Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Javiz

Can it be done ?...

Recommended Posts

Can it be done ?

 

Fly FSX for a couple years, because of various reasons enthusiasm sinks to an all time low, install FS9 again, load it with goodies,( which, in some cases, you have to buy again ) take lower graphics quality and missing other specific FSX features for granted, and enjoy the tremendous fps, no more OOM, no more CTD, and even no more BSOD ??.....

 

I am trying it, so far so good !

 

Anyone else that has been confronted with such a decision to make ? ( and came to the conclusion that it was deffinately the right one to make ?.. )

 

Btw, in my case it has all to do with flying more or less complex jetliners as opposed to low and slow 'enjoy the scenery' GA touring in FSX.

 

Cheers,

jan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm doing the opposite right now and preparing FSX to be my main sim. It all depends on your specs, I would never run FSX on anything less then a I5 or I7 running at +4.5ghz minimum 4gig of fast ram and a good Nvidia card, 560TI or better, been too spoilt with a solid 30FPS in FS9 .

 

If your system is below that and you are having issues then FS9 is perfect for you, with REX,Active SKY, GE,UTE and a good addon aircraft FS9 can look stunning with silky smooth performance. I have way too much time invested in FS9 to ditch it completely but most of the major developers are going FSX only.

 

For me the PMDG 777 and 747-400V2 for FSX is going to be too good to miss, FS9 however will still remain a faithful friend that I will visit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mik75

Hi!

It is not a decision for me. I have two hard drives installed. On one I have FS9 running on Win XP, on the other one is FSX with Win Vista 64 bit. I just decide with booting up my machine which sim

to use. If I want to fly airliner with maximum reality, I choose FS9 with Leonardo SH Maddog or iFly 737 with FS2Crew. If I want GA flying over beautiful looking sceneries like ORBX, I boot up FSX. So I simply have best of both worlds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have FSX, FS9, X-Plane 10, and I had FLIGHT installed.Oh yeah, I had PrePar3D installed too. Why limit yourself? I reformatted the drive that had FS9/XP10/FLIGHT and I'm in the process of reinstalling FS9 along with all of its' addons. I doubt that I'll reinstall FLIGHT any time in the near future. Right now we have a lot of pretty good options as simmers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To cut a very long story short...

I have purchsed all the MS Flight Sims since FS '98 as soon as they were released, (FS '98, 2000, 2002, 2004, FSX) and got fed-up with desperately trying, and failing, to make my FSX look, and perform, anywhere near as good as my FS 2004 with all its various payware, and freeware, fantistic add-ons!

I wake up every morning, fire up my trusty FS 2004...and FS Navigator,.... and explore the marvelous scenery below me for 18 hours, problem-free, SMOOTHLY! at low level, with all my settings maxed!

I really dont wish to spend/waste all my time trying to sort out all the various problems that I see my FSX Chums suffering, every day!

I have studied all the Forums since FSX was released, and have made up my mind not do get dragged into their aggressive arguments, frustrations and disappointments!

 

FS 2004 is for all those Simmers looking for a Fun Flying Experience!

FSX is for all those Simmers desperate for a spot of Self-Mutilation!

 

...trust me... :Peace: ...!

 

Paul...FS 2004!.... :Bug: ...!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jan,

 

Of course it can be done if you ask me. I myself have purchased FSX and even some nice addons for it (fortunately I had a lot free of charge).

Although I was more than very satisfied with the FS9 world I had thoroughly built, I really wanted to give FSX a serious try.

The reason is quite simple: as a longtime simmer being with the MFS series since the very beginning, I just had to. Big%20Grin.gif

 

But even though I installed FSX, purchased some addons, tweaked it in and out (it turned out you need 74576457896 tweaks to make it performing nicely, lol) and even bought a new powerful PC last autumn, I did not like the FSX experience at all. I do have it installed, because I do some beta testing for developers releasing addons for two platforms or just FSX, but I never fly it by choice. Actually for me there is no FSX addon I wouldn't have for my FS9, and the other way the list is too long to type here.

 

Of course I do see better ground textures in FSX and the curvature of the horizon, both of which I would like to have in my FS9, but they are nowhere close to being the decisive factors for me. And the much repeated saying that 99% developers release only FSX addons now is not true. Every month I buy or get great new addons for FS9 and there is none for FSX only on the horizon which I would desperately want to have. FS9 with all the addons I have in my collection (including the only great Airbus simulation so far - and Airbus has always been my favourite aircraft type) gives me much more satisfaction.

 

One more factor is I, just like you, am a heavy metal / IFR flyer. If I were the Cessna/Katana VFR type pilot, I would likely spend more time in FSX, just like Michael wrote.

But I spend most of my time at huge airports, which look similar under both platforms, and flying high where OrbX-like sceneries with 2cm resolution matter less than little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSX is for all those Simmers desperate for a spot of Self-Mutilation!

 

Hello

On an i5 or i7 Sandybridge system @ 4.5GHz FSX runs very very well, smooth with no blurry textures.

Those days of FSX running poorly have been over for a long time now.

But on older hardware it is bound to be disappointing,

 

Jan,

 

Of course it can be done. I myself have purchased FSX and even some addons for it (!).

Although I was more than very satisfied with the FS9 world I had thoroughly built, I really wanted to give FSX a serious try.

The reason was simple: as a longtime simmer being with the MFS series since the very beginning.

 

But even though I installed FSX, purchased some addons, tweaked it in and out (it turned out you need 74576457896 tweaks to make it performing nicely, lol) and even bought a new powerful PC last autumn, I did not like the FSX experience at all. I do have it installed, because I do some beta testing for developers releasing addons for two platforms, but I never fly it by choice. Actually for me there is no FSX addon I wouldn't have for my FS9, and the other way the list is too long to type here. Of course I do see better ground textures in FSX and the curvature of the horizon, both of which I would like to have in my FS9, but there are nowhere close to being the decisive factor. FS9 with all the addons I have (including the only great Airbus simulation - and Airbus has always been my favourite aircraft type) gives me much much more satisfaction.

 

One more factor is I, just like you, am a heavy metal flyer. If I were the Cessna/Katana type pilot, I would likely spend more time in FSX.

 

Hello

When I use FS9 these days one addon I really miss from my FSX install is EZdok.

All the FS9 aircraft just feel like they are on rails after using EZdok, very little sense of moving through a fluid medium. EZdok's suble movements bring life to the flight models on FSX.

Other than that I still like FS9 but once you put the money and effort into FSX it really comes into its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I use FS9 these days one addon I really miss from my FSX install is EZdok

 

It is hard for me to compare but I am using the Active Camera / FSRecorder combo, which are also nice, and I am well used to them.

I also had TrackIR4 but it broke down for good. I'm planning on buying TIR5 though, so I guess I don't miss EZdok so much even though I believe it is a very fine product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree with Mad Dog here, get yourself and I5 2500K a good NVIDIA card (Not ATI) crank it up and the sim will run beautifully.

 

There still seems to be myths surrounding FSX performance, sure if you set 100% AI and 100% Road traffic with proccesses running in the background you will still have problems.

 

At the very least take a look at the you tube videos of FSX running on a I5 or I7 clocked above 4ghz

 

Rafal, definitely get yourself TrackIR5, I didn't think the upgrade was worth it and held onto to my IR4 until it was literally being held together by glue and blue tac. :biggrin:

 

When I finally purchased the TrackIR5 I asked myself why did I wait so long?!

 

Btw, did you ever overclock that CPU? it pains me to see so much power being unused :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There still seems to be myths surrounding FSX performance
sure if you set 100% AI and 100% Road traffic with proccesses running in the background you will still have problems.

 

So, not exactly myths! :wink:

Frankly speaking I am an AI freak and I do want to have airports full of all kind of traffic. I spend quite a lot of time working out nice AI packages.

As for the road traffic, it was advertised as one of the new steps forward compared to FS9 and now it seems you actually have to turn it off?

 

definitely get yourself TrackIR5 (...) When I finally purchased the TrackIR5 I asked myself why did I wait so long?!

 

Rob, as always your advice is a monstrous temptation. Now I just need to plan a tactics towards my wife to justify spending 200 euro on a small useless toy (lol).

 

did you ever overclock that CPU?

 

No, I am afraid to. I have followed your advice to read some web threads but I still have no idea on how to do it not to #$%@# something... :Worried:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah well, I have always been more into Vatsim & IVAO traffic, I just cant stand default or artificial ATC programs! ;)

 

Regarding the CPU, you should be getting very good FPS with FS9 on that rig so if your happy then all's good. If you do ever want to release the full potential of your machine be sure to head over to the hardware forum.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have always been more into Vatsim & IVAO traffic, I just cant stand default or artificial ATC programs

 

I agree. No realistic ATC other than VATSIM. But even when I fly online, I get FSInn use my AI models and liveries. So, all in one! :biggrin:

 

If you do ever want to release the full potential of your machine be sure to head over to the hardware forum.

 

I will probably do it although I feel a bit intimidated seeing the level of technical knowledge of the regular participants of that forum.

I usually try to solve all problems myself before I decide to bother someone else with my questions. But safe overclocking seems a bit too much for me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simmer don't HAVE to choose one or the other...both can co-exist :P

 

I primarily use FS9 for my heavies and older addons. But I'll occasionally take FSX for a spin, maybe once a month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I miss (a little bit!... :Whistle: ...) in FS 2004, is the absence of moving road traffic, as in FSX.

I have "stationary traffic" on my FS 2004 (Bernard's Roads) which helps a little bit to make the scenery more "realistic"...in both default roads, and Ultimate Terrain USA/Canada road networks... :Cuppa: ...!

 

The problem with UT in my FSX, is that the two road systems dont accurately line up....so the FSX moving traffic often has a mind of its own, and often ignores the wonderful UT road system altogether and disappears into the woods!...Just%20Kidding.gif ...!

 

So, realistically, the only difference between my excellent copy of FS 2004, and my struggling FSX, is the "moving traffic" addition... :wink: ...!

 

Paul...FS 2004...FS Navigator...LAGO FSE...Plan-G....and the excellent UT USA/Canada!... :Bug: ...!

 

My FS 2004 is mainly used for very low level, scenery exploratory flights, in my speedy Cessna 150 Aerobat, referring to Google satellite, terrain, and Street Maps, and Wikipedia for the local area information!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi!

It is not a decision for me. I have two hard drives installed. On one I have FS9 running on Win XP, on the other one is FSX with Win Vista 64 bit. I just decide with booting up my machine which sim to use.

 

I also have a dual boot system, but with FSX on Windows 7 64-bit.

 

I fly FS9 on Windows XP when I want to fly airliners and use all AI traffic and FSHotSFX for Ai sounds.

 

I fly FSX when I fly slower aircraft lower to the ground with lower levels of AI, but with great scenery candy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in progress of migrating to FSX. Will be flying both version. But my 3570+ too hot @ 4.5Ghz so I'm running only at 4.2Ghz. Maybe not "that good" for FSX. But I hope will be able to get ~25fps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in progress of migrating to FSX. Will be flying both version. But my 3570+ too hot @ 4.5Ghz so I'm running only at 4.2Ghz. Maybe not "that good" for FSX. But I hope will be able to get ~25fps.

 

Well with the rig you have, if you can't get ~25 FPS your doing something seriously wrong. As an example, on my old dual core in my sig that runs at 3.85ghz, 2 GB RAM, and Win XP 32bit, I can get 25+ FPS in most all situations, usually higher of course when I am not at mega hubs in an airliner with tons of AI, but still mid to low 30's at JFK, DFW, etc.

 

As an example, below are two screens using the NGX VC, 100% WOAI, and FSDT's KJFK, and I get a solid 25 to 30 FPS on approach regardless of clear sky or storms. In the pic below it is the same airport but at night with Ultimate Terrain night lights turned on which are "supposed" to be an FPS killer and I am still get 26 FPS. The only thing I have turned off is the cars and boats, which I dont usually find necessary for airliner flying, but do use them when flying low and slow.

 

 

3-2.jpg

 

4-1.jpg

 

 

To be honest, anyone with a rig as good or better than mine should be able to achieve the same performance in FSX with a properly tuned rig. I still dont understand how anyone, especially those with the latest and greatest hardware struggle to get good performance with FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I'm shocked.

 

Yes. Because my current sig when flying Fs9(max settings without ground shadow,nvidia inspector..) with ifly 737 VC + FSDT KJFK + UT USA + 100% AI can only get around 25-30 FPS sharp. Peak at ~35FPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I'm shocked.

 

Yes. Because my current sig when flying Fs9(max settings without ground shadow,nvidia inspector..) with ifly 737 VC + FSDT KJFK + UT USA + 100% AI can only get around 25-30 FPS sharp. Peak at ~35FPS.

 

You shouldn't be shocked really. The problem is there are a lot of rumors that go around about FSX being a poor performer and normally in the forums you normally see more posts from people having issues, rather than people posting how great FSX is running. The people who have no problem usually remain silent as they have nothing to really post about, while the ones with bad setups, improper tweaks, CTD's or other issues post constantly looking to get help, which in essence make it look like problems and bad performance are wide spread because that is all we read about or see posted for the most part.

 

The truth is, with a proper set up and not being over tweaked, anyone with my rig or better should get performance equal to or better than the screens I posted. I know a lot of people are running rigs that aren't "sim only" rigs and probably have a lot of other stuff running in the back ground or causing other issues. My rig is FSX only with nothing unnecessary going on and I dont run my WX program on the same rig, it's running on a network old DELL computer. I also dont browse the net, check email, or try to watch movies on the same rig while flying as it would probably 1/2 my performance or crash the sim.

 

Anyway, I wish you luck with the new rig and hope you can get good performance in FSX and FS9 also for that matter.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies, gents, very helpfull ! B)

 

It's just that i had to re-install FS9 recently for design purpose only ( i thought... ) and the fact that i have never found the time to fly jetliners in FSX. Now that i DO have the time i seem to be running into problems as described in my OP more and more each day. FSX runs reasonably well on my system ( i7-980x 3.33GHz, Single 1.5GB GF GTX480, 12GB 1600MHz Tri Channel Memory, seperate 600GB Serial ATA HD (10K rpm) for FSX and FS9 only) while flying small GA aircraft in VFR conditions. I have the full suit of FSX graphics goodies installed as well as UT2. Not all sliders to the right, no road traffic and some of the well known tweaks applied.

 

I started with trying out some of the commercial 'lite' jetliner models provided by CLS, Aerosim,QW and SMS which went reasonably well. But as soon as i tried the more complex iterations from CS and PMDG the fun was soon over. It didn't take long for the first OOM message to appear or a CTD or BSOD to woefully end my flight in mid air. Very annoying really...

 

On top of that fps could easily sink beneath 10 even at big default airports. And here i was thinking that a pitiful fps like that would belong to the past forever when i bought my new system about 2 years ago especially arrangend for FSX use... :Thinking:

 

Certainly true when flying some of the wonderful GA aircraft or warbirds around the smaller airports but i have always been at awe with the PMDG 747 eventhough i couldn't find the time to fly it. A real heartbreaker to find out i still can't now i DO have the time, atleast not in FSX...

 

Sooooo, i took the plunge and bought the PMDG 747 FS9 version (again) and just did a couple of flights with it without so much as a hick-up or any sort of problem. Just magnificent ! So smooth and annoying free !

 

The thing is though that i'd like the best out of FS9 as there is to get today. That means i shall have to buy some of the FS9 goodies again and a quick investigation proved that although it is the former FS version it certainly is not like you can actually see that reflected in the price.... F.i. i just bought the FSGenesis 19m mesh Europe Bundle for just about 60 bucks...Phew!! And that's just for starters...

 

Having things like the FS9 versions of Ultimate Traffic, Ultimate Terrain, Ground Environment Pro, Flight Environment Pro etc in mind too i am really starting to wonder.... what have i begun..... It's like going back in time when FSX was all but a dream in a dedicated flightsimmer's head....

 

So i guess i just came inhere to seek some 'mental backup' ... :smile:

 

It really is beyond any reasonable doubt that i cannot have any fun flying the PMDG 747 in FSX ( their latest masterpiece, the 737NGX, does perform a lot better but on a longer flight i'd still get the dreaded OOM message. I'm really running out of hair to pull out ! ) so that's why the idea of going back to FS9 just to fly jetliners settled into my mind.

 

Like some of you also said, there's no reason why FSX and FS9 can't live together.

 

Btw, what did strike me most when flying FS9 again is the fact that i think the default FS9 clouds actually don't look bad at all. I really like 'em ! ( and that's something to say for someone who's been flying FSX with FEX for years, isn't it... B) )

 

Anyway, thanks again for your comments, guys, much appreciated. I guess i'd best go ahead and deffinately choose for this option to leave FSX alone when it comes to flying jetliners.

 

Btw, is EZdok for FSX only ?...

 

I don't think you'll find a much more dedicated fan of Active Camera than me, great fun seeing it back again in FS9 ( Fly-By view is way better than FSX Fly-By, couldn't live without Approach View neither )What i do miss in FS9 though is the various external aircraft views we have in FSX.

 

I *am* right in thinking we never had those views in FS9, right ? ( it's been years since i used FS9... )

 

Cheers,

Jan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jan, with that rig of yours you shouldn't have any issues at all!! However, I assume your not over clocking that rig. If you can get it up to 4.0ghz or even higher then that will help you with the FPS problem. Also, since you said you have all the graphic upgrades assuming you meant GEX, UTX, and REX or FEX, then you might want to try running the DXT clouds if your not already and it will help with the FPS.

 

As far as the OOM's, CTD's and BSOD that you get it might be something wrong with one of the drivers you have installed or some type of conflict with some software running in the back ground. There is no way you should get OOM's with more than 4GB of RAM on a 64bit OS. I have a 32bit OS and only 2GB of RAM and using the 3GB boot.ini tweak have never had an OOM, CTD or BSOD, which makes me think that there is something wrong outside of FSX. Why it doesn't happen with FS9 is hard to say, but it shouldn't happen with FSX if everything is properly configured.

 

If you ever return to FSX, give NickN's setup guide a try and follow it to a tee and it might help you out. I never used his guide opting to have FS-GS do my whole setup, but some of the stuff in Nick's guide still holds true if you want to do it yourself. As far as FPS in the PMDG 747 on my rig I get about the same performance in it as in the screens I posted into JFK with the NGX, so if I can get it like that with no issues it can be done and probably easier with a rig like you have.

 

Also EZdok is only for FSX so you'll have to go with Active Camera for FS9 or DBS Walk and Follow camera system from Simmarket.

 

At least FSX is usable for your low and slow stuff and you have FS9 already with a bunch of addons so you can use both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest problem with FSX is AI. There are many-many problems related to AI models/textures themselves and ADE parking files. Too many to mention. That's why AVSIM FSX Library is quite poor when it comes to AI Stuff.

 

On the other hand, FSX is SO GOOD visually beside AI world, that I would probaly start using it for VATSIM.

 

Anyone knows if FSINN finally became stable piece of software?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone knows if FSINN finally became stable piece of software?

 

I have no problems with FSInn under FS9.

I don't know about FSX but I guess it would be the same.

By the way what soft of problems did you experience with FSInn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rafal,

 

Last time I checked VATSIM in 2008 and as far as I remember FSInn was pain in a butt from the standpoint of installation. I'm just wondering whether it will be possible to use my AI models to reflect other simmers planes in FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...