FSX is broken...

[tf51d 284]

At the moment this is just conjecture but we shall soon see with the release of the CRJ200.

That actually wouldn't be a valid compare, because the CRJ is much smaller and less complicated of an aircraft then the 744 or the MD-11. So it should perform better. We won't know for sure unless a equally complex aircraft is detailed modeled. Also let's not make the mistake of over hyping a yet to be released addon. While preliminary previews look good, we won't know for sure how well it fly's until it is released. Look at what happened with the Airsimmer release, and there were others that didn't meet promised expectations.

[MatthewS 761]

That actually wouldn't be a valid compare, because the CRJ is much smaller and less complicated of an aircraft then the 744 or the MD-11.

Not sure how complex the systems modeling is, maybe 75% of the 747 or MD11?In any case the 3D modeling in the CRJ200 cockpit looks more complex than PMDG, even the hundreds of circuit breakers are 3D and dynamically lit (see the 1st video).I would say the complexity of the 3D cockpit has a greater impact on performance than the systems modeling anyway. This is what PMDG have said, that too many click spots in a FSX cockpit really drags performance down. Don't think that's the case with XP though and the new "manipulator" tech in XP9 is very impressive. Click any movable control/switch/button and drag the mouse to manipulate it. This is fully implemented in the CRJ200.

[tf51d 284]

Not sure how complex the systems modeling is, maybe 75% of the 747 or MD11?In any case the 3D modeling in the CRJ200 cockpit looks more complex than PMDG, even the hundreds of circuit breakers are 3D and dynamically lit (see the 1st video).I would say the complexity of the 3D cockpit has a greater impact on performance than the systems modeling anyway. This is what PMDG have said, that too many click spots in a FSX cockpit really drags performance down. Don't think that's the case with XP though and the new "manipulator" tech in XP9 is very impressive. Click any movable control/switch/button and drag the mouse to manipulate it. This is fully implemented in the CRJ200.

Time will tell!!

[Geofa 108]

"You are still being "evasive"... do you not agree with the following?The FSX "core" platform is stuck with 2006 tech, it's never going to improve because ACES have been disbanded and the FSX source is locked up in a Microsoft safe somewhere gathering dust. The X-Plane "core" platform was last updated a few weeks ago. Laminar Research are actively developing the core platform and the platform will continue to be optimized and take advantage of improvements in new hardware/software tech."I will agree with that when xplane has finally caught up and surpassed fsx. Until then fsx will be very alive. I see nothing "evasive" about that. I think my last post was extremely clear, and I am going to rest on that.Doesnt that just show how poorly optimised FSX is? Presumably FSX is still rendering objects that are not visible and hence the performance does not improve.We don't know that is the fact-but even if it is-I'm still getting better performance on fsx-and I get choice of visibility settings instead of being limited-something important to me.

[tf51d 284]

"You are still being "evasive"... do you not agree with the following?The FSX "core" platform is stuck with 2006 tech, it's never going to improve because ACES have been disbanded and the FSX source is locked up in a Microsoft safe somewhere gathering dust. The X-Plane "core" platform was last updated a few weeks ago. Laminar Research are actively developing the core platform and the platform will continue to be optimized and take advantage of improvements in new hardware/software tech."I will agree with that when xplane has finally caught up and surpassed fsx. Until then fsx will be very alive. I see nothing "evasive" about that. I think my last post was extremely clear, and I am going to rest on that.Doesnt that just show how poorly optimised FSX is? Presumably FSX is still rendering objects that are not visible and hence the performance does not improve.We don't know that is the fact-but even if it is-I'm still getting better performance on fsx-and I get choice of visibility settings instead of being limited-something important to me.

Geof, did you see my post on improving performance? It pretty much equals FSX with non complex or default aircraft now with equal amount of scenery objects, but of course there is still the visibility issue. At least it's no longer reducing visibility further when performance dropped below 19fps.

[Geofa 108]

Geof, did you see my post on improving performance? It pretty much equals FSX with non complex or default aircraft now with equal amount of scenery objects, but of course there is still the visibility issue. At least it's no longer reducing visibility further when performance dropped below 19fps.

I did. I'll give it a try...thanks!<edit> gave it a try-no difference here. However, I am not disapointed with my fps in xplane. I get 50 in the default cessna at innsbruck, 25-40 elswhere, and when setting an equiv. autogen etc. to what I get in fsx at my home airport 20-30.Still very smooth.

[Aerodynamic 0]

We don't know that is the fact-but even if it is-I'm still getting better performance on fsx-and I get choice of visibility settings instead of being limited-something important to me.

But in essence, you are comparing performance of the two when you have an obvious performance issue in X-Plane. You yourself stated that the application crashes after a few moments. So of course you like the performance in FSX better! :( I believe whatever hardware you and tf51d are using just does not get along with X-Plane for whatever reason. (Probably drivers.) Poor tf51d has to turn everything all the way down and still has issues. This is not how the sim is meant to run, I assure you!There are numerous posts in the hardware forums here that contain commentary of FSX's aged programming and poor use of modern hardware. Whether these posters are technically credible is unknown to me, but the reading material is there and it at least sounds logical. When a platform is patched to "add" multicore support, that alone sounds more like a band-aid to me. DirectX 10 ended up being a total FSX joke . I regret even buying the Acceleration pack! The MSFS series needed a total makeover to refine things to work with the more powerful hardware that we have today, but sadly it seems this will not be happening anytime soon. Maybe FSX was a product that just had timing working against it, as tremendous leaps were made near its release in multicore architecture, combined with the additional drop in hardware prices.I'm not going to tell anyone FSX is dead, because at the end of it all I just want people to enjoy the hobby. FSX has, quite honestly, been the most disappointing Microsoft sim release in my view. There are some definite improvements in some areas over FS9, but I still think FS9 was and is a better overall product that is also not dead. If I go back to MSFS, it would be to FS9.To each, his own,Scott

[Geofa 108]

But in essence, you are comparing performance of the two when you have an obvious performance issue in X-Plane. You yourself stated that the application crashes after a few moments. So of course you like the performance in FSX better! :( I believe whatever hardware you and tf51d are using just does not get along with X-Plane for whatever reason. (Probably drivers.) Poor tf51d has to turn everything all the way down and still has issues. This is not how the sim is meant to run, I assure you!There are numerous posts in the hardware forums here that contain commentary of FSX's aged programming and poor use of modern hardware. Whether these posters are technically credible is unknown to me, but the reading material is there and it at least sounds logical. When a platform is patched to "add" multicore support, that alone sounds more like a band-aid to me. DirectX 10 ended up being a total FSX joke . I regret even buying the Acceleration pack! The MSFS series needed a total makeover to refine things to work with the more powerful hardware that we have today, but sadly it seems this will not be happening anytime soon. Maybe FSX was a product that just had timing working against it, as tremendous leaps were made near its release in multicore architecture, combined with the additional drop in hardware prices.I'm not going to tell anyone FSX is dead, because at the end of it all I just people to enjoy the hobby. FSX has, quite honestly, been the most disappointing Microsoft sim release in my view. There are some definite improvements in some areas over FS9, but I still think FS9 was and is a better overall product that is also not dead. If I go back to MSFS, it would be to FS9.To each, his own,Scott

Do you consider 50fps at Innsbruck and 25 at kptk poor? Then again, I am trying to run with settings that give me somewhat of what I have in fsx and perhaps that is unrealistic.Actually I don't think I have a performance issue at all. One thing I happen to notice with xplane is very sensitive to screen resolution and complexity of aircraft.My monitor which I have owned for several years native resolution is 1920x1200. If I run xplane in a window-each inch or so of shrinking it gives me roughly 5-10 extra fps. Run it in a window about 1280x1024 and I see in the 80's. Seems to me when I bought 9 last year, stretching cockpits and running at higher res than 1280x1024 was a new thing? Perhaps I remember incorrectly, but I do remember I had to get a beta version to run in my monitors resolution with cockpits showing correctly. Now of course fsx gives better performance also in smaller screen resolutions-but my compares above were all done at 1920x1200. I guess I could run xplane in a little window in the center of my screen but that is rather unappealing.To be honest, I found it a little aged and shocking when I first got xplane 9 that using different resolutions was such a problem.Frankly struck me as "aged programming" but to each his own.

[LAdamson 240]

I'm not going to tell anyone FSX is dead, because at the end of it all I just people to enjoy the hobby. FSX has, quite honestly, been the most disappointing Microsoft sim release in my view. There are some definite improvements in some areas over FS9, but I still think FS9 was and is a better overall product that is also not dead. If I go back to MSFS, it would be to FS9.

Can't agree. I've run every Microsoft flight sim, as well as their combat sims. Overall, FSX is still my favorite of all (including X-Plane), although I still run FS9 for various reasons, which include aircraft & scenery. FSX just has the depth and textures resolution that FS9 couldn't provide to so many of the default areas of the mountain west. And it just provides that special feel of flight.................. that some don't seem to understand... :( L.Adamson

[Aerodynamic 0]

Do you consider 50fps at Innsbruck and 25 at kptk poor? Then again, I am trying to run with settings that give me somewhat of what I have in fsx and perhaps that is unrealistic.Actually I don't think I have a performance issue at all. One thing I happen to notice with xplane is very sensitive to screen resolution and complexity of aircraft.My monitor which I have owned for several years native resolution is 1920x1200. If I run xplane in a window-each inch or so of shrinking it gives me roughly 5-10 extra fps. Run it in a window about 1280x1024 and I see in the 80's. Seems to me when I bought 9 last year, stretching cockpits and running at higher res than 1280x1024 was a new thing? Perhaps I remember incorrectly, but I do remember I had to get a beta version to run in my monitors resolution with cockpits showing correctly. Now of course fsx gives better performance also in smaller screen resolutions-but my compares above were all done at 1920x1200. I guess I could run xplane in a little window in the center of my screen but that is rather unappealing.To be honest, I found it a little aged and shocking when I first got xplane 9 that using different resolutions was such a problem.Frankly struck me as "aged programming" but to each his own.

Maybe resolution is part of it, not sure. My monitor is only 1680 X 1050, so I cannot confirm that. But yes, I consider 25 fps as poor. I begin to grumble cake when it gets close to 30. That's when I start to notice definite interruptions in fluidity.Scott

[Aerodynamic 0]

Can't agree. I've run every Microsoft flight sim, as well as their combat sims. Overall, FSX is still my favorite of all (including X-Plane), although I still run FS9 for various reasons, which include aircraft & scenery. FSX just has the depth and textures resolution that FS9 couldn't provide to so many of the default areas of the mountain west. And it just provides that special feel of flight.................. that some don't seem to understand... :( L.Adamson

So I assume you like the jerky instant replay when you watch your landings in unlocked spot view and the screwed up aircraft lighting and flashing runway textures when DirectX 10 "preview" (<----nice word) is enabled? When I pay for a product (I paid $80 for FSX Deluxe when it first came out + I bought the Acceleration pack when it first came out = over $100 total), I sort of expect it to work right and not have these sorts of annoyances. FSX is the first flight sim release that has bothered me in that regard. For whatever reason, I also like the way weather is done in FS9 as opposed to FSX. I own GEX and REX and I just feel like the cloud placement is a little weird in FSX and it is more "believeable" in FS9 and X-Plane.Scott

[tf51d 284]

But in essence, you are comparing performance of the two when you have an obvious performance issue in X-Plane. You yourself stated that the application crashes after a few moments. So of course you like the performance in FSX better! :( I believe whatever hardware you and tf51d are using just does not get along with X-Plane for whatever reason. (Probably drivers.) Poor tf51d has to turn everything all the way down and still has issues. This is not how the sim is meant to run, I assure you!There are numerous posts in the hardware forums here that contain commentary of FSX's aged programming and poor use of modern hardware. Whether these posters are technically credible is unknown to me, but the reading material is there and it at least sounds logical. When a platform is patched to "add" multicore support, that alone sounds more like a band-aid to me. DirectX 10 ended up being a total FSX joke . I regret even buying the Acceleration pack! The MSFS series needed a total makeover to refine things to work with the more powerful hardware that we have today, but sadly it seems this will not be happening anytime soon. Maybe FSX was a product that just had timing working against it, as tremendous leaps were made near its release in multicore architecture, combined with the additional drop in hardware prices.I'm not going to tell anyone FSX is dead, because at the end of it all I just want people to enjoy the hobby. FSX has, quite honestly, been the most disappointing Microsoft sim release in my view. There are some definite improvements in some areas over FS9, but I still think FS9 was and is a better overall product that is also not dead. If I go back to MSFS, it would be to FS9.To each, his own,Scott

If you read my later posts, (which obviously you hadn't) you'd see my performance issues are solved. What I am now seeing is framerates about equal that of FSX with an equal amount of objects. That is still 25nm vs what now seems to be 175nm visibility. FSX still wins the performance battle!

[Geofa 108]

So I assume you like the jerky instant replay when you watch your landings in unlocked spot view and the screwed up aircraft lighting and flashing runway textures when DirectX 10 "preview" (<----nice word) is enabled? When I pay for a product (I paid $80 for FSX Deluxe when it first came out + I bought the Acceleration pack when it first came out = over $100 total), I sort of expect it to work right and not have these sorts of annoyances. FSX is the first flight sim release that has bothered me in that regard. For whatever reason, I also like the way weather is done in FS9 as opposed to FSX. I own GEX and REX and I just feel like the cloud placement is a little weird in FSX and it is more "believeable" in FS9 and X-Plane.Scott

Just shows to each their own-I have never even used the instant replay of any sim.Every release of any flight sim has things that work to somes satisfaction and not to others. I have been complaining for years that fs (no version) doesn't correct prop sounds-xplane does.Direct x preview was a waste.I can find lots of things to pick on-in both fsx and xplane.Still each new version brings improvements and bugs. Just look at how many patches are usually issued for one add in-then multiply the complexity 1000 fold for the entire program.

If you read my later posts, (which obviously you hadn't) you'd see my performance issues are solved. What I am now seeing is framerates about equal that of FSX with an equal amount of objects. That is still 25nm vs what now seems to be 175nm visibility. FSX still wins the performance battle!

What resolution do you run xplane in?

[LAdamson 240]

So I assume you like the jerky instant replay when you watch your landings in unlocked spot view and the screwed up aircraft lighting and flashing runway textures when DirectX 10 "preview" (<----nice word) is enabled? When I pay for a product (I paid $80 for FSX Deluxe when it first came out + I bought the Acceleration pack when it first came out = over $100 total), I sort of expect it to work right and not have these sorts of annoyances. FSX is the first flight sim release that has bothered me in that regard. For whatever reason, I also like the way weather is done in FS9 as opposed to FSX. I own GEX and REX and I just feel like the cloud placement is a little weird in FSX and it is more "believeable" in FS9 and X-Plane.

Sorry.....................I don't have those problems. Only serious problem I ever had with FSX turned out to be video card connections which ultimately destroyed it. I much prefer the weather and clouds in FSX also. Over the years, I've often argued with those who prefer FS9. I'll just lump you into that catagory & let it go at that. No use rehashing years worth of differing minds.As I've previously said, the sense of flight is first on my list. It's all derived from the visuals on the screen & a bit of spring resistance in the joystick/yoke. From that point on, it's a bit of delay & some very experienced programmers magic to impart a sense of reality when manipulating the controls & getting expected feeback. So let's just say that I much prefer a few third party aircraft for FSX.........because the flight dynamics and visuals are still the best out there.So far............... in general, X-Plane doesn't even begin to compete in the overall flight dynamics department. And that's regardless of the years of hype. If it was so, I'd be a number one "a really excited user" so to speak.. To me, it's still like puppet on a string, when it comes to manipulating the controls. L.Adamson

[tf51d 284]

What resolution do you run xplane in?

I run at 1280x767x32 but it also runs the same at 1920x1080x32 (The highest my projector can handle.)