99 replies to this topic

[ChaoticBeauty]

SwitchFX, on Sep 15 2011, 11:52 PM, said:

You've never heard of AVSim or the dozens of other repositories that have hundreds of textures for every part of the sim? Or how companies like FTX offer some of their scenery for free? Bad simmer!

But won't this decrease performance?

[CaptainG37]

Kaotika, on Sep 16 2011, 08:56 PM, said:

But won't this decrease performance?

For someone who runs FSX on Ultra High settings and constantly getting upwards of 35fps, you seem awfully concerned about poor performance when it comes to add ons.
Just sayin'

[Daube]

Kaotika, on Sep 16 2011, 05:56 AM, said:

But won't this decrease performance?

Some addons or replacement textures will have an impact on performance.
For exemple, replacing the autogen textures by higher resolution ones will definitely impact the performance.
But there are some counter-examples, for example the clouds. Despite being low resolution and ugly, the default clouds are extremely heavy on the performance. Installing some 512 or 1024 alternative textures like HDE make everything better, performance AND graphism. I'd recommend 512 textures though, good-enough. 4096 textures like REX can kill the performance easilly.

And even if you can't "afford" addons, you cannot ignore the freeware tasmania and PNW demos offered by OrbX, best sceneries ever !

[SwitchFX]

Kaotika, on Sep 16 2011, 03:56 AM, said:

But won't this decrease performance?

What is "this"?

[ChaoticBeauty]

CaptainG37, on Sep 16 2011, 03:24 PM, said:

For someone who runs FSX on Ultra High settings and constantly getting upwards of 35fps, you seem awfully concerned about poor performance when it comes to add ons.
Just sayin'

Firstly, it's mixed High/Ultra High settings (as I said), and I hope you understand that anything under 35 FPS is unplayable. Stop pulling crap out of your toilet.

Daube, on Sep 16 2011, 03:41 PM, said:

Some addons or replacement textures will have an impact on performance.
For exemple, replacing the autogen textures by higher resolution ones will definitely impact the performance.
But there are some counter-examples, for example the clouds. Despite being low resolution and ugly, the default clouds are extremely heavy on the performance. Installing some 512 or 1024 alternative textures like HDE make everything better, performance AND graphism. I'd recommend 512 textures though, good-enough. 4096 textures like REX can kill the performance easilly.

And even if you can't "afford" addons, you cannot ignore the freeware tasmania and PNW demos offered by OrbX, best sceneries ever !

OK, I'll consider those freeware textures.

SwitchFX, on Sep 16 2011, 08:23 PM, said:

What is "this"?

Adding new textures.

[Daube]

Kaotika, on Sep 16 2011, 01:49 PM, said:

OK, I'll consider those freeware textures.

OrbX addons are not only texture. They are full sceneries, including:
- new mesh
- totally new ground textures that will affect ONLY the area covered by the demos
- new landclass to place those textures efficiently on the ground, together with roads, shorelines, rivers, lakes etc...
I'd recommend you to try at least the PNW demo, especially since they included their KHQM Bowerman airfield inside
The demo covers all of the Olympic peninsula south-west of Seattle.

[SwitchFX]

Kaotika, on Sep 16 2011, 11:49 AM, said:

Adding new textures.

Depends.

[Brandon-M]

Kaotika, on Sep 16 2011, 10:49 AM, said:

Firstly, it's mixed High/Ultra High settings (as I said), and I hope you understand that anything under 35 FPS is unplayable.

Edited by Brandon_, 16 September 2011 - 06:09 PM.

[CaptainG37]

Kaotika, on Sep 17 2011, 04:49 AM, said:

Firstly, it's mixed High/Ultra High settings (as I said), and I hope you understand that anything under 35 FPS is unplayable. Stop pulling crap out of your toilet.

What??  Anything under 35 fps is unplayable??  A standard television set flashes an image at you at 24 fps.  
Anything higher than that is considered smooth fps.  I suggest you stop pulling crap out of your and telling me it's water.

Edited by CaptainG37, 16 September 2011 - 06:18 PM.

[CaptainG37]

And just for your information, in case you would like proof...

http://en.wikipedia...._and_television

Have a nice day!

[E-Jet]

Daube, on Sep 14 2011, 03:10 PM, said:

Are you kidding ? I've been flying close formations in FSX with Hamachi (which makes FSX believe it's on a LAN), and the other player's plane position was rock-steady.



You can still host/join a multiplayer game just like in FS9, and you are not forced to use Gamespy (where I don't have any account). And even in LAN, the native FS9 multiplayer was TERRIBLE, and formation flights were impossible until IBNet Player appeared.
Perhaps you should try harder....
EDIT: Or is it like the AI planes ? They will jump with you get close to them if the FPS limit is set to unlimited. The solution is to set a reasonnable limit for the FPS in the game settings. But I don't know if this has any influence on multiplayer planes.

To add to that, even some Game Spy servers are good.

Me and my buddy go on the Virtual Blue Angels server all the time and fly the VRS. We can easily place the aircraft carrier, take off, trap, formation fly, do combat missions and even dogfight. Since we both know how to fly the VRS and have literally every manual ( even official US Navy F18/E/F manuals ) it is basically like flying in real life. However, you know... virtual game, etc.

[-Dexter]

CaptainG37, on Sep 16 2011, 07:09 PM, said:

What??  Anything under 35 fps is unplayable??  A standard television set flashes an image at you at 24 fps.  
Anything higher than that is considered smooth fps.  I suggest you stop pulling crap out of your and telling me it's water.

Wow.

Okay.

So many things wrong here.

Firstly, televisions (or, rather, the raw video source) use a method of blending frames together. This is called interlacing. So they can display 24 frames per second smoothly as long as the frames are being blended together. Put a movie in your DVD player, and hit pause during the movie. Notice how you'll be hard struck to find a "clear" frame.

PCs do not do this. PCs render every frame at complete clarity. There is no blending. You can take a screenshot [pause] at any time and it will be crystal clear. So 24FPS rendered from a computer is VASTLY choppier than 24FPS on your television.

The use of 24FPS comes from the film industry. 24 frames of film (per second) is the least amount of film required to keep the action smooth. So it makes sense when a production can save money by using less film overall.

If anyone's pulling crap out of their , it's you.

Edited by -Dexter, 16 September 2011 - 07:41 PM.

[CaptainG37]

-Dexter, on Sep 17 2011, 10:37 AM, said:

Wow.

Okay.

So many things wrong here.

Firstly, televisions (or, rather, the raw video source) use a method of blending frames together. This is called interlacing. So they can display 24 frames per second smoothly as long as the frames are being blended together. Put a movie in your DVD player, and hit pause during the movie. Notice how you'll be hard struck to find a "clear" frame.

PCs do not do this. PCs render every frame at complete clarity. There is no blending. You can take a screenshot [pause] at any time and it will be crystal clear. So 24FPS rendered from a computer is VASTLY choppier than 24FPS on your television.

The use of 24FPS comes from the film industry. 24 frames of film (per second) is the least amount of film required to keep the action smooth. So it makes sense when a production can save money by using less film overall.

If anyone's pulling crap out of their , it's you.

LMAO!  Ok.

Edited by CaptainG37, 16 September 2011 - 07:57 PM.

[SwitchFX]

CaptainG37, on Sep 16 2011, 04:09 PM, said:

What??  Anything under 35 fps is unplayable??  A standard television set flashes an image at you at 24 fps.  
Anything higher than that is considered smooth fps.  I suggest you stop pulling crap out of your and telling me it's water.

I kept rereading this post thinking Koatika replied to himself, arguing with himself until I realized it was another poster. It still delivered humor. You are correct, though.

[ChaoticBeauty]

CaptainG37, on Sep 17 2011, 02:09 AM, said:

What??  Anything under 35 fps is unplayable??  A standard television set flashes an image at you at 24 fps.  
Anything higher than that is considered smooth fps.  I suggest you stop pulling crap out of your and telling me it's water.

Obviously you've ignored some of my posts that say that my computer has a problem and for games anything under 60 FPS is unplayable and for FSX under 30 FPS is unplayable. It's probably a driver problem. Also -Dexter is 100% right.

Learn to read, then start posting bullcrap.

[CaptainG37]

Kaotika, on Sep 17 2011, 06:37 PM, said:

Obviously you've ignored some of my posts that say that my computer has a problem and for games anything under 60 FPS is unplayable and for FSX under 30 FPS is unplayable. It's probably a driver problem. Also -Dexter is 100% right.

Learn to read, then start posting bullcrap.

LOL! Ok.

You're right.  I really should read more about how 30fps is unplayable.
My bad.
I think it's more than just your computer that has the problem.

Edited by CaptainG37, 17 September 2011 - 04:32 AM.

[SwitchFX]

The only problem with Dexter's explanation is if your TV doesn't have a processor capable of downgrading FPS from say a DVD or Blu-ray, it'll play whatever the output is, such as 1080p/60i, where the onboard processor will downgrade the FPS feed to 24p. The entire process would take pages to explain, but the text is out there. 24p discussion is limited only to film or TV shows, day time shows, the news, etc. won't be done in 24p. FPS choppiness is relative to the game engine. 24 FPS isn't bad in FSX, but it's absolute crap in FS9. 35-60 FPS is amazing it FSX, but stutter-heaven in games like Crysis. Mango/Heiko posted some article over 6 years ago about the eye only seeing 30 FPS, which never made sense to me, and a few years later I found that it was a BS article. In theory, the eyes and brain combined can process as many FPS as you can give it. In theory, of course.

Edited by SwitchFX, 17 September 2011 - 04:56 AM.

[ChaoticBeauty]

CaptainG37, on Sep 17 2011, 12:24 PM, said:

LOL! Ok.

You're right.  I really should read more about how 30fps is unplayable.
My bad.
I think it's more than just your computer that has the problem.

...what did I just say?  

You obviously have a problem reading. And I'm not sarcastic.

Edited by Kaotika, 17 September 2011 - 05:44 AM.

[CaptainG37]

Kaotika, on Sep 17 2011, 08:43 PM, said:

...what did I just say?  

You tell ME and we'll both know.

Kaotika, on Sep 17 2011, 08:43 PM, said:

You obviously have a problem reading. And I'm not sarcastic.

If you say so.  And I don't expect you to be sarcastic.  
Have a GREAT day!

[ChaoticBeauty]

CaptainG37, on Sep 17 2011, 02:42 PM, said:

You tell ME and we'll both know.

I already said that it's probably a driver problem. How could you miss that?!