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

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!
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.
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.
....
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.
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)
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:OldAirmail wrote:Unfortunately, all too often, many "new" posts disappear before I get a chance to read them. This post was one of them.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)
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.
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....
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.
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!!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.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.TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=4500
TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=3000
Return to FS 2004 - A Century of Flight
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 434 guests