Disappearing Airport

**andrei23** · 07-17-2010, 10:37 PM

Here's an interesting one... LAX just disappeared.

Literally.

I see tarmac, and AI traffic, but all the buildings are gone. I'm assuming this is a missing mesh issue and not one of textures, or could it be either?

Is there a way I can just copy a few files from my FSX DVD rather than re-installing? Anyone know which ones off hand? I will also gladly take recommendations for an LAX or LA-area add-on - that's another way of doing it.

I do use the REX 2 scenery add-on (hence my mesh vs. texture question), but have flown out of LAX many times since installing it. This is something new.

Thank so much in advance - really appreciate any help you can lend.

**opaplano** · 07-17-2010, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by andrei23

Here's an interesting one... LAX just disappeared.

Literally.

I see tarmac, and AI traffic, but all the buildings are gone. I'm assuming this is a missing mesh issue and not one of textures, or could it be either?

Is there a way I can just copy a few files from my FSX DVD rather than re-installing? Anyone know which ones off hand? I will also gladly take recommendations for an LAX or LA-area add-on - that's another way of doing it.

I do use the REX 2 scenery add-on (hence my mesh vs. texture question), but have flown out of LAX many times since installing it. This is something new.

Thank so much in advance - really appreciate any help you can lend.

Did you check the scenery complexity and autogen sliders to see if one or both have somehow been reset to Sparse or Very Sparse?

I would do that first.

**andrei23** · 07-17-2010, 11:26 PM

Right on. LAX is back.

As I am somewhat limited in hardware (I didn't realize my PC was "old" until I got into FSX), I've been playing with various slider settings trying to get the best image-to-framerate balance.

Sure you can speed it way up without any autogen, but then everything looks flat and "video-gamey". I found I could get more autogen by sacrificing scenery complexity, yet visually did not notice much difference.

My assumption was that autogen density is the amount of buildings, and scenery complexity is the detail on each individual building. Was this incorrect?

Based on the following system, is there an optimal setting you would recommend? Which is the bigger eater of framerate or creator of "Christmas trees"? Which gives the biggest bang for the notch visually?

Here's my system:
Intel Q6600 quad-core @ 2.40 Ghz
ASUS Striker Extreme motherboard
3.00 GB of DDR2 RAM at 2.40 GHz
XpertVision 8800GT SONIC video adapters (x2)
AOC 22" monitors at 1680x1050 (x3)
Seagate Barracuda 500 B HDDs (x2 internal, 1 external)
Windows XP Professional, 32-bit, SP3
FSX Acceleration
Saitek yoke, throttle quadrant, rudder pedals, and instrument panel displays (x6)

Thank you once again!

**cianpars** · 07-18-2010, 05:20 AM

I would o'c that Q6600 to around 3 Ghz. I've seen people running them much faster than that on air too. You'll see quite a difference in performance then.

Just keep an eye onthe temps and you shouldn't come to any harm.

IAN

**deor** · 07-18-2010, 05:33 AM

You'll need a 64-bit operating system to use RAM above 2 Gig, and bear in mid that the memory on your video board counts towards the 2 Gig max.

**andrei23** · 07-18-2010, 08:01 AM

Thank you for the wonderful advice. I've been thinking about over-clocking, and the Striker Extreme motherboard is made for it, as it comes with an AI utility which automatically regulates the temperature and voltage as you do it. I completely forgot that the video RAM counts in the limit! (And I have 2 cards.)

I'm also on the fence, if it comes to upgrading the OS, if it would be better off at this point to split business and simming (since I have no way of knowing which of my applications and drivers would readily take to 64-bit and which not) and build a whole new machine with an i7 and more RAM rather than investing in upgrading this one? If I go that route, should I try and find a 64-bit edition of XP for it, in order to avoid Windows 7 hogging resources? Or Windows 7 worth the performance cost?

If I stay with the current machine, is over-clocking enough (at least to get me closer to 30fps rather than the 12-15 I'm averaging now), or should I look to upgrade any of the other components as well? (I suppose there's only so much you can do with the limits imposed by the OS.)

I've seen several posts in another forum which point out the performance cost of multiple monitors, and recommend multiple networked PCs instead, even if you have an i7. I've really grown to love the peripheral views that multiple monitors afford (and I have my external Saitek instrument panels which allow me to to use all of the monitor space for the outside views). An option I'm considering if I build a new PC is to use a projector for the outside view (1 "monitor", but hopefully since it is bigger I will still keep a sense of the "surround" view to keep the experience immersive), and the video card's second port to drive a 2nd monitor I would build into my cockpit to display some instrument panels (allowing each plane to look different, something my Saitek panels do not do for me). My question is whether the 2nd monitor would still create the dreaded "multi-monitor slowdown" if it is just showing 2D panels and not 3D scenery? Or am I still better off using a 2nd separate PC for this?

Thank you all very much - I truly appreciate the advice of more experienced simmers!

**kagazi** · 07-18-2010, 10:11 AM

You'll need a 64-bit operating system to use RAM above 2 Gig

If you have FSX sp2 you can include a switch with XP 32bit, which will allow FSX to access more than 2 Gigs of ram.

**Flying Officer Jevans** · 07-18-2010, 10:37 AM

Not properly, it won't. If you enable the /3GB switch in XP, FSX might be able to access up to 3gb, but weather it will use it is a different matter. Also, you are then restricting the whole of the rest of the OS to only the 1 remaining Gb. And don't forget that your graphics card takes memory off this address block too, even if it has it's own onboard memory.

**kagazi** · 07-18-2010, 10:45 AM

Another argument for 4 gigs even with XP 32bit. It's not just about quicker load times. I remember having issues with 3 gigs and using the 3gb switch but after upgrading to 4 gigs no more issues.

**andrei23** · 07-18-2010, 10:58 AM

Adding an extra 1GB stick is no big deal, I still have slots free. Does the /3GB switch only work with FSX SP2, or can the Acceleration version make use of it as well? Should I also use /userva with it, and if so what's a good setting to start with? This is certainly easier than upgrading the OS and going hunting for 64-bit versions of all my applications and drivers.

What about the monitor issue? Will I see a noticeable improvement if I replace my 3 "windows" with a single projector (I can then also bridge both cards with SLI)?

How about if I add another monitor on the 2nd port to display 2D instrument panels - will I end up giving this performance back again, or can FSX handle a 2nd monitor so long as it is not driving 3D scenery?