Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

yankeegolf3

is FSX flawed?

Recommended Posts

hi,I use both fs9 and fsx. I have a decent system and with fs9 with all the settings at max I always have a good fps no matter the number of programs running at the same time (active sky, teamspeak, fsnav, airportchart, fsmoving map, snapkey, detailled sceneries such as tongass fjords..) even with complex aircraft. With fsx, the fps is very vulnerable even with average settings . It collapses as soon as I select better settings, use other programs at the same time or use detailed aircraft. I also have blurries.I can't understand why there is such a difference between the two sims. There must be a flaw in the fsx engine which makes it so workload sensitive. What do you think? (I am not saying that fsx is bad because I know that it works well on powerfull systems)

Share this post


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

hi,I use both fs9 and fsx. I have a decent system and with fs9 with all the settings at max I always have a good fps no matter the number of programs running at the same time (active sky, teamspeak, fsnav, airportchart, fsmoving map, snapkey, detailled sceneries such as tongass fjords..) even with complex aircraft. With fsx, the fps is very vulnerable even with average settings . It collapses as soon as I select better settings, use other programs at the same time or use detailed aircraft. I also have blurries.I can't understand why there is such a difference between the two sims. There must be a flaw in the fsx engine which makes it so workload sensitive. What do you think? (I am not saying that fsx is bad because I know that it works well on powerfull systems)
This topic have been beaten to death so many times over the past years. You can't imagine. Hopefully a mod will lock this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic have been beaten to death so many times over the past years. You can't imagine. Hopefully a mod will lock this thread.
Well many thanks for the heads-up. The OP poster calls himself a 'newbie' and so am I. I couldn't even spell 'fltsim' six weeks ago. I had some questions reference FS2K4 vs FSX but I think that I'll just keep them to myself. It's good to know that there someone around to keep us 'newbies' in line... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well many thanks for the heads-up. The OP poster calls himself a 'newbie' and so am I. I couldn't even spell 'fltsim' six weeks ago. I had some questions reference FS2K4 vs FSX but I think that I'll just keep them to myself. It's good to know that there someone around to keep us 'newbies' in line... :(
Sorry about that. But there are so many threads on this forum about FSX and performance. If you read some of them you'd get the picture: FSX, when flying with high display settings, puts a significant load on your system. With my old computer (Intel C2D X6800 and a 8800GTX card) I could fly FS9 with maxed out settings and getting a lot more fps than I could use. Is FSX flawed? Not to me. It's the best FS ever.yankeegolf3 and Autolite, Welcome to the forums :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry about that. But there are so many threads on this forum about FSX and performance. If you read some of them you'd get the picture: FSX, when flying with high display settings, puts a significant load on your system. With my old computer (Intel C2D X6800 and a 8800GTX card) I could fly FS9 with maxed out settings and getting a lot more fps than I could use. Is FSX flawed? Not to me. It's the best FS ever.yankeegolf3 and Autolite, Welcome to the forums :(
Just to follow on with some of the things that have been "discovered" over time..FS9 was based on a 5m resolution world whereas FSX is based on a 1m world (this is a deliberate simplification).As a result, there is about 5x5 = 25 times more scenery information that needs to be handled.Computers are not 25 times faster than they were 5 years ago... more like 4 times faster.So, even fast systems have trouble handling the vast amount of information that needs to be moved around.Add to this: more Autogen, more detailed textures, cars on roads etc etc and you see where the problems come from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just that I find humor in the 'lock this thread' comment because I can see the frustration on both sides. The 'newbie' is wracking his brain trying to figure out how to install an FS2002 aircraft on FSX while the 'old timers' have to deal with seeing the same "How do I do this" posting for the 13 millionth time!I find it funny, but then I'm a little warped anyway... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi again,yes I do know that this topic has been beaten to death as I have been reading this forum since the fs2000 days. I even remember the time when fs9 was released and was criticized by many simmers and considered as very disappointing in comparison with fs 2002 ... Nevertheless I don't understand why my thread should be locked. Everybody has a right to express themselves; Once again I did not say that fsx was bad. I have seen it running on a high end computer at a simulation exhibition and I am conviced that it is better than fs9. I cannot afford a new computer.I tried everything that I could find on this forum (and others) to improve the performance on my computer. I bought extra ram, a new video card only to get slight improvements. When you spend that much time and that much money for meager results you have a right to be disappointed and to say it , don't you? I am afraid that I am not the last person to discuss FSX performance issues unless freedom of speech is banned. In this case, there is no need for forums. best regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am afraid that I am not the last person to discuss FSX performance issues unless freedom of speech is banned. In this case, there is no need for forums. best regards
Hey, if it's any consolation I'm pretty much in the same boat as you only worse as I'm a "new" 'newbie'. I've just only started learning about fltsims a few weeks ago. I've also just dumped a wad of money on a faster CPU and more RAM and my hardware is not even up to the 'recommended' level for FSX.I look at it this way. Either I stick with it, be patient and learn what I can or I just trash the whole works and go back to playing 'Pong' on my Etch-A-Sketch...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang in there, Guys! Every stage in flight simming is a challenge, and everybody was a beginner once! You'll find that a good system will come along sooner or later, and you will master the thing - and you will have hours and hours of enjoyment. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With fsx, the fps is very vulnerable even with average settings . It collapses as soon as I select better settings, use other programs at the same time or use detailed aircraft. I also have blurries.I can't understand why there is such a difference between the two sims. There must be a flaw in the fsx engine which makes it so workload sensitive. What do you think?
Read through this guide from beginning to end - it'll get your PC and FSX set up to pretty much the best it can be for your hardware. Dont skip any steps.http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/Ya...?num=1208959973

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hi again,yes I do know that this topic has been beaten to death as I have been reading this forum since the fs2000 days. I even remember the time when fs9 was released and was criticized by many simmers and considered as very disappointing in comparison with fs 2002 ... Nevertheless I don't understand why my thread should be locked. Everybody has a right to express themselves; Once again I did not say that fsx was bad. I have seen it running on a high end computer at a simulation exhibition and I am conviced that it is better than fs9. I cannot afford a new computer.I tried everything that I could find on this forum (and others) to improve the performance on my computer. I bought extra ram, a new video card only to get slight improvements. When you spend that much time and that much money for meager results you have a right to be disappointed and to say it , don't you? I am afraid that I am not the last person to discuss FSX performance issues unless freedom of speech is banned. In this case, there is no need for forums. best regards
If you've been reading the forums for 10 years then you would have gathered that it's the CPU that matters. Ram may help, slightly. A better video card may help, slightly. But it's all about the CPU.Freedom of speech in the U.S. is a right. But there's nothing in the Constitution about freedom to be heard.There are thousands of threads in the FSX forum, but no one seems to go back and utilize them to their advantage. Instead the first thing people look for is the New Topic button. Oh well, there are worse things in life to worry about, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Freedom of speech in the U.S. is a right. But there's nothing in the Constitution about freedom to be heard.
"My, strong the semantics be with this one." -Yoda-
There are thousands of threads in the FSX forum, but no one seems to go back and utilize them to their advantage. Instead the first thing people look for is the New Topic button. Oh well, there are worse things in life to worry about, I suppose.
Yup, afterall this is an online "forum", absurd to think that a written exchange of ideas is permitted over and over again! On the same general topic even!! B) :( What an incredible waste of all our time!! :( Thanks for making me laugh today. Best Regards :( p.s. I spent several hours earlier today reading through several archived threads to find the information I needed without making a single reply or even pressing the "New Topic" button a single time. The system works, relax . . . . B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hi again,yes I do know that this topic has been beaten to death as I have been reading this forum since the fs2000 days. I even remember the time when fs9 was released and was criticized by many simmers and considered as very disappointing in comparison with fs 2002 ... Nevertheless I don't understand why my thread should be locked. Everybody has a right to express themselves; Once again I did not say that fsx was bad. I have seen it running on a high end computer at a simulation exhibition and I am conviced that it is better than fs9. I cannot afford a new computer.I tried everything that I could find on this forum (and others) to improve the performance on my computer. I bought extra ram, a new video card only to get slight improvements. When you spend that much time and that much money for meager results you have a right to be disappointed and to say it , don't you?I am afraid that I am not the last person to discuss FSX performance issues unless freedom of speech is banned. In this case, there is no need for forums. best regards
Hi and welcome!I don't see any reason this thread should be locked. Do understand that many longtime users in this forum have seen threads like this turn nasty in a quick fashion in the past; there has been baiting, and therefore sometimes a thread like this looks like the same old all over again-however I think we are all beyond that now.I think Bert hit it on the head. There is no way you add more functions to a sim that requires additional computer computations/cycles and get more increased or even same performance. If that was so we would not have an energy crisis as we could have a perpetual motion machine.With that in mind-there are many choices to be made to make the sim perform in a fashion that you will enjoy. Do search past threads, and hopefully many good answers will appear from the good folks here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to follow on with some of the things that have been "discovered" over time..FS9 was based on a 5m resolution world whereas FSX is based on a 1m world (this is a deliberate simplification).As a result, there is about 5x5 = 25 times more scenery information that needs to be handled.Computers are not 25 times faster than they were 5 years ago... more like 4 times faster.So, even fast systems have trouble handling the vast amount of information that needs to be moved around.Add to this: more Autogen, more detailed textures, cars on roads etc etc and you see where the problems come from.
Hi Bert- But with triple monitors/views in FS9, you TRIPLE the pixels one's eyes see. Then add Ultimate Terrain and Ground Environment and the scenery advantage of FSX becomes marginal. And all this runs nicely on a 6 year old 'puter! The proof of the pudding is in the pic!(You know, I'll bet we'll still be arguing about this when we're old men! In the meantime, my simming budget still fits my wallet.)Alex ReidDreamFleet Baron 58 Dusk KLAX R25R (AMD 1.8, 2 GeForceFX5200 GPUs)

Share this post


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