FSX is broken...

[Guest Heavy_Driver]

But FSX is no longer being developed and, with its single core execution, has crappy crappy FPS.XP9 has much better FPS due to its multicore support and is still being developed. If only it had the add-ons like PMDG and LDS!

[Geofa 108]

But FSX is no longer being developed and, with its single core execution, has crappy crappy FPS.XP9 has much better FPS due to its multicore support and is still being developed. If only it had the add-ons like PMDG and LDS!

Try turning fsx down to the maximum 20 miles visibility xplane has, remove ai traffic, complex aircraft, and fancy clouds. In other words-try fsx with the same settings xplane has-then report back on fps.. :(

[Guest Heavy_Driver]

Try turning fsx down to the maximum 20 miles visibility xplane has, remove ai traffic, complex aircraft, and fancy clouds. In other words-try fsx with the same settings xplane has-then report back on fps.. :(

Eh?Interesting. Okay. Worth a try.

[Geofa 108]

Eh?Interesting. Okay. Worth a try.

It is interesting-I find I get better performance on fsx with the same settings-though both sims are of course very different in the way they are calculating things.

[Guest JeanLuc_]

But FSX is no longer being developed and, with its single core execution, has crappy crappy FPS.XP9 has much better FPS due to its multicore support and is still being developed. If only it had the add-ons like PMDG and LDS!

But the product is not entirely dead though. Lockheed Martin has acquired the IP and if I understand it correctly, will be selling professional version (ESP like) and can further enhance and re-code what needs to be re-coded. Not FSX I agree though.

[Guest Heavy_Driver]

Dumb question inbound:where do I change the visibility down to 20 miles exactly? Or do you mean just move the scenery distance slider left from max to medium?

[Geofa 108]

Dumb question inbound:where do I change the visibility down to 20 miles exactly? Or do you mean just move the scenery distance slider left from max to medium?

Under weather-advanced options.

[Guest Heavy_Driver]

Under weather-advanced options.

Perhaps I am simple, but in the FSX weather tab I see no advanced options. Using REX though if that factors in.Lemme just add though that I have run through all of Nick's tweaks many times and still m ax out at ~20 FPS on the ramp.Mind you I have numerous payware add-ons that load the CPU, I know that, but you cannot land a heavy jet by hand with FPS that low IMHO.

[Geofa 108]

Perhaps I am simple, but in the FSX weather tab I see no advanced options. Using REX though if that factors in.Lemme just add though that I have run through all of Nick's tweaks many times and still m ax out at ~20 FPS on the ramp.Mind you I have numerous payware add-ons that load the CPU, I know that, but you cannot land a heavy jet by hand with FPS that low IMHO.

Go to "weather" -then select "user defined weather" and click the "customize" button. Set your visibility to 20 miles which is xplane's maximum (and it of course lowers it more if it detects less than 20 fps). Then go to your settings menu-set your level of detail to the lowest since you won't be seeing more than 20 miles, your texture resolution to a simlar one to xplane(low resolution), turn your scenery complexity slider all the way down to get rid of airport buildings (xplane doesn't have), autogen to a setting which matches your xplane,cloud coverage to low, ai traffic completely off, along with airport vehicles. Of course if you are using Rex, you already have much more detailed clouds. Set your water to an equiv. setting you have in xplane.Now put in a fsx default aircraft such as the Baron-as you have probably seen the 3d cockpits of most xplane aircraft are extremely low res now.In other words-set up fsx to give you very closely what you get in xplane. What you will find is that xplane's performance is largly due to having much less. More stuff, more calculations, more performance hits. I like xplane a lot. But set the two sims as the same as you can and I get better performance from fsx.

[Guest Heavy_Driver]

Okay I see now what you're implying.Fair enough.FSX does do a much better of suspending your disbelief. I guesss there's a price. If only it could be fully using my i7 core 920. As it is i see little improvement from my old dual core 6850.

[Aerodynamic 0]

Try turning fsx down to the maximum 20 miles visibility xplane has, remove ai traffic, complex aircraft, and fancy clouds. In other words-try fsx with the same settings xplane has-then report back on fps.. :(

I have used FSX for quite some time (w/Acceleration) and I have to say that the OP has a point. I feel even with FSX "dumbed" down that X-Plane still offers a more fluid flight experience all around. The default ground textures and water are better in X-Plane, IMO. When airport scenery is downloaded and used in X-Plane, there is no notable frame rate dip like there is in FSX. FSX definitely could use some tweaking to help in some areas. One thing that has always bothered me in FSX was the jerky instant replay camera in spot view. You have to choose locked spot to cure the problem. All this said, X-Plane is still a constant work in progress and it does fall short in complex add-ons. I am very much looking forward to Javier Rollon's CRJ and XP Jet's future offerings. Regards,Scott

[MatthewS 761]

I have used FSX for quite some time (w/Acceleration) and I have to say that the OP has a point. I feel even with FSX "dumbed" down that X-Plane still offers a more fluid flight experience all around. The default ground textures and water are better in X-Plane, IMO. When airport scenery is downloaded and used in X-Plane, there is no notable frame rate dip like there is in FSX. FSX definitely could use some tweaking to help in some areas. One thing that has always bothered me in FSX was the jerky instant replay camera in spot view. You have to choose locked spot to cure the problem. All this said, X-Plane is still a constant work in progress and it does fall short in complex add-ons. I am very much looking forward to Javier Rollon's CRJ and XP Jet's future offerings.

+1 XP will continue to improve its capabilities whilst FSX is never going to. XP already is much better than FSX in many ways already!FSX is dead. Looking forward to the CRJ200.

[ryanbatc 10,022]

FSX is dead.

-1I guess you forgot about all the addons that make FSX a successful simulation platform. Without addons (the very few) XP would be dead...

[MatthewS 761]

-1I guess you forgot about all the addons that make FSX a successful simulation platform. Without addons (the very few) XP would be dead...

FSX is dead because Microsoft has dropped it (and apparently sold the IP to Lockheed Martin so you can forget about ever seeing a FS11).XPlane is not dead, it is under active development.Sure both have a 3rd party market. Soon with the release of the CRJ200 we will see why XPlane is a superior base platform for 3rd party developers.

[Geofa 108]

FSX is dead because Microsoft has dropped it (and apparently sold the IP to Lockheed Martin so you can forget about ever seeing a FS11).XPlane is not dead, it is under active development.Sure both have a 3rd party market. Soon with the release of the CRJ200 we will see why XPlane is a superior base platform for 3rd party developers.

I certainly hope you are right. However, xplane needs a lot more catching up in areas other than aircraft too.It would be great if it is able to fill the void eventually.