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.

 

I have an I7 rig and yes fsx can bring to its knees even with the needed tweaks. I think fsx is a great platform but its performace can be shady at times even with the best rig. I never said anything about not being happy with FSX but what you have to understand is that just cause it works for you that doesn't mean it will for everyone else.

Rot. Ice got an overclocked i5 and great card and I get regular stutters and CTDs despite several fixes tried. If you get no CTDs or stutters I simply cannot believe you're doing anything other than flying over default scenery with default aircraft and sliders to the left.

 

Either way, saying FSX has no performance issues when all around you are saying yes it does seems self-delusional.

 

I just can't go back to FSX and enjoy it. Yes there are a lot of combat sims which will plug some of the gap, but next gen civilian sims? Nothing that I can see.

Rot. Ice got an overclocked i5 and great card and I get regular stutters and CTDs despite several fixes tried. If you get no CTDs or stutters I simply cannot believe you're doing anything other than flying over default scenery with default aircraft and sliders to the left.

 

Hello

Then something is wrong at your end, I am using the NGX, i-Fly and LVL-D out of payware airports all over Europe.

I have no performance issues at all, if I had I would have moved on from this i5 2500K but I am happy with the performance I am getting.

 

Go here to see the performance that many are getting:

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuiXjW8fJyDrdC1KZm5fSlJYdnJBaXRRclFuU0U3WUE&authkey=CMSSocoI&hl=en&authkey=CMSSocoI#gid=0

 

Go here to see how they are doing it:

 

http://205.252.250.26/cgi-bin/yabb25/YaBB.pl?num=1208959973

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/370594-read-before-posting-software-hardware-guide-for-fsx/

Tried them. Still get nothing like the smoothness and stability Flight gives. And judging by this post that's most people's experience.

I have an I7 rig and yes fsx can bring to its knees even with the needed tweaks.

 

Hello

Then these are the types of frame rates you should be seeing on a default FSX install

Obviously they will be lower with High end Addons but a locked 30fps should be achievable even with Payware.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuiXjW8fJyDrdC1KZm5fSlJYdnJBaXRRclFuU0U3WUE&authkey=CMSSocoI&hl=en&authkey=CMSSocoI#gid=0

 

Tried them. Still get nothing like the smoothness and stability Flight gives. And judging by this post that's most people's experience.

 

Hello

Most peoples experience "here" but not in the FSX forum.

Still believe what you want. one day you may get your rig running well.

Hello

Then these are the types of frame rates you should be seeing on a default FSX install

Obviously they will be lower with High end Addons but a locked 30fps should be achievable even with Payware.

 

I understand your point of view and with a default install any i5 or i7 rig should be able to manage but that still doesn't change the fact that fsx has very unstable performace.

While I have not flown it since installing Flight, I am one of the lucky ones I guess, in that I have never had a CTD with FSX - and I get " reasonable" performance - not great, and there are areas where it will bring my computer to it's knees. Namely in heavy weather running REX2 OD.

 

But there is no doubt, for a lot of folks there are issues both in getting reasonable performance, and suffering from CTD's. Just a quick perusal of the FSX forums and one can easily see that. I got mine to the state I did, by doing a lot of tweaking - but it is decent for me.

I got mine to the state I did, by doing a lot of tweaking - but it is decent for me.

 

Hello

You have hit the nail on the head, the performance is available but some are not prepared to put the effort in.

It may be as simple as having slightly less interest in hobby and therefore not having the inclination to seek out the info needed, nothing wrong with that.

But what does get to me is folk who keep repeating that FSX runs badly when it is pretty obvious that some of us have very few issues,

 

Just a quick perusal of the FSX forums and one can easily see that

 

And a longer perusal will usually show you how to avoid the issues, but for some these days everything has to be "quick" or they lose interest.

While I have not flown it since installing Flight, I am one of the lucky ones I guess, in that I have never had a CTD with FSX - and I get " reasonable" performance - not great, and there are areas where it will bring my computer to it's knees. Namely in heavy weather running REX2 OD.

 

But there is no doubt, for a lot of folks there are issues both in getting reasonable performance, and suffering from CTD's. Just a quick perusal of the FSX forums and one can easily see that. I got mine to the state I did, by doing a lot of tweaking - but it is decent for me.

 

That is one thing MS did right with Flight, take away the users ability to adversely effect performance. the main reason performance suffers in FSX is that most users add detailed addons to it and crank sliders beyond reasonable settings and then complain. While i admit some users have legit issues, I have never had a CTD and get good performance and i also don't use any of the tweaks. I have most sliders cranked, autogen at normal, reasonable traffic and AI, etc, so it's not everyone that has a bad experience with it. I am not defending FSX, just tired of all the postings from people that assume because they had a bad experience, everyone has/will, just isn't true.

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

 

LOL. The most realistic flying you can do in FSX is with non-prop aircraft, so I definitely agree with you that FSX doesn't come close to modelling props or turboprops correctly. Try flying the PMDG MD-11/NGX, it does a good job. Either that, or you're actually correct and all the real-world 737 pilots PMDG had on their team, the Level-D sim they used to help produce the NGX and the real world 737 pilots I know, who also use the NGX, are lying.

So, the most tedious and boring form of flying that exists is modeled well. :lol:

So, the most tedious and boring form of flying that exists is modeled well. :lol:

 

The most exciting part of flying, for me at least, is approach/landing - and that's a lot more fun the heavier the aircraft. :P

The most exciting part of flying, for me at least, is approach/landing - and that's a lot more fun the heavier the aircraft. :P

 

Fair enough. B)

 

I aborted my long-intended (well intended for all of my teen years, anyway) "commercial pilot" career once I started spending all day in a plane, day after day, cruising along and it hit me I was becoming a truck-driver.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with that, truck drivers! It just wasn't for me.

 

I do love to fly for fun, though.

I do love to fly for fun, though

 

surely that's what it's all about? For me it is, too..

 

I think that if you like flying in FSX then it's great. A lot of people who use FSX have never flown a real plane and wouldn't know if the physics are right or not; they just like the challenge; a lot of people who have flown a real plane also like flying FSX, whether they feel the physics are right or not, to them, must be irrelevant or they wouldn't enjoy it!

 

I'd also say that there are a few devs out there that, using the tools available, have tweaked the FDM and used magic to the point that it is different from the basic planes..and there are those, on this board, who helped beta test even the default planes who would argue all day that their FDM is just right..And those who say, myself included, that FLIGHT had a great FDM in weather..It doesn't really matter at the end of the day..FSX lives; if you like to play it then you like to play it, for whatever reason..FLIGHT didn't offer a universal panacea to the "perfect flight sim", and nor does FSX..it's never gonna come..

 

And to those who still go on about FSX' performance: as was said above, it takes ten minutes of tweaking to get really proper performance. I do not ever get CTD's. I never see performance drop below 28FPS, even in the Mustang or NGX, and even at KSEA-KPDX. I run everything maxed out and with loads of custom terrain and autogen. I don't moan as It just works

 

I liked FLIGHT for its ease and immediacy, and the fact that it tried to embrace the connected age, but the hobby will survive it..FSX will continue to "live" as long as people buy it, and at full price at a lot of places I might add!

surely that's what it's all about? For me it is, too..

 

I think that if you like flying in FSX then it's great. A lot of people who use FSX have never flown a real plane and wouldn't know if the physics are right or not; they just like the challenge; a lot of people who have flown a real plane also like flying FSX, whether they feel the physics are right or not, to them, must be irrelevant or they wouldn't enjoy it!

 

I'd also say that there are a few devs out there that, using the tools available, have tweaked the FDM and used magic to the point that it is different from the basic planes..and there are those, on this board, who helped beta test even the default planes who would argue all day that their FDM is just right..And those who say, myself included, that FLIGHT had a great FDM in weather..It doesn't really matter at the end of the day..FSX lives; if you like to play it then you like to play it, for whatever reason..FLIGHT didn't offer a universal panacea to the "perfect flight sim", and nor does FSX..it's never gonna come..

 

And to those who still go on about FSX' performance: as was said above, it takes ten minutes of tweaking to get really proper performance. I do not ever get CTD's. I never see performance drop below 28FPS, even in the Mustang or NGX, and even at KSEA-KPDX. I run everything maxed out and with loads of custom terrain and autogen. I don't moan as It just works

 

I liked FLIGHT for its ease and immediacy, and the fact that it tried to embrace the connected age, but the hobby will survive it..FSX will continue to "live" as long as people buy it, and at full price at a lot of places I might add!

 

As our PC's are identical I beg you please tell me which tweaks you are using. I don't get anything like that at Heathrow with those settings and 40% MTX AI and I've done all the tweaks. And this is on the Airbus X which to my knowledge is less intensive than the NGX...would that I had such wonderful performance in FSX.