B747-400X and Vista - Your Opinions/Experience/Problems

[Tabs 2,790]

>You can see some screens with bloom effect ON showing FPS>here:>http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...g_id=1362&page=Those are really great shots David!

[kiwikat 506]

I've just finished reading through some forums and it is a shame that so many people are having problems with vista. So many of my friends and family complain about it to me, yet I don't have any problems. I think it is just a matter of a good combination of hardware. Generally if you have a good computer, it will run better, but there are so many cases that contradict that. I don't really understand it... all I know is that my machine is running it just fine.WilliamPS- Those who haven't read my previous post about my specs, you can find them on page 3 of this thread.

[David Roch 1,980]

>Those are really great shots David!...For a great airplane Ryan!:--)

[Guest diajohn2]

Okay first flight with FSX PMDG and Vista 32.Gear. Athlon63 3800 dual core slightly overclocked. ATI X800XT PE Video Card. 2 Gig of memory dual channel, PC3200.FSX setup medium to medium high setting with Ultimate Traffic 22%, and FEX. Also running Radar Contact and British Airways ACARS. Frame rates unlocked.LCD Monitor at 1680x1050.Flew Santiago (SCEL) Chile to Buenos Aires, (SAEZ) using real WX.FPS at SCEL around 11. In flight at altitude 19-20 FPS. Spot View 30 FPS. Landing from 10 miles to gate 11-13 FPS.Smooth flight with tailwinds over 100 kts. Full autolanding on the numbers.This was a very good flight and the PMDG 747X worked perfectly. I looked at the 3D panel but flew with 2D to maximize framerates. WX was not much of a factor as there were few clouds but encountered fog landing at SAEZ. I know I need to update this computer and will around the end of the year when prices will drop on the Intel dual-cores and the new video cards are available.Looks like a winner to me and anyone with Vista should have no problem with a decent computer.

[Guest csandel]

I'm running the 747-400X on a dell XPS M1710 laptop with Vista, FSX SP1, MyTrafficX and Wilco's Airbus volume 1.So far I've enjoyed about 4 hours of flight without any major problem.Congratulations to the team for this superb add-on :)Chris

[tfm 169]

First the down-side:I have Vista 64 with 4Gb on a dual Xeon 5160 (3GHz) Precision 690 with 15k RPM SCSI drives and an EVGA 8800 Ultra factory "super-overclocked". The main display is 1920x1200. I also use an 8" touchscreen monitor at 768x1024 as a 2nd display to control the FMC.Back in August/September I applied the RAM hotfix (KB904015), made FSX "large address aware" and updated to the (then) latest Nvidia drivers. Since then, FSX has not crashed once, even flying the Level-D 767 with FSInn, ASX, and MyTrafficX. The textures are from FEX (sky, clouds and water) and XGraphics (airports etc). I have the Heathrow 2008 X scenery: all else is "stock".But the 747X with the same configuration and add-ons triggered a "fatal error" after about 40 minutes in my second flight fresh from a reboot. I have not had time to try it again and I am reluctant to do so given the gloomy news from elsewhere in the forum.As a consumer, I am agnostic (and largely indifferent) as to whether the fault is with Vista, FSX, Nvidia, FSInn, or PMDG, or elsewhere. From long experience, I have a sneeking suspicion that Nvidia's drivers are somehow at the bottom of it and I might try the latest betas when I have the time. But wherever the fault lies, I do think it is strange (and I must admit, disappointing) that no more systematic method exists to isolate and solve the causes of these problems than trial and error at the consumer's expense. I emphasise that I am not blaming anyone in particular, including PMDG. I appreciate that the complexities of getting any modern computer application to work must be mind-boggling. But I still wonder whether the software industry COLLECTIVELY could do more to work together to prevent problems like this.On a more positive note:During the brief period I was able to fly it, I thought that the 747X was truly excellent, with:- good frame rates (without measuring them precisely, they were broadly on a par with the Level-D 767) - a somehow more plausible response to the controls (better flight model?) than the FS9 version - to my eyes at least, better visuals in the VC than in the FS9 version: I think that the sense of interaction with the buttons and knobs etc has been much enhanced- clearly improved graphics & effects externally and- much better sound than the FS9 version.RgdsTim Morshead

[Dougal 165]

I'd love to say i'm happy, nut alas sadly, i can't.I'm getting 3-4FPS with the 744X in Vista.My P4 (478) is currently clocking 3.66, so i'd expect more.Hopefully, upcoming new rig will solve it.

[mccoy007 0]

It's ok to run in VISTA 32bit i thinkI have E6600 OC to 2.884GB DDR2-800 Ram(3GB can be used)8800GTX 768I can get 30fps when flying with 2D panel during the cruise flight...I have no idea how much I could have under XP, any people can share some information?

[Tabs 2,790]

>But wherever the fault lies, I do think it is strange (and I>must admit, disappointing) that no more systematic method>exists to isolate and solve the causes of these problems than>trial and error at the consumer's expense. I emphasise that I>am not blaming anyone in particular, including PMDG. I>appreciate that the complexities of getting any modern>computer application to work must be mind-boggling. But I>still wonder whether the software industry COLLECTIVELY could>do more to work together to prevent problems like this.Tim,We certainly hope this is going to be the case with FS11. ACES only started really working with third party developers like us with the release of FSX. We expect cooperation to improve as they get into FS11 development.I do think it's slightly unrealistic though to expect the Windows OS team, ACES and companies like us to all be able to collectively design things - Windows Vista does so many things and flight simming is such a small niche that it's barely a blip on the OS team's radar etc. There's literally thousands of people involved.I wish things could be the way you envision, but this is the real world unfortunately...I can tell you with certainty that it's not our aircraft per se causing the issues in Vista. This is why we made a recommendation against using the OS. We're not trying to test anything at "consumer expense" - we're well aware of these issues, we saw them ourselves during development and we've been forthcoming about them.

[blueridgeflyer 1]

Tim,Bummer as I was hoping Vista 64 was the answer! I have completed several flight under Vista 32 without a problem. However, two trans pac journeys have been squashed by FSX fatal errors. One 4 hrs into the flight under DX10 & the other 9hrs under DX9. Perhaps you are correct in your assumption of NVidia drivers being the culprit. Im certainly hoping thats the extent of it....but my intuition tells me differently. Ryan

[Guest clear to land]

Hi everyone,Running Vista Ultimate 64 bit here and i have to say no problems what so ever. Memory is the key and lots of it. I have 4gig 5300 installed. Vista is memory hungry (in any version ). 747-400X fsx flies like a dream with all sytems operating as one would expect from PMDG. "does what it says on the tin " brilliant.Thanks to all involved in making this marvellous flight sim .My specs .....Vista Ultimate 64bit Intel 6600 Nvidia 8800gts 4gb 5300ram Gigabyte motherboard Zalman cpu 9500 cooler 800watt power supply (to run the system ) Neville (EGNT newcstle int )England

[DescendDescend 25]

I don't know what settings you guys are running but at the moment for me it is a real struggle. At UK2000 Gatwick I get a glorious 6fps. I am planning a re-install of FSX with acceleration to see if things improve. My settings are pretty high.I suspect that the 3840x1024 resolution is causing a lot of the pain. Is anyone else running TH2go?Anyway the 30fps everywhere in FS9 with UTX, UK2000 etc. and everything maxed means that, for the heavies, FS9 is superb.

[tfm 169]

RyanThanks for your reply. I think PMDG did a very decent thing by giving us the "heads up" about Vista and I am (really!) pretty relaxed about the situation.Designing software collectively would of course be impossible. But I still wonder whether there isn't scope for some wider SYSTEM to be put in place that could more reliably predict what problems such-and-such a method (or goal) will need to overcome, reliably predict what constraints are un-shiftable, and so on. I don't know enough (anything) about how the industry works to know whether it is practicable; but as an outsider it seems possible to imagine a sort of "developers' forum" to enable systematic liaison to occur. Perhaps it will emerge for FS11 under ACES' new policy of engagement.Incidentally I tried again last night: still getting a "fatal error" after varying amounts of time. But I see that someone else in this thread with Vista 64 has had better luck. So I will keep trying. It is curious that Vista/FSX react so differently to such similar hardware. RgdsTim

[tfm 169]

Ryan (the other one)Updating to the 169.04 beta did not help me. Having done some more fiddling, I am now less suspicious of the Nvidia drivers. Monitoring the RAM useage shows a constant upward creep. Once about 2.31Gb of physical RAM is in use, it only takes a little "blip" needing more RAM - typically, in my case, when preparing the FMC etc for a fresh phase of flight (typically, descent) - and I get a "fatal error".RgdsTim

[tfm 169]

NevilleLooks promising. If it is not too much trouble, when you have a moment, could you possibly tell us exactly what settings you're using? And your Nvidia driver version? And what other add-ons you're running (if any)?Many thanks.RgdsTim