Carenado abandoning FS2004 development

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

>Hi,>>I've been using Flight Simulator since it was created for the>Tandy 1000 so I've been around since 1982.>Looks like we have something in common. I have been with it since my Commodore 64. I guess the year was around 1982. Can't believe it's been that long ago.>>I find the performance you state with FSX extremely hard to>believe. I have the following system and FSX runs and looks>like crap.>I am not trying to sell you anything, or convince you of anything. Just stating how my experience has been. And I am sorry that yours isn't working well as well.>>Striker Extreme Motherboard>Intel Pentium Core2Duo 6800 Extreme Processor>2 Nvidia GeForce XFX8800 GTX Extreme (768MB) Video Boards>3 SATA 120GIG 10,000RPM Hard drives run in a RAID 0>Configuration>4 GIG of Corsair Dominator RAM running at 1142MHz.>My system breaks down like this:E8400 at 3.0ghzAsus Maximus MoboEVGA 8800 GTS 5121 500 GB Western Digital HD - what ever the best 7200 rpm one is2 GB Corsair Dominator RAM at 1066 mhzXPNOD32 AntivirusHardware based firewall>I have also had the FS-GS service performed on my system.>>Bottom Line: FSX runs like crap, FSX suffers from constant>blurry terrain, has extremely poor frame rates and>unacceptable performance while using the Level-D 767 airliner>with the addons you mentioned.>I am asuming you paid no fee since there is no charge for the service if you are not satisfied. I am also surprised that your performance is as bad as you say it is.>>I do not believe "ANY" of the stories of these unbelievable>results others continue to post because I have seen for myself>the terrible performance FSX delivers.>Just to be straight I didn't ever say I had the most unbelievable results ever. I said I don't have any blurry textures and I don't ever dip into single digit frames. Granted at major hubs the FPS drops into the mid to high teens if the gates are full and the weather is bad and I am in the LDS 767, but it is still very fluid and no stutters. When flying the RealAir SF260 in the same situations I hardly ever go below 20 FSP.>>This system was created for flight simulation only at a price>of around $6,000.00. FSX and addons, along with Windows XP Pro>are the only programs on the system.>Man thats a lot of cash. I spent about $1800 on the system, but after all the addons and software I am probably around $2100 including the FS-GS service. My system also is bare bones only running FSX and NOD32.>>If I was to try as you state:>"As far as performance, even on my modest machine I can run>100% AI, full scenery and animation complexity, full weather>could draw, and still fly into major hubs like Heathrow, LAX,>and not even sniff and single digit FPS or blurry texture in>my LDS 767. The only thing I don't use is bloom and lens>flare, but I never used those anyway.">>I would be looking at a slide show.>Here is one thing that makes a difference for me in the very dense scenery areas with lots of AI. When flying in more rural areas I lock my FPS at 28. When flying in dense areas I set it to unlimited. If I keep it set at unlimited in rural areas I get some stutters until I lock it at 28. If I am in a VERY dense area with it locked at 28 then I get some stutters until I set it at unlimited, but I has to be a really bad area like Heathrow or LAX. In either situation I still have no blurry textures. Thing would probably be even better in dense areas if I flew in 2-D cockpits only but now I am addicted to on VC's.>>It absolutely amazes me how many people have "convinced>themselves" that FSX is so incredible on their system.>Well to convince myself all I had to do was look at the great ground textures, the better default airports, the cars, boats, and the birds that I see flying around, the better water textures and animations. I had GE Pro on FS9, but even the default textures outside of the GEX coverage area are better than the GE Pro USA textures I have in FSX. Not to mention that when bush flying, which I dont do much of, but when I do I like that fact that I can get lots and lots of trees. Much more than I had in FS9. All that and I have plenty of performance. Granted if I installed FS9 on this system I would get more FPS, but FPS, stutters, and blurries are not a problem now so why bother with FS9 just to get more FPS and loose all the great stuff I now have. When I see screen shots of FS9 in the screen shot forum that are of non photoreal areas, they no longer look good to me considering what I now have to look at.>>I'm done with my $6,000.00 rant, let the bricks fly.>I was rolling when I read that last comment.When I built my system I didn't even buy anything before I got my list from FS-GS. They recommended a dual core to me. I am not sure what the clock speed of your quad is, but maybe the newer duals offer a little better performance. Who knows? Plus I noticed your runnging two vid cards. If I remember reading right, that offers no better performace and may actually hurt. I was recommended the one that I have listed above. When I got my list I told Michael that I would buy pretty much what ever equipment was necessary regardless of cost to a certain degree and I still got what he recommended which was no where near what you spent.Also another thing to consider is that all my user aircraft have been mip mapped if they didn't come like that from the developer. Another performance saving there. All my traffic is from WOAI. I have all their trafic installed except for the military stuff. I even have some PAI packages installed to fill in gaps. All my AI traffic aircraft textures have been converted to DXT3 textures which also gives me an improvement. When I first got my system I installed the Ultimate Traffic for FSX and that brought my system into the single digits due to the models, textures and the jetways moving to connect to the AI. All in all, there was a lot of work that went into getting FSX to run great. I am sure with FS9 I wouldn't have had to go thru as much work, but now that it is done I can enjoy all the perks without having to do anything except install more WOAI packages as they come out or the occasional PAI package when needed.In short it's ashame that after all the bucks you spent you are unsatisfied. I would be ###### and in disbelief also if I were in your shoes. Like I said at the end of my post, my intention was not to start a debate or anything of that nature, but just to share my FSX experience. Perhaps I will get off my lazy wagon and post some screens in the other forum and you can see for yourself. Lots of others to your disbelief get awesome results, Nick N, is one that comes to mind and I dont think he is trying to BS anyone.Take is easy I am off to fly now :-)

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

>Hi,>>I've been using Flight Simulator since it was created for the>Tandy 1000 so I've been around since 1982.>Looks like we have something in common. I have been with it since my Commodore 64. I guess the year was around 1982. Can't believe it's been that long ago.>>I find the performance you state with FSX extremely hard to>believe. I have the following system and FSX runs and looks>like crap.>I am not trying to sell you anything, or convince you of anything. Just stating how my experience has been. And I am sorry that yours isn't working well as well.>>Striker Extreme Motherboard>Intel Pentium Core2Duo 6800 Extreme Processor>2 Nvidia GeForce XFX8800 GTX Extreme (768MB) Video Boards>3 SATA 120GIG 10,000RPM Hard drives run in a RAID 0>Configuration>4 GIG of Corsair Dominator RAM running at 1142MHz.>My system breaks down like this:E8400 at 3.0ghzAsus Maximus MoboEVGA 8800 GTS 5121 500 GB Western Digital HD - what ever the best 7200 rpm one is2 GB Corsair Dominator RAM at 1066 mhzXPNOD32 AntivirusHardware based firewall>I have also had the FS-GS service performed on my system.>>Bottom Line: FSX runs like crap, FSX suffers from constant>blurry terrain, has extremely poor frame rates and>unacceptable performance while using the Level-D 767 airliner>with the addons you mentioned.>I am asuming you paid no fee since there is no charge for the service if you are not satisfied. I am also surprised that your performance is as bad as you say it is.>>I do not believe "ANY" of the stories of these unbelievable>results others continue to post because I have seen for myself>the terrible performance FSX delivers.>Just to be straight I didn't ever say I had the most unbelievable results ever. I said I don't have any blurry textures and I don't ever dip into single digit frames. Granted at major hubs the FPS drops into the mid to high teens if the gates are full and the weather is bad and I am in the LDS 767, but it is still very fluid and no stutters. When flying the RealAir SF260 in the same situations I hardly ever go below 20 FSP.>>This system was created for flight simulation only at a price>of around $6,000.00. FSX and addons, along with Windows XP Pro>are the only programs on the system.>Man thats a lot of cash. I spent about $1800 on the system, but after all the addons and software I am probably around $2100 including the FS-GS service. My system also is bare bones only running FSX and NOD32.>>If I was to try as you state:>"As far as performance, even on my modest machine I can run>100% AI, full scenery and animation complexity, full weather>could draw, and still fly into major hubs like Heathrow, LAX,>and not even sniff and single digit FPS or blurry texture in>my LDS 767. The only thing I don't use is bloom and lens>flare, but I never used those anyway.">>I would be looking at a slide show.>Here is one thing that makes a difference for me in the very dense scenery areas with lots of AI. When flying in more rural areas I lock my FPS at 28. When flying in dense areas I set it to unlimited. If I keep it set at unlimited in rural areas I get some stutters until I lock it at 28. If I am in a VERY dense area with it locked at 28 then I get some stutters until I set it at unlimited, but I has to be a really bad area like Heathrow or LAX. In either situation I still have no blurry textures. Thing would probably be even better in dense areas if I flew in 2-D cockpits only but now I am addicted to on VC's.>>It absolutely amazes me how many people have "convinced>themselves" that FSX is so incredible on their system.>Well to convince my self all I had to do was look at the great ground textures, the better default airports, the cars, boats, and the birds that I see flying around, the better water textures and animations. I had GE Pro on FS9, but even the default textures outside of the GEX coverage area are better than the GE Pro USA textures I have in FSX. Not to mention that we bush flying, which I dont do much of, but when I do I like that fact that I can get lots and lots of trees. Much more than I had in FS9. All that and I have plenty of performance. Granted if I installed FS9 on this system I would get more FPS, but FPS, stutters, and blurries are not a problem now so why bother with FS9 just to get more FPS and loose all the great stuff I now have. When I see screen shots of FS9 in the screen shot forum that are of non photoreal areas, they no longer look good to me considering what I now have to look at.>>I'm done with my $6,000.00 rant, let the bricks fly.>I was rolling when I read that last comment.When I built my system I didn't even buy anything before I got my list from FS-GS. They recommended a dual core to me. I am not sure what the clock speed of your quad is, but maybe the newer duals offer a little better performance. Who knows? Plus I noticed your runnging two vid cards. If I remember reading right, that offers no better performace and may actually hurt. I was recommended the one that I have listed above. When I got my list I told Michael that I would buy pretty much what ever equipment was necessary regardless of cost to a certain degree and I still got what he recommended which was no where near what you spent.Also another thing to consider is that all my user aircraft have been mip mapped if they didn't come like that from the developer. Another performance saving there. All my traffic is from WOAI. I have all their trafic installed except for the military stuff. I even have some PAI packages installed to fill in gaps. All my AI traffic aircraft textures have been converted to DXT3 textures which also gives me an improvement. When I first got my system I installed the Ultimate Traffic for FSX and that brought my system into the single digits due to the models, textures and the jetways moving to connect to the AI. All in all, there was a lot of work that went into getting FSX to run great. I am sure with FS9 I wouldn't have had to go thru as much work, but now that it is done I can enjoy all the perks without having to do anything except install more WOAI packages as they come out or the occasional PAI package when needed.In short it's ashame that after all the bucks you spent you are unsatisfied. I would be ###### and in disbelief also if I were in your shoes. Like I said at the end of my post, my intention was not to start a debate or anything of that nature, but just to share my FSX experience. Perhaps I will get off my lazy wagon and post some screens in the other forum and you can see for yourself. Lots of others to your disbelief get awesome results, Nick N, is one that comes to mind and I dont think he is trying to BS anyone.Take is easy I am off to fly now :-)Edit: Sorry double post. Thought my original didn't go through.

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

I agree 100%. I was also stuck in a rut with FS9 always in the Flight Scenery Portland area, FlyTampa's St. Marteen, or a few of other key scenery areas that were awesome. But once I was out of those areas it look not so great compared to what I am looking at now. There is no way in h3ll I would go back to FS9 now. If I had to my simming would probably be cut in half.My GF would probably like that though :-lol

[Charlie Chew 0]

I agree--it is hard to go back once you've experienced something better.However, what makes a sim "better" varies from person to person.For some, higher-resolution textures make for a much richer, more realistic simming experience.More important to me, however, is the ability to run Flight Simulator in stereoscopic 3D. To me, nothing adds "depth" to flight simulator like a good pair of 3D glasses.I enjoyed FSX for the short time I had it installed, particularly for the sharper textures you mention. But when I experienced stereoscopic flight in FS9, I couldn't go back to FSX. While I realize some fellow simmers use 3D glasses with FSX, I've found stereoscopic simming to be much more fluid in FS9, as stereoscopic viewing can effectively half your framerate. There may be a system out there that can offer decent framerates in FSX while viewing a complex virtual cockpit with 3D glasses, but if there is, I'd hate to contemplate the price.I should add 90 per cent of my flights take place in southern Ontario. It's an area that can be experienced in FS9 in tremendous detail, thanks to the great freeware scenery packages offered by FlightOntario. These sceneries aren't compatible with FSX, and as I understand it, there are no plans to make them so. The realism these sceneries bring to the Greater Toronto Area simply can't be seen in FSX or X-Plane, at least not today.I have no doubt that FSX is the better of the two simulators for you, based on how you use Flight Simulator, and I'm happy that you're having such fun with it. I certainly have no doubt, whenever I feel my stomach sink after banking too hard around an accurately-modeled, steroscopic CN Tower, that FS9 is the better sim for me.