Jump to content

David25210

Registered Users
  • Posts

    45
  • Joined

Everything posted by David25210

  1. Congrats and welcome back! FS2002 rocks.
  2. Wish I could find a nice KPSP for fs9, stuck with stock version.. for fsx the orbx version is great though, very accurate and well modeled scenery
  3. Really nice! Great clouds and overall atmosphere… BTW what DC-8 is that?
  4. …an update. Blackboxsimulation fixed their site payments, just grabbed 757…. Will install and test once I get to it…
  5. Thanks. Yesterday I purchased a boxed Justflight 777Pro version on eBay, it’s a PSS… I tried to buy the download at blackboxsimulation however they set PayPal as the only payment option, and it’s not working at PayPal, blackboxsimulation SSL certificate is invalid, maybe thats the reason, I exchanged mails with their support and waiting if they’ll figure it out. Either way, have boxed JF777 coming in mail someday next week… also got JF 757 Captain box… if blackboxsimulation fixes the purchasing, I’ll maybe get the PSS757 too..it’s affordable. Have their Airbus already from the past, both for fs2002 and fs2004, however that one isn’t too great. I assume 777 and 757 are better.. I also installed two free 777s, however I’m not too happy with either due to simple panels. Deeknow above recommended the payware panels in a replay above too, I’m undecided yet.
  6. Thanks, I’ll definitely want a complete package with good sharp 2D panels, sounds and working FMC, and would add desired liveries later on if I’m happy with plane. I’ll do a search..
  7. sometimes the freeware packages gave me too much headaches due to missing this or that (bad experience for instance with some dc3/rd4 , maam or what was it, tons of work and at the end had to uninstall and manually seek and remove installed unneeded conflicting files , however I surely don’t mind freeware, can you drop link to a good one? Some sites are better than others, thanks. Maybe here at Flightsim are some available?
  8. ...here are a few of my recent ones. I use FS2000, FS2002, FS2004 (and FSX). You guys are right, FS2004 may be the best one out of them, but they are great all...
  9. Hello, I’m looking for a decent FS2004 777 payware, I don’t see too many choices, and wonder if Blackbox/PSS 777 Professional is worth to get for €10 ? Also, 777 for FS2002/2000? Thanks.
  10. Steve, the flattening for KSEA I do with the software you mentioned, the Pilot’s AFM tool for FS2004. Im not applying FSGlobal terrain mesh though because I remember it was creating even worse mess all over the sim, and AFM gives mixed result success, sometimes OK, sometimes not. The nightmare was for instance KCOS, due to nearby 5CO airport or what’s the name of it the scenery is better without mesh at the end . I may look at SBuilder. What sucks is that while FZ 02 KPDX looks great, I can’t believe that the scenery author overlooked the impact on KSEA + UT USA, because those are in FS9 world really the most popular and commonly used. Stock KSEA is default flight and great as unified test benchmark, and UT USA is as far as I think also commonly widespread. The FZ02-UTUSA patch does job fine around KPDX, but the FZ 02 scenery reaches to KSEA unfortunately…. Oh well. I don’t have FlyTampa KSEA, although I’m considering to get it. I do have their Vienna and it’s excellent, but maybe too demanding for slower machines…assume KSEA would be similar.
  11. Hello Steve, thx for reply. On laptop that I test this on, in this area I have UT USA v.1.3 as the only scenery add-on, and now trying add FZ 02 Portland. No mesh installed /such as FSGlobal or FS Terrain/, or anything else. KSEA is stock. Have just a few airports in other unrelated areas that don't conflict at all. Here are sample shots with descriptions. I cant get rid of either sunk lakes, or holes in the terrain by the KSEA, or KSEA on small plateau. On the other hand, KPDX seems flawless terrain wise... How yours looks like? David
  12. Hello, anyone around using this excellent scenery still? Flight Zone 02: Portland FS2004 Its an excellent scenery however it has issues with Ultimate Terrain USA, and particularly KSEA airport elevation and its surrounding. I had Flight Zone 02: Portland installed many years ago, and remembered that it had these issues, anyway I decided to give it another try, and yes, the conflicts between UT USA exist. Even with the FZ02-UTUSA.exe patch applied. It removes double coastlines at KSEA, however airport elevation is screwed up. I don't feel like start trying again all the possible combinations of layering, flattening etc.. someone maybe figured this out already? Anyone could help? Thanks..
  13. Amazing screenshots, congratulations, and thanks for sharing them! Very inspiring, while reassuring us that FS2004 is far from being forgotten sim…
  14. “I value imagination more than graphics…. I like the 2002, …it’s light and very good…” . These words precisely describe what I feel too. Very lightweight sim that has minimal hardware requirements and never crashes… FS2002 has off course some drawbacks, but it’s fun. More flying, and generally less fooling with settings. It just works.
  15. Very nice! But now I’ll have to take the identical flight in 767PIC and on FS2000 for comparison…
  16. Fantastic, thanks! Downloading right now. I bought recently two of these airport volumes on eBay, however don't have access to them right now, staying temporarily at different location. However, since I do have several old laptops here, I loaded old flight sims as FS2002 , and even FS2000. On 12 years old i3 -M370 dual core 2.4GHz laptop with ATI/AMD Mobility Radeon 5000 HD graphics and 8GB RAM I get fun flying old Wilco 767 PIC in FS2000, and with those adventures and failures etc... Its fun! As long as the old laptops have separate mobile graphics chip it works fine. Ill post pics from some flight and airports. FS2002 works great too, except the damn gauges flicker with external AA applied.. still trying to figure out the cause and solution.
  17. Loki, thanks for that Steam Edition changelog link. That explains why FSX-SE runs bit better then FSX itself... Im going through Kostas once again while getting the FSX run reasonably well even on such an old hardware... My main problem isnt the performance, its the laptops cooling fan noise and heat. I keep blowing the fan and inlets with compressed air to keep airflow, even lifting it up a bit off surface.. However, made a small progress; with jobscheduler and affinity mask set to run on only 1 core as the poster above had in his FSX.cfg (2 core CPU with HT=cores 0,1,2,3) I managed to get the CPU load at around 27-30%, which seems to keep the cooling fan spin fairly quietly. Ill keep experimenting, but will install FSX-SE in coexistence mode on this laptop too, I have it on other rigs this way and no problem, keeping eye not to mix them up, and so far so good, for months, with many add ons installed in both sims. Pic how it looks like now, off course at 1366x768 desktop and FSX windowed at 960x720 its limited, but at my current location I have to live with what I have right now.... at KSEA and stock DC-3, autogen on normal, water on low 1x, etc but is smooth and usable..
  18. Thanks for pointing it out, yes, Im just looking for the tweak lines, the whole fsx.cfg replacement wouldnt do any good...
  19. Thank you, just inspecting your fsx.cfg, and looking for tweaks you used. BTW, which generation is your i3? Im now tuning on aged i3-370M. Have another laptop with i3 (10th generation) , that one handles fsx easily, but still lots of fan noise, however that one uses integrated UHD graphics. But can run FSX-SE cranked very high. didnt try with FSX SP2/Acc...
  20. Thanks. I think you’re right here, I loaded Fsx-se alongside the Fsx , in the exact same flights with identical settings the fsxse runs cpu at about half usage compared to fsx acceleration . Also, no artifacts or tearing. This is really problem for me only on weak hardware as old laptop, on powerful well ventilated desktop I can happily run both versions together because the higher cpu load of Fsx isn’t such an issue. But fans on old laptops react to increased cpu load with high noise and that’s what I’m trying to avoid. Well, apparently Fsx-se is a winner here… t
  21. Hello, I’ve been lately running FSX-SE on several old laptops (such as 2nd gen core i3 with 8GB RAM and 1GB Radeon 5000 series), and because fsx-se annoyances such required steam initial launch, also invalid security certificate issue, certain add-ons install quirks etc, I decided to install FSX Gold instead after wiping FSX-SE properly from all directories. Upon launching, I see that basic-tuned FSX (highmemfix, texturemaxload) to put it on par with FSX-SE, FSX puts higher CPU load then FSX-SE… over 50% (FSX) vs around 30% (FSX-SE); that makes difference in fan noise on old laptop which is too much annoyance.. also there is more tearing and black texture load occasional flicker in FSX while FSX SE doesn’t seem to suffer from this… Anyway, can someone suggest what exactly steam/dovetail did to Fsx code that it runs actually better? And whether I can offset this somehow in Fsx.cfg settings? I’ve been tweaking Fsx since the release , so I am generally familiar with many useful and not so useful tweaks, however I don’t see any of those implemented in fsx-se.cfg and it still runs this better? just a thought… thx in advance…
  22. Photoscenery doesn't have any autogen, so what you see is normal. The buildings and trees are placed in FSX according to terrain textures and/or landclass. Photo scenery doesn't have those textures so no autogen... As for the airports, I think that you should see buildings etc because airports are usually excluded from photoscenery coverage, or at least its runways, taxiways etc... Someone corrects me if Im wrong.
×
×
  • Create New...