FSX SP1 is out but I have no driving desire...

[LAdamson 240]

>>The net effect of all of this will be to turn more and more>people away from this hobby.I wouldn't be surprised! Flight simmers are generally a "cheap bunch"!Just loved your reply in the PMDG thread. I want high fidelity, you want high fidelity. But then you complain when PMDG wants to charge you for it. In so many words, you told PMDG to go sell the product to "training schools" then. In other words, sell me a training school quality product, at entertainment prices!L.Adamson

[ahinterl 1]

>I certainly hope not!Development cycle for FSX was longer than ever before, and the whole product is geared towards a much longer lifetime than previous versions IMHO (e.g. SP1 introduced multicore support, another patch will bring DX10 compatibility, leaves another update for 64 bits etc.).Taking into account what happens on the console front and what to expect in the future, that really could be the last PC version of an MS FS...>I expect they will all be back to square one with>regards to performance.Exactly. Another point some (especially newcomers to the scene) will probably abandon FS...Just wonder how (and to whom, the core audience seems to stick with FS9) PMDG et al. plan to sell their future products...>The net effect of all of this will be to turn more and more>people away from this hobby.Agree. FSX could be the rising of FS's fall...Nevertheless I wish us all longetivity of this hobby, may FS mature and grow!Andreas

[EngineRoom 205]

So I'm a cheapskate? Ok then. The folder full of Flight One license keys and an order history at Simmarket going into five pages testifies to the contrary. I have spent thousands on addons in the last three years. I am definitely not a cheapskate.I never told PMDG to sell their products to flying schools. I simply posed the question to counter the long held and totally misguided argument that FS addons are a godsend because they are much cheaper than learning to fly a real 747.Fidelity is very subjective. I'm not interested in shutting down hydraulic system B and checking to see if the main landing gear doors close 1.5 seconds slower. I don't care if the APU in my F1 Super 80 doesn't use any fuel. I just want an aircraft that has an accurately represented panel and allows me to fly from A to B in a relatively realistic manner.I would have no problem at all if PMDG wanted to charge 100 Dollars for their *future* products. My problem is an overnight price rise of 35% across their entire product range, and rather arrogant attitude towards their customers.

[Guest Big Vern]

Got FSX installed and SP1 downloaded but not yet installed.However I too feel no burning desire to move across from FS9. Just re-purchased FS Passengers which adds far more to the flying experience than the FSX "missions" do. FSX is an unknown quantity so far as the OSP and ACARS that the VA I belong to uses. I've still got some cracking FS9 aircraft which, on my rebuilt computer, run seamlessly at 30 FPS+.Only regret is that in my initial euphoria over FSX, I sold off my terrain/texture enhancements and traffic programme for FS9 but that can be rectified by a bit of browsing on Ebay.FSX looks nice and even pre-patch I can get a decent frame rate in most situations. However default planes or a handful of mostly mundane commercial add ons don't yet cut it. Eighteen months from now, if FSP or maybe Airliner Pilot has been updated for FSX and the PMDG/LDS/CLS aircraft we know and love from FS9 work with minimal loss of performance I will make the switch.However I do find myself beginning to wish I skipped FSX, just as I went from FS2000 to FS2004.

[boshar 6]

This weekend I found myself standing in line in the PC shop with a FS-X Deluxe box in my hand.I had bought FS-X on release day only to return it because if its sorry state. If only the queue had been shorter. I had to wait for a long time and began to reconsider. The pre patch version had been an endless tweakfest and even after all the tweaking had produced flyable & viewable results the inconsistency of it all always prompted me to do new tweak sessions. Even now the FS-X forum was full of tweaks and tips for FS-X post SP1. Even the dreaded bluries seem to have returned.Then my cellphone rang. My significant others singnal that she had fresh cofee, baggels and a place to sit at the coffee corner. I took it as a sign and got out of the qeue, returned the game to the shelf and I walked out.It felt good to be free of tweaking, waiting for the serious add-ons (followed by new tweaking without a doubt) and considering hardware upgrades to reach FS-X Nirvana.The FS-X craving has totaly gone now. I make my flights in FS-9 and X-plane. I'm enjoying myself and the sim flying fun leaves little time to do other things (like posting on AVSIM).

[Guest Pilot533]

I'll bet we can get more than 5 fps with fsx and a complex airliner, I get 35 fps steady in fs9 with the lds 767+terrain mesh+asv6 and all settings max, and about 80-110 fps with a default vc aircraft. In fsx, I can get 25 fps with a default aircraft in the vc with settings medium low. Everyone is moving to fast with this patch for fsx. Its all hype. PMDG is going to wish they hadn't made the decision to abandon fs9, its gonna really screw them over. That sp1 didn't do nearly enough for performance.

[carrotroot 77]

"I'll bet we can get more than 5 fps with fsx and a complex airliner, I get 35 fps steady in fs9 with the lds 767+terrain mesh+asv6 and all settings max, and about 80-110 fps with a default vc aircraft. In fsx, I can get 25 fps with a default aircraft in the vc with settings medium low."Well it all seems to boil down to how much you have invested in add-ons for fs9 more than anything else.Fs9 has been out nearly 4 years, the computational power of computers has practically quadrupedaled since 2003 so it would be understandable that you are getting high frame rates on modern hardware.FSX on the other hand, has only been out for a few months, sure it does not have amazingly high frame rates right now, but it's still pretty decent and in time FSX will inevitably reach a similar level of performance as Fs9. Since FSX's performance is not quite there yet, fs9 users who have invested heavily in their add-ons, are of course not going to want to play their favorite areas with a drop in performance. However, I am sure people's attitudes will gradually change as FSX's performance improves, and as more FSX only add-ons becomes available.FSX isn't that terrible, SP1 goes a good ways in improving the game's performance on most modern day computers. But what one person finds acceptable, is sometimes clear that another person does not.Anyways, that's my two cents-C

[MD83 1]

"FSX on the other hand, has only been out for a few months"Well, it's been out for over seven months ... not my idea of a few :)

[maxter 0]

>However, here we have a new version that can just about run>default aircraft and scenery acceptably on current hardware>(thats after a seven month wait for a patch). As soon as>people start chucking in sophisticated aircraft addons and>scenery I expect they will all be back to square one with>regards to performance.What an absolute crock... I run current hardware (PC is 5 weeks old so it's current) and have more than adequate headroom for more sophisticated offerings from third party developers, all with sliders from 75% to 100%.Why does everyone who trot out this very much misguided and hoary old chestnut (since FS3 from memory), assume that hardware development will stay still and that the price of hardware will remain at the current level.History clearly refutes that proposition and there will be many FS9 stayers who will surreptitiously move over to the new platform with their favourite add-on's in good time as component prices arrive at levels that suit the majority. That is not too far away. The CPU I bought 5 weeks ago dropped in price by 45% less than 7 days after I brought my system home and I hear it will fall again soon.It's really funny, the more things change...Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern AustraliaIntel Core 2 Duo E6700ASUS P5N32-E SLI Deluxe Motherboard4GB Corsair VS DDR2 667Mhz RAMInno3D 8800 GTX 768MB GDDR3 590MHz VideoASUS MW221u 21" Wide Screen LCD2 x 320Gb WD SATA DrivesCreative X-Fi Platinum Sound Lian Li PC-B20B Aluminium Black CaseMS Vista Ultimate OEMCH FlightSim Yoke USBCH Pro Pedals USBTrackIR 4 Pro and Track ClipMSFS FSX Deluxe Edition Full install at 1400x960x32Check out my 5th Around the World flight with MS FSX at http://members.iinet.com.au/~portercbp/fly...W_05/index.html

[maxter 0]

>"FSX on the other hand, has only been out for a few months">>Well, it's been out for over seven months ... not my idea of a>few :)And has worked perfectly adequately from day one... for me that is. It's all a matter of expectation!!!With my old PC I had sliders from 30% to 50% max on most options... On my new PC they are 70% to 100% on most.I did probably as much tweaking on FSX as I did on FS2004 when I first bought that one, about 2 days worth. Worked great then, still works great now.Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern AustraliaCheck out my 5th Around the World flight with MS FSX at http://members.iinet.com.au/~portercbp/fly...W_05/index.html

[carrotroot 77]

Fs9 ran about 12-15 fps if kept the setting around medium on the PC I had at the time, a 1Ghz AMD + Geforce 3 (the pc was only two years old when fs9 came out). The current PC I have now a 3.2 Ghz Pentium 4 HT + Geforce 7900gs is a good 2 years old (except for the video card with I bought last year) gets very good performance usually around 25 fps but drops to around 15 fps in NYC, my visual settings are to High/ultra high. Sure this pales compared to the fps I now get in Fs9, but I can say that I am pretty satisfied with FSX in relation to the hardware I own.Anyways, I will be doing a full upgrade of my hardware next year when the 45n Intel processors come out. Also there will be 2nd generation DX10 cards available too. For me FSX already runs well now and should continue to scale really well when the new hardware arrives next year. -C

[ahinterl 1]

Well, FSX performs reasonably well even on my hardware IF only the default planes are used. Try this with the Maddog 2006 and things suddenly look completely different.I wouldn't have believed it myself wouldn't I've not seen it with my own eyes!Complex planes IMHO leave absolutely NO headroom if FSX doesn't give you I guess 40+ FPS NOW with all sliders at min. 75%! I still think many people thinking they have the appropriate hardware will have a bad awakening once ASX, PMDG etc. will be out...Andreas

[Guest ScottPilot]

I'll be giving the SP1 a try, but I will not be dumping FS9 anytime soon.Scott :-)

[Guest LeeWang]

>>It's all a matter of expectation!!!Agreed. Currently, FSX cannot run complex aircraft. In two years time, and spending another $2000.00 on hardware upgrades, FSX should be fine, and FS11 will be out on Xbox.But many people/developers are staying with FS9. Remember the days of FS2000? http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...g_id=1835&page=The task of coding software to run on all kinds of hardware platforms is not easy. On top of that, you try to code software to run acceptable on new operating systems (Vista) and keep everyone out there happy.. IT CAN'T BE DONE.Solution: XBOXIt's sad, but the day of flight simulation/gaming on the PC is near.Lee

[LAdamson 240]

>Well, FSX performs reasonably well even on my hardware IF>only the default planes are used. Try this with the Maddog>2006 and things suddenly look completely different.I wouldn't>have believed it myself wouldn't I've not seen it with my own>eyes!>>Complex planes IMHO leave absolutely NO headroom if FSX>doesn't give you I guess 40+ FPS NOW with all sliders at min.>75%! I still think many people thinking they have the>appropriate hardware will have a bad awakening once ASX, PMDG>etc. will be out...>I seldom use the defaults anyway, as I much prefer the RealAir SF260 which has improved looks as well as flying characteristics in FSX, and is very easy on frame rates. All my terrain sliders are on the high side, as well as the global setting. Water is a 2xlow; and I need mid 20's to 35 fps for enjoyable simulated flight at lower altitudes. BTW, the Shockwave FSX Spit looks sensational in FSX too. And it's also fps friendly.But I do agree, headroom is going to be a big time major issue. I see problems here, and will just continue to use both simulations as something different, and not as replacements. I won't go back to FS9 for simulated flying in my home state, which is very mountainous; and I don't see complex aircraft in the immediate FSX future. At least not on my machine.L.AdamsonAthlon 64 3800+/2Gig/Geforce 7600GS 256MB/ 1600*1200*32