Jump to content

Bushhawk Xp


Recommended Posts

Yes, it says it works in the missions only because of limitations of the FSX. But what limitations are those? After all the 377 has a realtime load manager that does exactly what the BH manual states is impossible. Is the BH working differently in that regard?

The 377 does indeed have a load manager, but mind you, it doesn't physically load a visual representation of cargo ONTO the plane itself. The difference is the visuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 405
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok, that's true. I've missed that. Thank you. Thank you! The 377 does change in realtime but not visually. I have not thought about that.

That is a pretty slick feature. I have that bird. I wouldn't be surprised if more started coming with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David... I'll be VERY honest here. Like most developers, I find that using XP is the best option for doing my work. Just by switching to XP, I gain an easy 7-10 FPS in almost all addons. My assumption is the lower overhead of XP versus older systems. Even using Tweak Guides (www.tweakguides.com) for Vista, I still take a considerable hit.... but not just against the Bush Hawk, but FSX in general.

DX10 Preview mode is just that. Even by Phil Taylor's admittance (and we had several swapped e-mails on this matter), it didn't turn out like everyone had hoped. There are many issues with it and it was not optimized like we had hoped. The advantage (besides the obvious advantages like cockpit shadows, etc) is how it changes the overhead for things like bloom. You will find that DX10 VS DX9 in areas like bloom, DX9 takes a much larger hit. How do I get around this for my work? Simple. Since I don't use Vista for my physical work, I gain the FPS in XP to adapt for bloom when I need to film it.

My answer? It is tough. Wait for a patch. Short of that, if you MUST have FSX running faster... there is no easy answer. You might consider in the future switching to XP. I have found overall that video cards make little difference above 512mb with FSX. I had a Radeon 1900xtx and switched to the Nvidia 8800 GTX. I noticed NO change in framerates. Now, when I upped my overclock to 3.1ghz (which was from 2.1ghz makes it pretty high), I noticed a signifigant increase in FPS. As is well documented, reaffirmed by Microsoft and otherwise, the biggest FPS increase generally in FSX is your CPU.

Thanks Cody. I would love to run Windows XP but from what I understood there was no XP driver for my soundcard. There now is drivers so I'm going to call Dell to see if I can order XP for the system. Dell has it's own Bios and drivers, I'm not sure if I can just use an off the shelf copy or not. One disadvantage of dealing with Dell I guess.

Back to the Bush Hawk - I just find it suprising it has such a hit when many other addons don't have as much for me. My system isn't anything special but it's among the higher end of people in my VA, so I'm not sure why it would be released with such a high hit on framerates. Either way I just hope a patch can fix this - even if it means turning stuff off.

Looking forward to logging plenty of hours in it once the FPS are fixed :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, as you can see in my signature I'm using Vista 32 HP. Running FSX in DX10-preview gives me one third more fps than DX9. For the Bushhawk the difference is even a bit more: with DX10 about 20-30, with DX9 only 15-20. You should try it, maybee you have the same effect (even with lower fps).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cowboy, you have to differ between the Payload Calculator and the Payload Manager (the Popup menu you can use in the introduction mission and the Assisted Flights).

I agree that it would've been cool to actually click on the Payload Calculator and the numbers would change. We worked on this but couldn't get it to work bugfree. There are some situations in life where you just have so skip something because it doesn't seem likely to make it into the final product in time. Lots of fsx features fell aside this way.

I'm not sure at the moment, but I guess the 377 uses an external tool for payloading, doesn't it? We didn't want to use an extra tool or dll because personally I don't like the idea that several addons load their specific dll or exe into the cache. Weather, scenery, aircraft,... I believe if we had given you an extra dll, there would've been some who said "a dll for a small GA aircraft, are you insane?!" :P;)

Anyway, why don't you use the Assisted Flights with the Payload Manager? You can not only set all payloads there in real time but even see the 3D cargo (dis-)appearing and the aircraft and Payload Calculator showing those settings. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the 377 payload manager is not an external tool (like with the PMDG MD-11). It is internal and part of the 2D-Panel (there is no real 2D-Panel, only a collection of tools). You can change fuel, cargo and passenger load and the 377 will react the same second without reloading and such. But the 377 does not display a visual difference. The windows are "just" texture (as with most airliners) so there is no visual representation of the cargo needed. The realtime manager does only manipulate the plane config to represent the changed weight. That system works well for an airliner you cannot look "inside" of. But for a bushplane where the cargo hold is visible it's not as easy.

To be perfectly honest I'm not overly enthusiastic given included missions or "assisted flight". I have my own "backjard" for flying I know quite well and those missions mostly take place in regions I don't normally fly in. I usually have a look at them and make one or two of them but then return to my home turf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

as I went back from the Conference at PAD on saturday (after a few kind dialogues with Thorsten) and installing my new throttle quadrants, I fired up the Bushhawk again due to a series of testing.

- I reset the driver settings for my 8800 GTX to default

- I put FSAA to 2x

- I put anisotropic filter to 8x

- I put on "Single monitor usage"

- I left the rest at defautl settings

tataaaa!!!!!! :D

The Bushhawk works; there is still a FPS hit, but it´s not as hard as before.

The BH runs now with ~20 -25 fsp comparing the Carenado C206 with ~ 40fps

With this in mind, I would encourage everyone to check his / hers driver settings.

Maybe it works, as it does for me.

Waiting for comming home from work and go to the "assisted flights" ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to the fellows who are griping about autopilot. Yeah it doesn't belong in this aircraft but it's pretty darn easy to add it and it's my own personal preference to do so...

I would buy this aircraft, if I could add an autopilot. You say it's easy. B) How can I do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would buy this aircraft, if I could add an autopilot. You say it's easy. B) How can I do that?

It's very simple... Open up the FSX/Simobjects/(Whichever BushHawk folder you want)/Aircraft.cfg

Scroll down to autopilot and it should be =0 by default change that to 1 and there you are.

Only keyboard entries will work unless you want to manually add an autopilot gauge from another aircraft.

If you need assistance on this I'm sure we could help

*** Another note***

... If you plan on leaving your computer for even 2 minutes turn off failures! The random failures of the BH have cause an electrical failure twice! for me right when I left the room for a moment :P It knows when I'm there, thats how good it is ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bingo, Cub Pilot – now my Carenado C152 II FSX accepts keyboard commands for the autopilot. A big comfort for me. :rolleyes:

I am now watching the progress of the patch to improve the frame rate. Then I will buy the Bush Hawk XP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This plane looks amazing, but I am refraining from buying it because of all the negative feedback on this thread regarding the fps hit. Fps is the most important thing in FSX for me, some planes are very good at it. (piper and c152 of carenado, all realair planes except the spitfires that sucks, recently patched JustFlight planes, twin otter here etc) some are a real disaster, I buy all of them but in practice only flight the efficient ones. Guess will wait for a patch to buy this one.

Btw fps wont improve much in the future [till FS11 which will be a true multi core / SLI - let us hope / pray ], if I read well the reviews of the upcoming new intel cpus the number of cores / threads increases to 8/16 but not the clock (seeing 2.93 ghz :( ). There is a funy 'turbo mode' that will automatically oc the core used is some aren't, but overall I wouldnt bank at anything greater than 3.5 ghz. So for FSX which hardly use 2-3 core the new generation looks useless when compared to current quad OCed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is so sad that you are influenced by people who shout louder than anyone else. A lot of the complaints about the Bushhawk have been unfounded because users just haven't read the information about this plane. Check your system specs against the recommendations in the information pages for the Bushhawk.

LET ME STRESS: I am not the developer. I am a very concerned user who dislikes the way a lot of people raise unfounded complaints.

The Bushhawk could be equal in FPS to default planes. But then a lot of features would be removed. In my humble opinion, this model has been built for detail, detail, detail! It will still be usable in FSXIII (or whenever). I shan't bother with listing the detail features here, but I really do think they are a fair use of available resources. System failures, windscreen icing, power loss in cold air, pressures and temperatures are at an accuracy level you haven't seen before. You can fly this plane by the book - the Real World book that is. For instance:

- It has the most accurate representation of toe-brake turning I have yet seen in flight sim.

- It has distractions in the cockpit that also exist in the real world. The Starbucks cup is not just a gimmick. It gets on your nerves - or tries to. You want to get rid of it, so you have to remove your attention from the instruments. There are worse distractions in real flight.

- Your control surfaces WILL freeze up if you fly into cold and moist air. Your forward view will frost over unless you have the blower on. You will lose engine power if you fly wrong.

Yes, these do reduce FS' resources. The plane IS flyable. Even as low as 10 to 15 FPS - remember, FSX display is a little different to FS9. In FS9 an FPS of 15 meant total unflyability. In FSX 15 FPS still appears reasonably smooth. On my current install of FSX (clean this weekend) I am getting 20+ FPS when flying the Bushhawk over Vancouver+ for FSX, that is THE heaviest scenery addon currently available for FSX. Also on board are addons like: FS Genesis meshes, new landclasses, Ultimate Terrain, Active Sky....

My PC: AMD FX62 2800GHz dual core, 3GB RAM, nVidia GTS 8800, Vista 64bit (but fur the graphics, we are talking 3 year old tech)

YES, other aircraft deliver 40 FPS on unlimited. But they do not have the extras I find on the Bushhawk.

YES, I was on the beta team. My FSX setup was buggy as hell and I was getting well under 10 FPS and the plane was (barely, I agree) manageable.

To those who paid and now shout their heads off I say: make sure that your system is clean. It may well mean a complete re-insall of FSX is needed. However, if you have a dual core processor based PC that meets the "minimum" numbers, then you will get a flyable plane. A bit heavy, yes, but flyable. If you have the "recommended" numbers, then you should have a very flyable, accurate plane.

My personal take is that those people who complain loudest are FPS junkies who can't see beyond the tips of their noses. Cleaning your PC (mine has been a perfect example) can give - as in my case - more than 400% improvement. Cleaning my PC took the Bushhawk from 7 to 25 FPS (That isn't 400% I do know, but then I could not fly over Vancover+ before at less than 5 FPS)

I repeat... on my 3 year old PC (1 year on the graphics card) I am getting FPS in excess of 20 over the heaviest scenery addons. If readers here are not, on similar computers, then they should look at their PCs first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patient old git, aren't I?

Well I have old intel pentium 4 @ 3,2ghz and let me tell you it sucks. But still I love flying bushhawk, because of it's special animations and everything that appeals my eye. I'm getting around 20 FPS in very rural areas and about 10 in cities, but I don't care it's still the best bush plane right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patient old git, aren't I?

From the sites terms and conditions

All sales are final - No Refunds will be given Shareware and Download products are not returnable and non-refundable unless otherwise indicated. Any labor, installation services and shipping charges are non-refundable. The serial code we will send you is a personal code, it is sold to you personally and can not be shared, swapped or sold.

That quote above details exactly why people with low-end systems SHOULD be cautious. It isn't a question of patience, tolerance or any other human virtue, or vice. It's a business relationship founded on offer, acceptance and execution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) It is so sad that you are influenced by people who shout louder than anyone else. A lot of the complaints about the Bushhawk have been unfounded because users just haven't read the information about this plane. Check your system specs against the recommendations in the information pages for the Bushhawk.

2) LET ME STRESS: I am not the developer. I am a very concerned user who dislikes the way a lot of people raise unfounded complaints.

3) The Bushhawk could be equal in FPS to default planes. But then a lot of features would be removed. In my humble opinion, this model has been built for detail, detail, detail! It will still be usable in FSXIII (or whenever). I shan't bother with listing the detail features here, but I really do think they are a fair use of available resources. System failures, windscreen icing, power loss in cold air, pressures and temperatures are at an accuracy level you haven't seen before. You can fly this plane by the book - the Real World book that is. For instance:

4) - It has the most accurate representation of toe-brake turning I have yet seen in flight sim.

5) - It has distractions in the cockpit that also exist in the real world. The Starbucks cup is not just a gimmick. It gets on your nerves - or tries to. You want to get rid of it, so you have to remove your attention from the instruments. There are worse distractions in real flight.

6) - Your control surfaces WILL freeze up if you fly into cold and moist air. Your forward view will frost over unless you have the blower on. You will lose engine power if you fly wrong.

7) Yes, these do reduce FS' resources. The plane IS flyable. Even as low as 10 to 15 FPS - remember, FSX display is a little different to FS9. In FS9 an FPS of 15 meant total unflyability. In FSX 15 FPS still appears reasonably smooth. On my current install of FSX (clean this weekend) I am getting 20+ FPS when flying the Bushhawk over Vancouver+ for FSX, that is THE heaviest scenery addon currently available for FSX. Also on board are addons like: FS Genesis meshes, new landclasses, Ultimate Terrain, Active Sky....

My PC: AMD FX62 2800GHz dual core, 3GB RAM, nVidia GTS 8800, Vista 64bit (but fur the graphics, we are talking 3 year old tech)

8) YES, other aircraft deliver 40 FPS on unlimited. But they do not have the extras I find on the Bushhawk.

YES, I was on the beta team. My FSX setup was buggy as hell and I was getting well under 10 FPS and the plane was (barely, I agree) manageable.

9) To those who paid and now shout their heads off I say: make sure that your system is clean. It may well mean a complete re-insall of FSX is needed. However, if you have a dual core processor based PC that meets the "minimum" numbers, then you will get a flyable plane. A bit heavy, yes, but flyable. If you have the "recommended" numbers, then you should have a very flyable, accurate plane.

10) My personal take is that those people who complain loudest are FPS junkies who can't see beyond the tips of their noses. Cleaning your PC (mine has been a perfect example) can give - as in my case - more than 400% improvement. Cleaning my PC took the Bushhawk from 7 to 25 FPS (That isn't 400% I do know, but then I could not fly over Vancover+ before at less than 5 FPS)

I repeat... on my 3 year old PC (1 year on the graphics card) I am getting FPS in excess of 20 over the heaviest scenery addons. If readers here are not, on similar computers, then they should look at their PCs first.

Why can't you accept other peoples' opinions? Why can't you PLEASE stop these policing posts as I asked before (and others have commented about). I've inserted numbers into your quote so I may dispute your claims line by line.

1) What is wrong with being concerned about FPS in a product that cannot be refunded? My system specs are far beyond what the required and even recommended ones are. It has been accepted by Mr. Kok that even computers that meet/exceed requirements may have some sort of incompatibility with this aircraft.

2) Unfounded complaints? 20 FPS in a small aircraft when I can get 30 (now) in the PMDG MD-11 VC is unacceptable. The F-16 model is much larger and I get considerably better FPS with it than with the BH. There IS some sort of issue with the Bushhawk and my hardware config (and many others').

3) I'd rather have a plane that gives me default plane FPS and still looks and acts realistic. (Check 95% of my hangar for examples of these)

4) OK, but I've not been able to test it yet.

5) If its between a Starbucks cup and 30 FPS, I'll take the 30 FPS.

6) See #4 answer, however that should not have any impact on FPS whatsoever

7) 10-15 FPS might be flyable to YOU, but that is YOUR opinion. Anything less than 25 FPS is unflyable to me. ALL the aircraft currently in my hangar hit better than 25 FPS. People have different opinions and tastes from yours. Learn to respect that- others do.

8) I'd rather have a nice bush plane with 40 FPS than the (current) Bushhawk. Oh, I have the Twotter and Beaver already. I guess those fit the bill, as does the RealAir Scout. That being said, I still REALLY want to fly the BH, that's why I bought it. I was and still am excited about it, but the excitement is wearing off as I'm waiting for whatever patch will be available.

9) My system is as clean as it is going to get with a 55.6 GB FSX install. I keep it defragmented and delete garbage I don't use. I absolutely refuse to reinstall everything. If you want to come over to my house and spend 2 days reinstalling everything, be my guest. It doesn't have to be done with anything else, why does it need to be done with the Bush hawk?

10) Why are you insulting the people having issues?

I greatly appreciate Thorsten's work and dedication. Not many developers would even consider making a performance patch with any plane, let alone a rather complex one. I'll keep waiting for a patch. Although I am going to reinstall it tonight and see what it does with my new drivers. The drivers have improved performance in all my planes by anywhere from 3-6 FPS. Hopefully it'll be enough to hold me off until a patch is ready.

If someone from Aerosoft finds this to be unfair, go ahead and delete my post, but also delete Chris's. He has been shouting more than anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another one who can't read and understand. I will gladly rise to your bait - in private. Keep an eye open on your PM inbox. This might take a minute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another one who can't read and understand. I will gladly rise to your bait - in private. Keep an eye open on your PM inbox. This might take a minute.

Yet another insult. Thanks. <_<

I really don't understand why I keep coming back to this thread. Will there be an announcement on the main page when the patch is ready? I'd rather not read insults on a forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let people have their opinions.

The Bush Hawk is too framerate intensive for many people it seems.

I'm suprised because all the other Aerosoft Bush plane releases have been framerates first, so I naturally assumed the Bush Hawk would be included. yet even on my Core2Duo 3.16ghz / 3 gigs Corsair Dominator ram / Geforce 8800 I get 12 fps in it! I get 40 in all the Carenado planes, The Beaver and the Twin Otter.

I'd rather have framerates before extras, though extras are always nice, I love the idea of my windscreen freezing over, just need a balance or even better options to turn them on or off, or "high detail" "fps friendly" model options etc.

I really think this could be a great plane but until the fps are helped I can't quite enjoy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes this topic is an insult to consumers. We have not only bought an airplane but also support and respect. In these times of intensive piracy, we are the good part of the business, those who pay to give you the opportunity to build paywares.

This plane is a beautiful plane, probably the most ambitious bushplane but it's one of the bigger FPS eater I've ever seen.

It would be a killer with a little more work and some humility...

Today, you probably loose your time with this kind of posts, but tomorrow you might lose customers and money...

It's all about respect.

Best regards,

Stephan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes this topic is an insult to consumers. We have not only bought an airplane but also support and respect. In these times of intensive piracy, we are the good part of the business, those who pay to give you the opportunity to build paywares.

This plane is a beautiful plane, probably the most ambitious bushplane but it's one of the bigger FPS eater I've ever seen.

It would be a killer with a little more work and some humility...

Today, you probably loose your time with this kind of posts, but tomorrow you might lose customers and money...

It's all about respect.

Best regards,

Stephan

Very well put (much better than how I did lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another insult. Thanks. <_<

I really don't understand why I keep coming back to this thread. Will there be an announcement on the main page when the patch is ready? I'd rather not read insults on a forum.

Thank goodness this forum has a ban function for PMs :)

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