Hmmmm. If FSX is " a 70 year old", then FS9 must be in it's 90's at least. Still see a lot of people flying it though. I own both and have not problem with FSX.

Besides, FLIGHT could never have been a hobby, its intentions were/are to be a game with no availability oto customize by the end user. Hobbies include tweaking, studying, refining, customizing etc

 

Say what??

In order for it to be a hobby, you had to spend time tweaking , refining, customizing??

 

Man you folks are coming out of the woodwork today LOL.

Oh yeah it is true, it's way to stable compared to real life. It should be bouncing from left to right, and up and down a bit more, even with almost no wind.

 

I always appreciate the wisdom from someone that has had one lesson in a 152. :P

Arjen, you are wrong. I idle before landing in FSX on every landing and never stall. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

You are probably just misunderstanding me as I am actually using the wrong wording. What I am trying to say about ground effect is that in real aircraft if you are about to land and move the throttle to idle, the aircraft loses much less altitude compared to FSX, there is actually increased lift. In FSX it suddenly starts to lose altitude really fast and there is no increased lift close to the ground. There is basically no ground effect in FSX. I am not saying that I am an experienced pilot, because by far I am not, but there is a big difference between the GA flight dynamics in FSX compared to real life. And I can understand that we don't like saying negative things about the only sim we have. FSX is EDIT: bad language modded realistic, but it's got quite a few really unrealistic and bad parts.

It amazes me how some people think that FSX is gonna last forever. We all know that FSX is like a 70 year old man that doesn't have that much time to "live" anymore. FSX maybe has 1 or 2 more years in it, but not much more than that. I am sure most of us play other games too, and we all see the huge difference. Graphically for example, 90% of the games nowadays have got beautiful dynamic shadow and lightning effects. Of course there are many great add-on developers for FSX, but dynamic shadows and lightning inside the cockpit is something I am really missing a lot. Of course back in 2006 graphics weren't as much advanced as now, I know. But look at Aerofly FS, the inside cockpit graphics with especially the shadow and lightning effects just add SO MUCH MORE to the immersion.

And that's not the only thing FSX is missing. WIth our FSX monster rigs we can run pretty much every game at max graphics at 60+ FPS without a single stutter. While at FSX we sometimes have to look at a stuttery 20 FPS. And then the plug-and-playability of other games. All games of nowadays just work when you install them, they always work, don't crash, and don't have any problems. While in FSX there is an endless list of problems, we need to tweak CFG files ourselves to get better FPS, we need to try solving CTDs, OOMs, installation problem and other errors, and just things that are not working. Thing with FSX is, it NEVER works right.

 

So where are we heading now? Aerofly FS and XPlane 10 are at least heading the right way but we are definately not there yet. All we need for FS11, is FSX with a new engine, new graphics, new flight dynamics, that will run at a solid 60 FPS, doesn't require any tweaking, doesn't crash and always works right like all other games do.

 

And in terms of simulation itself, FSX is not even as good as I thought. If you trim the aircraft properly, holding a stable speed, you don't even have to touch the controls at all, it will just fly in a total straight line. This is by far not realistic. Even with almost no wind in real life every plane needs correction every few seconds to point it where you wanna be going. And then the ground effect, in real life you can put the throttle to idle when you are close to the ground and it's almost impossible to stall, while in FSX you almost immediately start stalling when you do that, that's why in GA planes I never move the throttle to idle until touchdown. And then turbulence, when it's on your aircraft can get into S-turns, just one of those other bugs.

 

And also me has started to play FSX less and less. I am just sick of sometimes having too look at a stuttery 20-25 FPS at big add-on airports, and that's even without AI traffic. I am just sick of tweaking this game to make it work properly. Me as a racing sim enthusiast, iRacing is just so much easier to use. Great graphics, can always maintain 60 FPS, never any problems and that game hasn't crashed on me since I started using it a long time ago, it always works and has never required any tweaking.

 

Please if there is somebody, some kind of company, we need a new flight simulation platform, ASAP!

 

FSX has a lot more than just 1-2 years left in it, and I can tell you this because PMDG have future projects planned for FSX - and wherever they go, most serious simmers are going with them. You're also comparing FSX to current games when, the reality is, FSX is a simulator. I'm not being pedantic about the classification of FSX, but the nature of what, and how it needs to be designed and coded, makes comparing it to current games a bit pointless. You also have to ask yourself what you're more concerned about, personally, I couldn't care less for improved dynamic shadows and lighting inside the VC. FSX has basic shadows/lighting but it serves its purpose. There are FAR more important things needing to be done in a simulator than implementing every graphical feature to make it look pretty. Again, comparing the FPS of FSX with non-simulators is a bit pointless - because it's comparing apples to oranges. If we're talking about other simulators on the market, I get just as bad performance in X-Plane 9/10 as I do in FSX. Also, your statement regarding all games now-a-days working perfectly... they don't. Also, for what it's worth, I have zero issues in FSX with OOM/CTDs ever since I went to a 64 bit system.

 

In terms of the realism, PMDG get the flight dynamics pretty spot on with their aircraft (as do a lot of other developers) so if there's something inherently wrong with the FSX engine - developers still find a way around it. I've also been using FSX since it was released (and FS9 before that) and have NEVER had the problem you're describing with aircraft stalling when you cut the throttles at 30-50 AGL (assuming that's where you're doing it). I also haven't experienced S-turns since using DWC mode with ActiveSky.

Oh yeah it is true, it's way to stable compared to real life. It should be bouncing from left to right, and up and down a bit more, even with almost no wind.

There are some third party addons that have got it much better done though... Especially Milviz B55 has been really nice surprise to me, it has some of that motion which FSX is missing. From jet sector 737NGX feels very good too.

 

Also Majestic Software is working on Dash 8 which will calculate flight dynamics actually outside FSX which will enable very different experience I believe.

Oh yeah it is true, it's way to stable compared to real life. It should be bouncing from left to right, and up and down a bit more, even with almost no wind.

 

Hello

Buy EZdok, problem solved

So where do we go from here? As I see it there is only one way forward. Short version: Developers need to unite and make FS11. Unless that happens I'm afraid the flight sim candle will burn out.

 

Xplane

Il-2

DCS A-10

DCS-Mustang

DCS KA-50

Rise of Flight

Take on Helicopters

 

Sorry, What candle burning out?

I agree that fsx has very poor preformance even on the monster rigs that we have today but i still believe it has a few more years left in it if not more. If you think about it there are people still using fs9 and discovering ways around its limits. I believe that there is still much we don't know about fsx and its abilitys. There are also ton of qulity add ons still being produced for fsx and the qulity has skyrockited in the last few years. This shows with pmdg 737 ngx. Computer hardware is advancing so fast that people can't keep up with it and i believe within the next few years poor preformance will be a thing of the past. X-plane and p3d both have great potential and who knows what could be on the horizon within the next year or two.. The flight sim community is not dead, we might be in a little turbulence but i figure we will be out of it before we know it.

I think Arje makes some valid points. Think about this for a second, most of us have monster computers and yet we achieve marginal performance. The fact is that a processor running at 4.8Ghz can do miracles with any other games or complex applications. We’re the only gamers stuck with low performance. We have the fastest computers in the world and yet FSX brings our computers to our knees. Having to tweak your computer constantly to achieve 25fps is horrible and doesn’t sound to appealing to me. This is the 21^st century and FSX is not/not delivering in terms of performance. In a free and open market, the competition will look for alternatives and that is why you are begging to see the competing working on an alternative to FSX. Ask yourself this question, if a FLightsim product comes out offering much better performance (correcting frame issues) why not take a second look? Would you want to be stuck with 20 fps in a place like New York City or London. FSX is good because it’s all we got at the moment but I suspect things will change in the coming year.

 

Huascar

 

This brings me to the thought of when FS9 and FSX first came out.. they were extremely slow on then current hardware. Does anyone really thing that a full fledged flight simulator 11 would be quicker? I hardly think so.. Flight was fast because it was the bare minimum.

 

If in fact FS11 would come out.. with all these *requested features* it would start us all at ground zero.. even with overclocked monsters.. just like fs9 did and fsx did in the beginning.

 

For me when FSX first came out.. I had a top of the line computer which was brought to its knees.. its funny, now that I get it running "satisfactory" everyones wishing for a new simulator. Me, I'm glad its working like I have always wanted it to. 25-30 fps with MAJOR realistic addons is just fine by me. If I run it stock it get 60 fps.

 

In conclusion .. I'm glad that FSX was allowed to catch up to the hardware.. I'll be playing FSX into the foreseeable future.. especially with the likes of A2A, Orbx, Aerosoft and others.. breathing new life into it on a daily basis.. I see no need to jump ship.. just yet..

 

MS Flight, if anything, just spurred addon developers forward... as well as MS's competition.

 

 

All in my humble opinion.

Just my two cents on the topic, but FS2002 was a HUGE improvement over 2000, and 2004/FS9 was a dream to install and run. It could bog down at times, but even on relatively mid level machines it was a breeze to install, didn't seem buggy, and was generally very playable.

 

FSX on the other hand, has been a struggle since I tried to remove the security shrink rap. It is not optimized, very buggy, and it's just WORK to get it to function correctly. FS9 stands out in my mind, as a 3 gig or so install, and I had a functional flight sim on the 1.5 year old computer I had bought from best buy. No fuss, no hassle.

I agree that fsx has very poor preformance even on the monster rigs that we have today

 

Hello,

You need to stop trying to spread this rubbish, FSX runs very nicely now on even midrange hardware never mind monster rigs, has done for quite some time.

The i5 2500K that I run could be classed as a budget CPU these days and FSX is running butter smooth here.

FSX does not even come close to flying like a real aircraft. Users have tried to convince themselves that it does, but it's flying model is garbage.

 

Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2

Hello,

You need to stop trying to spread this rubbish, FSX runs very nicely now on even midrange hardware never mind monster rigs, has done for quite some time.

The i5 2500K that I run could be classed as a budget CPU these days and FSX is running butter smooth here.

 

I have to disagree and im not spreading rubbish many people still have perfomance problems with fsx and with the rigs around today as im not the only one to mention this. In no way did i say FSX was bad its just that its performance is up and down. For some its great but for many its not.

I have to disagree and im not spreading rubbish many people still have perfomance problems with fsx

 

Hello

Is this in your own experience, or just from listening to people who have found FSX's performance to be poor on their home/office Best Buy special.

I have looked at your specs but you don't list what CPU you are using.

The hardware needed to run FSX well is now considered midrange I.e an i5 2500K and a reasonable level of NV GTX card.

After that all the info to set up the sim and the hardware is available here at Avsim.

Why do you think the third party addon makers are pumping out more and more complex addons for FSX if folk cannot run the well, folk simply would not be buying them if they could not run them well enough.

There are no excuses left for those who still bang on about poor performance but as always those who are not happy shout the loudest.

It is not 2006 any more, its now 2012 and FSX is running fine, but if you want to kid yourself that it does not then fine, stay missing out.