are much easier to fly and work in than 2D panels.
+1 for VC!
Work in Progress / 02 ???
-
Dunno if its any use, but this is a clear shot of the terminal area near the Tom Bradley under renovation/expantion
http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/McDonnell-Douglas-MD-82/1791900/L/
-
Dunno if its any use, but this is a clear shot of the terminal area near the Tom Bradley under renovation/expantion
http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/McDonnell-Douglas-MD-82/1791900/L/
This is exactly what they pan to implement.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/crankyflier/3048136339/
-
Wauw looks amazing! And don't they need it?! I mean I remember the Bradley terminal when I was in LA for the first time in 1991! It's pretty old!
Are the yellow dots on the left side of the Bradley also gates? I mean will the taxi way become a ramp area? Looks like it. I also saw pictures of the bridge spanding over the second taxiway! Boy will that be fun ;D
Its too early in construction for FDT to implement this new terminal right?
-
Right,
The first phase is set to be open in 2012. However, assuming current California financial disaster, nobody know what will be the destiny of this project and how long it will take to implement.
-
Does the planned FSDT KLAX include all of the proposed changes to the airport including the expansion of the Bradley Terminal and the skyway over the existing taxiway?
-
If they're proposed changes, FSDT won't know what they look like until they're finished. You'd probably see them gradually in the updates.
-
If they're proposed changes, FSDT won't know what they look like until they're finished. You'd probably see them gradually in the updates.
Bruce,
You don't know LAWA like I do. I have been working with these people for over 11 years. Highly unlikely there will be any changes. And if there will be, I will know before FSDT does, or the general public for that manner.
-
If they're proposed changes, FSDT won't know what they look like until they're finished. You'd probably see them gradually in the updates.
Bruce,
You don't know LAWA like I do. I have been working with these people for over 11 years. Highly unlikely there will be any changes. And if there will be, I will know before FSDT does, or the general public for that manner.
I remember seeing something about their master plan a few months ago, and it certainly explains why Taxiway Q is closed indefinitely, and why Taxiway R exists. With knowing this, the AF/D is going to be in a state of constant change for the next year. This should make the design process for FSDT interesting.
BL.
-
I just have a question, is the airport going to have different size gates, like some lower to the ground and some higher just to accomodate for different size aircraft, like terminal 1, (southwest and US Air) gates are much lower to the ground than say Tom Bradley gates. So will that be available or not? :)
-
You don't know LAWA like I do. I have been working with these people for over 11 years. Highly unlikely there will be any changes. And if there will be, I will know before FSDT does, or the general public for that manner.
You lost me. I was responding to Phenocom's question about FSDT's version having the proposed changes, and I said that they would probably incorporate them into their version as updates when completed in the real world airport. Never heard of LAWA.
-
You don't know LAWA like I do. I have been working with these people for over 11 years. Highly unlikely there will be any changes. And if there will be, I will know before FSDT does, or the general public for that manner.
You lost me. I was responding to Phenocom's question about FSDT's version having the proposed changes, and I said that they would probably incorporate them into their version as updates when completed in the real world airport. Never heard of LAWA.
LAWA = Los Angeles World Airport = KLAX.
BL.
-
You don't know LAWA like I do. I have been working with these people for over 11 years. Highly unlikely there will be any changes. And if there will be, I will know before FSDT does, or the general public for that manner.
You lost me. I was responding to Phenocom's question about FSDT's version having the proposed changes, and I said that they would probably incorporate them into their version as updates when completed in the real world airport. Never heard of LAWA.
LAWA= Los Angeles World Airports. It's the airport authority for LAX/ONT/VNY and used to include BUR. As the new Tom Bradley project is directly funded and run by LAWA they are the ones that have to approve any change the master plan which is pretty much set in stone. Thus I am assuming FSDT will make the final product we will see in 3 years and not what we see today. It is much more efficent to make the final work rathar then updates like UK2000 is doing with Heathrow.... But I could be wrong...
http://lawa.org/welcomeLAWA.html
-
Video for those wanting to know more about the project due in 3 years. This is going to look kickass in FS!
http://lawa.org/uploadedimages/lax/video/PC111708/index.html
-
even they would start in 3 years until the construction has been finished MS Flight in the next version will be available and a new add-on required.
-
Will see what comes about in relation to LAWA and transformation into MSFS. :)
-
Thus I am assuming FSDT will make the final product we will see in 3 years and not what we see today. It is much more efficent to make the final work rathar then updates like UK2000 is doing with Heathrow
Personally, it would be a lot more fun to simulate the work being done through updates, rather than a guess of what it will look like three years from now. And unlike UK2000, FSDT updates are free. ;)
-
Thus I am assuming FSDT will make the final product we will see in 3 years and not what we see today. It is much more efficent to make the final work rathar then updates like UK2000 is doing with Heathrow
Personally, it would be a lot more fun to simulate the work being done through updates, rather than a guess of what it will look like three years from now. And unlike UK2000, FSDT updates are free. ;)
#1 it's not a guess. The masterplan is complete.
#2 The team would be spending too much time returning to KLAX when they could be working on other projects.
#3 These would not be the usual updates and I doubt FSDT can afford to just give that work away for free..
-
#1 it's not a guess. The masterplan is complete.
I take it you've never heard of the infamous "Big Dig" in Boston. :D
-
#1 it's not a guess. The masterplan is complete.
I take it you've never heard of the infamous "Big Dig" in Boston. :D
As previously stated, i've been working with LAWA for the better part of 11 years not to mention my uncle is on the planning team. This isn't Boston bro...
-
#1 it's not a guess. The masterplan is complete.
I take it you've never heard of the infamous "Big Dig" in Boston. :D
As previously stated, i've been working with LAWA for the better part of 11 years not to mention my uncle is on the planning team. This isn't Boston bro...
correct, it's "Bawstuhn," not Boston. Take it from a Bawstuhnian ;)
-
Ayuh... they not from around hee yuh... ;)
-
Ayuh... they not from around hee yuh... ;)
I can't translate that, lol
-
Back with LAX un huh? In any case I'm well aware of the fact of the runways and taxiways being realigned or still in the process. The LAWA master plan for LAX will bring the airport far into the 21st century.
-
Ayuh... they not from around hee yuh... ;)
I can't translate that, lol
That's how we say "Yeah, they're not from around here" up in Cow Hampshire. LOL
-
#1 it's not a guess. The masterplan is complete.
I take it you've never heard of the infamous "Big Dig" in Boston. :D
As previously stated, i've been working with LAWA for the better part of 11 years not to mention my uncle is on the planning team. This isn't Boston bro...
That's great...bro...but clearly you missed the point. Just because a master plan is complete doesn't mean things won't change due to a variety of reasons and the Big Dig is a great example of how a large construction project can evolve as it is being built and being developed.
And sweet, didn't realize we had other New Englanders in here. :)
-
That is implied with any project. And my point is, if there were any changes to the plan it would be minor and would give me time to notify the development team. Either way, it's still time and money efficent to complete the project as it is expected to look and make any changes in the end if needed, rathar then making the updates as time passes. The latter would tie up the team to keep working on LAX and prevent other releases. This is a 3 year project and the construction is progressing fast. I should know, I am there every day.
The only other plan would be to make LAX as it is today and update it in 3 years when the project is complete. You want to wait for that? I didn't think so. ;)
It would however be nice to get clarification from Umberto on what the plan actually is...???
-
It would however be nice to get clarification from Umberto on what the plan actually is...???
We'll do KLAX as it is today. And no, we can't say anything right now about updating it, since we don't even know which sim we'll all use in 2013 and beyond.
-
It would however be nice to get clarification from Umberto on what the plan actually is...???
We'll do KLAX as it is today. And no, we can't say anything right now about updating it, since we don't even know which sim we'll all use in 2013 and beyond.
Thats the crazy part that we have msflight being developed now, and we don't know anything about yet! that's the one of the bad things about these airports. that they are changing all the time! its pain the in butt!
-
We'll do KLAX as it is today. And no, we can't say anything right now about updating it, since we don't even know which sim we'll all use in 2013 and beyond.
Thank you for some sanity, Umberto!
I just shake my head at those who don't understand the process, expecting that there be constant upgrades churned out as a new driveway is put in.
There is a *LOT* that could happen in the next three years, especially with California's budgetary concerns. Wake me up in three years and tell me if this "set in stone" LAX development is finished or on-budget or scaled back or bankrupt.
-
We'll do KLAX as it is today. And no, we can't say anything right now about updating it, since we don't even know which sim we'll all use in 2013 and beyond.
Thank you for some sanity, Umberto!
I just shake my head at those who don't understand the process, expecting that there be constant upgrades churned out as a new driveway is put in.
There is a *LOT* that could happen in the next three years, especially with California's budgetary concerns. Wake me up in three years and tell me if this "set in stone" LAX development is finished or on-budget or scaled back or bankrupt.
The money has been put up meshman. And thanks for the responce Virtuali. Topic closed.
-
I'm liking the looks of LAX.. Keep up the Good work... Guys Don't rush them too much.. I know were all anxious for LAX to come out but at the same time we want FSDT to do there best with it so be patient & I'm sure soon we'll have it in our flightsim's soon enough..
I don't know if they can or not but I am really Hoping FSDT will be able to make it do what the real LAX does where that circle thing changes color.. Sorry for those who live in LA, maybe you can help me not really sure whay they call it but its the circle thing with the arch that changes color.. Blue,red,pink,green & whatever colors it changes too.. I hope FSDT will be able to have there's do that which will bring life too LAX :)
Great Work on LAX so Far & of course Keep up the good work FSDT Team !!
-
I don't know if they can or not but I am really Hoping FSDT will be able to make it do what the real LAX does where that circle thing changes color...
We had it in the Cloud9 version already so, there shouldn't be any problems doing it again.
-
Is it possible to include road traffic coming in and out of the airport?
About road traffic, all our previous sceneries followed this rule: in FSX, we ensure all the roads are flagged to accept traffic, which is then created automatically by FSX.
In FS9, since FS9 doesn't support road traffic, we don't add the custom animations to create it, because it would require doing extra work only for the FS9, which is outside of the scope of the level of support we are prepared to give to FS9 today.
-
I understand about the FS9 issue, but can you create custom traffic in FSX?
I'm not sure what do you mean with "custom" traffic here.
If you mean being able to have cars following a custom path which can be specified to conform to the airport, then it's an FSX feature (not available in FS9), which we used in most of our sceneries already.
This is quite convenient, both because it can be user controlled in complexity (or turned off) very easily using the FSX settings, and because it's much more fps friendly than FS9-style custom animations. Another advantage of this, is a better continuity between the car traffic flow at the airport, and the rest of the surrounding scenery, which you might have enhanced with other products, like Ultimate Terrain or similar ones.
If, instead, you mean cars with custom appearance, then it's a plain 3DS animation that, even if it allows to customize the cars appearance, doesn't allow for much density without killing the performances, and doesn't really integrate with the rest of the scenery. That's what we used to do road traffic in FS9, but doesn't really make much sense in FSX.
For example Orbx Melbourne has road traffic coming in and out of the airport entrance, as well as roads near the airport. Will you guys be able to create this feature for LAX?
We had road traffic in FSX for ages...at KFLL, KLAS, PHNL and KDFW, and it also follows the elevated road bridges around the airport, so there's are no reasons to think they wouldn't be at KLAX as well.
-
I believe that the question was not about pure "road" traffic, but about a feature similar to Aerosoft AES-Lite, i.e. airport's fleets of vehicles. Why not to cooperate with Oliver on this item? I understand that it may result in price hike, but I don;t think it's going to be significant.
Anyway, I'm happy that the chances for FS2004 version are solid and I will buy it in any shape and form.
-
I believe that the question was not about pure "road" traffic, but about a feature similar to Aerosoft AES-Lite, i.e. airport's fleets of vehicles
The question was about road traffic on the freeways that lead or are close to the airport, not airport service vehicles inside its perimeter.
Why not to cooperate with Oliver on this item? I understand that it may result in price hike, but I don;t think it's going to be significant.
We already have the simpler AES-lite style airport traffic in the FSX version of our sceneries, and we'll soon have a more complete solution, which is going to be far more advanced and flexible than anything available right now on the market. FSX only, of course.
-
What I mean to ask is if you can create customized paths for the cars.
I think this should have answered the question:
If you mean being able to have cars following a custom path which can be specified to conform to the airport, then it's an FSX feature (not available in FS9), which we used in most of our sceneries already.
You can see an example of it in KLAS or KDFW: road traffic pass through the airport and at KLAS goes over the elevated roads, and at KDFW it goes under the bridged taxiways.
-
... I don't think I can't wait 3-4 months for the airport! I mean... is not like the developers are working on their free time! are they??? Geez. I want it now!!!!
-
... I don't think I can't wait 3-4 months for the airport!
Nobody said it will be released so late, and we don't have any reasons to believe it will.
-
... I don't think I can't wait 3-4 months for the airport!
Nobody said it will be released so late, and we don't have any reasons to believe it will.
yay!! (could you give us an estimate? please?)
-
... I don't think I can't wait 3-4 months for the airport!
Nobody said it will be released so late, and we don't have any reasons to believe it will.
yay!! (could you give us an estimate? please?)
Remember, as FSDT staff have said before, the most boring, tedious and time consumer part was while we weren't seeing previews (stuff that there really isn't anything to show for in a preview). Seeing as they have just released previews and it appears as if large 3D objects are being completed, I'd say the time frame is looking very good.