Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'settings'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • General Forum
  • Aircraft
    • Concorde-X
    • A3xx Master Series
    • Screenshots
  • Tools
    • FSL Hardware Interface
    • FSL Spotlights
  • Cockpit Building
    • Chat about cockpit building
  • easyJet Crew's easyJet UK & EU PA pack
  • easyJet Crew's easyJet EU liveries
  • British Airways's The BA Club
  • Aegean Airlines's The Pub of Accord

Categories

  • A3XX Misc Files
    • Cabin Textures
    • A320-X - Unsupported Mods
    • Utilities
  • Concorde-X Files
  • FSL Aircraft Paint Kits
  • Spotlights
  • Legacy Interfaces
  • Hardware Interface for Prepar3D v4
  • easyJet Crew's easyJet UK high quality liveries
  • Olympic Air Virtual's Files

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Found 6 results

  1. Terblanche

    To P3D or not to P3D

    I have FSX and P3D installed on my PC. FSX for mainly AIRLINE flights because I have ± 300 payware airports installed of which only 10% are P3D compatible and P3D mainly for GENERAL AIRCRAFT (Carenado, Alabeo, A2A) and mainly ORBX Terrain Scenery (US, EU, UK) and Airports. IMHO the only thing that P3D has that is 'better' than FSX are ... Handles VAS better Shadows in cockpit are nice Hmmmmm ... that's it ........ After installing the A320X in P3D I've done quite a few flights in and around Europe with the few airports that have P3Dv3 installers and I must say .,.,., shimmering, shimmering all the way; hazy out of focus cockpit displays; visibility that has the one moment a 20-40nm radius and then ALL OF A SUDDEN drops to >10-5nm with AS16 plugin and REX textures. The whole experience with P3D is just different than FSX, and I've said it before that I'm still not convince that P3D is that (so) much better that I will replace FSX with P3D. Maybe I'm just lucky - but, my FSX setup is pretty much as smooth as can be and only now and then the difference in smoothness with P3D is really noticeable ... or maybe I'm missing something all together with P3D. My setup: i7 4790 3.6 16GB RAM GTX 750 2GB Included my prepar3d.cfg and NIP settings ... if anyone has some suggestions for the shimmering and out of focus displays. It's not so obvious with the GA but in the A320X and B738 (PMDG) they are really annoying. Prepar3D.cfg
  2. A_ndré_F_olkers

    P3D Congratulations P3D V3.3.5.17625 :-)

    So happy I purchased the FSX version back then, transition was painless and smooth :-) FSX-SE history left the HD back to P3D. Running ultra wide screen. O boy performance is great 35+ fps on the ground at FT EHAM and so smooth far better as FSX :-) Hence it never wend below 35 FPS... Software used: P3D V3.3.5 with AS16 / ASCA / GSX / FTX Global / OpenLC / 30% custom made AI / PROATC-X / FSUIPC / PFPX / EZDOK V2 - EHAM > EKCH (both flytampa) day flight (VAS 720 mb when leaving EHAM and 550 MB VAS left when arrived at the gate EKCH) - EKCH > EHAM (both flytampa) night flight (VAS 1150 mb *stayed till ARTIP around 1.1 gb vas) when leaving EKCH and 520 MB VAS left when arrived at the gate EHAM) So much more data using as FSX ever could lol, will post tomorrow my settings... Had two issues: AOC print function (via PFPX) when importing flight plan it also importing other headers as waypoints... 2 times a Crash during loading the bus in P3D noticed a conflict between spotlight and PROATC_X, so changed the loading sequence first the bus and then PROATC_X. Thank you gentlemen and ladies for your hardwork Cheers,
  3. S_T_E_V_E S_U_M_M_E_R_S

    FSL A320X and new GSX refuel

    Hi all, for those of you who have GSX, a new update has been released which features an improved refueling animation. I've spent some time tweaking the settings for the A320X. Here are the settings to position the refuel truck in the correct position under the Port Wing. Position: -10.25 -2.92 3.90 Cheers! Steve PS: Merry Xmas and Happy New Year to FSL staff and all the members here.
  4. Manish

    A320 FCU PR0BLEM

    Hello Folks, I have been facing issues with my A32X 1.FCU panel screen is misplaced,which hides the v/s and hampering the whole alignment of screen with frame. 2.When i load the aircraft i get a message on screen,which is about the realism setting and changes to be made on Autocrood,and when i change it,message comes back again a bit annoying. all your help and time would be really appreciated. thank you all.
  5. Terblanche

    DX9 versus DX10

    I've tried DX10 previously after the DX10 Fixer was released but switched back to DX9 because of 'bad' performance (i.e. FPS impact). Now I'm back at DX10 because it was well advised by FSLabs for the A320X. Although there is an improvement in VAS usage, it comes at the expense of FPS - on my rig anyway. I've imported the DX10 and Nvidia Inspector settings as prescribed on the forum ... NI = 8xCSAA and 4xSGS while DX10 is on 4x AA and Trilinear & AA is set in FSX A new fsx.cfg was written when I installed the A320 and only [Bufferpool] PS=0, [Jobschedular] AF=14, and Highmemfix were added My rig setup is: Win7x64 i7 4790 3.60 quad + 16GB RAM + GTX750 + HT=OFF Previously with DX9 and fsx.cfg well tweaked with FPS locked at 30 it was possible to maintain a high 20s at most of the airports with PMDG B738 except for EDDFv2, EGLL-Xstreme, and LSZHv2 where it will come down to 18-22 FPS - and obviously none of the sliders inside FSX are full and just about balanced between performance and quality. Strangely I get better FPS in window mode with DX10 while there was a ±10 FPS gain in FULL screen mode in DX9 ... maybe you could share your experience with DX10 and what your settings are to maintain good FPS with the A320X ... after two weeks of DX10 and the constant fight to squeeze the last bite from 32-bit and spending hours to try different combinations between NI, DX10 Fixer and fsx.cfg just to get better performance, Maybe we can all learn something from what your experience and setting are. Attached are my NI settings and fsx.cfg fsx_14Sep2016.CFG
  6. Hello Concorde-Fans, With free time to spare, I thought to conduct an experiment and measure the VAS (virtual address space) at different scenery and traffic settings. VAS is known to be a notorious issue for most of you, as it is the most common source for OOM's, so this report might help established or potential ConcordeX flyers getting an idea of how much they can expect the add-on to consume. In the following, I have described the precise actions of my replicated test flights, so that you can follow it and possibly reconstruct the flights yourself. I have replicated three test flights according to this script, but with different scenery and traffic settings. The first test flight was conducted with "low" display settings according to the following screenshots: In addition, I let REX Texture Direct generate 512x512 resolution clouds and 1024x1024 resolution ground textures (runways & taxiways). My CPU is Intel i5-4690K running in turbo mode @3.9Ghz, GPU Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti, and I have 4GB of RAM. The NVidia driver version is 347.52. As far as scenery add-ons, I use FTX Global and XClass LC. I also have ORBX' freeware NA airports installed (packages 1-20). Other than that, I use no other airport add-ons; only the stock airports. My test flights were from KIAD (Washington D.C.) to KJFK (John F. Kennedy). I picked up this route because it was not too time consuming, but at the same time heavy enough on the scenery and VAS, so that the average memory consumption would be above most flights over less dense sceneries. For weather generation, I used Active Sky Next SP2B (Build 5575). I specifically chose April 7, 2015 18:27UTC as the FSX time and let ASN synchronize weather with this time (by forcing historical time to sim time), because at the mentioned time, weather conditions were cloudy over the northeast US. The clouds would add more VAS compared to a clear weather scenario. Know that the FSX' own Cloud Draw Distance settings are overridden by ASN (where I set the minimum value to 90mi and the maximum to 110mi). In the FSX flight creation menu, I select "Gate 1 C Heavy" at the KIAD airport, set the aforementioned time, select ConcordeX and click on "Fly Now". Upon loading the ConcordeX in 2D panel mode, I let the add-on set up the systems (INS, etc.) and then go to the Fuel editor, set the fuel preset to "Training" (over 22T) and load the airplane with a "low" number of passengers. Then, after FSL has taken over these settings, I capture the VAS consumption using the Process Explorer. Next, I look around the airplane in the external view, go back to the 2D panel and then open all engineer's panels (only them, not other panels). (Some have reported that the panels consume a lot of VAS). I record the VAS at this point: As you see, the VAS has increased by roughly 250MB. Now I switch to the virtual cockpit (1024 resolution version), request taxi to the runway. The ATC assigns runway 19L via taxiway D K J1, which is very convenient, as it is the closest runway from the gate. While taxiing, I set the altitude at 5000ft on the autopilot (set by default) and 90 degree heading. Our route to JFK will go over OTT VOR (113.70), and then directly to JFK from there. As such, I set the radios to OTT VOR. Upon reaching the runway, I request a takeoff clearance from the ATC, which is given immediately, as there is no other traffic at all. I activate the landing lights and line up with the runway. Here is the VAS: (End of Part 1)
×
×
  • Create New...