Jump to content

Airport Toulouse (FSX + X-Plane 10*)


Shaun Fletcher

Recommended Posts

Hi Tulma

I know you did not say it was bad, just not so great on FPS.

Well I have bought a bunch of Aerosoft airports about 6 more than in my sig around Greece, Turkey and Cyprus as well.

I have NIce and if Toulouse is worse than Nice then I dont want it. There is no reason it should be bad on fps.

I checked out Toulouse as default scenery and it is an area very easy on frames in FSX so the airport should be too.

I also have Paris CDG, the default area is bad on frames so the airport I expected to be bad too, not Toulouse

I think the developers need feedback like this, unfortunalty some Aerosoft Airports are bad on fps which spoils the experience others are good.

If this scenery had good FPS I would buy it, simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Aerosoft

Hi Tulma

I know you did not say it was bad, just not so great on FPS.

Well I have bought a bunch of Aerosoft airports about 6 more than in my sig around Greece, Turkey and Cyprus as well.

I have NIce and if Toulouse is worse than Nice then I dont want it. There is no reason it should be bad on fps.

I checked out Toulouse as default scenery and it is an area very easy on frames in FSX so the airport should be too.

I also have Paris CDG, the default area is bad on frames so the airport I expected to be bad too, not Toulouse

I think the developers need feedback like this, unfortunalty some Aerosoft Airports are bad on fps which spoils the experience others are good.

If this scenery had good FPS I would buy it, simple as that.

It has superb FPS per polygon as it is optimized to the latest standard, nothing to gain by doing things different, there is only gain by removing things and that is just not in our plans. Nice will have better fps for sure because it contains a lot less data, a lot less polygons and a lot less textures.

Now I fully agree that on some older products the optimization was not optimal, but in this case it it. If you want more fps you will have to use lower settings. No way around that. I am getting 30+ fps all over the airport btw on my standard, almost full, settings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lazza,

I just set up a new machine for FSX, slightly weaker than yours (some poor people have to live with mediocre systems) : i7-2600 / 3.4 GHz / 16 MB RAM / Geforce GTX 560 / Intel MB DZ68DB / Win 7 / 64. I've locked framrate to 20 fps, nearly all sliders at maximum (terrain shadows off, but framerate killer water 2.x at maximum). I am able to maintain those 20 fps in the default Cessna C172 (nearly the only plane I fly with my hardware XTOP panel) during taxiing plus takeoff. Those 20 fps feel fluent, no drops, thus I am contend.

BTW, I use France VFR Pyrenees as a nice supplement.

Regards, Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you will have our quality control department missed the lacking charts and manual with this project. We have uploaded a new version so if you miss these items just download the product again and all will be well. Sorry!

Hello Mathijs

Will you do an update to open the hangar doors as we can do on other airports with the NAV 2? It would be really great.

I also noticed on 2 occasions (once in rwy14 config and another in rwy 32 config) that the PAPI was not well calibrated with the glide path.

Once in 737 and another in Lancair Legacy. Could you verify this?

Thank you! Otherwise the scene is beautiful! Nice work!

Regards

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have excellent FPS on it and love the scenery, perfect for doing Airbus and ATR delivery flights.

I might be on the other side of the world but love the Aerosoft range and slowly building my collection.

Thanks once again Aerosoft.

Mark

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD. Please excuse any Apple autocorrection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft

Lazza,

I just set up a new machine for FSX, slightly weaker than yours (some poor people have to live with mediocre systems) : i7-2600 / 3.4 GHz / 16 MB RAM / Geforce GTX 560 / Intel MB DZ68DB / Win 7 / 64. I've locked framrate to 20 fps, nearly all sliders at maximum (terrain shadows off, but framerate killer water 2.x at maximum). I am able to maintain those 20 fps in the default Cessna C172 (nearly the only plane I fly with my hardware XTOP panel) during taxiing plus takeoff. Those 20 fps feel fluent, no drops, thus I am contend.

BTW, I use France VFR Pyrenees as a nice supplement.

Regards, Michael

I just checked FPS again and I find the project to be very smooth. On my sub $800 machine I get a 50+ fps all around.

post-43-0-17443400-1339495005_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

The fps depend of the computer, yes, but also of the differents addons installed, traffic settings, the aircraft addon used to fly ..... What settings have u to have 50fps ?

But, to be honest, after remaked my fsx.cfg, I've better fps now, with my settings and my addons (UTX, UT2, GEX, FranceVFR nextmesh). Now I've about 20fps (with UT2 traffic to 85%). It's not perfect but not bad.( 25-30 on NiceX )....

My cfg modifications now :

[bUFFERPOOLS]

RejectThreshold=262144

[JOBSCHEDULER]

AffinityMask=84

[GRAPHICS]

HIGHMEMFIX=1

TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=2048

[Display]

TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=70

UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=30

WideViewAspect=True

[Main]

DisablePreload=1

FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.15

[DISPLAY.Device.NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti .0]

Mode=1920x1080x32

TriLinear=1

[TERRAIN]

LOD_RADIUS=6.500000

73797734.jpg

24128515.jpg

43101517.jpg

Luc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

The fps depend of the computer, yes, but also of the differents addons installed, traffic settings, the aircraft addon used to fly ..... What settings have u to have 50fps ?

But, to be honest, after remaked my fsx.cfg, I've better fps now, with my settings and my addons (UTX, UT2, GEX, FranceVFR nextmesh). Now I've about 20fps (with UT2 traffic to 85%). It's not perfect but not bad.( 25-30 on NiceX )....

My cfg modifications now :

[bUFFERPOOLS]

RejectThreshold=262144

[JOBSCHEDULER]

AffinityMask=84

[GRAPHICS]

HIGHMEMFIX=1

TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=2048

[Display]

TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=70

UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=30

WideViewAspect=True

[Main]

DisablePreload=1

FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.15

[DISPLAY.Device.NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti .0]

Mode=1920x1080x32

TriLinear=1

[TERRAIN]

LOD_RADIUS=6.500000

73797734.jpg

24128515.jpg

43101517.jpg

Luc

Hi Luc, what is your computer spec?

Hello Mathijs

Will you do an update to open the hangar doors as we can do on other airports with the NAV 2? It would be really great.

I also noticed on 2 occasions (once in rwy14 config and another in rwy 32 config) that the PAPI was not well calibrated with the glide path.

Once in 737 and another in Lancair Legacy. Could you verify this?

Thank you! Otherwise the scene is beautiful! Nice work!

Regards

Kevin

Mathijs don't forget me please....

regards

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cptawsom

[JOBSCHEDULER]

AffinityMask=84
This gives you in binary:
01010100
So you have HT disabled for FSX. You could also try another affinitymask setting. See here: http://fsxtimes.word...8/affinitymask/ Now assuming that you have a 4-core/8-thread CPU (otherwise you could not have a value greater than 16) you could also try the value of 252 which would enable HT.
[JOBSCHEDULER]

AffinityMask=252
In binary it would be:
11111100

Also see if you can make further optimizations for your system, from here:

http://www.venetubo.com/fsx.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft

Luc, what I showed you was a unmodified FSX on a machine you can buy for under $800. The images were done with our Airbus X Extended Alpha that's very complex addon.

Many of the tweaks you show are well know to our support department to cause issues. Both in what you see and in FPS. I know they are all popular on many forums but we have hardly seen any comment that makes serious sense. It's all anecdotal proof and when all things are combined you often end up with more problems then fixes. It's your system but I am almost 100% sure that using a non tweaked FSX.cfg and clean video driver will get you far better results

In your images you have very strange settings, are you really sure you want more trees and fake buildings and less objects that we added in the scenery? You paid for them after all! Is there a reason you do not want to follow the advice in the manual? And if so, are you really sure you want our help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft

Hi Luc, what is your computer spec?

Mathijs don't forget me please....

regards

Kevin

I will forward these issues, but so far I have not seen any confirmation of the issues and I simply do not seethe issues myself.

I am sure we'll not do the animated hangar door btw, we do not like to use radio's to animate stuff as it often cause support issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will forward these issues, but so far I have not seen any confirmation of the issues and I simply do not seethe issues myself.

I am sure we'll not do the animated hangar door btw, we do not like to use radio's to animate stuff as it often cause support issues.

Thanks Mathijs, and thanks Luc for your spec :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cptawsom

84 give 1010100, I think.... But thank for your advise.

Bojote give me 84 for my 2700K - HT active : http://www.venetubo.com/fsx.html

But maybe it's not the best value for thye Affinitymask.... I'll see these interesting links :)

Luc

84 is for your 2700, but with HT deactivated.

Check your task manager while FSX is running.

In the last three pairs of logical cores, you should see one of them (the first one in your occasion) in each pair, having 0% load.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your images you have very strange settings, are you really sure you want more trees and fake buildings and less objects that we added in the scenery? You paid for them after all! Is there a reason you do not want to follow the advice in the manual? And if so, are you really sure you want our help?

I've not read the manual at this time, sorry, not the time to download and read it ... But I'll do it as soon as possible ... And Sure, I appreciate your help :P

I'll try a new cfg tomorrow without any tweak and after, I come back here to tell you if it's better :)

Cptawsom, My HT is activated (8 cores in the task manager), all active when fsx is running ... But tomorrow I'll see it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello

Very nice scenery, sincerely, but fps killer, I find :glare_s:

I've less fps on Toulouse than on NiceX. Strange (Nice had more traffic)..... I obtain between 15 et 19fps on the taxiway and 17-20fps at takeoff or landing ... On NiceX, I'm always about 25-30fps (with the same graphic settings and UT2 to 90%)

I think that Toulouse is between NiceX and CDG or Orly, for the fps. Maybe "Toulouse" would love a better optimization !!!

Luc

I bought Toulouse last night and it doesn't perform well on my rig either.I get about a max of 22 FPS with zero traffic and zero cars turned on and about 19 FPS max with traffic on and cars still off. Something is not right when I can fly into FSDT JFK with 100% AI (cars still off) which is a much more demanding area than Toulouse is and still get FPS between 25 and 30 in the VC of the NGX and then go to Toulouse and get an average of 16 to 20 with traffic on. Mind you, there is probably 3 times more AI at JFK than LFBO and the area in general is more of an FPS hog than Toulouse is, and JFK is a much bigger airport.

To this day I have no idea what it is that Peter Werlitz does that makes his airports perform so badly when compared to other developers. Heck, an airport like this should yield FPS better than FSDT mega hubs of KLAX, KDFW and KJFK, but sadly this little airport fails to do so. I have always told myself I wouldn't get any more of Peters airports but dove in since it was only $20, now I regret the purchase since it performs so badly.

I know that Mathijis claims 50 FPS or whatever and that's fine, but as an end user when I get an airport that performs much worse than hubs that are bigger than stuff put out by FSDT, FlyTampa, TropicalSim, ORBX AU hubs, or even Taxi2Gates KSTL, then I know there is something wrong or not properly optimized with this airport given that on the same computer those other much larger airports with more AI perform much better.

Given that it was only $20 and is now probably an airport that wasn't than important to me in the first place and the fact that it most likely wont be looked at for more optimization, I am not terribly disappointed in the waste of money, still regret it though, but will make sure to keep it mind before the next purchase if the airport I am interested in is made by Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all, Hello Mathijs :)

Ok, I've read the manual and made the changes in my settings under FSX. After that, I've rebuilt my fsx.cfg.

I've made two tries. The first with the fsx.cfg by default and the other with only RejectThreshold=262144, FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.15

All with the default Cessna C172, UTX without road traffic

And the result is clearly better with a fsx.cfg modified ! Between 4 and 8 fps more

With the fsx.cfg by default and UT2 to 85%

- Taxi : 20-23 fps

- Takeoff from 14L : 18-21 fps

With the fsx.cfg modified like above and UT2 to 85%

- Taxi : 27-29 fps

- Takeoff from 14L : 20-25 fps

Without use nVidia inspector settings, but antialiasing and aniso in FSX, I gain about 3-4 fps more but there is a lot of shimmering then ....

You're right. With the good settings, the performances are better, clearly. But the fsx.cfg by default is not the best for me.

RejectThreshold=262144

and

FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.15

give really better results

regards

Luc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought Toulouse last night and it doesn't perform well on my rig either.I get about a max of 22 FPS with zero traffic and zero cars turned on and about 19 FPS max with traffic on and cars still off. Something is not right when I can fly into FSDT JFK with 100% AI (cars still off) which is a much more demanding area than Toulouse is and still get FPS between 25 and 30 in the VC of the NGX and then go to Toulouse and get an average of 16 to 20 with traffic on. Mind you, there is probably 3 times more AI at JFK than LFBO and the area in general is more of an FPS hog than Toulouse is, and JFK is a much bigger airport.

To this day I have no idea what it is that Peter Werlitz does that makes his airports perform so badly when compared to other developers. Heck, an airport like this should yield FPS better than FSDT mega hubs of KLAX, KDFW and KJFK, but sadly this little airport fails to do so. I have always told myself I wouldn't get any more of Peters airports but dove in since it was only $20, now I regret the purchase since it performs so badly.

I know that Mathijis claims 50 FPS or whatever and that's fine, but as an end user when I get an airport that performs much worse than hubs that are bigger than stuff put out by FSDT, FlyTampa, TropicalSim, ORBX AU hubs, or even Taxi2Gates KSTL, then I know there is something wrong or not properly optimized with this airport given that on the same computer those other much larger airports with more AI perform much better.

Given that it was only $20 and is now probably an airport that wasn't than important to me in the first place and the fact that it most likely wont be looked at for more optimization, I am not terribly disappointed in the waste of money, still regret it though, but will make sure to keep it mind before the next purchase if the airport I am interested in is made by Peter.

I live in the UK... IF cmpbllsjc paid 20USD that equates to £12 GBP. My question is, why is it that in th UK I have to pay 20 Euro whcih equates to £16 GBP for the same product that is £4 more or 25% more than USA customer for the same product?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mathijs,

Thank you for bringing up this great add-on. The pics look awesome!!!

Please allow me one comment on the Beluga which I have seen in the screenshot area:

The parking position of the Beluga is not correct. In this add-on it has been placed in front of the delivery center, which is not reflecting reality.

It should be placed in front of the hangars next to the delivery center. Maybe you want to fix this?

Cheers

Jigedi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in the UK... IF cmpbllsjc paid 20USD that equates to £12 GBP. My question is, why is it that in th UK I have to pay 20 Euro whcih equates to £16 GBP for the same product that is £4 more or 25% more than USA customer for the same product?

Your complaining over four quid? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your complaining over four quid? :lol:

That is right I am complaining over 4 quid. As a buyer of many Aerosoft products why should I pay 25% more each time for the same products each and every time I make a purchase?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is 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