Jump to content

rocky

Members
  • Posts

    456
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by rocky

  1. Thanks for your replies.

    As for the machine: the purpose is the generate the best performance possible, for the lowest possible price.

    Regarding the water-cooling, increase in PSU and 1600 RAM, I'm not entirely convinced the price increase would justify the performance increase £ to FPS. I realize that these enhance performance, however the system as it is, should be able to run FSX smoothly with addons like NGX, Airbus X and plenty of quality Aerosoft scenery, with low to medium traffic and autogen.

    Am I correct?

    Yes, you are correct. I was simply suggesting slightly improved harware for a minimal additional outlay. However, if you don't do anything and want to get the best from FSX as possible, then a water cooler should help you attain higher voltages and so a higher OC = performance.

  2. Isn't there a 3rd generation i5? I've heard something of "Ivy Bridge", the generation after "Sandy Bridge" were the 2500k is from...

    Stick with the Sandy Bridge system, Ivy Bridge offers virtually nothing extra. As for a cooler, I would highly recommend water cooling, as the SB processors are good overclockers and you could get up to 4.5/4.6Ghz which you're unlikely to attain on air. Also, not a deal breaker, but for the difference in price, why not spend a little more and get 1600Mhz RAM. There is a difference, albeit slight. You're probably OK with a 500w PSU but FWIW I would feel happier with a 750w. In answer to your original question, overclocked, your system would be easily capable of running all the latest addons and aircraft at dense/very dense autogen settings :)

    • Upvote 1
  3. Patrick, I believe that you mean it well. But you have to learn that Aerosoft does not appreciate to be lectured and patronised about their business model and products. You are a guest in their forums here. I think you should have stopped after Mathijs last message.

    +1

  4. Personally I think Dublin is a good Airpport for development. An international airport on the far west of Europe. I have Eiresims Alicante and am very happy with the performance. I will get Aerosoft's Dublin, but will wait to hear reviews on the performance, 'cos if it's like some of the other airports and heavy on frames then I'll give it a miss

    • Upvote 2
  5. Hi. For some users there is definitely an issue. I have been one of them. It has been suggested that it's due to UAC settings, but I totally disagree as I have mine completely disabled.

    The issue is solved by amending the default.xml, it is easy to do if you know how. I could do it for everyone. Only problem is, you uninstall or whatever and it's all undone.

    This really needs to be addressed in the installer by Aerosoft.

    Hi Chris, thanks for the reply. What is Aerosoft playing at? This issue has been rasied many times from 2010 and has still not been resolved. It's simply not good enough that customers have to play around with the product to make it function correctly. I agree, it's not the UAC settings. Like you, I too have it completely disabled. As for the XML, although I'm pretty competent at most things, I have never needed to edit XML files and so don't quite know where to start. Your help with this would be appreciated....

  6. Hmm, I haven't flown Santorini for quite awhile but reading this thread has spurred me on to try and resolve my issues, which are, basically no AI and very little autogen around the airport and a single chuch and cable car on the hill! I've read the whole post here and the link that presumably is supposed to offer a conclusive answer, but I'm afraid I'm still in the dark. Could someone please explain in simple language what I have to do. I have tried a reinstall with no success.

  7. Mathjis, I respect you dearly, but blimey what do you mean These lines are nearly impossible to get rid of They should not be there. There is clearly some problem that needs to be addressed. The product is substandard, and I would have thought it reasonable to ask if something can be done to eradicate the anomoly in the form of a patch or update. Apart from anything else, it taints an otherwise great scenery product.

  8. Hmmm, this is not good, especially as the product is advertised as being the whole island in 0.5 - 1.0m res textures. It effectively makes any GA flying of the north side of the island completely pointless :( I'm sure the guys at Aerosoft were unaware of this issue when they took on the product (or was it produced in house?) either way, I am very interested in hearing what a satisfactory conclusion may include.

  9. What you are seeing there is far far, far lower resolution than that. So, in other words there is nothing wrong with the photo-terrain itself.

    Sorry Emilios, I don't understand what you mean. There is obviously a problem with the scenery as it can clearly be seen as a distinct line running through it. Any hardware issue, driver issue or cfg problem would affect the whole picture and not be defined to a straight edge within the scenery which remains a constant on every flight. I have just redownloaded the scenery from the Aerosoft site and reinstalled it again. The picture clearly shows, once again, the problem. This time with 0 autogen, so there is no question of delayed loading of scenery tiles. This issue runs along the whole of the NW side of the island. I am interested to hear from others who can confirm this... BTW: Cheers Matt, I'll wait to see your screenie...

    1882012_7_27_15_37_1_453.jpg

  10. OK, so I bought Corfu X some time ago, but only yesterday did I decide to do some GA flying up in the north of the island. To my surprise, I found when I got close to the mountains and in fact probably 1/3 of the entire north side, the resolution is abysmal. To my eyes a million miles away from 1m pixel res as started in the advertising blurb Photo real texture (0.5-1.0m resolution) for whole Corfu Island

    There are a couple of possibilities either it has been incorrectly installed, although I find this highly unlikely or it has been advertised as being 1m res for the whole island without Aerosoft being aware of this issue. Certainly the scenery is specifically marked off in straight lines where the scenery files meet. On one side there is the obvious 1m res terrain and on the other scenery, that is very blurred. Either way I would be interested in hearing any comments. Thanks guys...

    • Upvote 1
  11. Sheesh, that is just not on! :unsure: Thanks anyway matey.

    So, to Aerosoft, I have purchased a product that is obviously substandard, what can I expect to be done about it? Sorry fellas, as a staunch supporter of Aeosoft products, I don't think this is an unreasonable question.

  12. For some reason I haven't noticed this issue before, maybe it's always been there I don't know. But surely it can't be right. The runway is just a complete blur. I have downloaded the latest scenery and installed the update but I still have the entire runway a blur. Any help appreciated fellas, thanks.

    865hh.jpg

  13. Hey Matt, fellas, I've sorted it! When I did my last reinstall I did not physically remove a folder in the Faro folder that still had some scenery files in it. Seems odd that after performing an uninstall procedure that there still remained some files. After removing the folder I did a reboot, reinstall, reboot and FSX. I've just taken a run up the runways and taxiways and all is clear :excellenttext_s: Thanks for all your help fellas, much appreciated.

  14. Have you tried Uninstalling it and installing it?

    Got All Updates ?

    James

    Sure James, I've reinstalled it and still have the same problem.

    Hello;

    Go the scenery folder inside of your My Traffic foler,locate the airport,and rename,just remove the bgl part after the .,and use the name of the airport,then start Fsx,and see if that corrects the issue..

    Mark

    Hi Mark, sorry, I'm usure what you mean. Do you mean to switch off the airport in the MyTraffic folder? Won't that stop AI at Faro?

×
×
  • Create New...