Dx10 preview mode with 3 monitors

Just thought I'd share the information regarding success that I've had running dx10 mode with 3 monitors. I'm using Nvidia card with surround view that links all 3 monitors together must be same resolution and frequency settings - best if identical make and models. The DX10 gives frame rate performance boost, and I get 30-40 fps average. I did eventually set limit to 30 to further stabilize - had a graphic crash once and thought I might take some stress off the system.

I have a pretty beefy system to start - an IBuyPower Paladin system.

I regularly run FSX with GEX NA and Pacific, UT2, RC4, FSPassenger, and switch in orbix PNW and Darrington Airport when flying there. I gave up on UTX because it killed my frame rates with all the other stuff, and I'm pretty satisfied with GEX alone.

Multiple views in separate windows also kills the frame rate, but I've found that spanning the 3 screens using the Nvidia spanning option allows me to run the main FSX app in windowed mode stretched to 3 screens wide (with wide=true set in FSX cfg). This gives me a great panoramic view out of front and side windows, and wide outside shots too.

I turned off all FSX AI and let UT2 generate all AI aircraft - saving more FSX resources. I added the various fixes to correct the DX10 flaws related to runway flash, rain "umbrella affect", water color adjust, and changes to reduce runway light size that grows with wide angle setting.

Running resource heavy payware planes like lvl-d 767 and pmdg 747 and others work fine along with all the other apps running. The only jerky frame rate issues happens on busy airport low level flying at the widest ends of the windows (left and right). The center screen runs smoothly. Since its really treated as one giant screen, I think the wide angle of the extreme right and left windshield views cant produce the frame rate to smoothly handle the fast refresh needed at extreme angles with high level detail. Again, this only happens progressively as you move to the extreme views, and only with complex scenery.

I'm at the point where it's just nice to have a quality stable system to fly on, and it's great to see far enough out the side windows to not need TrackIR or unnecessary jumping around with EZDock cameras when going from base to final and other pattern flying.

I should add that I do use EZDock camera views to jump to overhead and radio views, and I keep the fmc open in its own window, or Garmin GPS on the smaller planes, along with the RC4 and FSPassenger displays.

Well - I guess that sums up my FSX tweaking. I have to admit I'm rather proud of it (I also have the yoke, throttle quad and rudder pedals to round out the system,and Bose speaker system).

If you have a good system but struggle with frame rates, I hope my success - and that of others whose posts I've learned from, might encourage you to try DX10 and see if you get a performance boost. If you do, then you can add all the fixes and tweaks that make DX10 a great FSX option.

John,

That's a pretty impressive set up. I admire your ambition in going to three monitors, I don't think I'm up to that. I actually have two systems, one on a desktop machine at home and another on a laptop I take with me when I go to a place we have in the mountains (summertime). On both systems I run FSX with UT2, RC4 and FSCrew. They are both quad core systems, but the laptop is three years newer and runs on a Core i7 CPU. They perform about the same and generally support acceptable frame rates, although the rate drops from 20 to 10 or 12 when I'm at low altitude near very busy airports. That seems OK when there are no freezes. The desktop has Megascenery photorealistic scenery for all of California and Arizona. That only matters for bush and GA flying in those states. I can actually see some of the details on my house when I fly locally. The desktop machine also has a yoke, rudder pedals and the VRInsight jetline panel with EFIS, MCP and COM panels. This is a real joy to use (on those A/C that support it) and reduces the cockpit workload considerably. I have struggled with the pattern flying problem and have a Track IR which is quirky, but does improve VFR flying overall. When I have the time (not that often these days) I prefer the LVlD 767, the PMDG 747 and, particularly, the PMDG 737 NGX. I'v e got the whole set of Boeing manuals for the 737 NGX and have been meaning to go beyond the standard procedures and try some of the QRH stuff, but that still lies ahead. I really enjoy FSCrew as I like to start up cold and dark and a copilot really reduces the preflight workload from, maybe 90 minutes to 40 minutes or so. I am frustrated by the misfit between RC4 and trying to use the excellent VNAV features of the 737 NGX, which really can manage the altitude and airspeed of the complete descent, approach and landing phase of the flight. The only solution seems to be to use one or the other, but not both. I like to keep the AIRAC current on all of my heavy iron, fly current IFR routes used by the airlines and I enjoy using Topcat to analyze my takeoff and landing rolls. If I could have one thing more, it would be some really good ATC software that incorporates ground control and allows a pilot to use the power of his FMC to fly STARs and maybe even RNP approaches.

Thanks for sharing.

Mike

Thanks for returning the favor Mike, you've given me some other things to look into. I've read about FSCrew but will have to look more closely at it (always finding ways to improve my system), but I'm afraid that I might have FSX about maxed out. I have to say that I've had little improvement moving things to different cores, as I've always found that FSX runs it's core to the bitter edge anyway.

I don't mind RC4's ATC vectoring me off my FMC route as I approach the airport. Switching to HDG and ALT modes in autopilot gives me something else to do and the autopilot handles the ILS approach fine.

While it might be nice for the localizer only approaches or those with just visual approach, it's probably good for me to practice the manual landings of these large planes since I don't do it enough to be proficient. I did read somewhere about flying SIDs and STARs with RC4 - I think in the operating manual, but it required some additional entry or set up, and I haven't taken the time to explore that yet.

I never run out of interesting things to try with FSX - and sometimes it's just nice to hop in and fly somewhere without a lot of overhead prep work. I think I forgot to mention ActiveSky 2012 that I use for weather - it gives me some wonderful visual effects like the sunset picture I just posted. REX is popular as well, but ActiveSky 2012 seems to run more smoothly for me. Either one is a great addon because the weather simulation is so much more complex and visually detailed than the basic FSX weather.

I did use Topcat for the 737NGX but put it away for the 767, just because I got lazy I guess.

I think developers would have to collaborate like RC4 and UT2 so that they could coordinate the traffic with ATC. It's frustrating to still have ground traffic racing across my runway as I'm about to lift off.

jer029,

I forgot to mention it, but I also use Active Sky for weather. I have no problem following RC4-guided, coupled ILS approaches starting in Heading and Altitude mode (although their intercepts leave something to be desired). But it seems such a shame to waste the ability of the FMC to conduct an optimized approach, saving both fuel and time. I also would like to be using RNAV and RNP approaches, even though FSX doesn't appear to support GPS WAAS aided approaches. OBTW: RC4 does permit the use of SIDs and STARs. You just build them into your flightplan, rather than having them assigned by ATC. You can check the NOTAMs box and RC4 will allow you to fly the vertical portion of the intial leg of your departure and a part of your approach without nagging you about your altitude. However, once you reply that you are clear of obstacles, it will still direct you to a vertical profile which may not be flyable by FMC.

Mike