Jump to content
The simFlight Network Forums

How many of you will purchase the Acceleration Package ?

Do you have or intend to get FSX Acceleration?  

37 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Whats frustrating is I could live with it too


i didnt know that it runs better and sharper in fsx.0

Thats the annoying thing

Had fsx always looked like that to me i would just think thats how it is

and get on with it.

As there doesnt seem to be a fix, and aces wont be fixing it they say,

there is little point discussing it any further but it may help you out

should you release a photo scenery for fsx and receive posts from

people like me suffering the blurries.

At least you will know it isnt your scenery thats to blame.

Back to fsx.0 for me though.

Shame because i liked the mustang in acceleration.

If aces just released a version of acceleration without including sp2 that would

be nice as the included photo scenery is quite nice and the planes are really good.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, while I did not try, as you say you are a specialist in daily install of FSX with or without AccPack :) - I cannot imagine that the new aircraft or scenery do not work at all under FSX.0 - OK I do not expect the carrier landings to work, or the catapults, but you know how to install.

If you do so, I assume you are aware of a program called MEMSTATUS, in version 2.5 it also displays the memory usage on the video card. What astonishes me is that in early times of FSX I saw values of 250 MB on my than 128 MB card, with horrible perfromance as I expected. Under AccPack, I only see 130 to 140 MB usage on my 320 MB card. Up to now I assumed the difference coming from the fact that elder cards store textures uncompressed, while newer store them compressed. But maybe there is also something coming from the FS version, so you might want to use it and to see if under FSX.0 this displays more memory to be used than under FSX.2.

"Whats frustrating is I could live with it too if i didnt know that it runs better and sharper in fsx.0". :lol: I'm an old man. I know how to forget things immediately - and outdated FS versions are top candidates for this useful forgetting. If I'd start to count what works perfectly and safe under Windows 98 or 2000 and only partially very unsafe under Vista, I'd stop making software. But I assume you do not want me to stop before the DX10 version of the last aircraft is made;-)

Which brings me to another idea what to test with photo scenery....

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I have memstatus, was used heavily while i was ironing out

texture issues on TES IV Oblivion projects.

Now theres a game that eats systems like no other i have seen.

Well maybe Bioshock but that ran fine on my setup and so does


I dont know how old you are but I am 43 years young :)

Its funny you should mention it as I am naturally at the moment

trying to rip out the scenery and planes etc from Acceleration

and fuse them into fsx.0 . But then you knew I would didnt you ;)

As you know errors and anomolies "jump" out at me, I cant ignore

them unfortunately as much as i try. So with me its always been a case

of I either fix it, or forget it and move on.

Will report back once i have checked out some new ideas and see what,

if anything, I can actually fix.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

My memstatus usage under fsx.0 and fsx.2 is the same roughly

usual 250mb max 350mb which is basically under using my card as it is a 512mb card.

one interesting line i am pursuing in the fsx.cfg is the jobscheduler tweak

i am not sure but my eyes rarely lie but when i set this to single core mode

my blurries decrease dramatically. still not as good as fsx.0 but way better.

this is strange, if it is actually accurate and not imagined.

dual core mode i get blurries, single core mode i dont as much.

i am playing now with other tweaks i have tried before but now i am including

single core mode in them.

a second point i have realised is this. I have endlessly trawled the other forums

and blogs and anything related to blurries post fsx.0

I see many people posting images to prove they dont suffer this issue. so far

every image i have seen has the blurries on it.

All that i can conclude from this is that in actuality we are all suffering the same

issue, but some people just dont see it, or dont want to see it.

I have yet to see a screenshot from the "i dont suffer from it" users that doesnt

have the blurries to some degree on it.

This both surprised me and disheartened me as it means a "cure" is possibly not to be found

after all.

By all means if you believe you are in the "I dont have blurries" group post some shots.

real, in game (not waiting for the right time or place) shots as i am very interested in

this area. Be honest with yourself and post the normal shots as posting "perfectly timed"

shots helps no one and just muddies the waters.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

You managed to convince me that I also see these blurries :) I just never saw better, nor do I expect it better. I must add that on the same system I see the same effect also under DX10. I would describe it as FSX.1/2 to focus correctly only on a part of the screen that is too small.

Independent on the sharpness, I have a severe problem with photo scenery of the type you show me anyway. As soon as I move over it for more than a few minutes, watching shadows of not existing 3 D objects on a completely smooth scenery, I physically loose balance up to getting pain in the stomach and worse :roll: - my eyes just need the three dimensional objects to maintain balance. That is why I never would fly over any flat photo scenery, and require a good autogen to be a MUST for it. OK, I know that is 99% of the work, making a flat photo scenery if you have the images is completely trivial and less work than painting one AI plane. Having a good autogen now covers the blurries nicely - the photos are only one of the many things you look at, and the objects deliver a sharpness and contrast photos never can have.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A strange observation.

I edited FSX.cfg and changed the LOD_Radius from 4.5 to 9.0. I had the impression of a very good sharpness near to me for quite a while. Unfortuantely, once I made a change to autogen density, this nearby sharpness I had the impression got lost, and indeed it was written back to be 4.5 ???

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree to some point that autogen can be a nice

addon to photo scenery and adds a imagined depth

Its purely a personal choice that one.

I still find autogen to be "cartoonish" on photo scenery

and it spoils it for me.

The only time in games i get the nauseous, head swimming feeling

that you describe is when the game is running at too

low a refresh rate. At 60hz any game makes my eyes defocuss and

after a short while i feel sick. At 70hz+ it goes away and all is fine.

Fsx will rewrite the default values when you change another slider

in the game menu. If you make any edits that are outside of its

values like 9.0 you will have to do it anytime you change sliders.

I make all my changes to fsx.cfg direct and never use the sliders

at all to avoid this anoyance.

upping the lod radius does help for a short time but dramatically increases

disk accessing so its a very system specific tweak. for me it doesnt fix

the issue it just means that i see the blurries even further out than before.

I have run out of ideas now on this one and i think only aces can fix this

issue as it is a core issue with the game engine.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, sorry to be so direct, hurry up to tell them that they put it into the FSXI feature list before that is closed, if it isn't already...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being able to see the ground clearly is not a feature.

Its a basic core principle.

If they dont already know that then fsx11 will be the same disaster

that fsx has been.

It doesnt matter how many animals and fireworks and jetways and such

they cram in to it if you cant see the ground you are flying over clearly

its all a waste of diskspace.

I wish it was as easy as telling them but they wont listen. On all the threads

about this issue they just keep saying the same thing.

Its your cfgs or its your settings or its your system etc etc.

So whats the point.

Anyway i am back running fsx.0 again and its ok so will stick with that. I tried

getting the new acceleration stuff into fsx.0 but despite their claims of backwards

compatibility it seems that doesnt apply to the sp's cos they dont work.

I personally wont be buying fsx11.

Im done with Ms flight sims and will wait til another company does it right or give

up flight simming as it is just to frustrating and wastes too much time.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to here such an issue can make you so upset. Even with the blurries that you see, the display of real world terrain in FSX whatever version is far better than it could ever be in FS9, and is far better than I have seen in any other software.

Nor am I aware of any serious trial to create a Flight Simulator with global world scenery - Making something like FSX, even with all its bugs, is an investment of many million $, based on many hundreds of years of work. I could understand your request of perfection if the software would be sold at professional prices - but it is a very low cost product, I cannot go out for one dinner with my family for the price of FSX, so what can I expect ?

So I really hope you manage to enjoy the beauty that FSX can generate - when I look at the FSX airliners that we have here now, there is nothing of comparable beauty and realism in any software I ever have seen.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The planes in fsx are top notch, my traffic etc and most addons

I have are top notch and i am perfectly pleased with all that.

Had fsx not already shown me that it can work. Fsx.0 works

what annoys me and frustrates me is that sp1 and 2 dont.

So i either just run fsx.0, which i like, and then not have access

to any addons made with sp1 or 2 in mind.

or i run sp2 and have the new planes and addons but my scenery

looks like treacle.

catch 22

If there was a glimmer of hope that it would be fixed then I would

say OK i can wait no problem. But they have said it wont be.

You cant actually say fsx is cheap. The core game is cheap yes

but most people buy addons by the mass and flight yokes and

better hardware just to play the sim.

I know from reading other forums and blogs that i am not

alone in this and many veteran simmers are equally displeased

with fsx as it just doesnt deliver when it could do. I am not being

unreasonable or seeking a product that can not be made.

fsx.0 already does it and does it well. if sp2 hadnt broken the

scenery you would have heard nothing from me about it as other

than that its fine, not perfect but nothing ever is.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is time to show what FSX.2 can do, I was at RKSS yesterday doing some tests and want to share with you. Note that some of those things are not yet in 5.1a, but MyTraffic does not belong to those addons that stop development for years after a release :lol:

And if you note that on some shots the frame rate is below 20, than keep in mind that this was running all the time at 4 x speed, yes FSX.2 with FSX code is such a fast beast that one can enjoy watching a major airport with 100% AI at 4x speed...

All these shots are made under XP, so no DX10 yet.

Early evening in Korea. Goods are shipped to the US.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. Guidelines Privacy Policy We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.