Jump to content

Maurizio G

members
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Maurizio G

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork
  1. Il problema e' stato risolto seguendo la procedura da voi suggerita, vi ringrazio molto per il vostro aiuto !!!! Cordialmente Maurizio G
  2. Gentile staff, oggi avevo installato una versione di prova di Xcity Rome di Cloud9, pero' mi ha creato un conflitto con il software add-on manager di Virtuali S.a.s. Praticamente ho installato una versione dell'addon manager piu' aggiornata, la 2.0.4.2 e pero' quando ho avviato FSX (SP2) mi ha dato un errore, e mi parte soltanto se indico di non eseguire detto software. Il problema e' che FlorenceX, regolarmente acquistato in precedenza, e' stato disattivato, non riesco piu' a visualizzarlo correttamente. Cosa devo fare? Reinstallare FlorenceX? (Ho gia' disinstallato Xcity Rome) pero' il software di Virtuali c'e' ancora e non riesco a disinstallarlo. Vi ringrazio per il vostro aiuto. Per errore credo di aver disinstallato anche Addon manager X, che credo sia quello che gestisce i prodotti Aerosoft. Maurizio G
  3. Grazie Vigilius, non manchero' di visitare il tuo blog! Sono anche curioso delle prestazioni del tuo pc e riguardo al bloom... hai pienamente ragione, riduce di un bel po' il frame rate eheheh!! Il mio pc scalda per forza, visto che ho dentro un AMD 5600+ dual core, 3 hard disk Western digital 10k, una scheda video che nonostante abbia un anno rimane ancora a galla, la scheda audio Creative Soundblaster X-FI (se non l'avessi te la consiglio vivamente.... altra roba!) e una scheda di acqwuisizione video con effetti realtime Rimaniamo in contatto! Maurizio G
  4. Ho installato SP2 e qualche problemino lo da... in sede di installazione, tanto per cominciare, alla fine mi ha confezionato un bell'errore riguardo al directX.... poco male, tanto l'installazione e' andata a buon fine, pensavo.... ma con mia sorpresa FSX non partiva più, consigliandomi di reinstallare il DirectX 9 o ripristinare FSX. Ho reinstallato il DirectX 9.0c e allora e' ripartito correttamente. Florence X e Mega Airport Heathrow funzionano correttamente, e anche altri scenari free che ho. L'unica cosa che mi ha dato problemi e' l'effetto bloom, che non funziona piu'... in pratica se l'attivo la parte relativa allo scenario su cui sto volando diventa nera e non si vede nulla. Altra cosa strana e' la finestra ATC, che sembra scolorita, le lettere al suo interno non si leggono piu' bene come prima, e a volte sembra che sovrammetta le lettere. A parte questo ho notato che sono state migliorate le textures delle piste degli aeroporti e anche il frame rate sembra aumentato un po'. Cosa strana e' che mi e' sembrato che il computer scaldasse piu' del solito (e' una stufa gia' di suo eheheheh). Via via che ho altre notizie o commenti li scrivo, puo' essere utile ad altri utenti che intendono installare l'SP2. Maurizio G
  5. ti ringrazio molto Vigilius! Figurati che per quel che avevo capito io, le DX10 potevano essere utilizzate anche in XP (ovviamente a patto di avere una scheda compatibile con DX10, che ancora non possiedo, anche se stavo valutando di acquistarla!) Comunque si, ci sono pareri contrastanti riguardo al SP2 o all'accelleration pack, forse come tutte le novita' che richiedono ancora dei miglioramenti. Maurizio G
  6. Volevo chiedere se Florence X e Heathrow Mega airport per FSX, che ho acquistato tempo fa, sono compatibili con l'accelleration pack (SP2). Un altro consiglio.... conviene installare il SP2 oppure non ci sono sensibili differenze a meno di non avere installata una scheda video compatibile DX10? Grazie Maurizio G
  7. I bought Mega Airport Heathrow X for FSX and between the available files there is also an update to the version 1.01. In the releases notes it says that it works both for FS 2004 and FSX but in the main installation mask it says that it's for FS 2004. So i should install it or not? Thanks
  8. I knew the existence of the Core2 duo but i haven't had the opportunity to test it, so i can't talk about things that i haven't tested. Anyway i can say something.... attention in reading article, benchmarks and thing like this, because the theory is a thing and the pratic is another thing. Before to post comments about an argument, expecially regarding hardware components, you have to test accurately different machines. The videogames are not the only programs on the market. If you use severe professional applications i can assure you that things are differents.
  9. I wouldn't consider a quad, because using FSX it doesn't use the 4 cores at the same time, but only 2. So, for your needs i think that a dual core fits great. Consider that using windows Vista, as the newer operating system, it's not perfect, and also considerably slower than Windows XP, because it uses a lot of protection to install the software and not all the devices can be installed on it. If you want to upgrade your PC, maybe change only your processor. Mantaining your AMD you can buy for instance a 5600+, that i use now, it's fantastic and very very fast. I don't know how the coreDUo 2 works, anyway, in my experience, the AMD processors works better.
  10. Sometimes it's difficult to follow the market, it costs money and also you are forced often to change something in the configuration.... Anyway, i changed only the processor, in these previous images i had the AMD 4200+ X2 mounted on an ASUS SLI-32 with socket AM2. Obviously, now that i have the 5600+, my PC gained a lot in speed even if it warms a little more As you can see i obtained a frame rate of 84,9 fps with a sky quite clean and taking the shot from the cockpit. Using and outside view instead i can reach stabily 35 fps or more, depending on the terrain i am flying and these were the settings And i am satisfied how FSX works. It's an incredible program, with no doubts. Sorry for the windows in italian language but i can't change them.
  11. Ah ok my Intel Dual core it's a D series, if i remember well, it has one year. The AMD 4200+ X2 that i had before on the other machine is of that period too. It's between these two that AMD gained. Anyway i am happy to pass to AMD on my main machine. With the Intel i have had more problems with the programs i use often. It crashed more frequently.
  12. Yes Math, it's an Intel dual core, with FSX SP1 installed, that uses the two cores togheter. Before i had an AMD 4200+ X2 on the machine i have now the 5600+, but it was always faster than the Intel Anyway everyone has his own experience. The AMD i have now works at the operative frequency of 2,8 GHz and it's a real bomb, believe me, nothing to compare with the Intel. Other technicians i know say the same thing. I am comparing processors with two cores, obviously. I don't know how the Intel Quad works. I have never worked with it and i don't say things that i don't know. My two machines are correctly setted to obtain the best performances in professional applications.
  13. i was reading your suggestion about the PC configuration to use, and i have these two machines to run FSX: AMD Athlon X2 5600+ 2GB RAM ATI 1600 XT PRO PCI-ex 256 MB SOUNDBLASTER X-FI EXTREME 3 HD Western dgt 10k rpm 75 GB MATROX RTX-100 EXTREME real time video editing SAITEK X-52 PRO FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM _______________________________________ INTEL 3,4 GHz dual core 2GB RAM NVIDIA GT 6600 PCIex 512 MB SOUNDBLASTER X-FI 2 HD SATA2 160 GB PINNACLE DV 500 video editing With the first machine (AMD) i can obtain a frame rate near 100 fps, when the sky is almost clear, with almost all the FSX sliders set to maximum. The other machine instead is slower and i can't use the filters into FSX (anisotrope and antialiasing). According to my experience, Intel dual core are sensibly slowers than AMD processors, and i see this not only with FSX but using them editing videos, that is a good benchmark, when you use complex effects.
  14. REALLY EXCEPTIONAL! A very beautiful product, i will buy it for sure when it's ready
×
×
  • Create New...