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

[Guest YukonPete]

I get no BLURRIES in fsx and I get excellent frames. My specs are below.

[MD83 1]

>I get no BLURRIES in fsx and I get excellent frames. My>specs are below. Hardly the average PC, is it? I'd be very concerned if you WERE getting blurries ;)

[maxter 0]

>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...>>AndreasWhile acknowledging that I don't use the big aluminium tubes with wings, I am currently flying the Aerosoft Beaver X and the Eaglesoft C400 which has quite a complex Avydyne Integra setup modelled, and I get max functionality at all sliders from 75% to 100% with 38 - 40 FPS in medium density areas and up to and over 100FPS over water..For us GA flyers, FSX has got to be the only way to go. Maybe FS2004 is best for the big tubes...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

[N562Z 4]

Most of the posts I see from FSX supporters show tiny GA aircraft tooling about alone in the middle of nowhere in the idyllic spot plane view. That works for some people, great. But I enjoy airliners flying from and to larger airports with real weather and AI traffic, so for all the work in getting it to spit out 10-15 FPS, FSX is not for me. I do like the water textures though! One more thing: If they could get FSX to work with dual-core processors, why not back-patch FS9 to do the same? Imagine the performance we would all gain then!Just My 2 Cents,http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

[Guest over and out]

Bottom line is that if Microsoft just made the performance demand of FSX more practical for todays mid to high end systems, and then made it possible for us to use the majority of our major addons and not have to throw those investments away, then most everyone would probably be running FSX today.I dont want to bash FSX, I'm just disapointed that I can not run it well, and that if I could then I would not be able to use my excellent addons.

[betelgeuse 41]

I'm sticking with FS9 too. If FSX had addressed the ATC and AI inadequacies of FS9 then I might be interested. As it is I'm not about to abandon my FS9 world, painstakingly built up, for the dubious advantages of a frame rate hungry interloper!

[psolk 3,037]

Good points everyone... I see a few patterns here:1. GA= FSX 2. Heavies = FS93. A lot of add-ons =FS94. Mid-tier hardware= FS95. Flying into major cities= FS96. Water= FSX7. Choppers= FSXSo the point is each sim appears to have their own strengths. For me with my system I decided to give FSX SP1 another try last night on my XP Dual Boot system. At first I thought hey this isn't so bad, it looked good and I have to admit the water just blows FS9 away. Then I took the default Bell 206 to NYC and saw my FPS choke to 12, then I tried the helicopter mission with the airport run in Tokyo I believe. Here I saw an even more stellar 8.4 FPS. At this point I shut FSX down and my project this morning is to try and get FS9 water to look better. I still use default water so i just downloaded FE and I am installing now...I wanted to give FSX another try and if I want to fly GA in the middle of nowhere I love it. I have to be honest though, I don't see myself flying an add-on heavy into and add-on airport in a major city ANYTIME soon with FSX. Back to playing with my FS9 water now...-PaulPrimary RigLiquid CooledIntel C2D E6600 @3.2 gigsAsus P5N32SLI-Plus2 gigs Corsair XMS PC6400 4 4 4 12 @810Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigs24 inch Widescreen LCD 16XAA/16XAFDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLIhttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7900 GTX Raid-0

[N562Z 4]

Paul:I've been using the FS9 replacement water textures by Andreas Meyer, available here in the AVSIM file library. Search for watertextures.zip. His screenshots attached. Nice job Andreas, and thank you. That about cinches it for me and puts the proverbial nail in the FSX casket.Cheers,http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MDhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172269.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172270.jpg

[Guest Keyno-onyeK]

What do you guys think of FS11 going XBox360?You sit down on the couch, grab the remote control;65"+ HD TV onXbox360 HD DVD on5.1 Reciever onPull up your velcro strap on Yoke and pedalsClick select flight, APP 747 thunderstorm JFKDim the lightsMicrosoft Flight Simulator 2008 HD DVD for the Xbox360 HD never looked so "as real as it gets"Of course you can check for addons thru the net, and all are guaranteed to work with other addons with acceptable frame rates.Is this the future?I'd love to see it go that way. Im really tired of spending so much money on my home computer to run this hobby.Keyno

[Staffan 12]

>What do you guys think of FS11 going XBox360?>>You sit down on the couch, grab the remote control;>65"+ HD TV on>Xbox360 HD DVD on>5.1 Reciever on>Pull up your velcro strap on Yoke and pedals>Click select flight, APP 747 thunderstorm JFK>Dim the lights>Microsoft Flight Simulator 2008 HD DVD for the Xbox360 HD>never looked so "as real as it gets">>>Of course you can check for addons thru the net, and all are>guaranteed to work with other addons with acceptable frame>rates.>>>Is this the future?>I'd love to see it go that way. Im really tired of spending so>much money on my home computer to run this hobby.>>KeynoHi,I think that will not happen.However, what I really do think will happen in the future, is that we have to be online to fly whatever stuff we want. The software companies will in the future only alow us to logg in to an addon of our choice on the net. Meaning that the future will not have any addons to download,...but only choose from an online library for a limited user time. ;-)

Staffan[/font size]

http://www.scandicair.com/images/fs9_pilots_club.gifDell Dimension 4600 P4/2.8 at 3.0 Ghz, 1024 Mb DDR333 Dual channel memory (2x256,1x512)AGP 256 Mb ATI Radeon X850 Pro ViVo flashed to a X850 XT PE, Omega 2.6.87 (CAT 5.12)DirectX 9.0c, W XP Home with SP2, E171FPb Flat panel monitor 17"370Gb HD (120 GB Maxtor, 250GB Samsung) 7200rpm ATA, Lacie 250Gb Extern HDBlogg: http://blogg.passagen.se/primeaviFiles: http://library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=...&Go=Change+View

[LAdamson 240]

>I've been using the FS9 replacement water textures by Andreas>Meyer, available here in the AVSIM file library. Search for>watertextures.zip. His screenshots attached. Nice job Andreas,>and thank you. That about cinches it for me and puts the>proverbial nail in the FSX casket.>>http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172269.jpg>All it needs now, is some of those higher resolution FSX type ground textures, that come standard with FSX, and all will be well! :-hah http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172285.jpg

[Guest LeeWang]

"higher resolution FSX type ground textures" ???http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172304.jpgYour golf course appears to be growing onto your "flat" landscape. Looks like you're missing autogen?Lee

[LAdamson 240]

>Your golf course appears to be growing onto your "flat">landscape. Looks like you're missing autogen?I'm not missing autogen, it's off. While moving, this "flat" landscape takes on a 3D look.This is really one of those issue's where the user needs to decide. I prefer not to have autogen housing sitting on photo-real. They look rather cartoon like, IMO. If everything looked like FlightScenery Portland with auto-gen, then I'd certainly want it. But it doesn't and remains a true compromise.Two pics. FS9 with autogen, and FSX without. I personally prefer the FSX without.edit: blow up the textures in the first pic. :-lolFSX is running textures with approx. 16 times the resolution of FS9. That's all there is too it. And, my pics are severely degraded to fit within the confines of these forums.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172305.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172306.jpg

[Guest LeeWang]

The FS9 shot was taken at 1390ft, FSX at 3500. How is does FSX look at 1390ft?When landing in a mountainous area with autogen off, how does FSX look? Don't you miss those trees?Hey Larry, I have a challenge for you.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho..._id=31567&page=Lee

[N562Z 4]

I have decided. I personally don't want to resort to flying a Sai-Marchetti, however nice an add-on it is, in the middle of nowhere, with little or no AI, and 25 FPS. Doesn't work for me. I'm glad you're enjoying it. Plus, we all know those views take very little in terms of system resources. Show me the same golf course, at the same altitude through the windshield with the VC panel in view. I'd bet it's no longer 25FPS. Show me an approach to a regional airport with a bit of traffic, through the windscreen, with the panel showing. FSX may be first version of FS where, until technology catches up or some smart person figures something out, will be best flown from outside the aircraft. http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD