Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Flight Simulator
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

matronics(at)bob.brennan.
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 am Post subject: Flight Simulator

I hope this isn't  too off topic for a Kitfox forum but does anyone use MS Flight Simulator X? I  had hoped to get some simulator time in while the weather is so gruesome but it  is unusable on my PC. I bought FSX, then the Saitek Aviator joystick to  hopefully make it work better, then more Ram, then a new video card, and most  recently the Acceleration Expansion Pack. But nothing gets it going faster than  about 2-3 frames per second, even at minimal settings, which is  unusable.

  

 MS lists minimum  requirements as Good, Better, Best - my PC falls into the Best category with a  3g P4, 1.5g Ram, and new 512m GeForce video card.

  

 MS support have been  very helpful so far and my problem has been "elevated" to the highest level as I  await yet another phone call from them. My question is simply - is anyone using  FSX successfully?

  

 Thanks,

  

 Bob Brennan - N717GB

 ELSA Repairman, inspection rated

 1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox

 Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop

 Wrightsville Pa 

  

   [quote][b]

akflyer

Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 574
Location: Soldotna AK

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:08 am Post subject: Re: Flight Simulator

I dont have any problems with it on my laptop, but I bought it knowing I would be gaming with it so I built it for that purpose.  I can run all settings on max without a hick up

_________________
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Leonard Perry aka SNAKE
Soldotna AK
Avid "C" / Mk IV
582 (147 hrs and counting on the rebuild)
IVO IFA
Full Lotus 1450
#1 snake oil salesman since 1-22-2009

I would rather die trying to live, than to live trying not to die....

matronics(at)bob.brennan.
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:06 am Post subject: Flight Simulator

Thanks for the reply Leonard, but how does your laptop compare to my PC

spec-wise?

Mine: 3ghz Pentium4, 1.5g Ram, great big disk, and new 512m GeForce 8400GS

video card



Running at default settings I get 2 to 3 frames per second (hit shift-z

twice to display real time fps), at absolute minimums the max I get is 6 to

7 fps, at high settings it goes into seconds per frame and control inputs

can take many seconds if not completely ignored. What frame rates can you

get?



Thanks for taking the time to compare, I'm needing as much info as possible

for when(if) MS support ever calls back.



bob



--

815TL

Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Posts: 62

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:09 am Post subject: Re: Flight Simulator

Bob, 

Take The MS flight sim back and in invest in x-plane.  It is a much, much better simulator in my opinion.  I have used both, and x-plane looks better, higher frame rate, and feels more 'real'.  Plus I have a nice model of a Kitfox II that I repainted, and re did the cockpit on, to look like my plane.  The orginal was created by Michel Verheughe, who is a member here.  I modified it for my use.



The only down side to x-plane is it can be hard to set up and configure properly, but I can help you out with that.  Also invest in a set of rudder pedals, they are worth it.



More on x-plane here: www.x-plane.com



And here: www.x-plane.org



Andrew

815TL, Kitfox II, Rotax 582-C

[/quote]

Kitfox_in_921.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

104.29 KB

Viewed:

475 Time(s)

matronics(at)bob.brennan.
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:36 am Post subject: Flight Simulator

I might give X-plane a try as well as FSX Andrew thanks, but for the moment

I really need to determine if it is FSX that is the problem or my PC, or

some magical setting I don't know about yet. If my PC is at fault it most

likely won't run X-plane well either.



bob

Do not archive



--

815TL

Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Posts: 62

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:56 pm Post subject: Re: Flight Simulator

 	  matronics(at)bob.brennan. wrote: 	
		  I might give X-plane a try as well as FSX Andrew thanks, but for the moment

I really need to determine if it is FSX that is the problem or my PC, or

some magical setting I don't know about yet. If my PC is at fault it most

likely won't run X-plane well either.



bob

Do not archive



-- 	




I have a fairly impressive computer, but was never able to run FSX at a decent frame rate either.  What video card do you have, Nvidia or ATI based, and what chipset?  I believe that FSX runs in DirectX, and X-plane runs in  OpenGL or something equivelent.  When I was running an ATI card, I had good preformance in Direct X, but realy poor in OpenGL.  I switched to a Nvidia based card and the OpenGL preformance went way up, but I did notice that some DirectX games slowed down, maybe 5-10%.  It was worth it to get the much better OGL preformance though.



Let me fire up FSX tonight and play with some settings and see if we can't get you figured out.  One thing to turn down, is water textures, and shadow complexity.  They are frame rate killers.



Andrew

akflyer

Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 574
Location: Soldotna AK

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:57 pm Post subject: Re: Flight Simulator

 	  matronics(at)bob.brennan. wrote: 	
		  Thanks for the reply Leonard, but how does your laptop compare to my PC

spec-wise?

Mine: 3ghz Pentium4, 1.5g Ram, great big disk, and new 512m GeForce 8400GS

video card



Running at default settings I get 2 to 3 frames per second (hit shift-z

twice to display real time fps), at absolute minimums the max I get is 6 to

7 fps, at high settings it goes into seconds per frame and control inputs

can take many seconds if not completely ignored. What frame rates can you

get?



Thanks for taking the time to compare, I'm needing as much info as possible

for when(if) MS support ever calls back.



bob



-- 	




Sager NP9262

17" Wide Viewing Angles WSXGA+ LCD with super glossy surface (1920X1200)

Intel core 2 quad processor Q9450 / 12 mb L2 Cache, 2.66 Ghz, 1333 Mhz FSB

Nvidia GeForce 9800M GT / 512 MB DDR3 Vid Memory

Vista home Premium

4 GB Dual Channel DDR2 SD RAM (at) 800 Mhz (2X 2048 MB)

200 & 320 GB 7200 RPM SATA 300 HD

8X DVD +_ R/RW/ 4X +DL Super Multi Drive

Intel Pro Wireless 4965AGN 802.11A/B/G/N Wireless LAN Module

Internal BlueTooth Module

steve.didier(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:33 pm Post subject: Flight Simulator

I use FSX along with Xplane 9 on my iMac FSX under Bootcamp in XP with no hiccups full frame rates and all of the eye candy turned on. I can't, however, run it in a virual machine in eithr VmWare or Parallels at an acceptable setting.Steve Didier

C172

Idaho

On Jan 7, 2009, at 9:32 AM, Bob Brennan wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		    I hope this isn't too off topic for a Kitfox forum but does anyone use MS Flight Simulator X? I had hoped to get some simulator time in while the weather is so gruesome but it is unusable on my PC. I bought FSX, then the Saitek Aviator joystick to hopefully make it work better, then more Ram, then a new video card, and most recently the Acceleration Expansion Pack. But nothing gets it going faster than about 2-3 frames per second, even at minimal settings, which is unusable.

  

 MS lists minimum requirements as Good, Better, Best - my PC falls into the Best category with a 3g P4, 1.5g Ram, and new 512m GeForce video card.

  

 MS support have been very helpful so far and my problem has been "elevated" to the highest level as I await yet another phone call from them. My question is simply - is anyone using FSX successfully?

  

 Thanks,

  

 Bob Brennan - N717GB

 ELSA Repairman, inspection rated

 1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox

 Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop

 Wrightsville Pa 

  

  	  Quote: 	
		  

href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	


	


 [quote][b]

matronics(at)bob.brennan.
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:38 pm Post subject: Flight Simulator

Video card is brand new Nvidea GeForce 8400 GS on an ATI bus which is all my

motherboard has on it other than AGP. DirectX is the latest downloaded from

M$ yesterday. FSX has service packs 1 & 2 installed from the Acceleration

disk. I tried turning off every option in the Custom Settings dialog, off if

I can and absolute minimum otherwise, lowest resolution on the list. Target

frame rate is 17, the best it will actually do in a very blurry dull jerky

world is 7.



Still waiting for the call from the M$ expert who promised to call at noon

(is now 4:30 EST here). I'm glad real airplanes aren't this much trouble!



Do not archive

bob



--

Michel

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 966
Location: Norway

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:58 pm Post subject: Flight Simulator

 	  Quote: 	
		   From: 815TL [lawrenceaw(at)corning.com]

 Take The MS flight sim back and in invest in x-plane.  It is a much, much better 

 simulator in my opinion.  I have used both, and x-plane looks better, higher frame

 rate, and feels more 'real'.


	


Well, X-Plane feels more real, that's for sure. But MS FS is "nicer" in the way that it has many fine eye-candy features and a very large existing database of airfields and sceneries.



The difference in the simulators models is that MS FS use what can be called "look-up tables." When you build an aircraft, you enter the stall speed, Vne, etc. and for speeds in-between, the values are interpolated.



X-Plane, on the other hand, uses what is called "blade theory." It takes any part of the aircraft into an airfoil with own lift, drag and moment. Then it goes through each computation for each frame refresh. 



When you build an aircraft in X-Plane, you have to enter what you think is the closest model then you go and fly. If the aircraft then stalls at the speed intended then you are very lucky! You can then work with the actual airfoil, the wash-out, the CoG, learn about aviation and see how the model changes.



I often work with X-Plane, PlaneMaker and AirfoilMaker programs open at the same time. Tiny adjustments, testing, back to the drawing board ... you get the picture!



With MS FS, if you enter a value for stall speed, the aircraft will always stall exactly at that speed!



X-Plane is in fact a digital wind tunnel. Even small change in the step of the fuselage of a seaplane makes great difference. It is truly a wind (and water) modeller.



However, two warnings about simulators.



- None of them can simulate properly a spin. That is because data about airfoil is known for "normal" angles; not when the apparent wind meets the wing and perhaps an angle of 80 degrees and certainly not when e.g. because of the spinning motion, one of the horizontal stabs is in the "shade" of the tail. The only way to simulate that is with Computerized Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and that just can't be done in real time.



- You can set the angle of view of the screen as you want. But if you do a bit of geometry, in order to match the actual angle the screen makes and your perspective view of everything around you, the angle should be put to perhaps 25 or 30 degrees and that's too little to be able to see the panel.



Imagine you are in your Kitfox and you hold at arm's length a piece of cardboard that represents the frame of your screen when you are at home. You will see only a tiny part of the panel and landing with only that angle of view would be suicide.



Otherwise, it's fun, harmless and you are all welcomed to use my or Andrew's model.



Cheers,

Michel Verheughe

Norway

Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200



Do not archive



<pre><b><font size  color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">

_________________
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200

matronics(at)bob.brennan.
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:10 pm Post subject: Flight Simulator

Thanks Michel, that is a glowing endorsement for X-plane. Now can you fold

the wings on your Kitfox model and trailer it backwards at different angles?

(just kidding!)



My reason for wanting FSX is to review my former days of talking to ATC,

exploring local airports (the scenery in FSX is amazingly accurate),

simulating cross-country flights, and maybe learn a bit of IFR on the cheap.

It certainly seems capable of all that and more, if I could get the darn

thing to do more than a frame a second. Heck, I might even visit your

country.



bob



--

MichaelGibbs(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:28 pm Post subject: Flight Simulator

One way to figure out if the problem is with FSX would be to try X- 

Plane. You can download it for free from their website: <http://www.x-plane.com 

 >.



Mike G.

N728KF, Kitfox IV-1200 Speedster

Phoenix, AZ





On Jan 7, 2009, at 12:35 PM, "Bob Brennan"  

<matronics(at)bob.brennan.name> wrote:



[quote] 

 >



 I might give X-plane a try as well as FSX Andrew thanks, but for the  

 moment

 I really need to determine if it is FSX that is the problem or my  

 PC, or

 some magical setting I don't know about yet. If my PC is at fault it  

 most

 likely won't run X-plane well either.



 bob

 Do not archive



 --

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:43 pm Post subject: Flight Simulator

I have a similar system... A P4, 3.2 gHz  W/ i gig of RAM and a GeForce 6200 card. 256 VRAM  the computer is a second hand return from lease.  $250 tx incl.  The monitor is considerably more.  The FS-X runs great on this.   I like the FS 9 better only because my Kitfox flys great on it.  I fiddled with the program so tha plane gives closer to what I get in the real plane...  Then I did a repaint and a new panel.  Now if I could only figure out how to add floats.  BTW there are more and better ponds in FS 9.  

   

Noel  

       

From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Brennan

 Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 2:03 PM

 To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Flight Simulator  

  

  

     

I hope this isn't too off topic for a Kitfox forum but does anyone use MS Flight Simulator X? I had hoped to get some simulator time in while the weather is so gruesome but it is unusable on my PC. I bought FSX, then the Saitek Aviator joystick to hopefully make it work better, then more Ram, then a new video card, and most recently the Acceleration Expansion Pack. But nothing gets it going faster than about 2-3 frames per second, even at minimal settings, which is unusable.  

    

   

    

MS lists minimum requirements as Good, Better, Best - my PC falls into the Best category with a 3g P4, 1.5g Ram, and new 512m GeForce video card.  

    

   

    

MS support have been very helpful so far and my problem has been "elevated" to the highest level as I await yet another phone call from them. My question is simply - is anyone using FSX successfully?  

    

   

    

Thanks,  

    

   

    

Bob Brennan - N717GB  

    

ELSA Repairman, inspection rated  

    

1991 UK Model 2 ELSA Kitfox  

    

Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop  

    

Wrightsville Pa   

    

   

   	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9

       [quote][b]

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:48 pm Post subject: Flight Simulator

My best guess is there is a problem with the way your video card

communicates with your confuser. Make sure you have consistant RAM cards.

You may also have to enable the graphics card in control.



Noel



--

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

matronics(at)bob.brennan.
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:02 pm Post subject: Flight Simulator

 	  Quote: 	
		   Make sure you have consistant RAM cards.?


	


I formerly had just an onboard Intel chipset for video, now my monitor is

plugged into the Nvidea card so the video must be coming from there.

Checking My Computer > Manage > Device Manager > Display Adapters shows the

Intel chipset disabled and the Nvidea enabled. FSX only shows the Nvidea in

the Graphics dialog. Funny thing though - none of my programs show the

slightest difference, including all performance problems in FSX, when I

upgraded to the Nvidea. That can't be right... I expected more for my 120

bucks.



bob 



--

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:02 pm Post subject: Flight Simulator

I forgot to say my platform is XP SP-3 for the Flight Sim....  More and more

I'm switching to Dreamlinux distribution for internet browsing  and office.

I still haven't seen a linux program with the flexibility of MS Outlook.

When I do that's the way I'll go.



Noel

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:33 pm Post subject: Flight Simulator

I was referring to your RAM sticks...  Sometimes different sizes and speeds

of chips appear magically in the ram slots.  Having different sizes ,speeds

etc can slow down a computer.  

Perhaps you should run the possibility of removing the onboard video from

control panel past the people at Micro Soft... It is possible the onboard

and the NVidia are having a tug of war for every frame.



Noel



--

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

matronics(at)bob.brennan.
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:58 pm Post subject: Flight Simulator

Thanks Mike, I downloaded the free trial version from their website, a 30

minute download for a 10 minute preview. 10 minutes wasn't nearly enough to

figure out how to do anything other than crash, but the frame rate as I

plunged toward the earth was good and the detailed scenery rushing toward me

was impressive.



So likely not my PC then, and at $39.95 I just might order that DVD and do

it right.



bob



--

matronics(at)bob.brennan.
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:17 pm Post subject: Flight Simulator

The RAM sticks have been there for ages, I upgraded from the original 512m

by adding a 1g stick back when 1g sticks cost real money (I recently put 4g

in my Garmin for $18!), and never a problem. The Performance Monitor rarely

shows over 400m in use anyway. BTW I ran FSX with *everything* else shut

down, no difference.



The instructions for installing the Nvidea said to uninstall the onboard

drivers, I declined to follow a step that would leave me unable to read the

next step! Now that I know the Nvidea card is working I have uninstalled the

onboard chipset and restarted the PC - M$ plug-and-pray of course then

starts the whole Found New Hardware thing with no options to ignore it. It

re-installed the chipset as an "unknown" video controller which I had to

then disable.



Sadly, no difference, FSX is still doing an average of 2 frames per second

on default settings. And no phone calls from M$, what a surprise...



Do not archive

bob



--

815TL

Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Posts: 62

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:19 pm Post subject: Re: Flight Simulator

Bob,

Make sure you have the latest video drivers as well, that makes a world of difference.



About x-plane, let me get a couple of screen shots.  With the new version 9+, full detail and forests, I believe it looks much better than FSX.  Of course that is my own opinion.



Like I said, the program with all the add ons is huge, and a little complicated to get set up for the beginner, but I can help you out.



Oh, it also simulates ATC, and the airport database is more up to date.  On FSX, it still shows 7N1 in Painted Post NY, as a grass srtip, at its old location.  X-plane has it correct, with the new paved runway and taxiway.



Andrew



Edit: here are some pictures I took of our local area.  Elmira, NY specifically.  The buildings are generic, but it uses a real road map database, so all the roads and railroads you see are real.  Notice the numbers of trees, this adds a lot of realism over just flat terrain in my opinion.  Also notice the cloud shadows over th hills, really nice effect.



I don't want to push x-plane on you, but I do really think it is the better of the 2.  The only complaint is like Michel said.  Filed of view is limited.  It does make it kind of hard on your base leg to turn on to final.



Andrew

side4.JPG

Description:

Filesize:

115.55 KB

Viewed:

483 Time(s)

side3.JPG

Description:

Filesize:

123.88 KB

Viewed:

423 Time(s)

Side2.JPG

Description:

Filesize:

109.59 KB

Viewed:

441 Time(s)

side1.JPG

Description:

Filesize:

73.76 KB

Viewed:

365 Time(s)

runway.JPG

Description:

Filesize:

121.66 KB

Viewed:

405 Time(s)

external 1.JPG

Description:

Filesize:

130.26 KB

Viewed:

421 Time(s)

external 2.JPG

Description:

Filesize:

177.2 KB

Viewed:

512 Time(s)

Last edited by 815TL on Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:48 pm; edited 1 time in total

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum