FS9: overall, a bad experience

[Guest Lurk]

I wonder how many of you are still able to use the last dreaded sim from microsoft. At this point I'm sure something went wrong with this product. I own a mid-to-high end system, with a spanking brand new 256mb radeon 9800pro (my greatest waste of money so far.) I have a good knowledge of both hardware and software. I've spent the last two months tweaking my system, and the sim. I've probably had one or two satisfactory flights out of a hundred. This means that on 95% of my flights, one or more of the following things happened, forcing me to shut off my PC before throwing everything out the window:- horrible trembling of distant horizon, especially mountains. Since this has happened throughout four different sets of drivers, at this point I must assume it's a problem with the sim (and real weather, maybe).- Dreaded "fog soup" effect around mountains. After decades of video gaming, one can just not admit a software company leaving such a major glitch. I can't believe nobody at microsoft noticed this.- Bare and simple crashing of the sim at any point during the flight.- Unacceptable lowering of frame rates, and/or awful texture blurriness.Among other minor things, what I've described contributes in having an overall less then mediocre experience, with an expensive game and performing hardware. I've been searching the forums for weeks now. I've tried every possible solution. The only reality is that for such problems there is simply NO workaround. I wonder what kind of conspiracy we are undergoing, with microsoft releasing a product that runs poorly on high end systems, and hardware companies rubbing their hands, waiting for people to waste their money buying new and useless hardware every few months. One should be able to load up the sim and fly, without having to become a programmer! The truth is that lack of competition is the greatest enemy of quality. And fs9 is a product of such situation. I know I've been bragging all through the post. I admit I'm quite frustrated, but I'm not looking for any advice; I'm just curious to see if anyone sympathizes with my feelings, and with the fact that the last version of our beloved sim is an overall failure and should have never been released as a finished product. At this point I want to stop devoting money to useless technology. Fs9 just can't afford all the fanciness that it promises. There's too much chaos in the hardware world out there, to come up with such a complex product and presumptuosly define it "as real as it gets", rather than "sorry, this is as close to real as we can get at the present time, with the present technology, and with people out there not buying a new processor every month." Anyone who has been in a plane and used the sim knows what I'm talking about. I'm just making too much of an effort, in front of my monitor, to believe that what I'm seeing is anything close to real. Please, a bit more modesty and attention to programming, microsoft!Is there anyone else out there who's tired of being fooled?End of the post. Sorry for being so long.Happy flying, for those of you who still can, and for the lucky ones who can drive a plane for real.For me, it's time to find a new hobby.luca

[Guest daveg4otu]

LucaI'm sorry to hear you say that you're so disappointed with FS9.Personally - I've had no problem with it- it ran straight out of the box with very few problems.In fact the only problems I've had with it have been due to addons not the program itself.I'll agree some things could be better- EG: some odd scenery anomalies,missing bridges etc.but overall I feel it is an improvement on FS2002.So far I've completed over 150 hours of online flying with FS9 .Only twice have I had to back out of a flight.The first time was due to a ISP problem ,the other just a couple of days ago due to the dreaded replacement railroad textures(easily fixed thanks to these forums).I suspect that for every person with problems there are many many running it without any hassle.I also wonder if,here in the forums we get a false picture of the number of problems.What I mean is that probably 95% of users never do much more than install,play successfully using only the default scenery/aircraft/settings etc.Those who tweak/install addons and generally push it to it's limits and frequent forums such as this are,most likely ,a fairly small proportion of users.Please don't misunderstand me- I'd love a "perfect" simulator as much as anyone,but compared with what I started with 20 years ago FS9 is wonderful.I will say that,like many,I do think Microsoft could be a little more responsive to problems when they are found,but I'm not holding my breath.CheersDave

[mganz121 159]

LucaYes I do have a degree of sympathy for you. I thoroughly enjoyed FS2002 and did not purchase FSCOF due to all the problems I read in the forums. However, I finally took the plunge and installed it onto a XP2100 GFT200 with pleasing results (all sliders at max and fluid frame rates).The only major problem I had was sound breaking up, which resulted in video stuttering when there were major cloud formations. So I disabled my onboard sound card, purchased a very cheap (US$15) soundboard and those problems disappeared.I guess my point is that while I do have sympathy for the problems you are having, you have to look a little wider than just the software. For instance, I have NEVER come across this so called and much reported autogen "bug" that people keep referring to and neither have many other people despite autogen being maxed out for us all. It therefore cannot be a "bug" because it does not affect all people. It is obviously system specific and that is where the frustrations start.FS2004 is a very good improvement to FS2002 (on my system) and whilst not perfect, is worth the upgrade. So in that respect, I am pleased that I did not rely too closely on posts like yours and the multitude of similar posts before yours from people who complained about the crappy software.But I did have to work through the issues to get it performing on my system and quite possibly may have felt the same way had I not fixed the (simple) problem.Update ALL drivers and install the latest directx as a starting point. Print off all the helpful tweaking posts at the start of this forum and then go through them one by one. A painful process I know, but I am sure that it will help you through your pain. The software for the best part is very good, but you will have to tweak it to your system. Good luck

[Guest SHORT360]

Luca,You have my sympathy. I agree with you totally. I am also one frustrated user against 100 happy user, but this does not mean anything.I am a film maker a know that a movie visited by millions of peoples is not autimatically a good pictures. It's the same for books, tv movies, tv shows, magazines and so on..........I am a real world pilot also and simulation freak since the earliest start of the PC simulation with the Commodore 64.I have also several critics on that release, most of them have already be enumerated by Luca.May I add some.I wonder , for example, how a state of art software can switch from 30 to 8 fps, without any moves of a plane, changes of meteorological conditions or simply heavy or little A.I. traffic. Just so, it's the system made by Microsoft, with some underlaying tasks made just for disturbing you while using your favorite hobby. I can never get a stable frame rate. While flying I could understand, but on apron, with a cold start, I really have problem to understand that.I used to be an hardcore user of X-Plane. X-plane has a totally different internal machine than MSFS. When X-Plane is running, there are no more bad influences of Windows in the background. You can nevertheless get some drops in frame rates, but then you get automatically a lower visibility, and the frame rate stays stable. I had unfortunately to go to FS9 since I am building a real cockpit and the only strong point of the MSFS concept is FSUIPC and its wonderfull possiblities. FS9 allows almost unlimited use of joystick axises and keystrokes and it is unfortunately not the case of X-plane still stuck with approx. 12 axises and may be 32 keystrokes.I also agree with you when you come to the fog issue. It's such bad. The fog should, like X-plane does, increase the frame rate since the CPU has not to compute background sceneries. It's just the contrary with FS9. I have the impression that FS9 adds the non visible scenery and the fog and then one experience an obvious drop in frame rate.Frame-rate. It's the key of a simulation. 50 FPS should be the minimum. But I know thousand of peoples happy with 5 to 10 fps because they go from the parking to the active runway in slew mode, take off approximately and use only the A.P. The AP will bring them from A to B, and they are happy, with tons of bitmaps to see while flying, Flight attendant, Co Pilot, Virtual cockpit, the usual junk I really hate. I believe that's why so much people are happy and would even sacrify 5 frame more against a gauges enabling walking people in the cabin, and why there are people like you, Luca and me and I hope a lot more who have different appreciation of what should be a Flight Simulator today on a 3 GHZ machine with 1024 RAM and a video card with 256.RegardsRoger

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

Sorry to hear you are having problems.. but to generalize and claim that this sim "runs poorly on high end systems" is just plain nonsense.There is plenty of evidence on the forums that many users are running this sim just fine and have (like myself) removed FS2002 from their system. That should be proof that many users (again, myself included) consider this version a definite improvement over FS2k2..Again, sorry you see the glass half empty.. I'm going back to flying FS9 at a solid 25 fps on a regular P4-2.8 with 512 Meg of memory.. hardly a "high end system", but sufficient for enjoying FS9.

[JimmiG 244]

Well I don't have any direct problems with FS9. However, the autogen bug, which causes very low performance, especially on long flights, because of insane release distances for autogen, is quite dissapointing. It forced me to revert to FS2002 style autogen by deleting the default.xml file and removing vector objects. I was hoping Microsoft was going to patch this, but it looks like they are ignoring it.According to a thread in the scenery devel forum, it looks like it *might* be possible for the users to fix this once the SDK is out. As usual, we have to hope that some user is able to fix the bugs that Microsoft should have ironed out before the new FS was released.I'm flying mostly X-Plane and Flight Unlimited III now. I might reinstall FS2004 if 3rd party developers or Microsoft themselves fix the autogen bug, but otherwise, I won't touch FS2004 again.

[Bill Womack 7]

Luca,I know it's not much consolation to you, but I've not had any of the problems you mention either. I've got a mid-high range system, and FS9 runs smoothly with most sliders maxxed out for me. My experience has been that it's a gorgeous, very realistic and quite reliable simulator. I wish you could see what I'm seeing! However, because of the almost infinite combinations of software and hardware among PCs, it's not hard to believe that one person's worthwhile upgrade is another's nightmare. I just wanted to post here as a counterpoint in case there are undecided FS2002 users out there who haven't upgraded yet. Yes, you may have troubles, but you may also, like me, have a very pleasant upgrade experience. Here's hoping you have the latter!

[Guest Bigshot]

"... a XP2100 GFT200 with pleasing results (all sliders at max and fluid frame rates ..."I always gotta laugh when I read something like that. What, you're running 800x600@16bit color? ""I wonder , for example, how a state of art software can switch from 30 to 8 fps, without any moves of a plane, changes of meteorological conditions or simply heavy or little A.I. traffic ..""Never had that experience. Guess it all depends on what kind of system you're trying to run it on.All the complaints about the sim, except for the autogen bug which is a bug in the software; but can be simply illiminated by renaming the xml default file; are system specific.FS2k4 runs beautifully. Much better than FS2k2 with a whole lot more eye candy. I can't imagine anyone not upgrading if they were into FS2k2. Why, cause FS2k4 will run much, much better on that same rig. Anyone running a high end processor with a 9800 Pro and having problems with FS2k4 has some serious system issues. Maybe a good reformat or some research on his/her choice of hardware combo would be in order.

[LAdamson 240]

>I used to be an hardcore user of X-Plane. X-plane has a>totally different internal machine than MSFS. When X-Plane is>running, there are no more bad influences of Windows in the>background. You can nevertheless get some drops in frame>rates, but then you get automatically a lower visibility, and>the frame rate stays stable. I had unfortunately to go to FS9>since I am building a real cockpit and the only strong point>of the MSFS concept is FSUIPC and its wonderfull possiblities.>>With X-Plane, when the "fog" increases to bump up frame rates............... it really increases! Which just about wipes out anything visable in the distance.Personally, I'm content when I see FS9 running in the uppers 20's to the 30's when flying at lower altitudes. And it actually does it on my two year old Athlon 1900XP/Geforce3Ti500 if I stay out of populated airports. 50fps would be great all the time, and I can certainly tell a difference, whether others can or not; but I seldom see it with FS9 & denser scenery. When X-Plane hit's the 50 fps area-----------it's great!!All in all, FS9 has NOT been a bad experience IMO, and I still don't feel the need to upgrade this time around, which has never happened in my case ,since the invention of PC flight simulations. What's it been now, 25 years or so? I use to upgrade every two years...L.Adamson --- FS2002,FS2004,X-Plane 7.10,FLYII

[LAdamson 240]

>I'm flying mostly X-Plane and Flight Unlimited III now. I>might reinstall FS2004 if 3rd party developers or Microsoft>themselves fix the autogen bug, but otherwise, I won't touch>FS2004 again.I still havn't seen this bug..............seriously!!!Maybe I fly X-Plane too much!! :)Actually, I switch back and forth, with some FLY thrown into the mix.L.Adamson

[mganz121 159]

"I always gotta laugh when I read something like that. What,you're running 800x600@16bit color?"You can laugh all you like, but 1600x1200 in 32 bit fullscreen or 1280x1024 32 bit window is very fluid. Last time I looked at the frame counter it was always around 19 and dropped to 12 in very heavy clouds. The counter is always turned off as fluidity is more important to me. however, I do not have AI turned on as I always fly online. "Guess it all depends on what kindof system you're trying to run it on."Yes it does, hence the problem some are seeing below whilst I do not."All the complaints about the sim, except for the autogen bug which is a bug in the software; but can be simply illiminated by renaming the xml default file; are system specific"If it is system specific, it is not a general bug. It is a user problem that only affects some users and is not a generalisation of a problem within the sim (which some would have us believe). "FS2k4 runs beautifully. Much better than FS2k2 with a whole lot more eye candy. I can't imagine anyone not upgrading if they were into FS2k2. Why, cause FS2k4 will run much, much better on that same rig." "Anyone running a high end processor with a 9800 Pro and having problems with FS2k4 has some serious system issues. Maybe a good reformat or some research on his/her choice of hardwarecombo would be in order."I agree entirely

[Guest Bockscar]

>Is there anyone else out there who's tired of being fooled?Sorry to hear of your problems. However, most of the problems are your system, not the code. I run a modest system and do not have the problems you mention. Were the situation as chronic as you make it out to be, the deficiencies in the code would be much more obvious based on user feed back. As for thier claims, well that's marketing. It isn't like MS is alone in coming up with upbeat, at times almost unbelievable, rhetoric to describe their products.Here are some suggestions. These aren't tweaks, just solid default settings:You mention your 9800 Pro is a big waste of money. Remember, MSFS is a CPU limited game. If MSFS (or any flight sim really) is all you play, a lower tier Radeon (9500 etc) or NVidia card will do you just fine. By your comment, I'll assume it is performing badly in all games, not just MSFS. That is almost always a driver issue.1) Go to the ATI WEB site. Download the new 3.9 Catalyst driver and control panel (1 file) as well as the ATI Software uninstall utility. Run the uninstall utility, it will remove all traces of current and older drivers. Reboot, keep selecting cancel when you get the "New VGA device found." When you get to the desktop, go to where you DL'd the driver and control panel and double click that file to install the new driver.2) Go into your Bios, check to see that your AGP aperature is set to something like 128.3) If you have an onboard video adapter, see that it is disabled (if you can) in the onboard peripherals section.4) This may sound silly, but make sure your are plugging your monitor into the ATI card, not some other VGA adapter on the back of the computer.5) Run Windows Update. Make sure you have all current patches. In particular, make sure you have DirectX 9b installed.6) Go tto your sound card makers web site. Be sure you have the latest drivers for the sound card installed. Make sure you have not conflicts between an onboard card and an add in card.7) If you have your system overclocked, set it back to default settings.8) If you are running a lot of programs in the background .... don't! Right click on anything you see in your system tray that is not 100% needed (most aren't) and select exit to shut them down.9) How much RAM do you have? If you have 256 or less, get more (very cheap nowadays). 512 is good. 1 gb even better (if your MB can handle it).10) Check the MS knowledge base and your computer makers web site for notes on the problems you are having and any work arounds that they may have.11) Visit various hardware forums, such as www.rage3d.com, and see if they have suggestions.Good luck!Scott M.___________________________________ASUS A&N8X 2.0 MainboardAthlon 2.8 XP1 gb PC 2700 DDR RAMRadeon 9500 ProWin XP Pro

[Guest allcott]

I must agree. If your system is truly spewing results like that then your experience counts for nothing - you have a problem and you need to solve it.I appreciate it's very easy to claim your an `expert` and that it's the fault of the sim, but the plain facts are that it isn't, or else everyone would be whinging to the same extent.And they're not. There are those with problems, for sure. But the cure is often closer to home.Good luck! Allcott

[Guest tatfsn]

Luca--I can totally relate to your frustration. Shortly after purchasing, installing and "kicking the tires" of FS9 (on a brand-new, 3.0Ghz 1Gb RAM machine), I experienced a phenomenon that a lot of our fellow flight simmers have had with FS9: the program would spontaneously crash/quit after a around a couple of hours, with no warning. After searching the forums, and Microsoft's knowledge base, I found some suggested solutions, and applied them. I think (fingers crossed) the problem has been resolved. But amidst the searching and ranting and raving I was doing, I AGAIN reflected on the fact that I was AGAIN having to spend much time and effort troubleshooting software problems rather than actually FLYING, which is the reason I bought the program in the first place!! Oh, for a Flight Simulator version that could just be installed and experienced SOLEY in the way that it was purchased for in the first place!!I've been a hard-core flight simming since FS 3.0, and the days of SubLogic and Bruce Artwick. The advent of each new version of Flight Simulator, along with both it and PC technology's exponential advancement over the years, has been a double edged sword. On the one hand, the complexity and detail of FS applications is of a level that few--if any of us--could have conceived of fifteen years ago. On the other, my expereince is such that I've almost come to expect an encounter with an ineveitable and frustrating bug or bugs--of minor or major variety--with each new version. Believe me, I've done my share of screaming and cursing in regards to this over the years--I would prefer to FLY, rather than have to cull the net for solutions to bugs, in endless searches for new drivers or graphic cards or settings. But as one who works in the aviation industry, I have to step back and marvel at the sheer complexity and sophistication of a program such as FS--especially FS9!!! It certainly has its flaws and shortcomings (air traffic control was apparently on a mission to kill me and wreck my plane on a flight into KPSP, and brought me to within less than a mile of a head-on midair on another flight, and the shimmering, quivering horizon is annoying to me, too). But, being familiar with ATC, I would imagine that the ability to model something such as the Air Traffic Control system with something approaching true realism, with all of its variables and permutations, and making hundreds/thousands of AI traffic respond and maneuver accordingly, on a PC, is probably years away. That the program works as well as it does is, to me, a stunning achievement--even in regards to the ATC engine in FS2002. I may change my mind, as I log more time on FS9, but we'll see. When I step back and look at the program from that perspetive, the program's warts are not really so bad (though there's ALWAYS room for improvement). The last two flights that I did in FS9 were as close to Flight Sim nirvana than I've ever been--in nearly fifteen years as a desktop pilot--with hopefully more to come.To say that FS9 is an "overall failure" may be streching it a bit. That said, I still yearn, along with you, for the day/Flight Simulator version where, for the duration of my ownership of it, I won't have to ever worry, or even think about, Runtime files, drivers, bugs, or framerates.

[maxter 0]

I agree as well. With approximately 120 hours in this version of the sim to date, I would not have had more than a half dozen bad experiences in total and most of these have been related to some add on incompatibility.Mind you, I built my PC to suit the sim and will do so again for the next version. IMHO, its the price of this hobby, it is my 7th PC for flight sim since 1984.Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern AustraliaIntel Pentium IV 3.0GHz (800FSB) Socket 478 pins CPU w/Hyper-Thread Technology MSI 875P NEO FIS2R, AGP 8X, i875P ICH5R Chipset with Gigiabit LanKingmax 512MB PC3200 Double Data Rate (DDR) RAM CAS-2.5- 400MHz Rated x 2BUILT By ATI (Original) Radeon 9800PRO w/TV Out & DVI 128Meg DDRTEAC DV-W50E, 4x DVD-R/ 2x RW, 16xCD-R, 8xCD-RW, 16xDVD, 32x CD-ROM Internal Drive Only Western Digital Raptor 36.0GB HDD IDE, 8MB Cache, 5.2ms, 10,000rpm , S-ATA, w/DataLifeguard WD 40Gig HD for dataATX 470W Pentium IV Power Supply CESkyhawk Jupiter Aluminum CaseHyundai -ImageQuest P910 , 19" Multi-Scan Digital MonitorHercules Game Theater XP, 6.1 speakers Dolby