Flight is not what you are hoping for - NEW INFORMATION

[mmann 72]

FSX. Even people with 5GHz processors and monster graphic cards are experiencing the joys of FSX - stutters, blurries, CTDs, freezes,.... 5 years after release and god knows how many years after the first line of that code was written. I think that's the reason.

It seems that people using Lockheed Martin's Prepar3D are very impressed with it, yet it is based on that same old code you are complaining about. If Microsoft was truly going to use all new code for Flight they would run into some major hurdles. The time to write all the new code and the difficulties in debugging all that new code would be two major obstacles for a piece of software with comparatively low sales potential.

[Tomaz Drnovsek 440]

Hura for the code from the year 2002... forever, since the debugging process is such a nag!

[alainneedle1 97]

It seems that people using Lockheed Martin's Prepar3D are very impressed with it, yet it is based on that same old code you are complaining about. If Microsoft was truly going to use all new code for Flight they would run into some major hurdles. The time to write all the new code and the difficulties in debugging all that new code would be two major obstacles for a piece of software with comparatively low sales potential.

And they called me crazy when I said that....pfff

[mmann 72]

And they called me crazy when I said that....pfff

I will probably be tarred with the same brush!

[Mike T 208]

FSX. Even people with 5GHz processors and monster graphic cards are experiencing the joys of FSX - stutters, blurries, CTDs, freezes,.... 5 years after release and god knows how many years after the first line of that code was written. I think that's the reason.

Actually, I am experiencing none of the above. The 2600K (properly overclocked) and an optimized system provides similar performance as FS9 in the majority of cases. I have no blurries, stutters, CTD or anything else (actually never have) AND I don't need any of *******' tweaks either. Going from my old QX9650 @ 4.1Ghz to the i7 2600K was a stunning upgrade - and even my QX9650 wasn't that bad. The problem with FSX is that it costs a ton of money to get it to a point where you are no longer staring at the FPS counter or spending 90% of your time looking for tweaks.

[Chock 17,769]

Yup, I agree. In fact, despite it taking a while for computers to evolve enough to make them powerful enough to batter their way through the architectural cul-de-sac FSX's programming route took, even when FSX ran at less than ideal frame rates, it was always stable on every computer I've stuck it on (and that's been about five or six of them over the years). Therefore I'm forced to conclude that most of the crashes people get are down to their systems, or unwillingness to drop the sliders if necessary, and not FSX itself. If you search for posts on Avsim all the way back to when FSX was first released that have my name on them, you'll see that is the case. Al

[dmaher 0]

What about the elephant in the room?Who here runs default FSX?

[Chock 17,769]

I run FSX on default sometimes, as part of the review process for products, since a clean install ensures the product is not unfairly affected by other add-ons as you point out (see Wilco stuffing up PMDG stuff for example, or ASE affecting the way things fly sometimes etc), although I do then try it with add-ons as well. I'll sometimes try stuff with and without Acceleration. Another example would be that I tend to test stuff with a default FSUIPC install and then the payware version 4 as well, since that too can affect things on occasion. Al

[Glynn 405]

FSX. Even people with 5GHz processors and monster graphic cards are experiencing the joys of FSX - stutters, blurries, CTDs, freezes,.... 5 years after release and god knows how many years after the first line of that code was written. I think that's the reason.

HelloI have none of the above issues, the sim is smoother now than FS9 ever was.Running the PMDG NGX at the moment between EGGD to EICK, I do not know where you get your info from but you are wrong and well out of date.

[Fsau 0]

Because FSX was designed to utilize 5+ GHz monsters, it just so happened that chips hit a frequency barrier and we ended up with more cores in place of higher clock speeds.

FSX. Even people with 5GHz processors and monster graphic cards are experiencing the joys of FSX - stutters, blurries, CTDs, freezes,.... 5 years after release and god knows how many years after the first line of that code was written. I think that's the reason.

Because FSX was developed at a time when the foreseeable future of cpus was ever increasing clock speeds, and was cancelled before the dev team could really utilize multithreading and modern GPUs. You think FS11 was going to be entirely new? It would be completely infeasible to write an entire simulator from scratch when you have a ton of work already in place. Yes FSX is buggy I agree (what game isn't) but again it does a lot of things well, it's better for everyone if they can utilize what is there, fix only what is needed and add new features to deliver a product that not only keeps us happy but also the shareholders. This all has to be done within a budget remember. Look at it this way, would you tear down a house and build it from the ground up just because the toilet was broken?

[alainneedle1 97]

+1 for the last six post, I went from a Q9650 at 4.32GHz DDR2 1200MHz and FSX was running good, (see my sig) no problems there either, NO fsx.CFG tweak what so ever but TBM at 120....more tweak = more problems..... About stutterings (if you have some), if you want to reduce stutterings and temp lapping your CPU and heatsink is something you need to think about, this will greatly help.

[Tomaz Drnovsek 440]

You all missed the point... I was initially talking about the code being old... I never said it's not working. Yes, you guys can probably run FSX smooth but if you read this forums you can obviously see a lot of people, even some with 5GHz CPUs, have problems, stutters, blurries, and all that. I never questioned YOUR computers, I was talking in general and based on a lot of forum posts here.Back to my initial point.. in my opinion MS Flight would be better (modern) looking, better performing sim if they'd build it from the ground up. I guess you all think it's going to be better sim if they use almost 10 years old cod. Fine by me.

[Jacoba 55]

You all missed the point...

Get use to that, especially around this forum... far too many folks here are simply tone deaf, the rest just run around in circles screaming they can't see the forrest for all the trees. Several of us have tried, mostly in vane to point out the obvious, using logic as well as interjecting the idea MS is a business therefore using business theory and sense to support our logic. Only to be shouted down by those who are simply wishing all this stuff away, ignoring what information we actually do have, while pointing to scant few screen shots of Hawaii and one airplane... Personally I hope Flight is everything everyone wants it to be. But until I see more convincing evidence its not just a localized gaming simulator, with only Hawaiian scenery and one maybe two planes... I'll go with my gut feeling that all this smoke from the developers we've seen recently points to an actual fire some place. Good luck on getting folks around here to see any point you might try and make!

[alainneedle1 97]

You all missed the point... I was initially talking about the code being old... I never said it's not working. Yes, you guys can probably run FSX smooth but if you read this forums you can obviously see a lot of people, even some with 5GHz CPUs, have problems, stutters, blurries, and all that. I never questioned YOUR computers, I was talking in general and based on a lot of forum posts here.Back to my initial point.. in my opinion MS Flight would be better (modern) looking, better performing sim if they'd build it from the ground up. I guess you all think it's going to be better sim if they use almost 10 years old cod. Fine by me.

If that was for me I may have missed your point, when FSX came out nobody was able to run it decently on a top of the line computer and the tweaking started, I blew a QX6850 trying to overclock this puppy for FSX ($1,000.00)...I'm still seeing a shrink because of that... Peoples still tweak FSX today no because FSX can't run good but because they are use to it, want more out of it or don't have the latest hardware....is FSX perfect...naaaaaa....it does have flaws, DX10 just to take this one, popping autogen, clouds reflections, adding complex scenery demand more from your rig ...BUT...with good hardware FSX run a lot better. Developers could do a better job also, there is a fix for the flickering runways in DX10... they don't include the fix in their scenery when building them, http://forum.avsim.net/topic/267998-dx10-runwaytaxiway-flickering-fix/ I also think that they can stop the flickering light at night. So the bottom line is this, FSX is not perfect and until we get a patch for it (speculation) only buying better hardware will make it run better by the years.

[Tomaz Drnovsek 440]

It was for everybody who tried to explain to me that their computer can run FSX just fine.My initial post was meant as a comment to OP.All I wanted to say was that in my opinion it would be better for everybody if they'd build the sim from the ground up, better for performance (not for 2016 hardware), better looking (not like 2004 PC game), better in every way. Using the old code, in my opinion, means old problems, old strategies, old everything.