When in doubt...

[Roger]

... about SP2/Acceleration I simply load up Robby's Biff. A true FsX model it doesn't overload my FsX/SP2 with all sliders set to max. Most Fs9 imports drag my system down so I leave them in Fs9/GW3 where they perform well.
Anyway here's a dawn patrol shot of Robby's superb Bristol Fighter...

[Deleted]

Yep, know what you mean Rog. Trouble is good true FSX aircraft are just so slow coming through. I guess it's all about compromise really. All I know is that among others I've now got back Rick's HS-748 and Argosy and the beautiful FS9 Rheims Cessna 150, all with no problems. No regrets here I have to say.

But it's not an either/or situation. Previously I had 2 copies running - my main FSX I upgraded to Acceleration/SP2 but my GWX copy I kept on SP1.

After reinstalling FSX I've kept both on SP1 but there's nothing to stop me upgrading my FSX to SP2 again if I want to. I probably won't because having lost my flashing building textures (which seemed to be an undesirable side effect of the DX10 content of SP2 for me in XP even though my card is DX10 compliant) my sim is now looking so much better again.

Come to that, if I really wanted to I guess I could have 3 copies installed - FSX/SP1, FSX/SP2 and GWX/SP1. No problem that I can see as both of the FSX versions would still use the same cfg files. Not hard to do - just need the disk space and I've got a 500GB drive with nearly 300GB free even with 2 copies installed. Might be worth doing the experiment.

[Roger]

Rollerball,
Is FsXSP1 able to cope with some of the "heavier" Fs9 models like Robert Sanderson's Stearman crop duster? If so I might try an SP1 install and delete my Fs9 (not my GW3!!). I never even tried SP1 on it's own as I bought... new pc with horse power/FsX and Acceleration all at the same time.

[Deleted]

Roger, I think it's all relative. I hadn't ever thought about that Stearman as being heavy, but you're right of course. I did a little test that proves nothing really. Took off in Texas (the 1st Texas entry on the airports list) in fair weather. I have a FR target of 22 and if I'm in the default Baron over San Francisco, say, I expect to get about 12-14 in external view. I've got pretty high scenery and road traffic settings. With the Biff for example over open countryside with reasonable heavy cloud I expect to get a pretty steady 20-22 and with the Stearman as above flying over a road with heavy traffic and a large autogen town, I got an FR that fluctuated from 11-15 viewed from the front of the Stearman, which is the heaviest angle.

That's not as bad as it sounds because at 10, for example, FS9 would be as jumpy as anything, but FSX is still pretty smooth.

But picking up on your earlier point, as I mentioned elsewhere, I don't think there are any performance enhancements in SP2 over SP1, despite the title 'Acceleration' which is just a marketing come-on by MS to overcome the perception among FSX purchasers that it runs slowly. SP2 is about DX10, which is why we have all of the transparency problems and as I've found, it's pretty much irrelevant if you are not moving to DX10. My point is that under such circumstances, you've more to gain by staying on SP1 rather than moving to SP2.

[Deleted]

Rog - don't forget this one either. For SP1 that is - not compatible with SP2





Yup, Dave Eckert's Stearman Kaydet. Surely you'd love to have this one in FSX!

[kbr]

roger said:

A true FsX model it doesn't overload my FsX/SP2 with all sliders set to max. Most Fs9 imports drag my system down so I leave them in Fs9/GW3 where they perform well.

I have to agree. Even though my system only handles FSX with the sliders at mid setting, FS9 planes really drag the frame rates down. So I'm quite happy flying FS9 planes only in FS9/GW3 and fly only true FSX planes in FSX. When buying payware it can be hard though to discern what is truly FSX and what is FS9 fixed to work in FSX.