FSX Designed For Future Hardware??

[neil0311 366]

>Right now it seems that even the fastest processor cannot>produce acceptable frame rates. And I am not talking about>"all sliders maxed out", but about sliders "on a level that>produces a visual improvement over an add-oned FS9 with>similar frame rates". None of this is currently possible.>I guess your statement Pat hinges on your (or my) definition of "acceptable." My Core 2 Extreme CPU and 8800GTX GPU gives me acceptable performance (15-25 fps) with FSX under most circumstances, and with sliders mid to right. It's not perfect, and I would certainly like it to be better, but it's no different than the way FS9 ran 3 years ago on my 2002 hardware. That's a fact. With photscenery like MegasceneryX, I get 25 fps locked with full autogen, and that experience is MUCH BETTER than FS9, since the resolution is nearly 20x higher, along with the other improvements.Before all the bashers jump on me or call me a "a really excited user," nothing I've stated here isn't demonstrably true. That doesn't mean I think FSX is perfect, but to say that no one gets acceptable performance is a bit of an overstatement.

[Guest allcott]

But we agree with you Neil. You can get acceptable performance (right on the bottom edge of acceptable, but acceptable none the less) with your kind of equipment. Heck, if I turn the autogen off even I can get reasonable performance on an old AMD 64. But don't even think about adding a complicated addon, not even one ported from FS9. And you are DX10-ready, so let's expect what? a threefold increase in framerates for a DX10 patched FSX, to bring it to the frame rates of other top-level games running on similar hardware? 45-50fps is still below-par for a high quality game on release, under cutting edge hardware like yours, but for years we've put up with the frames crawling because MS told us they designed for future hardware. Well, now they've messed that up, hoist by their own petard, and I honestly don't see where the solution is going to come from. Nope, it isn't going to happen. And you'll still have to wait until the end of the year to find out!And in the past, even at release we could see the developments in hardware coming forward to take advantage of the raised capabilities of the new sim. That is simply not true this time around, as ACES have admitted. I simply cannot justify making a purchase decision on `suitable` hardware for FSX as no such thing exists, so I act like an educated consumer - and don't spend the money. Which further restricts the benefits from going over to the new sim.So just where is that 45 fps going to come from? If they expect us to wait two years to get it - and fly a default FSX in the meantime - they are wrong again. No developer will develop for a platform which is in a constant state of flux (eh Austin?), or one which the enthusiast market - their core audience - is abandoning in droves, or simply not taking up because of the uncertainties. They will simply go where the money is - and keep developing for FS9. And we will follow.And lets not have any confusion about WHO is responsible for keeping the sales figures of the basic FS so healthy - it is the availability of addons and enhancements to enrich the simming experience that stop this game being just like every other game, with a `burnout` at about six months anda shelf life of no more than a year at most. As things stand, after six months we still won't even have a fully-leveraged FSX, so what worries me is whether there will be any market for DX10 FSX to come back to.? Allcott

[aerdt 0]

I also totally agree with you. However, are 15-25 fps considered acceptable on the lastest hardware? I'd say no. You belong to a group of of about 1% (if not less) of people with really good hardware specs.Other simulations and games are demanding as well, but the hardware eventually catches up and lets you "unlock" the full visuals with really good framerates within a timeframe of about a year. I can't see that happening with FSX. Add another complex add-on from PMDG, LevelD or Eaglesoft and even your frame rates will be in the 10s again.See, it's just been about a year since we all can really enjoy FS9 with good framerates and rather stunning add-ons. I can remember looking at videos of the LevelD or Cheyenne that came out before FSX and was "wow'ed". Now FSX is out and brings even the most powerful hardware to its knees.Of course, technology advances, but does FSX have to 'advance' so much to an extent of being not really enjoyable for the mainstream?Pat

[Mace 1,936]

>>And in the past, even at release we could see the>developments in hardware coming forward to take advantage of>the raised capabilities of the new sim. Potentially, we have several things that are here, or just about here, that have a pretty good chance of helping things for us.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

Good grief, I think the people who want to whine about FSX all post here and the people who like it are all off flying.Allcott, if you expect 45-50 fps from FSX, you either need to move all the sliders to the left or go play twitchy shooters, cause there is a lot more going on in FSX than other "high quality game(s)" whose scope is a dozen or two hand optimized levels. Everyone has a different comfort point regarding FPS. Yours seems to be on the high end. >becasue if they get it any less than absolutely right, FSX becomes>an Ex-FS as far as most of us will be concerned. Really, Allcott, you don't have to speak for most of us. Pat, if you got hurt when the tech bubble burst in 2000, than that's "not acceptable". You should have known that was going to happen just like Microsoft knew multi-core processors would be the rage 3 years later.>Right now it seems that even the fastest processor cannot produce >acceptable frame rates. And I am not talking about "all sliders >maxed out", but about sliders "on a level that produces a visual >improvement over an add-oned FS9 with similar frame rates". None of >this is currently possible.aerdt, is 20-30 fps acceptable to you? 40 fps? Evidently not, cause you can get that on the fastest processors. And it will look better than FS9. The texture resolution alone is night and day. I get 10-25 fps with a fairly fast processor. With upgraded mesh, vector scenery, and traffic.>And in the past, even at release we could see the developments in >hardware coming forward to take advantage of the raised >capabilities of the new sim. That is simply not true this time >around, as ACES have admitted. I simply cannot justify making a >purchase decision on `suitable` hardware for FSX as no such thing >existsAllcott, Core 2 Duos run FSX quite well. Agena and Kuma will be here this summer and fall from AMD--they will have 40-80% faster integer and floating point performance than Athlon X2's. To say no suitable hardware exists for FSX is laughable, unless you want 60 fps with the sliders turned up. >No developer will develop for a platform which is in a constant >state of flux (eh Austin?), or one which the enthusiast market - >their core audience - is abandoning in droves, or simply not taking >up because of the uncertainties.Gosh, who is developing all those add-ons for FSX that keep popping up daily on flightsim.com, simflight.com, and this site? Allcott, say what you want about FSX. That's fine. Everyone has a right to their opinion. But please don't project it onto "most of use" and all FS developers. Acting like there is some sort of general crisis with FSX and a user/developer revolt is a fantasy.

[Guest allcott]

You're the one living in cloud cuckooland. Several big name developers have already announced that, for various reasons related to performance, they will not currently develop for FSX.In addition there are serious issues preventing aftermarket scenery developers from being able to take advantage of the new engine. Whatever benefit FSX is supposed to deliver is being squandered. I look at the Avsim library every few days and, with only a few exceptions, the freeware for FSX is either derivative, in the sense that its a repaint or rehash of an older product, or derived from something that is not new, or does not provide full-feature compatibility with the new sim.http://www.eaglesoftdg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1991http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=18859Both show the caution with which developers must approach the `doble whammy of FSX-in-need-of-patches and Vista-not-quite-the-benefit-that-was-claimed. You are welcome to disagree with that opinion. Perhaps you could point me to a fully-featured aftermarket payware aircraft, developed exclusively for FSX, that doesn't bring the sim performance down below acceptable levels? Allcott

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

No, sorry, you said...>No developer will develop for a platform which is in a constant >state of flux (eh Austin?), or one which the enthusiast market - >their core audience - is abandoning in droves, or simply not taking >up because of the uncertainties.Now its no developer will develop a "fully-featured aftermarket payware aircraft, developed exclusively for FSX, that doesn't bring the sim performance down below acceptable levels?" Changed our tune?Open your eyes. The top article on simflight.com right now is an 'all-FSX' title Helgoland. There are often challenges developing for a new platform--I should know--I'm a developer. But to deny that there is substantial development going on for FSX is to deny reality (or look at reality through a bias coated filter).

[Banks 0]

I am at 10-15 fps downtown seattle with all sliders maxed flying in the Level D VC, in FS9. I think that says something when you have some of the most powerful hardware available and can only pull 10-15 fps when you score 20000+ in 3dmark06 and 200 fps @ 3840x1024 in other games.Who is this game really developed for?

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

In FS9?

[GHarrall 494]

"I am at 10-15 fps downtown seattle with all sliders maxed flying in the Level D VC, in FS9"There is something seriously wrong with your FS9 installation then.I'm locked at 30FPS with my setup in FS9 and easily get around 28FPS with the LDS767 over Seattle.Glenn

[Guest diajohn2]

The "moan" corps are out in force as usual. I just flew an FSX flight from Heathrow to Leon IFR all the way using Radar Contact and Autogen on medium using the default RJ virtual cockpit. I also had Ultimate Traffic set to 30%.My hardware is middle of the road with an AMD 64-3800 single core, 2 Gig of memory and an ATI X800XT PE.It was fluid from start to finish with my Frame Rates locked to 20 and it only dipped to a lowly 18.Folks, I have FS9 with all the toys and it isn't better than FSX. Now we will see what happens when PMDG, LDS and some of the new developers like Airline XP become available. I fear many of you don't have a clue how to tweak your machine or use some of the FSX tweaks. You also don't remember the #### and moaning that was everywhere before the patch for FS9. Or the patch for PMSG 737NG, etc.Get a life. Move ahead to FSX or stay in the past. Your call and maybe your loss.

[GHarrall 494]

20-18 FPS in a default aircraft is not acceptable as far as I am concerned.The transition from FS8 to FS9 was no where near as painful as this."Get a life. Move ahead to FSX or stay in the past. Your call and maybe your loss"It seems as though there are MANY of us that will do just that, including some well known developers!FWIW, I gave up 'moaning' about FSX a couple of months ago. We will see what SP1 brings us and will be the deciding factor for me if FSX stays installed or not."I fear many of you don't have a clue how to tweak your machine or use some of the FSX tweaks"Eerrm, clearly we do or we would have issues with FS9 as well! I have ALL the major FSX tweaks applied, icluding cloud reduction textures, autogen tree type reduction and alternative autogen descriptions. My machine (see spec below) is no slouch and everything I throw at it it deals with flawlessly EXCEPT FSX. I'm afraid that 18-20 FPS on medium settings with a default aircraft is just not cutting it for me. Oh, hang on, I should be pleased that I get this dismal performance right? It's clear from this little experiment that there is little point even considering complex addon scenery and aircraft. I'll say it again, SP1 is make or break for this sim, even more so than the DX10 patch as far as I am concerned. I hope ACES get it right...............Right now I am enjoying super smooth 30FPS in afully loaded FS9 and I am in heaven, especially as the Airliner XP A320 will be for FS9 first.GlennFWIW, when FS9 was released I dumped FS2002 within weeks and was very happy.

[neil0311 366]

I see your points, and I understand what you mean, I just think that folks need to have a little more perspective and a little patience. Everyone who can make a reasoned argument certainly should, but the level of vitriol and sheer wacko lunacy on this subject from some lately on this board is frightening. The departure from reality that they've embarked upon is a bit much. I'm surprised Microsoft hasn't been blamed for the lack of mideast peace, global warming, or world hunger. I know that we'll see the SP1 patch soon, and I sincerely hope, as I hope you do, that it can address many of the issues for most of the users. I think there will be some people who are never satisfied and never can be. There's always a contingent of people who hate change and are rooting for FSX to fail so they can cling to FS9. They frame this debate as a zero sum game. It seems that in their world you can only use one sim, and you have to hate one sim in order to love the other. They also seem to believe that unless FSX is perfect, it's useless. I reject both assumptions as silly.