Jump to content

Bushhawk Xp


Recommended Posts

Strange failures in the Bushhawk?

There is a failures system on this plane. There are all sorts of failures built in - jammed flying controls, electrics, more... You won't need to uninstall / reinstall, just read through the handbook. These effects, by the way, also make the difference between this and other planes.

___________________________________________________

Paints are in hand.

___________________________________________________

Blurries? See Finn's post up the top of this page.

___________________________________________________

Good comments about VRAM - thanks. Never had problems even on 256 MB, but it does give me an insight as painterman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 405
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Strange failures in the Bushhawk?

There is a failures system on this plane. There are all sorts of failures built in - jammed flying controls, electrics, more... You won't need to uninstall / reinstall, just read through the handbook.

I have the failures set to "none" in the realism settings for this plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the FSX menus or the Bushhawk ones? If it's the Bushhawk ones, you'll have to wait for Thorsten - he's the modeller.

Yes, it was the Bushhawk's accessed through the "instruments/realism" tab on the options tab in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be a difference between the various blurries in FSX. One is a result of the setting you mentioned and the other one kicks in suddenly when some point of texture load is reached. My Card does not have much dedicated VRAM so I reach that poing quicker than most other I'd say.

The problem seems to come from the textures because even the most fps-hungry addons like the 747 do not create that when they are relatively texture friendly. On the other hand even the most optimized and fps friendly addons create the sudden blurryness when they use to much textures. I tried to force that with the Carenado M20J and I can get it there too when I upsize all textures to 2048 (just for testing reasons) while the fps stay high.

Don't know exactly what happens there inside your card but you have to look where your blurries come from. "Take a look at the settings" is an easy but not always helpful or correct answer. The difference on my machine is that the blurriness created by that ... lets call it texture overflow ... also effect fonts. I can't read the menu anymore (like in the shot above from will, where there should be menu point only "_" are visible) and the ATC window is all messed up. Switching AA back and forth cures it till the next time. The problem is that when you're running a combination of plane and scenery that is more than your card can handle you have to find some way to take the load off or it will happen again and again.

If there is no room for reduction left, reducing scenery details and with it texture load might do the bit to avoid it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
OK I´ve just be playing around with the Bush Hawk and came to the following result. Maybe this will help you finding a solution (or find out that there´s no solution):

I´ve tested the BushHawk at TahitiX Bora Bora Airport sitting on the runway, good weather conditions, no freight on board and got following average frames (first time I really used this counter):

cold and dark, VC looking to the front (cowling): 28fps (locked at 28)

cold and dark, VC cockpit looking to the tail: 18fps (locked at 28)

fired up the gauges but NOT the engine (just before firing up the engine), VC looking to the front (cowling): 25fps (locked at 28)

fired up the gauges but NOT the engine (just before firing up the engine), VC cockpit looking to the tail: 16fps (locked at 28)

right after engine startup, VC looking to the front (cowling): 10fps (locked at 28)

right after engine startup, VC cockpit looking to the tail: 6fps (locked at 28)

after take off, VC looking to the front (cowling): 7fps (locked at 28)

after take off, VC cockpit looking to the tail: 4fps (locked at 28)

same from the outside view: I´ve about 8-10 lower fps-rates when looking from the cowling to the tail than from the tail to the cowling. Really strange. And it takes abot 5-10 seconds to get normal frames again when I´ve changed the view into flight direction again. I don´t know if this is interesting for you. Or can anyone confirm something similar?

Try repeating that with FPS at unlimited, recently we have seen that this could seriously increase FPS. In fact I now think the FPS limiter is bugged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the FSX menus or the Bushhawk ones? If it's the Bushhawk ones, you'll have to wait for Thorsten - he's the modeller.

Hallelujah!!

Ok, I FIXED IT! I re-uninstalled it, this time I deleted the files in user/appdata/roaming or local (can't remember) and then reinstalled it, and wallah! Everything seems fine now! All gauges, sounds, flaps, everything! Don't know what I did.

It's the old saying, "it's not the software, it's the user".

Thanks for the help though.

This is a joy to fly. Ranks right up there with the Twin Otter in my opinion. Just a delightful bird.

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? For me it works better with fps limiter active. With the limiter active the fps always hower around a certain point,without it (unlimited) they fluctuate badly all over the place. The often get higher then what the limiter is set to but they also dip much lower than what happens when the limiter is active. Those wild fluctiations are actually more problematic to my eye than a generally lower framerate that stays in a certain area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try repeating that with FPS at unlimited, recently we have seen that this could seriously increase FPS. In fact I now think the FPS limiter is bugged.

Hi Mathijs!

Well it helped a little bit and here´s the result:

cold and dark, VC looking to the front (cowling): 36fps (unlimited)

cold and dark, VC cockpit looking to the tail: 20fps (unlimited)

fired up the gauges but NOT the engine (just before firing up the engine), VC looking to the front (cowling): 25fps (unlimited)

fired up the gauges but NOT the engine (just before firing up the engine), VC cockpit looking to the tail: 16fps (unlimited)

right after engine startup, VC looking to the front (cowling): 15fps (unlimited)

right after engine startup, VC cockpit looking to the tail: 10fps (unlimited)

after take off, VC looking to the front (cowling): 12fps (unlimited)

after take off, VC cockpit looking to the tail: 8fps (unlimited)

So it made the Hawk "flyable" for me but it wasn´t the big deal and sometimes my FSX stutters a little bit. I´m really curious why there are so big differences between the running prop vs. cut off engine and looking to the prop vs. tail.

Oh and I´ve tried resized textures but that didn´t do much for me: 1-2 fps when the prop is standing still down to 0 fps improvement when the prop is running. I think my GF 8800GTX with 768MB VRAM can handle the big textures quite well.

And I´ve repeated my test under the same circumstances than the last time so no difference at all. Hope this will bring some light into the dark miracles of frames in FSX :lol:;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another - perhaps obscure - FPS funny is capping it at a frequency that doesn't match the monitors. I read somewhere that the ideal is to set FSX at the same frequency as the display, or in a harmonic value thereof. If you have 50 Hz monitors, then lock FPS at 50 or 25. If your monitor has a refresh of 60 times per second, then lock out at 30 or 60...

I can't vouch for this on my iffy system though.

Another FSX funny FPS-eater is if you are in windowed mode and the FSX window is overlapping an active sub-window or icon even. For instance: the "widows symbol" on the taskbar. For instance: a touch-tablet flyout window. For instance: any of the many media player flyout windows that hide their menus but leave a small sensor bar at the side of the main computer screen.

Also programs that constantly work in the background. Virus scanners (maybe they check files on access. Every time your PC accesses a file, the scanner goes first - a possibility?) and auto-defraggers eat resources.

If you are on Vista, have one monitor and the sidebar active... try shutting down the sidebar

Is your FS display resolution set the same as your monitor?

All thoughts to think on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another - perhaps obscure - FPS funny is capping it at a frequency that doesn't match the monitors. I read somewhere that the ideal is to set FSX at the same frequency as the display, or in a harmonic value thereof. If you have 50 Hz monitors, then lock FPS at 50 or 25. If your monitor has a refresh of 60 times per second, then lock out at 30 or 60...

Hi Chris!

Anything except the one above was in my mind and done. I´ve to leave in some minutes so I´ll try your suggestion when I´m back.

Thanks for your advice!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any news on a patch or something?

These system tweaks and suggestions haven't improved my performance any. There's got to be some underlying compatibility issue with certain computers. :(

Off to bed though... maybe today will bring a fix? I guess I'll wait and find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any news on a patch or something?

Is that a serious question? :blink:

You don't actually expect to get a patch within 24 hrs, do you? I mean, I could give you one, but it would improve framerates or loading times by 0.5%, don't want to know what you'd say about that. :D

We're working on solutions for all mentioned problems, so why not relax and give us a bit of time. Most of my current time goes into reading through all the posts here and in other forums, that really takes some time, so when should I work on a fix? Best idea would be if everybody only posted here if he has something new to report. That would help us all. ;)

It's the old saying, "it's not the software, it's the user".

Good to know it's working.

The Bushhawk realism settings are not controlled by fsx but by the realism settings tool (shift+3). You cen set failures to "none" there, but this setting is not saved anywhere, thus it will be set back to normal next time you switch the aircraft. ;)

Click "reset failures" if you encounter any of your previous problems again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the blurry gauges, assure that You have tis setting maxed !! :

post-7458-1224307989_thumb.jpg

Finn

Thanks Finn but I've got the global texture maxed already.

My video card has 384MB of VRAM so like Private-Cowboy says I think I just run out of video memory. Hopefully the patch will help with this if not I suspect I'll be looking for a card with more memory on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any news on a patch or something?

I must agree with Horst here.

To expect a patch in 24hrs of the magnitude that's required for the Bush Hawk is an unrealistic expectation....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that FPS is low with the Bushhawk XP, but not unflyable.

With FSX set to mid settings, I can achieve 16-17 fps flying near Ketchikan.

My system:

AMD +3500 single core !

2 GB RAM

Geforce 7950 500 MB RAM

Windows XP SP3

FSX SP2 (non Accel.)

I often do a defrag with Diskeeper and "clear" the regestry with Registry Mechanic.

Keeping running processes to a minimum also helps.

In my Windows XP setup, I have removed most of all the menu animations and other graphical "funnies", wich has helped alot on my system.

I have also disabled indexing on my Harddisk as well as put all FSX related stuff under "exeptions" in my virus scanner.

I actual find the Bushhawk XP very nice. Many fine features indeed, and with a great atmosphere.

If only we could get better performance it would be great.

Kind regards

Finn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the problem for a few of us. We came to know and love the well optimized Aerosoft showings (Beaver, Twin Otter, Hughes Racer) that performed better than the stock FSX planes but were much more detailed in every aspect. And when you're flying on the edge of choppiness anyway you can hardly afford to lose 10fps compared to say the Hughes Racer. When you go from high 20s to high 10s that is not much of a problem and I can understand those who say "gimme every eye candy you got I don't care about the framerate". But when it means you're going from high tens into single digits it gets hairy and I'm not someone who can fly with 7-8fps - at least I can't fly a controlled approach in those situations.

I tried quite a bit in the meantime (defragging, process minimization, reduction of scenery details) but everything has little to no effect. Somehow the BH does not react very much at all to those optimizations. I can nearly double the framerate in my Hughes Racer if I take back the scenery settings just a bit (LOD radius etc) but in the BH it doesn't do much if anything. Very strange...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH MAN! This is a good one! I've only been fiddling around with this bird for about an hour....and perused a brief number of the posts. I see definitely lower framerates with the plane, but by no means unflyable, and there is considerable fidelity with this aircraft. Had the failures set to often, and flew a grand total of about 45 minutes. I flew out of PAMR in Anchorage AK and put her through some trials in the nearby mountains, the peaks here average around 5000ft. She performed well, landing was a breeze....I put her down at Bold Airstrip on Eklutna Lake. Then I turned her around for takeoff, and was at rotation speed and just about to nose up when I lost the engine, though from the sound of it, I believe I nosed forward just enough to put the prop into the tarmac and I lost it all...hurtled over an embankment and went right into the drink! I LOVE this airplane! This is even a finer aircraft than the Do-27 by my merit, and will likely get equal airtime as the Twin Otter in my Logbook.

THANKS GUYS!!! A+ stuff!

-Dan in Alaska

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with the minority, fantastic aircraft and once again a phenomenal add-on for FSX produced by Aerosoft. :rolleyes:

I am also a little surprised about the many comments regarding FPS. It has not effected mine at all considering i have a less than an adequate system, mind you i have always not been too greedy with my FPS and have them locked at 17!

Specs: Dell E520, Intell Duo Core, 2.6ghz, 3GB Ram, 8600 GT.

Running: Full screen, no Traffic add-on with recommended settings for Tahiti X which should give you a guide.

Once again, a truly superb product from Aerosoft. When i sort out my issues with Tahiti X i will post some shots.

Regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's in fact good to know that there are happy customers out there. :D

Now, how about this: I'm gonna make the unhappy part of you happy with your new aircraft, too!

I cancelled the weekend (who needs a free day anyway?) and tried to figure how to best save polys and frames without giving you a model that looks like FS98. And I can happily announce that we could save at least 25% of mdl size and 10% of texture load without losing too many details. Of course there will be some things missing on those low-Poly models, that should be understandable, but for those of you who want the same framerates that the default C172 offers we might have found a way to make you happy. ;)

Stay tuned...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH MAN! This is a good one! I've only been fiddling around with this bird for about an hour....and perused a brief number of the posts. I see definitely lower framerates with the plane, but by no means unflyable,

This is a matter of personal perception...

As we've seen here in this thread...To some it's unflyable - to others it isn't....

The common bond is that there are lower FPS....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use