Simviation Forums

when you fly out of KSAN heading to the coast, you can find a rollercoaster and some other attractions. i guess they are there in real life too...

when you fly close to them and pause your flight, you'll see the rollercoaster is animated...it really is!  8)

TRUE!! There goes the RED rollercoaster!!

And ferry's wheel too!

Yup. I'm actually from San Diego, and I think the roller coaster in question is the one at Belmont Park. I've actually been on it, and the wooden structure makes for a hair-raising ride!

On a different note, most of the commercial pilots who fly in and out of Lindbergh are retired USN COD or USAF cargo pilots. Because of all the skyscrapers next to the airport, Lindbergh's approach is one of the trickiest in the country, necessitating considerable experience. Go Navy!

Shane Stachwick wrote:Yup. I'm actually from San Diego, and I think the roller coaster in question is the one at Belmont Park. I've actually been on it, and the wooden structure makes for a hair-raising ride!

On a different note, most of the commercial pilots who fly in and out of Lindbergh are retired USN COD or USAF cargo pilots. Because of all the skyscrapers next to the airport, Lindbergh's approach is one of the trickiest in the country, necessitating considerable experience. Go Navy!

...because all the other commercial ATP pilots don't have clue on how to fly an instument approach?

LOC Rwy 27. Published approach profile set up so that all pilots...even the incapable ones who don't have military service backgrounds...can avoid all those pesky buildings and mountains.

pegger wrote:...because all the other commercial ATP pilots don't have clue on how to fly an instument approach?

LOC Rwy 27. Published approach profile set up so that all pilots...even the incapable ones who don't have military service backgrounds...can avoid all those pesky buildings and mountains.

Easy, dude. Although a military service background helps, the other commercial pilots receive no less respect from me. I apologize profusely to anyone who finds my previous comment stupid or offensive. I feel sheepish...

Annnnnnddd......another quote from long ago!

"Gee, he didn't look sheepish..."

And no, I can't recall the commedian who used to say that...Mind like a steel sieve....

Pat☺

Thanks, Mr, Bones & Jean L.

I've never "flown" in the San Diego area. It actually looks pretty good.



Naturally, I had to check it out in FSX and P3d. Both have FTX Global & Vector so they're almost identical.

But FS2004 is the winner for animation, there is none (that I saw) in FSX/P3d.

San Diego Runway 27






Almost forgot - The amusement park. In P3d.

OldAirmail wrote:Thanks, Mr, Bones & Jean L.

I've never "flown" in the San Diego area. It actually looks pretty good.



Naturally, I had to check it out in FSX and P3d. Both have FTX Global & Vector so they're almost identical.

But FS2004 is the winner for animation, there is none (that I saw) in FSX/P3d.
....

I had better clarify that - There was no roller-coaster animation in the amusement park.

OldAirmail wrote:

OldAirmail wrote:Thanks, Mr, Bones & Jean L.
I've never "flown" in the San Diego area. It actually looks pretty good.
Naturally, I had to check it out in FSX and P3d. Both have FTX Global & Vector so they're almost identical.
But FS2004 is the winner for animation, there is none (that I saw) in FSX/P3d.
....

I had better clarify that - There was no roller-coaster animation in the amusement park.

Here I go again (me, from "words in FULL leters" era): what is a P3d? Gracias (we have the same "initials only" fashion, in Castillian languages)

In Golden Wings, with my trusty S-39 "Spirit of Africa", the amusement park had an animated roller-coaster, a spining Ferrys-wheel and a strange L-shaped concoction like a twisted crane, with an up & down elevator cabin: buildings were not that tall back then!! (1930's)

Jean Loup wrote:

OldAirmail wrote:

OldAirmail wrote:Thanks, Mr, Bones & Jean L.
I've never "flown" in the San Diego area. It actually looks pretty good.
Naturally, I had to check it out in FSX and P3d. Both have FTX Global & Vector so they're almost identical.
But FS2004 is the winner for animation, there is none (that I saw) in FSX/P3d.
....

I had better clarify that - There was no roller-coaster animation in the amusement park.

Here I go again (me, from "words in FULL leters" era): what is a P3d? Gracias (we have the same "initials only" fashion, in Castillian languages)

Unfortunately, all too often, many "new" posts disappear before I get a chance to read them. This post was one of them.


The answer is that P3d stands for Prepar3d (as in prepare 3D and often pronounced prepared). P3d is a shorter way to write Prepar3d.

Simplified - Prepar3d is an offshoot of FSX that is being developed by a defense contractor, Lockheed Martin.

A great many programs built for FSX will work without any modification in P3d. With other FSX software, it may need some changes.


Where FSX is a program that places a high demand on computer resources, P3d is even more demanding.

That's not to say that many new computers can't use P3d.

OldAirmail wrote:

Jean Loup wrote:

OldAirmail wrote:Thanks, Mr, Bones & Jean L.

Here I go again (me, from "words in FULL leters" era): what is a P3d? Gracias (we have the same "initials only" fashion, in Castillian languages)

Unfortunately, all too often, many "new" posts disappear before I get a chance to read them. This post was one of them.

The answer is that P3d stands for Prepar3d (as in prepare 3D and often pronounced prepared). P3d is a shorter way to write Prepar3d.

Simplified - Prepar3d is an offshoot of FSX that is being developed by a defense contractor, Lockheed Martin.

A great many programs built for FSX will work without any modification in P3d. With other FSX software, it may need some changes.

Where FSX is a program that places a high demand on computer resources, P3d is even more demanding.

That's not to say that many new computers can't use P3d.

When you say High demand on computer resources, you are not joking!! I am just geting aquainted with FSX (demo, mind you: confined to the Caribean Area & for ONE hour. But can add aircraft like in FS9 ... almost!). I compare the same aircraft on both, since many are compatible. One huge improvement I noticed right away. was the water. Oceans or lagoons, they really improoved water. My PC allows me to run Golden Wings 3 FULL blast, as instructed here in the FAQ section of FS 2004. BUT that's a NONO with FSX: look at my Silvaire Collection:

FSX config default:


My FSX config- ALL Very Low & Aircraft Medium High :


This is in Golden Wings 3, Luscombe-Maine Wilderness Tours-Yellow with floats:

Well, if you keep the FSX settings on "very low", it's not surprising your aircraft looks so bad. You should at lease increase the global texture size setting, in order to allow FSX to load the object textures at their normal resolution....

Concerning the remarks made earlier about P3D, I have to disagree.
P3D does not require more ressources than FSX, it's the contrary in fact.
FSX relies mainly of the power of the CPU, and the power of the graphic card is kind of ignored, FSX does not use it as much as it should (because of DirectX9 limitations, for example).
P3D uses te graphic card power for the terrain and the autogen, as well as other graphical effects. The rest of the sim is running on the CPU. That means the "global" power of your computer is used more evenly by P3D than FSX.

My computer is quite old now: i7 960 running at 3,2 GHz, NVidia GTX480, Windows 7 64. I've got both FSX Acceleration and P3D v2 on that computer, both on SSD hardrives.
FSX runs ok but the lack of CPU power prevents me from flying fast, because the generation of the terrain is too slow, I get blurry ground textures if I fly too fast.
P3D on the other hand, with the same amount of details, allows me to fly at more than Mach 1.5 at low altitude on 1m/pixel photosceneries with autogen at maximum density. On FSX, this would simply be impossible.

So no, P3D does NOT require more ressources than FSX, not at all.
P3D will be able to use more ressources than FSX, that is true.
Today, if I change my video card to buy a 'not too old' one, for example an NVidia from the 6xx generation (two generations late, but they are quite cheap now), I will see some improvements that will allow me to push my settings even higher. But at the moment, my old GTX480 does the job quite well and I'm very happy with it.

the amusement park animation effect does not appear in fsx or p3d.
would it be possible to add them in ?
port them over somehow ?

Daube wrote:Well, if you keep the FSX settings on "very low", it's not surprising your aircraft looks so bad. You should at lease increase the global texture size setting, in order to allow FSX to load the object textures at their normal resolution....

Now my settings for FSX(demo) are: all sliders set at MEDiUM HiGH except- Metereology set at MEDiUM LOW- Global Texture Resolution set at HiGH (no Lens)-Realism set at MEDiUM while I familiarize myself with FSX. I must say it is a VAST iMPROVEMENT over my FiRST impression with FS9, when I had XP on a PC with Intel 1600 GHz speed, 20 GB hard disc & 512 MB RAM memory ... & BEFORE those wunderbar FS2004 Tricks-Tweaks & Configs that this Forum uses to drive us ALL NUTS!!!

NEVER before had I noticed runaway vehicles on FS roads!!

Daube wrote:My computer is quite old now: i7 960 running at 3,2 GHz, NVidia GTX480, Windows 7 64. I've got both FSX Acceleration and P3D v2 on that computer, both on SSD hardrives.
FSX runs ok but the lack of CPU power prevents me from flying fast, because the generation of the terrain is too slow, I get blurry ground textures if I fly too fast.
P3D on the other hand, with the same amount of details, allows me to fly at more than Mach 1.5 at low altitude on 1m/pixel photosceneries with autogen at maximum density. On FSX, this would simply be impossible.

Here I have found this (Another way to improve fps in FS-X): First find FSX.cfg AFTER showing hidden Files & Folders & AFTER showing hidden Protected Operating System files (Recomended): C:\Users\Your NAME\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\FSXDemo\fsx.cfg

If you add these two lines to the [TERRAIN] section of your FSX.CFG, you can define the max number of objects in a terrain cell for trees and buildings independently. The slider will scale down from the numbers you set as the slider is moved to the left. The max tree value in FSX as released is coded to default to 4500 and the building default is 3000 (as shown below) and the absolute max FSX will recognize at all is 6000. Of course if you raise the values beyond the defaults, you will obviously be increasing density and lowering fps (so don't complain if you do this...). The point in sharing this information is that with these settings you can specify what the values are yourself. Set buildings or trees at 0 and you won't get any of those objects no matter where the slider is set.

TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=4500
TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=3000

I set mine at 1500, and 1000, respectively, and in the FSX.cfg files I set SHADERS-CACHE=0 and this now gets me double digit fps.

MiSTAKE: look for SHADER_CACHE_PRIMED=0 in [GRAPHiCS] of FSX.cfg. Presently I am at 22 fps, without any sttuters, tremors nor epileptics. Also, Time Travel between Golden Wings & FSX, do not show such a DEFORESTATiONAL degree of that magnitude, any more!!