Thank you Sensible.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer "read all the blurb".

and done everything the Blurb says.

If your asking how to update your FMC database then you just need to download the latest AIRAC to the relevant directory on your HDD per the following:

http://ops.precisionmanuals.com/wiki..._my_NAVDATA.3F

What an absolute pile of junk this has turned out to be. I just last month built myself a PC to the tune of nearly 2k including a GeForce 7950GX2 graphics card. I put a lot of effort into it to make sure it could handle FSX. It is a true beast in terms of performance.

However, FSX at medium display settings produces abysmal frame rates, is clunky, slow and a real resource hog. In and around the London area FS9 would give 60-70fps, FSX? A measily 10-15. Further to that, no London City Airport! - Classic :\

How much RAM do you have?

For those of you awaiting Microsoft FSX
 

Enjoy....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcW3hbnR2EI

Heheh :D :D

2GB.

I'm hearing similar stories pretty much everywhere!

A quote from that

"They are killing simulation"

How true, FS-X is no more than a game now, wouldn't shock me if they didnt release it for X-Box. Not the PS3 though, the physics in a basic game out do FS, PS3 has a dedicated physics engine, it works very true from what i have read...

That is such a true and funny short film. I agree, X-Plane has an annoying GUI and keyboard controls, but its out does FS-x in most ways now, even the scenery on X-Plane is great now, and the flight models are way infront of FS-X...

Its a game, and the demo has more or less put me of getting it. Still going to get it though, just for the missions, as i say, i will treat it like a game...

not really related, but look at this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLV5ku0y_lw

Well, if Linux is good enough for real sims, just think what you could do on your desktop!

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3368

:ok:

What struck me looking at the various Youtube uploads is that the visuals appear just like before. In other words nothing like the screen shots that were released by MS before launch of FSX.

I think I will stick with FS2004 as I know that upgrading my current pc will vastly improve its performance whereas I am not sure that this could be said for the latest incarnation of FS without a serious cash outlay and having to tread down the Vista path which I refuse to be sucked into.

Hmm. My Dell Dimension 9150 (3.0 GHz Core Duo CPU, 1 Gb RAM, 256Mb GeForce 6800) runs FSX Deluxe at around 30fps with the sliders on 'High' - and London City is there, if a bit basic!

However, 4Gb RAM would help....:p ;)

Scroggs is a simmer:eek:

Isn't FSX designed to take advantage of Direct X 10 and Vista, which should yield better results?

I was chatting to a mate the other night, he reckons that the reason FSX runs so badly is that it has been optimised for use with windows Vista and more importantly...DirectX 10.

I have seen some footage of FSX running in DX10, it looks very impressive. (However the footage was produced by MS themselves so could have been pre-rendered.)

If you go into Youtube there are various uploads which don't appear to be anything like the demos that MS came out with.

Is it worth me getting FSX when i have a radeon 9800 pro 128 graphics card, 1G RAM and a 2.8ghz pentium 4 proccessor? Or should i just stick with century of flight?

Yes, occasionally. I've been into computers for about 25 years and MSFS for nearly as long, but only once in a while. I'm fortunate in that I can afford to indulge a casual interest by buying new versions whenever they turn up. If nothing else, MSFS has always been a good test of just exactly how good one's computer setup really is! FSX is very demanding, but I can't see anything about it that needs DX10 or Vista - but I am running it on a computer that is more than ready for Vista.

Incidentally, I've also tried it on my Vaio SX5P laptop (2.0Ghz Intel Pentium M, 1 Gb RAM, 256Mb NVIDIA GeForce 6400 Go, 100 Gb HDD), and it works acceptably on Medium. It's a bit slow to load (more RAM here as well, I think!!), but it runs fine. I did try it with everything on Max, but you could have gone on holiday waiting for everything to load up!

Whats the cheapest you can expect to pay for 2X1GB RAM?

Dont go for cheapest, go for fastest. google crucial. :ok:

FSX on Dx9

And here is a screenshot of FSX, in the same place running on Dx10. BIG DIFFERENCE!

http://www.nvnews.net/images/screens...ulator_x_1.jpg

What system were both the photos taken? and What about settings?

Also when is DX10 available?

Not sure what the spec was, it was released by MS so I think it’s safe to say it’s a high end system. I think it looks pre-rendered but they say its not.

I think Dx10 will be shipped with Vista.

Those graphics are amazing, however to get them like that as we all know must cost a fair bit of money.

The hills, clouds, trees and rays of light I can believe, but the water looks superb.

What they aren't showing you though is the frame rates:sad:

"Racks brain"

I seem to remember having a similar problem a few years ago. Although it was the Force Feed Back Pro and Windows 2000. As Win XP was based on Win 2K I would guess the problems would be much the same. I did get it going though.

It has been a while since I cranked up the old flight sim but I will have a dig around and get back to you if I remember anything.

Actually, following on from my last post and just to add an extra dimension to the subject..

After reading through the thread I wondered what controlling peripherals you might have used while running your flight sims?

I vaguely remember, after many years of pining for some flight action, starting off with a mouse and a keyboard around '96 - '98 followed by the wonderful force feedback pro joystick circa '00.

Just a thought, have you got any USB devices plugged in while you try to set up the FFB pro? If so, try unplugging them all and install again.
Head is still recovering from a couple of heavy nights, but if I can think of anything else I'll get back to you.

Kevin

Thanks Kevin
Don't worry about me now because I gave up trying and bought a Sidewinder 2, and it's working fine. But I really appreciate you taking the time.

DX10 is an integral part of Vista and, I believe, will not be issued in an XP-compatible format. It is also not backwards-compatible with DX9, so many DX9 (and older) games will not run on DX10. A version of DX9 will be included in Vista to allow older games to run.

There is a short technical explanation of DX10 here which helps to explain why MSFSX is so much better in DX10 than in DX9 - and the CPU overhead should be lower! At least I now know I'll be getting Vista when it comes out!

Thanks Scroggs, i am on the verge of buying a new pc because i feel an upgrade is neccessary to keep up to date with things. I think i will wait until windows vista comes out to buy a pc, that way i wont have to pay for it. Well kinda not pay!

Most PC manufacturers are now giving vouchers to allow a free upgrade to Vista when it's released (January?), so you wouldn't miss out if you bought now. That said, what you'll get in January will almost certainly be higher-specced than if you bought it now.

A Vista patch for FSX will be issued at some point, currently as coded the sim is not designed to take advantage of Vista and DX10. You will also need a DX10 capable video card and they are not currently available either.

Your welcome.


I was just about to post a couple of links for you.

I will do anyway in case anyone else needs them...

Revised (6-10-06) Win2k and WinXp Microsoft trouble shootings tips HERE
Also a few ideas HERE

I've been thinking about reinstalling my FS2000 and FFB Pro, it's been a while now. Anyone know the best place for using FS2000 online?

I had a good read up on the Flight Gear site last night. Looks very interesting, especally if you don't like forking out for a new copy of Microsoft Flight Sim every couple of years.

Not entirely, http://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/index.php?page=results this would handle just about everything.

Sorry to disappoint you but even computers with those specs could not get decent double digit constant framerates when flying in high density areas, Especially when running on Ultra High Settings. All i know is i would like to hope vista and directx 10 will have a good effect when it comes to getting better framerates in FSX.

Maybe it is another Microsoft ploy to force you to buy the latest directx 10 hardware and of course the vista operating system in order to get this program to perform at it's optimum

I think it is very good for getting to grips with instrument flying and things like Jet handling. It is detrimental to training as a private pilot flying visually. I passed a sim ride on the 737-800 (sim) as a fATPL after playing MS flight sim with a 737-800 add-on and a yoke....I think everyone else hired a level D sim prior to the check for lotsa cash.

Just a thought you learn no airmanship on MSFS I think. And it teaches you VERY bad habits without further training; I used to teach PPLs, you could tell the flight sim dudes because they would spend all their time looking at the instrument panel and never out of the window.

I'm about two thirds through my IMC ground theory and the last lecture was on NDB holding and approches. Never flown one and thought I'd give it a go on FlightSim X with great results. The sim was very accurate in terms of radio nav position on the airfield and everything seemed to work well. As tom says, it's useful in terms of instrument practice rather than general handling skills.

Cheers,

CapCon

I'd echo all that. The handling bears only a limited resemblence to the real thing and that depends on the yoke or joystick you have. It does give an insight into what real flying is all about and is useful for practising instrument flying. Which after all is what simulators are for. I used it practice instrument approaches which I had recently flown for real. Sometimes, particularly when set at night in cloud and you darken the room, it can be quite compelling. But I found I had to scale back the so called 'realistic' handling to stop even a 172twitching like a Pitts Special. You can get add ons which replicate every switch switch and button on specific aircraft. I saw an ATR add on which looked amazing but I doubt you could really fly an ATR after playing with it for a while.

I think it's only really useful for a PPL student where an instructor can demonstrate something he or she has being describing. I think it does teach you very bad habits as Tom says. Plus there is the one essential thing missing, it can't kill you. That extra frisson of excitement or fear is highly motivating to do things properly.