Simple.. FSX is the worst coded game everAre you kidding me? Skyrim looks awesome in the distance while FSX looks absolutely horrendous

No, not kidding. FSX goes out to hundreds of miles of distance. Haven't seen Skyrim but I have played games like Crysis. They have an amazing foreground but that's all it is.

Thank you to all for your feedback and knowledge.Here is a little trailer pertaining to ES Skyrim.

My two cents :)Here’s an analogy...Take three people and give them each a Lego set with 10,000 pieces.Each uses their Lego to build a diorama.The first builds a boxing ring with two boxers.The second builds a city street with a 2D city horizon and sky.The third builds 5,000 square miles of scenery with a 3D city and 3D clouds and a 767. (i.e. draws100miles)The first guy has so much Lego he doesn’t know what to do with it.The second guy could run out of Lego, but not before he’s built an amazing street.The last guy is always going to need more damn Lego ;)We don't expect the third model to look like the other two.Generally what add-ons do is change the rules a bit, and bring more Lego to the table :)And that can require a bigger table...because that's a lot of Lego now.Meanwhile the first guy has traded all his unused Lego for paint, play-doh, and bits of string.And now he's the one that looks like some kind of genius The Lego analogy problem can't actually be fixed in software.It is more about hardware and our expectations.

Makes sense!Can anyone recommend any cfg. tricks that actually have worked for them.I've read so many posts to try to setup FSX.On a med/high end system what tweaks should be applied.I read the Nick N post at simforums and he only recommends only a few,and avoiding the use of the automated online tweakug system.Regards,

Thank you to all for your feedback and knowledge.Here is a little trailer pertaining to ES Skyrim.

Looks cool, but as I mentioned, there is really no distance involved--ok except for the moon. When you have to render cities like Seattle, skies w/ clouds formed out to 110 miles as I have, it's no wonder you have to sacrifice total performance and close in detail. I think it will become apparent in how XPlane 10 functions. My guess is it will not perform as well as hoped, and the foreground detail will not be on a par w/ Skyrim because of the reasons I mentioned: it's a different ballgame when you have to render out as far as flight sims do. Sure, you have have nice water flowing, but notice in all of these scenes there really isn't a detailed remote background. And this doesn't say anything about the detailed 737NGX I as FSX to render & fly at the same time! Sure, there's arguably plenty of room for improvement in coding, but the open platform w/ tons of 3rd party add ons adds significant performance challenges.

One thing we all forget when comparing FSX to Crysis, etc - FSX is generating the real world in real time. All those other titles have a fixed small world that is a fraction the size of FSX world. For what it does, FSX is an excellent bit of software and comparing it to other game titles is almost like apples and oranges. If FSX were to graphically draw their world as the other titles do, then one could compare.Vic

skyrim isn't distance rendering to 110nm.edit: sry point already made in previous post

Like FSX is rendering to 110nm distance.. after 20nm everything it's just a blur with no detail at all

Just wanted to know what other people think.I mean I can run other software like Crysis2,Modern Warfare3,Skyrim,on ultra high settings and get very good fps,and fluidity.And the graphics are superb.Why is it so hard to achieve this inFSX.It seems like everybody is forever tweaking or has one problem or another!Reagrds.

It isn't any more unforgiving than FS9 if you take the time to pay attention to your setup and system limitations - I have it running happily on two i7 920/930 systems slightly OC'd to 3.2 -3.5 GHz and can run everything with no issues at all. I'm quite satisfied with it and haven't done anything more than read NickN's excellent setup guide and run my FSX.cfg file through *******'s optimizer. The real trick to it all is to have a solid OS and system to do the installation on - many of the complaints I see come from folks who had shakey setups before they ever installed FSX and have poked and prodded this and that until the whole system is a house of cards... The games you mention have nothing resembling the open-ended world of FS, they are closed systems in a limited world. I do recall screams of outrage when they were first released and folks realized the system requirements that both had.DJ

Thanks DJ.I really love FSX.I am runnning it ok for now except for some stuttering.fs9 however even with alot of scenery addons and payware planes ran alot smoother even at high settings.I ask again can someone please give me some tweaks that they use in the cfg that are usefull and not just snake oil.With regards to the above games I can use them with ultra high settings with absolute fluidity,and I only have a core 2 duo,o/c to 3ghz, and GTS450 graphics card,2gig ram,running xp!Of course my computer is not bogged down with any unecessary services runningCheers.

In a past life I was a programmer on large government military systems. We had to develop significant error trapping capabilities so that the software could identify problems and provide the user or programmer with tools to fix the problems. FSX has no such error trapping functions (or very little). The application is so complex and the number of addons so numerous that identifying why errors occur is nearly impossible.

I don't know how much you interfaced with SQA and the test community in your past life, but stress testing is an important part of the test program. Here is where I think FSX breaks down, and I suspect that stress testing in the commercial world is not as robust. For example if you look at the g3d.dll crash thread, you might agree with me that it is likely a stress problem.scott s..

Absolutely true - stress testing is a very critical portion of the overall testing methodology. The issue that makes it so difficult working with FSX is the fact that there are so many 3rd-party developers adding their development mythologies (or lack thereof) to the mix. That is why an API is so necessary for the flight simulator. There needs to be a "buffer" between the core FSX software and those addon packages. In addition, there must be enforced rules for interacting with that "buffer."Frank

Thanks DJ.I really love FSX.I am runnning it ok for now except for some stuttering.fs9 however even with alot of scenery addons and payware planes ran alot smoother even at high settings.I ask again can someone please give me some tweaks that they use in the cfg that are usefull and not just snake oil.With regards to the above games I can use them with ultra high settings with absolute fluidity,and I only have a core 2 duo,o/c to 3ghz, and GTS450 graphics card,2gig ram,running xp!Of course my computer is not bogged down with any unecessary services runningCheers.

First, go here and read this - really read it all the way through. This is the best advice advailable on line. When you get all done, then ask again and we'll give you the link to a site where you can get your config tweaked; by then you'll understand what has been done and why and be able to decide how much of it you want to keep.DJ

Sorry DJ,no link to the item you refer.Please provide the linkCheers

Sorry DJ,no link to the item you refer.Please provide the linkCheers

Doh! Sorry about that - here you go http://www.simforums.com/forums/setting-up-fsx-and-how-to-tune-it_topic29041.html enjoy!DJ