FSDT KLAX released!

[WingZ 547]

Delighted with the quick response I got, it's a bglman.dll issue..This must be some kind of record: support before you've paid the money!If I wasn't going to buy this before, I certainly will now!

I think it ate my sim.Somewhere in the automated install it decided my Cloud 9 Phantom wasn't registered, so I said "Yes" and got a key downloaded.That may be unrelated, but the sim just refuses to start now.Gollee I do detest installer software, with a passion...

[out 769]

OK, Gentlemen (Mark and Umberto), sorry to interrupt your conversation.But since this is me who started this thread, I feel obliged to add something from myself.Like I mentioned both here and in the FSDT forum, I am using an old computer with WinX P32.I have tones of addons, everything maxed out, 100% traffic, HD weather, etc.And I find LAX performance excellent.One picture says more than a thousand words. So, here's my FPS in: default Cessna, default 747 and PMDG 747

[out 769]

By the way, for all of you who would like to enhance the impressions when arriving at KLAX, a reminder of another outstanding scenery.You can combine the new FSDT airport with freeware(!) Gottfried Razek's (BlueSkyScenery) addons for the LAX area.http://www.blueskyscenery.com/CA.htmlhttp://www.blueskyscenery.com/download.htmlI wish all the MFS world looked like that (downtown LA)!Just look at the ground textures...

[Swoop 0]

Yeah, sorry Rafal. I guess that because I made a comment about the really awful frame rates I've been getting with this airport Umberto wanted to make this thread a support thread. If you read back, I never asked for support from him until he said it was my system (the one in my sig). I simply commented on terrible frame rates that this airport is producing...so this thread is yours again with my compliments.Mark

[cimgrp501 30]

No, Umberto wanted to clarify what you still either do not understand or more likely refuse to admit. You say you simply "commented on terrible frame rates this airport is producing." Why are you still blaming the airport for "producing" bad frame rates, when several including Rafal, have even given you pretty pictures proving the airport does not produce terrible frame rates, because if it did it would do so on all systems. Something in your setup is producing unintended consequences and bad frame rates, what is so difficult to accept about that, and why blame Umberto for trying to help you and his product for your system hiccups?Thanks Rafal for the link on the downtown LA scenery...looks good.

[Swoop 0]

Interesting...my opinion it's the software, not the system, that is so far. We've had three people say it's OK and two people say that it's not in the FSDreamTeam forum. What I'm looking for is a solution for this issue. I mean, if you just can't install it and have it work correctly as all of the other system intensive FS software on your box, then what do you do?What I've understood so far is that when running Win64, you don't have any issues. Rafal mentioned that he's running it on Win32 and hasn't had any issues. I'm running it on Win32 and am experiencing terrible frame rates.To come to the conclusion that it's prefect on Win32 yet is a bit naive but that being said, I would like it to work. So the bottom line, I cannot simply install it and have it work...but everything else on my box works great. Interestingly enough, I also have licenses for all but one of the other FSDT airports and don't have any issues to speak of with them. Sounds rather strange doesn't it?Mark

[virtuali 4,421]

Interesting...my opinion it's the software, not the system, that is so far.

That is not the software, it's clearly demonstrated by the fact that there are only 2 ( mean TWO) people that complained about fps right now.

We've had three people say it's OK and two people say that it's not in the FSDreamTeam forum.

This must be one of the most funny ways of creating a "statistic" I ever seen, what are you trying to say, the scenery doesn't work on 66.6% of the system ONLY because there are *only* 3 people that proved you wrong ?Sorry, but you are sadly mistaken: people without any problems don't bother to post on a forum or take their time to make screenshots to prove you wrong, they just enjoy the scenery.On a forum, you'll find almost only people with issues, and it's not the job of other users that don't have issue to reply, which is why they don't *usually* do, that's why your "statistic" is flawed.Of course, we have *much* better statistics, which are SALES. What about the hundreds that already BOUGHT IT, and said nothing on the forum ? Do you think it's realistic those people are flying a 7fps and aren't saying anything ?Remember, the scenery is sold in TRIAL VERSION, if it's selling (and IT IS), it's obviously doesn't have any problems on the vast majority of the systems.

What I've understood so far is that when running Win64, you don't have any issues. Rafal mentioned that he's running it on Win32 and hasn't had any issues. I'm running it on Win32 and am experiencing terrible frame rates.

I don't know what video card Rafal has, but my explanation wasn't "just" that the scenery doesn't work on a 32 bit OS, but that might have issues if you use a 1GB VIDEO CARD WITH A 32 BIT OS!! Setting up a system in such way is wrong, regardless of what program or scenery you need to run: if you buy a 1GB card, is expected you'll throw graphically *demanding* stuff at it, and you are getting into troubles with a 32 bit OS, because you *will* run into memory issues.

[Swoop 0]

I think that we should just let this go for the time being. I'm about to bring a new FS box online...let's see how it works on it...and if it doesn't run on this then please just shoot me. Here are the specs in case you're interested...New FS9 System :(/S Windows 7 Pro 64bitCPU Intel Core i5-2500k @ Something fast I hopeM/B Gigabyte GA-Z68X-UD3P-B3GPU Gigabyte GeForce GTX-560-OC TIMemory G.Skill F3-17000CL11D-8GBXL @ 2133mhzCooler Corsair H60 Liquid CPU CoolerHDD 4 x 1tb of SATA2Case Antec Nine Hundred Two V3Monitor Samsung SyncMaster 243TControllers Saitek X52 Pro and Rudder Pedals

[out 769]

I don't know what video card Rafal has

Here are my specs, gentlemen:WIndows XP 32 bit PL (with 3GB switch applied and regularly defraged)FS9.1 (with tones of addons)Intel Core 2 Duo CPU E8400 3 GHzGIGABYTE EP43-UD3L motherboard4GB RAM (3.5 visible)NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT 512 MB (with nHancer 2.5.9. and 182.50 drivers)Samsung SyncMaster P2370 23" widescreen monitorSo, a rather old and low end equipment.Anyway my FS9 is running fine with all sliders to the right, which applies also to FSDT KLAX.I am planning to buy a new rig soon and hope to have my FS9 run even better.

[psolk 3,040]

Ah yes but EXACTLY to Umberto's point Rafal, you are running a 512 meg vid card on a 32 bit OS opposed to a 1 gig video card on 32 bit. THAT is the huge difference IMHO... 1 gig video cards and win32 is the whole reason we started getting such prevalent OOM issues with FS9 a few years back right after the 1 gig video cards were released... I remember even my 8800GTX with 768mb was enough to throw a 32 bit OS into a fit. As others have mentioned I since upgraded to XP64, LARGEADDRESSAWARE FS9 with no issues.Swoop, you aren't getting it, your 1 gig video card on a 32 bit system is stealing valuable resources LA obviously needs. I would wager a guess that either would resolve all your issues.:A. Swapping your video card to 512 MegB. Moving to a 64 bit OSI have to commend Umberto for keeping his cool. If I was a developer and had as he has stated, hundreds of customers not complaining and then you repeatedly saying the software is FUBAR or faulted I would be pretty annoyed...If you build a 32 bit OS with a 1 gig card you have architected your system incorrectly and then add in the /3gb boot.ini switch you are truly a ######ized version of XP... If you Google around it is amazing the amount of people who point to 1 gig video cards on 32 bit OS's as huge issues yet you continue to draw your line in the sand your box has no issues. Yes, it does, it is completely incorrectly spec'd b/c you threw a 1 gig video card at a 32 bit OS.I always take the opposite approach personally, it is always my box until I can find definite proof otherwise.Just my .02,-PSome good info for you:The reason a 32 bit system can only use 3GB (or 3.25GB, or whatever number you get) of system ram is because it doesnt have enough address space left. Video cards are the most important part of a PC that uses address space.Under DirectX 9.0C (and lower) video card ram must be duplicated into system ram. That means if you're running on the highest settings with your new shiny 1GB video card - that 1GB of video memory must be duplicated leaving you with only 2GB left for your game.You just went from 4GB to 2GB, only considering a single 1GB video card. Things only get worse in SLI and crossfire.Under 64 bit you wouldnt have lost that initial 1GB of ram to the address space, so you'd have 3GB of usable ram, with 1GB used in DX9.0C games. All of a sudden those modern games which border on 1.5-2GB of ram usage are playable, without your system running like a dog.32 bit4GB system ram1GB video card3GB system ram usable, 2GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.So that this makes sense: if your game used 512MB of video ram, you'd only have 1.5GB of system ram for the game.If its a modern game like modern warfare 2, that game can use 900MB of video ram - hence why the game crashes on many 32 bit systems when there isnt enough ram for game and video ram.2GB system ram1GB video card1GB system ram usable, The last 1GB would fight with the video card ram here. If you dont lower texture settings, resolution, and AA you'll get pretty nasty stuttering as you run out of ram.4GB system ram2x1GB video cards (SLI/crossfire)2GB system ram usable, 2GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.(SLI and crossfire only use one video cards ram. Because ram isnt additive in SLI/Xfire, only one cards ram is duplicated)64 bit4GB system ram1GB video card4GB system ram usable, 3GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.2GB system ram1GB video card1GB system ram usable, The last 1GB would fight with the video card ram. This kind of PC is the one where people claim vista x64 has no real advantage, or slower due to 64 bit using slightly more ram than 32 bit in windows itself.4GB system ram2x1GB video cards (SLI/crossfire)4GB system ram usable, 3GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.(SLI and crossfire only use one video cards ram. Because ram isnt additive in SLI/Xfire, only one cards ram is duplicated)

3GB system ram usable, 2GB left in games once video card ram is duplicated.32 bit applications can only have 2GB total for the entire application, regardless of the amount of available ram and system-wide address space. so even if you have 4GB of ram and 3.5GB showing as available, if you've got a 1GB video card in a 32 bit OS you're in for a world of hurt on high settings on modern games.

[Hoang 108]

By the way, for all of you who would like to enhance the impressions when arriving at KLAX, a reminder of another outstanding scenery.You can combine the new FSDT airport with freeware(!) Gottfried Razek's (BlueSkyScenery) addons for the LAX area.http://www.blueskyscenery.com/CA.htmlhttp://www.blueskysc...m/download.htmlI wish all the MFS world looked like that (downtown LA)!Just look at the ground textures...

Bluesky's photoreal sceneries are fantastic! Only that they don't include night texture...

[ubersu 78]

Bluesky's photoreal sceneries are fantastic! Only that they don't include night texture...

There isn't a whole lot of night time aerial photography done...DJ

[Chuck Dreier 75]

I have tried KLAX and just purchased it. Great add-on. I have my frame rate locked at 50 and have not gone any lower than 39 with the PSS/JF 757. Most of the time the rates are in the mid 40's or higher. This includes taxi, takeoff, circle, and landing. I am VERY pleased. My spec are in my sig.

[Swoop 0]

This is for PSOLK...so you don't think there's a benefit to having a 1gb video card on a win32 system? I mean really, what happens when you cut the amount of VRAM in half? Are you a Judy Collins fan :)Mark

[psolk 3,040]

Actually, no I don't, at that point the video memory is already eating into the limited available memory of a 32 bit OS. It is not a secret by any means but very well known and well documented.As I mentioned, I never got OOM's until going to a dual 768 meg video card setup in a 32 bit OS which was a nightmare. Counter-intuitive but I feel a 512 meg video card is better for a 32 bit system whereas 1 gig video cards shine in 64 bit systems where your vram does not eat into your total available memory.And to answer your question, when you cut your vram in half your total available memory goes UP!!! Have you ever even looked at how much vram you are actually using in FS9? It is not like we are loading FSX texture resolutions.