ArjenVdv

A slightly late reply by me, but if your problem is what I think it is, then I am sorry to tell you that you have missed a very easy fix for this known problem, that has been out there for years. If you know about the fsx.CFG file in Appdata/Roaming/Microsoft/FSX, open the file with notepad and under the [GRAPHICS] section add HIGHMEMFIX=1. This is supposed to fix all graphics corruptions except for artifacting that is caused by system imbalance. Also add this: [bUFFERPOOLS] UsePools=0 This makes your performance jump into the air, but cause some slight instability. This is nothing to worry about if you have a balanced and stable system. To prevent other crashes, search for the UIAutomationCore.DLL file, download it, and drop it inside your FSX root folder. This link will tweak your fsx.CFG file for you, giving you proper and stable settings: www.venetubo.com/fsx.html.

Exactly, in the original FS9 version the engine sounds barely differed from each other. I hope this time the engines will sound more like the real thing.

Thank you, but are the engine types only modelled graphically and physically, or will all engines types also feature their own distinctive engine sound recordings?

Can I ask what engine variant(s) will be done? As long as you give as at least the GE engines I would be happy. (They sound the best!) But having PW and RR would be nice as well, all with different sounds of course.

Hello Hamzeh, api.dll crashes can be due to several causes. Most commonly it is caused by a system instability: 1. CPU overclock: make sure your overclock is at least 12 hours stable in stress testing 2. System imbalance: I used to have this problem using a bad videocard in combination with a good CPU. 3. Any other BIOS settings: check if your RAM timings are set according to spec, put your videocard to default clock speed if overclocked. 4. Perhaps you have some outdated parts in your PC that are coming to their end and causing instability.

Once and for all, PMDG will not do an Airbus. It is not going to happens. FSLabs and Aerosoft are the companies working on Airbusses already. Especially FSLabs is capable of delivering good quality, so there wouldn't be much of a point for PMDG to make one. The only things we can expect are Boeings, MD's, and maybe CRJ's and Embraers in the future.

Okay, where did you get those definitions? In my "Aerodynamics for Engineering Students" study book, it says this: Lift is the force perpendicular to the direction of flight or undisturbed stream. You say lift is perpendicular to effective airflow. Effective airflow is not the direction of flight (or is it?). Very contradicting information, very confusing. But who is correct?

Thank you, I think it's starting to be cleared up for me now. It seems to be the inconsistent designations in books and on the internet causing the confusion.

In that image the lift vector is not perpendicular to the relative wind. That is what is making things confusing for me.

That is indeed what I mentioned, that would make things easier and more unstandable. But am I even allowed to put the vectors this way? Because as far as I know, the actual lift vector should always be perpendicular to the effective relative wind and NOT to the chord line. Another question, this would clear things up, because it's probably this relative wind that is causing the confusion. There is relative wind (also called undisturbed stream), and EFFECTIVE relative wind, which is usually under and angle caused by the wing down-wash. Now, is the direction of flight parallel and opposite to the relative wind or effective relative wind. But if the second case was true, the plane would be climbing in all my pictures. I don't want it to climb, I want my plane to fly horizontally and the analyze the induced-drag caused by different angles of attack.

Hello, For Aeronautical Engineering I am studying Aerodynamics, and today I am getting totally confused about lift-induced drag, it is litterally driving me crazy. Now, if you don't know anything about Aerodynamics, you better don't waste your time because things are about to get real complicated... :/ Now, lift-induced drag, inversed propertional to speed. Okay, I understand. Lift is perpendicular to relative wind, and relative wind is opposite to the direction of flight. So if, like in my image, the relative wind line is under an angle, the plane is climbing, right? Now the plane goes flying slower, so obviously lift-induced drag would be increased. Also, the angle of attack has increased to create enough lift at lower speeds. Now I have these component vectors, the one perpendicular to the relative wind and direction of flight is my lift vector, my vertical component vector is the effective lift vector. The one right in between, should be my lift-induced vector. But this is where I am getting lost. When the plane flies slower, and the angle of attack is increased and thus my aerofoil drawing is tilted further backwards, my component vectors do not shift or change because they do not depend on the angle of the aerofoil but only on the relative wind. So my lift-induced component vector is not changing when I change the angle of attack?! This would mean the lift-induced drag is not dependant on the angle of attack. And this is of course conflicting information. Now if the lift vector would simply be perpendicular to the chord line, it would be a whole lot more understandable: when the AOA changes, the lift vector would tilt further backwards, also increasing the lift-induced component vector. But of course lift is perpendicular to relative wind, and not to the chord line. I must be missing something, but at the moment things are not coming together because things are contradicting themselves...

When will people start to realise clockspeeds aren't all that important? It is the clockspeed/architecture balance that makes CPUs fast.

When I load up FSX, the time and date is always in sync with my system because I have "Use system time for free flight" checked and also in FSUIPC I have a similar option as this one enabled. So when you load a free flight this all works fine, but when you load your saved flight back up, this doesn't work. It only puts the system time in sync, but not the system date. Lately I noticed the date in FSX was like 2 weeks behind on the actual date. I only use saved flights every time so that is why. But does anyone know how to make FSX select the date automatically even when loading up a saved flight? The reason this bothers me is because of seasonal textures.

I have noticed this problem too and I think it is normal. It happens when the same airport scenery is loaded up for a second or third time and then it becomes jerky like that. I have had it at KLAX too. Just try yourself and see if we have the same problem. Load up the airport, fly away from it then come back and land. See if it's jerky, and if not, try again. As Steve said, might have something to do with the airport scenery staying loaded in the memory. This issue shouldn't really bother anyone because you rarely come back to the same airport as you departed from and it doesn't even happen at all airports either.

Get yourself some pedals. And I'd get the Cessna productline next time, they are much better quality (I have used both).

Huh? I always thought PoolSize=0 and UsePools=0 all do the same thing? I have tried it myself and I get the exact same performance with both settings. I have been running PoolSize=0 for ages now and never have I had any CTDs during normal operation of FSX.

Completely disagree. Without BP=0 I wouldn't even play FSX.

+1 to that guide ^ Imo, there are only two things you need to do for good framerates. Go to www.venetubo.com/fsx.html, upload your fsx.CFG and the website will make the necessary tweaks. Note that the tweaks that are added here will not do all that much to performance. It will help more with stability. Download this fsx.CFG and open it, and look for [bufferPools], under this there should be a line called RejectThreshold. Delete this line and replace it with PoolSize=0. Save the file and copy/paste/overwrite it at in [Your Name]/AppData/Roaming/Microsoft/FSX. A few notes regarding FSX settings: Never use lightbloom in DX9. Never use ground scenery shadows Never set water higher than HIGH 2X. Don't use a cloud draw distance of more than approx. 80 nm Be conservative with your AI traffic settings: even boats and road traffic can massively reduce your performance. If you are struggling with smoothness you try and download NVIDIA Inspector. Then for the MS Flight Simulator X profile, set Vertical Sync Tear Control to 1/2 refresh rate for a 60 Hz monitor, and 1/4 refresh rate with a 120 Hz monitor (you want to end up with 30 FPS). Leave Vertical Sync Mode on Standard. Now save the changes and go to FSX, first try with unlimited frames. If it isn't smooth try setting your framerate limiter to 30 FPS. Note that any other external framerate limiters should not be used. If you can maintain a constant 30 FPS then FSX should display the frames in very constant sequence. Even though your FPS will now be "only" 30, they will be displayed fluidly without hiccups. Good luck!

Paul and everybody else, I have had a short look on the fsx.CFG you've sent me, Paul. I haven't had the time yet to experiment with the settings, but I saw what you typed about the DisablePreload=1 setting. I checked my actual fsx.CFG and this setting wasn't there even though I was sure it had been there before (I think the Add-on manager has changed my settings, and it does more often, I hate this program). So I applied the setting and VSync now works like a charm in DX10 too. I might give it another shot. Tomorrow some more studying but I will take a good look at it in the afternoon.

Clockspeed isn't everything. What matters is the architecture. I can assure you a 4.5 GHz Broadwell will outperform a 5 GHz Sandy Bridge. Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

It is completely normal for your PC to degrade after a few years of use if you have an overclock. I for one built my system about two years ago. I started with a 4.7 GHz overclock back then which became unstable last year, so I increased my voltage by 0.005, hich became unstable again last month. Because I had already passed the 1.4V boundary I decided to reduce my overclock to 4.6 GHz on 1.38V. Runs rock solid and the difference is hardly noticeable. This should get me going for another year, ajd I recommend you do the same thing. Just increase your voltage until your overlock becomes stable or reduce the multiplier a notch. For another few months 1.45V shouldn't hurt, but don't go higher. P.S. There is no point of setting UsePools=1 if you don't set a PoolSize. FSX has bufferpools enabled by default so just adding a UsePools=1 will do nothing. But, in DX9 mode you don't wanna use bufferpools becase all you're doing is just limiting your performance. Just set PoolSize=0 and nothing else (no UsePools=1), you should be getting much better performance now. Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Thank you Paul, I will start digging into this tonight. First, I have got to study for uni. :smile:

Paul, thank you very much, I appreciate it. Hereby the fsx.CFG Arjen_fsx.txt

I have got to admit, I have absolutely NO IDEA. P.S. I wasn't getting upset at all! :smile: :smile: :smile: I hope you can help me, really appreciate it!

Because Michael Moe told me to in another thread. And I have also seen post of you saying it should be set to Bioshock/Bioshock 2.