YBBN support issues in context

[John Venema]

I just wanted to provide some perspective on YBBN, and to clear the air about performance issues being logged by some customers.

I can safely say that we've sold a LOT of copies of YBBN (in fact it's our fastest selling and most popular airport we've made so far), and that the reported issues by our customers here on the forum measure about 10-15 individuals, some who have posted 2-5 times on various issues. We have even had quite hostile PMs and other communications to the team, which we have to absorb and deal with in the background.

However, we take each issue seriously, and the overwhelming evidence is there that Russ, Marty and the whole team have worked very hard to resolve any performance woes. Short of upgrading your PC hardware, there is only so much you can do with a mid-spec PC, or an XP installation to make YBBN truly perform in its best light.

What I can say is that we're approaching a thousand customers that have installed and are enjoying YBBN and have not logged a single issue. Sure, some of them have to make compromises with the control panel and sliders etc, but for the most part over 98% of our YBBN sales have not produced any support issues.

I know it can be frustrating that you find yourself in the 1-2% of customers who have issues, and we'll continue to do our best, but at some point you need to realise that YBBN is not a small GA airport and is the most complex modeled and photoreal airport ever made. So that means you need to make compromises to use it, or plan a PC upgrade.

For my i7 it does indeed run 33% better than YMML, without question. I can reproduce that in the Default R22 or the PMDG JS41, the difference is consistent. We don't go about making false claims for the sake of cheap marketing; we are immensely proud of YBBN and we've set a new benchmark which will last many years into the future.

We also hear some noise about "it's an international airport made for tubeliners, not C172s". Yes and no. There's a GA terminal on the eastern side which is perfectly suited to twins and singles. Also remember that complex simulations like the PMDG JS41 will reduce your FPS down by at least 10+FPS even if you were at a default FSX airport without any autogen around it. Let's keep things in context   You don't immediately take the most complex airport ever made, then add ultra-complex aircraft into the mix, then REX/ASX/VATSIM/Multiple monitors and any number of other systems; and expect silky smooth frames. It's just not going to happen.

It also does not make sense to use a legacy 10 year old operating system (XP) and a low-spec video card with 512MB of RAM. Those two factors alone are going to make YBBN a challenge for anyone. 512MB is fine for say, Coffs Harbour or Aeropelican, but it will be a struggle at YBBN or YMML, purely because of the texture load. The entire Orbx team have shown their hardware specs under their sigs for over a year now, so you have a good idea of what we use to enjoy FSX. Sticking with a 32-bit legacy OS that even Microsoft does not support anymore is not a recommended option. Indeed some customers on these forums have found a healthy performance improvement at YBBN just by migrating from XP to Windows 7 64-bit. It's by far the cheapest and simplest way to get the best FSX performance, and I've been using Win7 since RC and it's brilliant really.

See and appreciate YBBN for what it is - probably ahead of its time, but an addon which has a lot of tuneability built in, and which will grow into your hardware in the coming years. It's the Orbx way of doing things - we always innovate and try new tech with every release.

Marty and Russ are working on a patch to fix the missing taxiway lights, then they will look into another patch which removes the ground polygons for Windows XP and <1GB GPU users. Please don't ask when that patch will come, the guys are taking a bit of a breather for a week or so as you can imagine. Having no ground polys is not how we want the airport to be enjoyed, but it will provide a stop-gap measure for those having issues.

[micgrech]

Well Said John!

Thanks for a fantastic product!

Cheers

[realatp]

John I'm glad to hear it's selling so well, you guys deserve this. I own YBBN  and its awesome. Thank you so very much.

[DJSean]

Appreciate the update

Cheers!

[chumley]

OK, JV said there are nearly 1000 happy campers out there that haven't logged a single problem with YBBN.

How many are flying third party aircraft such as the Beechcraft Duke, LDS 767 or PMDG J4100 without any problems? I would be interested to see this and to compare system specs in particular.

I have managed to land a MS standard aircraft at YBBN with my system dumbed right down i.e. no autogen, REX2 uninstalled, other settings as per the manual (with the exception of anti aliasing and no boats trains or automobiles and no ai) and the YBBN control panel with all items unticked.

As soon as I open the menu to change aircraft it is time to load FSX again.

I did ask how to uninstall YBBN and JV providd that information but that was mainly to give a re-install a fighting chance.

Thanks

Andy b

[flyhalf]

The Level D is pretty much all I fly in TrackIR VC.

And I can safely say that YBBN is not a problem for me. In the 20fps on approach to ILS01 with all the docks in view, and after touchdown I am in the 40's taxiing in. Mid Cp settings.

Tube liners into YMML and YBBN have never been a problem for me with quite agressive mid level settings. (Dense, etc)

People need to take note of Johns post here and be very realistic about their hardware shortcomings. Cause I tell you, there are no shortcomings in the scenery.  It's 2010 and these guys are majking 2010 airports. Frankly, anything under 3GHz, and duals and Quads, you're going to struggle.

[flyguy737]

your right JV and since I upgraded to win7 64 bit my FSX has improved. I appoligise if any of my comments were taken the wrong way as I certainly love YBBN and I have waited long time for this and the quality is beyond what was expected. The more I fly around YBBN now the more I can see the work gone into it.

YBBN is a work of art and adds the level of reality that defines new thresholds and I will always continue to support ORBX products even if it means a new computer upgraded eventually.

[TreeTops]

Thanks John for settings things out plainly. Its always good when there is clarity given to a situation.

For me personally when i first installed YBBN i was getting 9-12 frames with the Md-11 (complex aircraft) close to the terminal and with all the airport fruit maxed. Obviously i needed to sort some things out.

At the time, Jesus' settings from Avsim were flying around everywhere and i was haphazardly trying them without much luck.

http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=281538

Quite disappointing when you hear reports of very good improvements in performance. So last night I spent 30 mins going through the now pinned thread at avsim, complete rebuild of the fsx.cfg and add each line as described. Back to YBBN the fps jumped from 9-12 to a solid 16-18 still with all the fruit in YBBN. no tweaks like trees/buildings reduced, just vanilla fsx.cfg.

So now I have a good solid base to tune for performance around 25-30 fps using the more complex aircraft.

After reading some of the lengthy posts and seeing some of the decent pc specs having problems, i realised that for the same time i had spent reading the threads, i had invested in methodically following Jesus' instructions which gave me significant improvements in performance.

I highly recommend people with late model pc's just take some time out and get their cfg file sweet. It is so worth the time spent.

Thanks guys for an awesome place to fly to and from.

Regards

Trev

[Sniper31]

I have been routinely flying into and out of Orbx YBBN with REX2 and TrafficX running at 50% in my Captain Sim C-130 and have been averaging between 25-40 FPS.  And that is with most sliders maxxed, most importantly my Autogen sliders, which are at Extremely Dense and Very Dense respectively. Yes, if you look at my PC specs in my sig you can see I am running a higher end rig. And YES, it is possible to get extrememly smooth flying into and out of YBBN in a complex aircraft AND enjoy most of the perks of this wonderfully designed airport by Russ, Marty and the rest of the Orbx Team.

Marvelous work guys!

[Russ White]

Great to hear that feedback guys, thanks for posting.

Especially good since i remember you were having problems initially sniper, nice to know you are all now enjoying the scenery 

Thanks guys,

Russ.

[Neil]

I think people need to realize how frustrating and agonising product support can be. Orbx product support is outstanding, the response time is fast, and genuine. Supporting any application where you don't have control of the users platform, can be very problematic. I know from experience, and don't ever think the developers don't take it personally.  One last point, you can test and test, and you really won't know until you hit production (give it 30 day's), to really know if there are problems.

So for a leading edge product, YBBN is looking pretty good!

[normandean]

I agree with every word you say, John.

Norman

[jgruschow]

Well Said John!

But I would have been more impressed with your honesty if you had made a simliar post prior to release.

[John Venema]

Well Said John!

But I would have been more impressed with your honesty if you had made a simliar post prior to release.

You're implying we are dishonest Jack? That's disappointing to hear.  I did say on a number of occasions that YBBN runs better than YMML, which is fact.  If people expect YBBN to run smoothly on low-mid spec machines and aging operating systems they had set themselves unrealistic expectations. If YMML runs at 14FPS for them they can expect 18.6FPS at YBBN, roughly speaking. We have also been telling our customers for over a year to follow our example and move to 64-bit operating systems, particularly Windows 7. I am not sure how much clearer we can communicate to everyone really. As Flyhalf said, we make 2010 airports, not 2006 ones. Hardware has moved on since FSX was released and this is a hobby which is hardware driven.

I think some folks have short memories. Cast your mind back to 2004-5, when simming in Australia was a joke, with poor default scenery, no coordinated development community and very average sceneries available for this country. I founded VOZ and after more than half a million downloads it gave people an enormous amount of simming pleasure for free, and we saw a pool of talent congregate and move forward. Now it's 2010 and the entire country is covered in 1m/pixel FTX, we have nearly a dozen HD airports released, 23 new projects in the pipeline, nearly 400 OZx freeware photoreal airports available excluding Orbx's freeware, and now the most tech advanced international airports, and we seem to be copping flack for stressing some people's hardware. Sounds to me just a tad ungrateful don't you think?

To those who say YBBN is unfriendly to payware tubeliners, read this post - http://orbxsystems.com/forums/index.php?topic=21823.0

In the Captain Sim 767, Andy is getting 19-26FPS at YBBN and he's using a non-custom, off-the-shelf Dell Studio XPS 435MT, Intel Core i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67 GHz  , 8GB RAM,Windows 7 Home Premium (64 Bit), NIVIDA Ge Force GT 220 - which is actually a mid-spec machine considering the stock (Dell unclockable) CPU clock speed and video card. Look at the crisp textures in his screenshots and it does not look like he's pulled back the CP and sliders too much.  Then there are people with much higher spec PCs, overclocked to 4.x GHz who are getting dysmal performance. I put it to you that it's environmental and local to those PCs, and sometimes I think that over-tweaking causes more performance issues than it solves.

Remember my sticky post from May 19, 2009? - http://orbxsystems.com/forums/index.php?topic=11307.0  - It's been read over 6,000 times. What was my ultimate performance tip? Easy. Spend decent money on the right hardware and FSX will come into its own.

We'll continue to push the boundaries, and continue to innovate. And we won't make excuses for doing so.

[flyguy737]

Your 100% right JV. I myself need to get with the times and slowly I have. The changes I have recently made to my system have dramatically improved my performance and no tweaks in the FSX cfg yet but I am now getting great scenery great FPS 25-30+ on the ground just by adding win7 and an extra 2 gig ram.

Of course upgrades cost money, but I have to agree when JV talks about XP (it's old it had it's day) and the best upgrade you can do right now is win7 after you do that you will see the differences like I have.

I look forward to the next ORBX release and the many more to come.

Oh and as I said before without ORBX and JV we would be still using fs2004. I don't even bother with fs2004 anymore.

[jgruschow]

John, you misunderstand me (again).

I am making no suggestion of dishonesty on your part. I am thinking of people who persist in trying to run 2010 software on 2000 computers.

A clear warning might have saved them money and saved the forum from being cluttered with complaints.

I have held off buying YBBN until others have tried it and reported on it. Nothing I have read so far will stop me buying it. In fact I will get it today. My birthday present to me

Jack Gruschow

[tennyson]

A wise President once said "You can please some of the people most of the time"........

I know I'm gonna sound like their number one fan boy, but it kills me to think that I and many others have waited so long for YBBN and when it finally arrives in all it's glory, the complaints outweigh the praise on this forum.

Earlier attempts before ORBX were clunky and unreal to say the least. We were in hicksville and major overseas players were interested in making airports of Heathrow and LAX and Seattle.

Along comes an Ozzie company employing people globally, producing outstanding products right from the get-go and making Australian scenery and airports (and an upcoming aircraft) that leave their competition in their wake.

Their products have been produced on time, second to none in quality and tech support is the best of any software company world wide.

I just believe that people need to take a long hard look at what is going on. If you have a problem, there are appropriate parts of the forum, ie the Payware Support Forum, not the General forum. Don't expect to run cutting edge software on older systems with high settings. Be realistic about your system and it's capability and all the add-ons that clutter and slow them down.

Those of us who have very little problems are working at it, too and don't have a magic wand.

I, for one make no apologies in supporting those that support us.

I want ORBX to revolutionise this industry and to prosper and make lots of software for us all, globally.

I'd hate to think that we are tall poppy cutting this company.

End of Rant!

Frank

[JusJ]

I absolutely agree with the sentiment here.  I am extremely grateful and, as an Aussie, proud to have Orbx making fantastic Australian scenery.

However, in addressing the performance issues with YBBN and YMML, I would just really like to (1) at least be able to use Orbx scenery, even with many compromises, at appropriate frame rates (which I consider to be >20 fps); and (2) at best get similar performance from Orbx's products as I do from the products made by some of its competitors (which I consider are also visually excellent products). I don't think it is ungrateful or unreasonable to desire this, or to publicly say so on the Orbx forum.  Making a statement like this is not tall poppy syndrome at all - I personally think Orbx would sell even more, and Orbx would be even more successful, if it could offer better performance from its products. 

Now, last night I gave YBBN another chance flying in the LDS 767 from YMML.  On final approach I was getting patches of black ground textures and periods of in which my FPS was in the range of 2-4 FPS (this makes for quite a hairy ride, although I still greased the landing ).  This is with minimum control panel settings and ground polys enabled.  I know my problem is that the 512MB 4850 can't handle the ground polys, because when I disable the ground polys these problems go away.  Similar outcome with YMML.  However, I also know that there must be a large part of the market that also has 512MB video card and similar performance problems.  Perhaps, if FSX native mode is not an option, this airport should have been sold with a minimum specs requirement of 1GB video card and vista or Windows 7 (for those who have xp). 

On the flip-side, while taxiing to the terminal I was struck by how visually spectacular this scenery is.

[chumley]

John said "......I did say on a number of occasions that YBBN runs better than YMML, which is fact....... If YMML runs at 14FPS for them they can expect 18.6FPS at YBBN, roughly speaking."

On this basis I purchased YBBN.

I have YMML and it runs OK - the occasional texture blackout and stutter but with reasonable slider and control panel settings it is useable with whatever aircraft I throw at it. 

I cannot run YBBN with anything other than a default aircraft and that is with settings dumbed right down. Last evening I loaded FSX with the Duke at Gate 21. Looks good I thought and advanced the throttle lever for taxi. The aircraft turned and pointed away from the terminal - so fa so good thought I. Made a right hand turn toward Rwy 01 threshold and that was it. The control panel has every box unticked and as mentioned earlier the sliders are at or below those recommended in the manual for a low spec PC.

As time permits I will uninstall the whole shebang and start again with no tweaks and only YBBN and FTX Gold or the perhaps DVD and see what happens but I won't be holding my breath.

I will not have it that reasonable comment and concern is 'tall poppy cutting'. ORBX has a job to do, they do it well and I have and will continue to support them by purchasing the projects I am interested in. YMML sat disabled for many a month until my PC caught up a bit and the most recent update made it flyable. I am quite prepared for YBBN to lie dormant on the PC and to bloom when the time is right on my PC but I will reiterate YMML did not throw me out at any stage whereas YBBN does and that is disaapointing.

Thanks

Andy b

[Sir Ash]

If YMML runs at 14FPS for them they can expect 18.6FPS at YBBN, roughly speaking.

Just in reply to that, on the same settings, but with almost everything ticked in the YMML control panel and half the objects turned on in the YBBN panel: for YMML I get around 10-15fps (usually about 12fps), where as with YBBN I get 8-13fps (usually about 9fps). I'm not too fussy though, not too much of a difference. Also, as you've said and other developers, both control panels work differently, but both seem to visually have the same percentage of objects around and with the control panel.

But overall, you've said it all John. You can't make fit a cricket stadium into an apartment flat, even if you tweak the room out and compact the stadium as much as you can, it will never work. I'm very happy with YBBN, slightly disappointed I can't run the settings as high as I used to, however, I'm not too fussy at all, and I hardly see any difference (just the blurries with the textures with Global Resolution down one). Still looks amazing, along with the other airports already installed.

I'm considering getting W7 sometime, just organising some things out.

[flyguy737]

excuse me for butting in again I think everyone is really overlooking the point. we go on an on and on about FPS but what about smoothness? I still get sometimes low FPS but it runs smooth and doesn't stutter along. I can take off and land and taxi with no stutters or at least so minor I don't notice them. That is unlike YMML when first released where it was unflyable but now it is quite flyable.

so is your YBBN flyable or not? forget framerate and try to see if you can just fly in it. once you get the sweet spot on your computer like me then it should be all good. Mine is!

[Sir Ash]

Certainly, indeed, same with me. I was only just reporting what I was getting relevant to the expectations.

But yeah, if it's flyable and mostly smooth, there you go, and if you tweak and play with your settings well, you'll get that sweet spot, where the visuals are still stunning, and it's flyable. With computer games overall (and simulations such as FSX), I prefer visuals more than FPS, just as long as it's playable.

[mozzy_06]

excuse me for butting in again I think everyone is really overlooking the point. we go on an on and on about FPS but what about smoothness? I still get sometimes low FPS but it runs smooth and doesn't stutter along. I can take off and land and taxi with no stutters or at least so minor I don't notice them. That is unlike YMML when first released where it was unflyable but now it is quite flyable.

so is your YBBN flyable or not? forget framerate and try to see if you can just fly in it. once you get the sweet spot on your computer like me then it should be all good. Mine is!

I have to agree. My first impressions were a little underwhelming but, after adding some extra cfg tweaks from this post http://orbxsystems.com/forums/index.php?topic=21750.msg185879#msg185879 and the related discussion over at Avsim, my whole FSX experience has changed. Finally I can have fps in the high teens (<20) but with VC panning and taxiing a lot smoother. Move away from the terminals and I'm @25fps.

I have no idea which of the new tweaks I've added (TextureMaxLoad, STALE_BUFFER_THRESHOLD, SWAP_WAIT_TIMEOUT or the AffinityMask) are doing the work but I feel that my GPU is working harder and more efficiently. It smooths things out a lot.

[Flying Monkey]

Same thing here: yes I run with fps in the teens while on the tarmac (but that's with the PMDG 747 for example), but it's smooth, I can take off nicely, and when I enter a turn right after take off I'm usually already > 20. The only thing I'm trying to tweak now is an arrival with a complex addon, but to be honest I was never hoping to be able to do that, so if it doesn't happen I won't feel frustrated

[johnny]

low fps and stutters are for sure associated, when people complain about fps they are in fact complaining about stutters, surely, if there are no stutters they wouldn't be interested in fps, wouldn't be complaining about low fps just for the hell of it.

[Russ White]

low fps and stutters are for sure associated, when people complain about fps they are in fact complaining about stutters

Not so.

Stutters and fps exist completely independently of each other. Low fps results in jerky motion on screen but this must not be confused with stutters. Stutters are an anomaly that can occur even at high fps, where the otherwise smooth motion of the sim is either constantly or irregularly interrupted by a series of micro pauses that happen in quick succession, causing a jerky movement on screen.

stutters can be the result of many different influencing factors and are therefore difficult to solve. If you dont suffer from the stutters, then you can have a perfectly smooth simming experience at low fps, in fact if you could not see the fps counter you would not know you even had low fps. Conversly you could be running the sim at 100fps but have bad stutters.

Russ.

[jonss]

I posted comments about YBBN but all were positive. My initial reaction to YBBN was, surprise. Surprise at just how much PC's had advanced since my last build. I was disappointed, yes, that my meagre system could not take advantage of the marvellous effort that is YBBN but took on a second job, where every cent will go to a new system. Probably i9 by the time I have enough dough. Another respondent to this thread mentioned the B60 Duke by Realair. I have been flying this aircraft almost exclusively since I purchased it. I can drive around the airport without the bells and whistles and still appreciate the effort these guys put in to heighten our pleasure of an already wholesome pastime. His system specs were uncanilly similar to mine.

For interests sake: I found that ALL the sliders need attention with this system. Pretty much, everything needs to be balanced. Remedy: New System that can run YBBN with everything to the right.

Jon

[johnny]

low fps and stutters are for sure associated, when people complain about fps they are in fact complaining about stutters

Not so.

Stutters and fps exist completely independently of each other. Low fps results in jerky motion on screen but this must not be confused with stutters. Stutters are an anomaly that can occur even at high fps, where the otherwise smooth motion of the sim is either constantly or irregularly interrupted by a series of micro pauses that happen in quick succession, causing a jerky movement on screen.

stutters can be the result of many different influencing factors and are therefore difficult to solve. If you dont suffer from the stutters, then you can have a perfectly smooth simming experience at low fps, in fact if you could not see the fps counter you would not know you even had low fps. Conversly you could be running the sim at 100fps but have bad stutters.

Russ.

your the expert Russ, no doubt, thanks for the correction, but I would have thought they were the same thing, such a detail, important for expert scenery designers, goes over my head, for me either it's smooth or it's not. since it's not, and I am getting say max 12-to-15 on the ground at YBBN, in fps terms, relative to 24, this isn't low, I deduce the effect is a stutter and not a Jerk, so I should be able to get rid of my stutter and retain the 15 fps somehow. Those influencing factors being complex, as you say, I'm interested in taxiing to the active and smooth ground runs to rotation and not in tweaking every conceivable parameter as a function of day or night, sun or rain, YBBN or YBHA and spending more time tweaking than flying circuits, every flight is a stutter test. It's a pain in the ass. anyway, that's the way it is. It's now ironic, I have better perfo at YMML than at YBBN.

[Xavier Piquemal]

i personally had no problem with YBBN on my computer. It s just a matter of how detailed you want your airport to be, based on the amount of fps you r heading for.

Some people own middle range computer and think that they will run airports like YBBN with 30fps when fully detailed.

It s just impossible, first of all YBBN is one of the most detailed airport ever made. it s simply stunning. Then, there is water close by. This doesn t help the fps at all for mid range computer.

Therefore, if you like to run YBBN with normal fps on a mid range computer, try doing those simple steps:

1) remove water details entirely

2) Open YBBN panel control, remove Birds, and 15 cm texture

3) Lower the amount of clouds ( i would suggest to remove the layer entirely, and just keep the small layer of stratus high up in the air )

4) keep air traffic at 25 to 30%, for the cars, use around 30 to 40 % max

I m not saying those kind of settings will help everyone, but it should improve your performance a little bit.

Water is what make you lose a LOOT of fps, especially on mid range computer. Try it out, you will see improvement

[johnny]

I agree Xavier. and Water isn't too bad fully reduced to just textures.

[Bruceb]

Just one thing I wonder where this new hardware that will easily run stuff like orbx's YBBN is coming from, as new CPUs are getting their increased grunt from more cores rather than increased clock speed.  While the new 6 core intel cpu does seem to deliver some improvements to FSX it is only at the margins.  If someone can point me to new hardware that will deliver substantial improvements  to FSX with the high end  addons  (say 50-100%) over the next 18 months I would be a more confident purchaser.

Bruceb

[flyguy737]

Just one thing I wonder where this new hardware that will easily run stuff like orbx's YBBN is coming from, as new CPUs are getting their increased grunt from more cores rather than increased clock speed.  While the new 6 core intel cpu does seem to deliver some improvements to FSX it is only at the margins.  If someone can point me to new hardware that will deliver substantial improvements  to FSX with the high end  addons  (say 50-100%) over the next 18 months I would be a more confident purchaser.

Bruceb

Have a look at the posts from people using the EVGA GTX 480 Video card. that seems to make FSX alot better too and I think it maybe the last video card people will ever need.

[j0nx]

I gotta gree with the 480. I bought one about 2 weeks ago and man is it night and day better than the 285 that it replaced as the 285 was night and day better than the ati 4850's it replaced. I got a lot of stuttering with trees and buildings when autogen went past normal but now it is smooth flying all the way. I still have some headway in my cpu overclock that i am going to tweak as well and try the bp=o setting since it didnt work for me with the 285. I made my first purchase of orbx software this morning with au gold and the hervey bay airport and am pretty much flabbergasted at the level of detail I see. I am seriously debating buying the ybbn today as well since I am a low and slow helo driver and touring around airports at 100 feet sightseeing is my preferred method of enjoying fsx. Good stuff guys.

[John Venema]

For low and slow helo tours around airports YBBN and YSTW offer the crispest ground textures and building details.

[j0nx]

Just bought ybbn. Hope it goes well. I have a very fast pc with a 3.6ghz i7, 6gb ddr3 1600 memory, a gtx480 and a dedicated 128GB SSD for fsx and addons but I only get about 25fps with default ybbn with ut2 traffic at 100% and most of my fsx sliders pretty much near max. Have a feeling that I am going to get clobbered with ybbn after the addon is installed. ut2 is pretty good about maxing its planes based on my minimum 25fps frame rate setting though so hopefully it will work out. AI is by far the biggest fps killer on my rig.

[Bruceb]

Have a look at the posts from people using the EVGA GTX 480 Video card. that seems to make FSX alot better too and I think it maybe the last video card people will ever need.

I have been following the threads on the GTX470/480 very closely and one of these will probably be my next video card but on the cpu front it is hard to see any hardware developments that are going to do much more for FSX as it only makes limited use of multi core processors and clock speeds aren't getting much faster on the new processors.

Bruceb

[j0nx]

I bought ybbn and it seems to run fine for me. About 22fps average with AI and everything on max. No better or worse than the default airport. Textures look a bit washed out for me in their summer though and green and vibrant in their late fall. I would expect the opposite? I also notice that flying at night near ybbn the fps is much lower. I get maybe 17fps at night and low to mid 20's during the day(with jumps into the 30's and 40's when looking away from the AI of course). I still prefer hervey bay airport. Things look crisper and more realistic there. The 480 is an amazing card though. There is no frame rate drop enabling 3d mode in fsx. With the 285 it was an instant 50% haircut going into 3d mode. That alone makes it worth the purchase.

[Nyxx]

I know it can be frustrating that you find yourself in the 1-2% of customers who have issues, and we'll continue to do our best, but at some point you need to realise that YBBN is not a small GA airport and is the most complex modeled and photoreal airport ever made. So that means you need to make compromises to use it, or plan a PC upgrade.

We also hear some noise about "it's an international airport made for tubeliners, not C172s". Yes and no. There's a GA terminal on the eastern side which is perfectly suited to twins and singles. Also remember that complex simulations like the PMDG JS41 will reduce your FPS down by at least 10+FPS even if you were at a default FSX airport without any autogen around it. Let's keep things in context

Well at the end of the day its about common sense and Running YBBN as an "international airport" as it is with tubeliners like PMDG 747 8i etc for a Med spec PC is a big step to far unless you want everything turned off to run this airport.

If used as a GA airport then just useing the manual settings it does work as per the manual.

PMDG said only 2% where having the crashers etc when the JS41 came out, well it turned out more like 70% but because not everyone posted the same bug they called it 2%.

The support forums viewed topics show around 20-50(viewed) for a normal post, YBBN reported troubles where viewed 200-300-500, people don't read them type of posts for fun.

Like I said first its about common since, but the manual looked/read like it would run fine on a med spec PC but the setting where for very very light FPS aircraft.

Its the best airport ever made but don't use the manual as guild if you fly tubes. unless the Aerosoft Airbus is the silver bullet.

I am personally still happy I bought it.

[Russ White]

I am personally still happy I bought it.

Happy to hear that dave.

YBBN reported troubles where viewed 200-300-500, people don't read them type of posts for fun

You have to remember many of those views would be the same people looking back over the same threads to either answer a question or write a reply.

400-500 views by the same people over and over....if you look in some threads i had replied on 10 occasions, spread over 10 or more visits to the same thread. If most other people also visited the thread 10 times for their respective answers then 400-500 views works out at only 40-50 people. And thats not even counting the multiple silent visits from other Orbx devs and moderators to see if any further assistance was needed etc.

Yeah, we had a busy launch week with support issues, but i'd like to think we did our best to provide as much support as we could.....and continue to do so 

Russ.

[Nyxx]

Yes you did Russ, your support is second to none.