Sign in to follow this  
Guest supercoup

FSX and Microsoft. If this is as real as it gets, Are ...

Recommended Posts

Hi All:I've got to get this off my chest. Anyone else feel this way?Seems Microsoft has done it again. Before FSX even hit the shelves, they put out screenshots of gorgeous scenery, reworked airports, realistic looking runways, taxiways and a multitude of other mind captivating additions to the program. Then, a trial version. Limited flights, limited time, just enough to prime us and we got primed. The truth came out when we purchased it and installed it on our computers. What good is a program that can produce great graphics if you have to bring the graphics slider all the way over to the left, as they tell you to do, to get it to run at a framerate that is almost usable. Beautiful water dynamics, but all you can do is admire it. You cant fly over it. Airports and scenery that are so processor and memory hungry that the video stutters as you try to taxi to the runway and landing is like it was back in the old days of Microsoft Flight Simulator only without the green and blue colored polygons, but the stuttering and stepping movement remains.Remember?? Realistic moving jetways and they are but you cant see or use them because you have to turn the scenery slider down to run the program, in fact when you set the scenery slider to normal, your lucky to see any buildings at all at the airports. And here's the kicker. Try to undock the cockpit panel and bring it over to another monitor. It comes over with the windshield, center support and all. Whats the sense of undocking it. If you put it into another monitor, the top half of that second monitor is an out of the windshield view and the lower half is your instrument panel of which The gauges are so small, you cant see them. Hows this. I installed the update for my Megascenery programs to run in FSX. I created a flight plan and loaded it. Waitng for it to load, I fell asleep. When I woke up, it was still loading. Let me say that all this is running on a new computer built only for gaming and upgraded extensively and to no avail. All of this realism that you can't use and the worst part? We still have to unrealistically press a key on the keyboard to respond to Air Traffic Control. If this is as real as it gets, Get Real Microsoft. Ill stick to FS9. I run FS9, world Airports 2, VOXATC, Gamecommander, FDC Live Cockpit and 5 of the MegaScenery and MegaCity programs all at the same time with processor to spare. Day flights, night flights, it doesn't matter. It runs flawlessly and I get to talk to ATC instead of typing to them. I run dual monitors. I undock the cockpit panel and bring it down to my lower monitor and it does not include the windshield so it looks realistic. I hit the S key, and I get to see a tower view. Hit it again and get spot view and one more time and im back to cockpit view, unlike the new and totally confusing view changing procedure in FSX. In Trying to like FSX I even went as far as importing the FS9 default 737-400 into FSX. It worked great. But who am I kidding. I have much more eyecandy, flexibility and realism in FS9 with all my add-on programs. If FSX has trouble running alone on your computer, don't even think of trying to purchase and run any add-ons, it it will probably crash and burn. Sure, there are some who ran out and bought $3000 computers to run FSX on but be real. With $3000, your 3/4 of the way to getting your PPL. Will I upgrade my computer again? Sure, in about 2 years. Until then, my airports look great (world airports 2), I talk to ATC and they respond to me (VOXATC), I have a copilot and flight crew (FDC Live cockpit) And I get to communicate with my copilot and flight crew (gamecommander) and I saved the best for last. Those great graphics and satellite imagery? (my fast loading in FS9 easy on the framerates Megascenery). So you see!! You could have it all. But don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

And with scenery like 'Flightzone 02 Portland' superbly better than even the VFR scenery for FSX, and with no fps hit at all clearly, FS9 will never die for me.FS9 still hasn't reached its full potential in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, this topic has a high potential for disintegrating into a flame war between FSX proponents and detractors. I will simply counter by saying that I disagree strongly with most of what you say, and I believe FSX is a major step forward for our hobby. Without doubt, the performance issues are regrettable. If that's your major gripe, then it seems peculiar that you'd post a rant like this just before SP1 is released. From the accounts that beta testers have posted so far, SP1 is showing a "dramatic" performance improvement. So why not wait a little while and see if it solves your major gripe? People seem to forget that the much-beloved FS9 had a bunch of performance problems, including a serious memory leak, when it was initially released. It was only after a patch that FS9 realized its true potential. Seems we're going through a similar situation with FSX, but people's memories are very short. I'm especially puzzled by the assertions that FSX is unable to produce "gorgeous" scenery, because I feel this is where we've seen the biggest gains over FS9. Finally, we have default textures that largely replicate what I'm seeing out the window of a real-world aircraft. FS9's textures are terrible by comparison. There are a number of developers that have announced plans to release add-on aircraft and scenery as soon as SP1 is finalized. Some of these are absolutely stunning in the previews that have been shown. Developers who have access to SP1 are also reporting excellent performance with their add-ons. It is also false to suggest that you need a $3,000 computer to run FSX adequately. I'm running a midrange AthlonXP and get very satisfactory performance in all but the densest scenery. Local retailers in my area are selling Core 2 Duo systems for under $800, and SP1 will make better use of HT and dual-core CPUs that are currently UNDERUTILIZED. There are so many bogus assertions to refute, and so little time, and therefore I'll not continue further. But I do believe that FSX will follow the same pattern as FS9 (and previous FS releases) in realizing its true potential once the patch is released. Even in its current form it is an outstanding, albeit performance-limited, flight simulation. Microsoft dared greatly in its ambitions for FSX, and encountered performance issues along the way. (Basically trying to cram too much video data through today's limited drivers, which I hardly consider a capital offense.) I would rather commend Microsoft for trying to move the hobby forward than condemn them for problems that will very shortly become a distant memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All: By no means did I write this article to start a flame war, just to see if anyone else felt a little set back at present by FSX as Im sure there are others out there that do. Yes I agree that overall, FSX is a step forward for our hobby and if SP1 corrects the FPS issue, all well and good but at present, as you admit, the performance issues are regrettable and being aware of the ingenious minds of Microsoft, I see no reason for it. Do you really think that Microsoft, after rectifying the performance problems of FS9 couldn't have averted the same problem in FSX? Im sure they could have. Why they didn't, I have no idea. I never stated that FSX was unable to produce gorgeous scenery, in fact I stated "what good is a program that can produce great graphics if you have to bring the sliders all the way over to the left, as they tell you to do, to get the program to run at a framerate that is almost usable". The graphics are in fact stunning, but must be turned down to enable realistic flight and that reduces the beauty of the graphics. Why is it that aftermarket scenery addons have no hit to framerates and Microsoft can't create better scenery without an enormous drop in framerates. Todays machines are pretty high end. I dont think there are too many people out there with a 1.0 GHz machine which is what Microsoft requires to run the program and that should be stated as "minimum requirements", yet machines of double that speed are having trouble running FSX at, the least, a usable framerate. A 1.0 GHz machine would run FSX like a slide show, we simmers know that but a machine of double that speed wouldn't be that much better. Dual core processors are not under utilized in FSX, there not utilized at all and why not? Im sure Microsoft knew they were out there. I see people right here in these forums that have very high end machines, some with expensive high end dual video cards still having trouble running FSX and completely frustrated with it. Running FSX in less than dense graphics is almost back to FS9. Thats why I made the rant. Cause most of us are flying FSX in FS9 graphics and I dont think im alone in that conclusion. And what about ATC. Don't you think its about time Microsoft let us talk to them instead of type to them? VOXATC is a nice addition to flight simulator. Microsoft couldn't produce that? Go way back to A.E.T.I and Proflight 2000, another ATC addon for Microsoft Flight Simulator that allowed you to communicate with ATC via microphone using Game Commander's voice recognition program. Microsoft couldn't duplicate that? An addition to FSX of that nature wouldn't cause any hit to framerates. I would surely give up some scenery for that addition as im sure would many others. There are some beautiful scenery addons out there and when added to FS9, gives FSX a real run for the money. Give me FS9 scenery, I'll add my own scenery upgrades and just make it so I can respond to ATC via microphone instead of a keyboard. They wouldn't need SP1 and I think a lot of us would be very happy. Microsoft, in its attempt to cram too much video data through todays limited drivers, is putting the cart before the horse. A new FSX that allowed verbal response to ATC, wouldn't have put Microsoft in that position and I think for most of us, at this point, that would be as real as it gets and a big step forward for flight simulation. Yes, graphics is a big part of our hobby but so is realism in flight and lets face it, talking on a cell phone while driving your car is a recipe for disaster, so is flying an airplane and typing on a keyboard. Plainly put, FSX could have been produced with upgrades to match todays machines and still bring flight simulation forward in realism. Thats my rant, thats why I feel this way.CPU-AMD ATHLON 64X2 4200+ DUAL COREMOBO-GIGABYTE GA-M55SLI-S4MEM-1GB PC6400 DDR2/800 DUAL CHAN.P.S. 600 WATT APEVIA GPU-NVIDIA GEFORCE 7600 GT 256 PCI EXP.COOLING-COOLERMASTER LIQUID CPU COOLING FAN SYSTEM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts exactly Dave ! I cant understand why it is that aftermarket programs can be made that enhance scenery extensivly and with no hits to framerates but microsoft cant upgrade scenery without enormous drops in framerates. And dont you agree its about time we comunicated with ATC vocally as is done in real life instead of hitting a key on a keyboard? With no hits on framerates, I would take that over Microsoft scenery anyday. Thats a step forward, I think. I guess its all what your into. I fly comercial jets. I love scenery enhancements both at airports and in the air, and I have that in FS9 from my upgrades. Just give me verbal communication with ATC. Call it FS9X. Keep the scenery. Ive got my own. FS9X with vocal ATC? Ill buy it. FSX? It's still not as real as it gets. And your right! I dont think FS9 has reaced its full potential yet either. Im still tweaking it to better framerates and I dont even really need to. Like I said "FS9 gets you there with processor to spare". And thats a fact. Glad to hear your happy with it. Enjoy the flight. Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>My thoughts exactly Dave ! I cant understand why it is that>aftermarket programs can be made that enhance scenery>extensivly and with no hits to framerates but microsoft cant>upgrade scenery without enormous drops in framerates. And dont>you agree its about time we comunicated with ATC vocally as is>done in real life instead of hitting a key on a keyboard? With>no hits on framerates, I would take that over Microsoft>scenery anyday. Thats a step forward, I think. I guess its all>what your into. I fly comercial jets. I love scenery>enhancements both at airports and in the air, and I have that>in FS9 from my upgrades. Just give me verbal communication>with ATC. Call it FS9X. Keep the scenery. Ive got my own. FS9X>with vocal ATC? Ill buy it. FSX? It's still not as real as it>gets. And your right! I dont think FS9 has reaced its full>potential yet either. Im still tweaking it to better>framerates and I dont even really need to. Like I said "FS9>gets you there with processor to spare". And thats a fact.>Glad to hear your happy with it. Enjoy the flight.>> JoeYou seem confused, Joe. FSX lets you talk to ATC through its online component.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a simple search will dredge up probably 30 threads with nearly identical angst. And now we have one more.Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one makes it 31. This is a place to put your thoughts down. These are my thoughts. There are other topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this