FS9 vs FSX xml gauge(s)

Hello. The other day, I downloaded a c172r aircraft for FSX because it said its gauges run smoothly. The gauges were very smooth, I especially liked how the VOR's behave as I have observed in my own aircraft (C182D). I also use FS9 when I want multiple screens because WideView 2000 works with FS9 and at that time frame, was free. Free helps to make my wife happy. I decided to convert the FSX VOR1 gauge for use in FS9. It wasn't as difficult as I imagined using "find and replace" in Notepad. When I got the gauge running in FS9, I was disappointed because it looked great but was not as smooth. So I took that same gauge and put it in the FSX aircraft to compare with the FSX xml gauge. The FS9 xml gauge did not run smoothly as the FSX xml gauge. What is FSX doing differently that its XML schema runs faster (especially since FSX XML schema is so verbose)? Mind you, I am using the same computer.


Resource contributor
There is no difference between refresh rates for FS9 and FSX gauges. Both run at 18.2 Hz.

Encoding might make a very slight difference, but I forgot if UTF-8 or UTF-16 is the way to go for FSX gauges.
Hello. Thank you for your reply. Just a reminder, I'm not having a problem with the FSX gauge. I'm having a problem with the converted gauge from FSX to FS9. As I stated above, I took the original FSX gauge and converted to run in FS9. But it's not very smooth in FS9. So I then took that same converted gauge and used it in FSX and put is side-by-side with the original FSX gauge and the FSX gauge runs great, the converted FS9 gauge does not run as smoothly. The only real difference, as far as I can tell is the syntax, from an FSX XML schema to an FS9 XML schema. I did try playing around with the delay values but no improvement for the FS9 gauge.


Resource contributor
Try posting the code (using the Insert/Code button at the top) for both the FS9 and FSX versions?
WarpD: You are stating the obvious. That is no help to anyone. If you are inclined to get involved, please offer a solution.

tgibson: Thank you for your reply. I was able to solve it but I do not understand why it made a difference. I was looking at another FS9 code and it had the <delay ...../> parameter placement above the <Value> ...... </Value>. In the FSX code, the <delay> parameter was place below the </NonlinearityTable>. I moved the delay parameter in the FS9 code, and it improved! But I don't know why and still not quite as smooth as FSX but a lot better. Another observation is that the author had the VOR needle Points to "South" in FSX but to work in FS9, I had to change it to Points to "East." I wonder why there is a 90° reference difference because I'm using the same bmp's within the same folder/cab...
WarpD: You are stating the obvious. That is no help to anyone. If you are inclined to get involved, please offer a solution.
Solution: Post questionable code for others to look at.
Secondary Solution: Recall that absolutely no one can actually offer a solution to code they can't see. Not even you.


Resource contributor
Personally, I'd remove the <delay ...../> entirely. What is the need to slow execution down?