Search for Downloads
Use this form to search for downloads and addons including aircraft, scenery and more.
Search entire site
Use this form to perform a site-wide search for forum posts, news and reviews and videos.
First of all I would like to say "Thank you" to all who have added a question and answer. This forum has been a great help to myself as well as many others. Although I never register to any forum, I would like to add something of interest of my own.
I have recently added a 2nd GPU to my desktop, thinking (without checking) I have the capability to combine the two as in SLI or Crossfire (this was big in 2006) but never thought of buying a second after paying over €600 for one. But now, I found one exactly the same as mine and brought it home to setup and boost my rig. The problem that I have is my motherboard doesn't support sli.
MB: Asus P5k (with two PCIE x16 slots)
CPU: Intel core 2 Quad Q6600 2.40Ghz
Mem: OCZ 6Gb DDR3
GPU: nvidia Geforce 8800 GTS 640Mb (now x2)
HDD: 2x 2Tb Western digital Sata3
OS: Win7 sp1 64bit
I use the FSX Acceleration all sliders to the max getting a 35 - 40 FPS. After I installed the FS Global and FTX Global it was running perfectly together without a glitch at a steady 20-25 FPS in window mode. Funny thing is I can get it up to 30 FPS in full screen (1920 x 1080).
The test I did was with a "Mooney Bravo" flying over EHMZ at 120kts 700feet. A twenty minute flight before sunset. weather set to Orbx 6. I flew 3/4 island and 1/4 water with boats. Just before landing I watched the street lights coming on. FPS was constant the whole flight as if FSX was set to 20 instead of 35. I don't know how reliable the FSX FPS is, I've never used anything else.
My question, is there any way I can get the FPS higher with the spec's I now own. I have tried boosting my GPU's with nvidia inspector, but it doesn't seem to gain any. I disconnected the bridge when I found out I had no sli option. The PhysX is enabled.
With single GPU installed the FPS jumps around between 12 and 20, with two GPU's installed the FPS stay steady at 20 FPS (window) 30 FPS (full screen).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, just yet. LOL
FSX was never optimized for SLI or crossfire so the second card isn't helping with it.
I lock my FPS at 20 for FSX, 20 for FS9 and it seems to work without being a slide show.
You have a good machine so you should get a nice result, more ram might help but not a guarantee.
I thought you might say that, reading one of your post to H.J. last month. hihi
"By the way, the cards would just be for running the monitors, FSX isn't optimized for SLI or CrossFire.
Make those cards 2gigs each and you'll get great FPS."
But I was thinking, it is because of the "Global addons" that my FPS has been reduced. Hence the Graphic subject. The FSX itself Is running extremely well. But little is being said about the add on.
Last night I did a 'Ultimate Defrag' Doesn't take as long as the forums say it does. Okay in the beginning the remaining time counter goes way up to over 270hs but after 10mins or so it came way down to 30hs, it still didn't take that long to defrag 1.5TB, 3hs max. I think the standard MSDefrag takes longer and that's without the optimize option.
I have yet to test this, today I'm planning further test's including the nvidia Inspector. I found in the tools I can software tweak the sli to work, don't know if this will have and effect with the GPU bridge or not.
Thanks for the reply.
I have a strong feeling I will get it to work, the question is when. By getting feedback from the forum, will definitely speed things up.
Would adding the addons to nvidia 3D settings help any or just put more strain on the GPU? hmmm? I think I need to get started. questions are pouring in, If I leave it any longer I won't know where to start. LOL
Try it with the SLI on, it might work better in scenery mode than in the cockpit.
Good luck and please report back.
After providing a clean sweep on my <drive> of all the junk left lying around I performed an 'Ultimate defrag' that took a few hours to complete.
Then a restart of the system. I did another test run with the bridge attached and Sli enabled in the Inspector. With the GPU monitors on I still couldn't see any activity on the second GPU, but the FPS had gained and was now average 27FPS instead of 20 on the previous runs.
So I disconnected the Sli bridge and made another run, the FPS remained average on 27, so conclusion to that test was: the Ultimate Defrag did add speed to the HD and therefore speeding up the scenery. That's positive, think I'm getting closer to the problem. Makes me wonder about getting an 'Crucial 500Gb SSD' when the price drops below €0.45/Gb.
btw if your reading this in ten years from now "That's still a lot of money for us working folk". it's now €0.70/Gb and the 500Gb is the most you can get for SSD at the moment (or so I'm told). Then again you might not have heard of an SSD, it's like the EPROM, very few know what this was.
Now these tests are strictly to see how far I can go to improve the performance in FSX without changing the FSX itself. The easy way out would be either a new MB with SLI or 2x GPU with 2Gb each and add 2 - 4Gb RAM.
But that's TOO easy.
I'm not a Tech wiz but I do like to dabble a little. That's probably why I STILL build my own rig's.
So my "Mid Range (Intel Core Gen1)" can take on the "Extreme (Intel Core Gen3)" with half the
Ghz and half the GPU ram. Settings Extremely Dense and still +20FPS. I am a proud father indeed.
I will keep you informed, naturally!
Yes, SSD's are still out of the average reach...if you want a large one.
Many get the small ones and use them for the OS only.
Nice to see someone "playing around" trying to get SLI to work on FSX.
Too bad the first attempt didn't fly...yes pun intended.
Hi Radar, Back again,
It's not really about the SLI, that's just an option. I found a hack 'HyperSLI' been reading about it. This is a code that will unblock the SLI option, but it get's very technical. I have been thinking about it, but I don't want to take the risk just now.
Today I removed an old PCIE out of and test rig I build a few years ago Geforce gt210, 512Mb onboard ram, so I thought I should test this and see the difference in results, what to look for and were I might gain. Just so happens I had the specifications of both at hand. I don't know which is older, but although my gts is 300Mhz faster than the gt it also has 320bit MIW (Memory Interface Width) where as the gt only has 64bit. This is just as important as the memory clock. I did a test run in FSX with the gt, as soon as it started up I saw the jagged edges along the side of the plane (havent seen that in ages) I knew this wouldn't amount to much. indeed it didn't jumping round couldn't get a fix on the FPS, had to set the fps to 8 to get it to stop jumping as much. That didn't last long. the 210gt is now gone and my GTS is back in. Just the one for now.
After a test with Novabench, I tried adding some OC on the GTS GPU. It did indeed speed the FPS up, but no more than I expected it to. Not wanting to cook my chips, I took it steady in increasing to 900Mhz this gave a 12FPS difference in full screen test. not much considering the amount of memory clock speed I needed to add. I'm slowly beginning to understand what to lookout for when I next update my rig. The industries will sell you everything, it's up to the buyer to know what he/she needs. I saw the 210 gt card at low price and I bought it, on the box was 1Gb in huge letters and in the specs it had just the 512Mb onboard, the 1Gb was cache. Not that it mattered much at the time I would have bought anything as long as it was cheap and available.
Sorry wondering off again... hihi
Now, in order to get a decent FPS (30 - 40) I will need a GPU with at least 2000Mhz clock speed and a 320bit MIW. I've been looking around the net and found the MSI Radeon HD 6850 860Mhz PCI-E 2.1 1024Mb clock running at 4400Mhz but only a 256bit MIW. And that for less than $100. Not that I'm in to ATI cards. but it could give my FPS a wiz with 4400Mhz. Love to see that bench test.
Oh well, have more searching and testing to do.
All you really need for FSX is 20fps.
The jaggies come from a low setting in your cards control panel in the anti-aliasing setting.
Set it as high as possible.
I did set them to max before I tested, it was just starting fsx after I changed the Graphics card to 210gt after setting the sliders the start-screen lagged a little.
The link: it's a filter. that's like putting sunglasses on in the evening, it just get blurred. My LOD is set to 4.5, this is okay for low flight at 120kts. But when you're taking off with a 737 at 200+ the scenery is lagging behind your aircraft instead of up front where it's supposed to be. My understanding is you need LOD 8.5 and speed on the HD to get the bgl's loaded in time.
I completely agree with the 20fps in fsx as a really good balance. It was the short X-Plane-10 film that set me off on the trail to get the fsx as close to that performance (screen wise) as I can. Now, the default graphic scenery in fsx has (for modern day sim) worn out, become bland compared to other simulators on the market. It has been fantastic for so many years, and it gave me a feeling of being there. But, tragically my eyes have seen better, so instead of starting over with a modern day sim, that exhaust the cpu and gpu to the max, I would like to stay with the best simulator ever made for commercial use. I cannot think of another software that has lasted this long and still gives you the same excitement you got when you first bought the package. The internet are still talking about it, software is still being developed for it, even manufacturing companies are still building hardware for it. Just because Microsoft closed the book on fsx (as they do with most of their software) doesn't say we should.
The Global scenery Addons I installed are realistic enough for me, but is an extra weight for the gpu. I can get the graphic scenery of X-Plane-10 all I need now is the same feeling I had with the default scenery. If I succeed, this will give me more enjoyment from the software for the next 10-15 years. We can thank most of the users for this, who are still upgrading airports, planes, vehicles and scenery to use and share with family and friends, either from next door or the other ends of the earth. It's the software that brings the whole world together, as long as we understand each other, we can make things better for others as well as ourselves. "I had a dream..."
Your right, some of the new world software makes the Sim look amazing.
If it had come out that way instead of looking like a desert they would still be making new versions.
Yep sure does!
I think the reason they have is "most (if not all) files will need to be upgraded as to work better with the future hardware, therefore it would be better to dump the FSX for what it is and start a fresh software". What they didn't count on was that most of the scenery, textures and models (to say the least) in FSX has been upgraded by the frequent users over the years. I think they will need loads of people to help do the same as in FSX or you'll get the default scenery in the new FS like the old FSX but developed with silverlight or equivalent.
So in order to upgrade ourselves we'll need to have more understanding of future kits like Silverlight coding. This will bring with it a new batch of addon proggies (hmm $$$$) Good for Microsoft(.app)
PS I've found another job in FSX. I opened the traffic FP a few days ago and it gave me a load of errors. About 35000 of them. I have 11456 to go, then I'll have a clean Flightplan hihi
Now a weird thing happened to me the other day in my fsx,acc.
As you can see I have captured it on camera too. I started up my fsx to do a bit of painting on a plane I have had for a few years now, but the logo was old Air France. Not only that, but the texture was white/matt instead of reflective.
In order to do this, I planned on converting the BMP's to DDS's. After the fuse and tail I started fsx to see how I was getting on and if it looked okay. in the aircraft selection and the start screen (Pic2) It displayed great, then I hit the "Fly Now" button and my texture was invisible (Pic3) turned the lights on and that was all I could see 'The Lights'. (Pic4) the jetway was attached to exit 1 too.
My TAP is visible and uses the same model and air file.
I have experienced this before but at least the plane was visible, black, but I could see it!
After flipping them I converted the BMP's to DDS DXT5. I have done this before and it worked great.
But that has been quite a while ago, and I might have forgotten something important.
Does anyone have an explanation? Please help me remember again?
I don't understand how it can be seen in the load and not in the sim......(puzzled)
The link isn't working and I don't know a thing about painting aircraft.
I hope someone can help.
I think I've found the root of the problem, while I was typing the post.
Please bare with me. While searching for answers I couldn't find the exact explanation to my problem, so I tried experimenting and checking the texture folders in fsx. I searched for the fuselg name in fsx, only to find that the same person who made the textures, made the mdl. This is how (I think) I've solved the problem.
It's not the texture and its not the model either, its the combination of the two. As I've had a little bit of experience with the modelling in 3dsMax, when making a model the textures are indeed made for the model and attached using a unique name and layout to that specific model. They are then saved with the model type.
I think I understand now that no matter what type of repaint you make to a model you need to respect the exact name and layout that is linked to that model. This is why most of the time you only get four bmp's or dds's for every repaint, two night and two day (if this is just a fuselage repaint). the rest of the plane texture is default and the texture.cfg in the texture folder sends the searcher back to the texture folder (most of the time this is just a white/blank texture without any paints) where the default files are stored.
So I think the solution to the problem is that over time my mdl file got lost and the texture was forced to use other models but could not display in the fsx.
The repaints have only a graphical effect to the plane.
Now I have also found the answer to the other question. The reason why the texture is perfectly displayed in the load screen is because the load screen only use's the texture files and not the model.
What a good night's rest can do.
On my adventure to find these solutions, I also found using the DXT5 would give the texture more gradient flow from white to black instead of either black or white.
It's worth exploring about this, I find it very interesting (in the graphical sens).
You have never repainted a plane? not even touched one up a little?
I find the hard to believe. I started out just adding thin lines to give the plane a bit more structure and real panel effect on the body and tail. I ended up doing a complete repaint of an A321 because I couldn't find this aircraft in payware or free downloads.
I found the old bmi but not this one All I had was a photo of one side of the plane.
You really got deep into it but it all worked out in the end.
I can see this screenshot and it looks good!
Yes I've tried painting and it came out laughable.
No logos but quite a bit of color on the craft itself.
Me again. I have recently been preoccupied with testing out the speed in which my graphic card can handle (I have thrown literally everything at it I could think of) even using multiple programs at once.
The results have been very good, better than I'd expected. What I also used was the ReadyBoost to see if the graphics would load any faster. Sorry to disappoint you all to say that using a 7400 HDD or more, with 2Gb or more of RAM would only make the Readyboost sit there and do absolutely nothing.
As mentioned in the earlier post, I had the dual GPU's installed, all that did was stabilize the FPS and FSX would not gain any by having it there (I must point out that this was tested without the SLI function). However, I carried the remainder of the test out with only one GPU the shader over clocked to 1472 and not 1188 (standard setting)
Now then, As I had run the tests on the old install of FSX with all the trimmings and addons, I thought it best to retest again, but this time with a complete new install of FSX and the add on scenery progs (FSGlobal, FTX Central) And most of my add on planes. I jacked every setting up to MAX and found that nothing had changed at all, every test gave the same results. This to me rules out the age deferent's between the two.
What I did find out in the end was that using the ORBX weather did slow down the simulation, opposed to the standard FSX weather settings. Although it looks realistic it does strain the sim considerably.
These tests proved to me (yet again) there is no other software been produced that has withstood time and could still strain your computer whatever the speed or amount of ram you have. I still can't believe MS left it for what it was.
This concludes my tests on FSX, I am satisfied now that whatever I add on to FSX, it seems to auto configure itself to give the best performance according to the hardware. All I need to do now is wait for my SSD's (I know that will improve performance).
If anyone has anything to add please do.
Hey Radar do you still use the standard trafficAircraft.bgl? I found out with the new install there were conflicts and faults even with a clean install.
Greeting to all, Happy Holidays
Hey Radar do you still use the standard trafficAircraft.bgl? I found out with the new install there were conflicts and faults even with a clean install.
Greeting to all, Happy Holidays
Yes, I never change anything if it's running as I want it to.
I didn't look back to see what power supply you are using but that is a factor in how your machine will run the sim.
With all you have in it a 1,000w (minimum) name brand P/S is the least I would use.
With my machine (I have a 1,000w P/S) it's overkill which is fine with me but with you it's a necessity.
I'm sorry my friend,
I thought I'd mentioned everything that mattered the most to the test's I've carried out.
My PSU is a HUNTKEY X7 1200w When I bought it I couldn't decide between building it in or on top of the case. In the end I did get it inside the case. Had a High case standing by just in case It wouldn't fit.
I bought it last year I think it was February or March 2012 I'm not sure, it hasn't let me down and it's still giving everything I need and more.
Oh and another thing I might have failed to mention is my Monitor an LG IPS LED 23" Great graphics down to the last pixel very sharp and 1,5ms
And a SAITEK CYBORG EVO joystick, not that that matters so much. But it needs to be compatible.
I have a 850w of the same make in my second pc, but I've only used that once with FSX to test the multiplay speed. This test also included a third computer with a 600w PSU and a motherboard fit to run Windows 7 but has my old XP still on there, mainly because I couldn't use my printer and webcam drivers. They are not compatible with the new windows version. I don't use it much these days, it's setup and ready to use, but I only use it to watch TV on (That has a TV card also not compatible with windows 7).
I had three Beach Baron's flying in formation for 200 miles took pic's too.
Now that's enjoyment....
For your setup it's more than perfect.
You bought some of the finest equipment, that's the way to go.
Yes, with the proper setup FSX can be very enjoyable.