As many of you know, I was supposed to finally leave FS9 for FSX due to the changing add-on market and over feel of FSX over FS9. It is safe to say things have changed. AGAIN. Today was the final straw. I finally had FSX set up good, directly by Nick N's guide on a sim forum (forgot which one) and was getting excellent performance and was beginning the migration of all my things. Well as many of you know I have a job, so that's taking a while. However, after many errors on my system just after the installation and after updating drivers, downloading, a bunch of stuff and (supposedly) fixing the remaining issues, I get this:

 

Flight Simulator was unable to load some program files and will now exit. Please reinstall Flight Simulator to restore or repair the program installation.

 

Well many of us also know that simply reinstalling is very time consuming and repairing doesn't do didley-squat. I got an idea. (The following takes place over a period of 4 weeks [i started migrating to FSX before I told the forums]) I decided I would calculate the probability for an error from FSX based on my current system (not going into details as to how as it took many days of compilation to complete). I got a surprising result. With a CLEAN installation (no tweaks, addons, SP1, SP2 or acceleration) the probability for an error on my rig (more than likely different on others) was 32%. Now I know that's only 1/3 a probability, but that is far too much for ANY program IMO, becaus no other game, software, anything else I ran had this many issues. I did the calculations again to be sure, and it came back the same each time. I used this for a control. My hypothesis (scientific method anyone? :biggrin: ) was that, with Acceleration (which is what I have and since it installs SP1 and 2) the probability for an error would go down substantially and I was right. After installing Acceleration and toying with it for days and just leaving FSX with no addons but acceleration, the probability was reduced to approximately 23%. That's nearly a 50% decrease in the probability of an error, but still a bit much. So I then decided to follow Nick N's guide and see what would happen. This time it actually ROSE. To 27%. Unacceptable for me. Many here might say to buy a new rig with better hardware, but that's not possible for me as my current one is still brand new in my eyes, and I don't nearly have enough money for another one. And I got another idea. Why not do the same with FS2004? Well I did, and listen to this: the probability with an error in a clean installation with my system: 0%. Amazing. I didn't experience a single error with FS2004.

 

That was the final push I needed. I was tired of tweaking, adding addons, and setting everything up just right, only to get an error and have to do it all again after uninstalling everything. I did that uncountable times on my old rig, and I wasn't about to start with my new one. So tonight, while I'll likely keep all my FSX addons incase I get FSX running error free or close to it one day, I'm uninstalling FSX and reinstalling FS9 (glad I kept my FS9 addons!). Now I'm not gonna go and hate Microsoft for FSX, I know they and the ACES team worked really hard on it and tried to make it as best as they could, but I'm wagging a finger at them for cancelling further updating. I know the ACES team quit and all (at least, IIRC) but I believe they could've continued upgrading the software. So FSX, while you look fancy and pretty and new addons do as well, I'm gonna have to say no to you for now. However that comes at a price, because I have FSlabs Concorde, PMDG NGX, and am awaiting the PMDG 777X and 747 2.0, FSlabs A320 and Aerosoft's Airbus Extended, QWings 787 and a few others, and I'll miss them and I'll miss not being able to play with the other new toys coming out, but I believe I'll be happier with FS9 than FSX (for now at least...).

 

-Chris

FS9 is a great sim.

 

But ultimately this seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy for you ...... like you willed FSX into failing for you! :smile:

 

At the end of the day, if you ignore FSX, it's only you that loses out.

I guess so, but I won't ignore it. I might use it every now and then, but I likely won't use it as much.

Welcome back

:biggrin: Thanks! Why upgrade when what ya got works good already?

:biggrin: Thanks! Why upgrade when what ya got works good already?

 

What he said...

If you can't get FSX to work 6 years after release, you either did something wrong, or there's something wrong with your computer. IOW: It's not FSX's fault, so to speak.

If you can't get FSX to work 6 years after release, you either did something wrong, or there's something wrong with your computer. IOW: It's not FSX's fault, so to speak.

 

You sir, made me feel stupid. Whether I did something wrong or not, I dont really care though. All I know is FSX is very buggy on my system, more than usual maybe, but that could just be me

If you ask me FSX Has the potential to be a very enjoyable simulator but to be totally honest its a very demanding game and hard on computers,

 

For a game that was released a while back it simply demands to much. Even todays computers are having trouble running this sim.

I have both of these sims running on my INTEL CORE2 duo E7500 Machine, (I had to do alot of tweaks on FSX to get it to run smooth) and i succeeded but after starting to add all of the sceneries better water textures ect ect i felt i was back to square one. My friend has an i7 machine and that sim doesn't run nearly as good as FS9

 

I Vote FS9 All the way There are still alt of good things being made for FS9, Also that really cool camera effect you get in FSX while rolling on the ground or even flying through turbulence in the sky can be added to FS9 using Active camera,

 

B)

I have no idea how you are getting your "probability of error", but on a fully functional computer, and a clean install of FSX to SP2 or Accel, you should not get any errors.

 

What errors are you getting ??

 

Sounds like you have a basic hardware or OS malfunction on your system.

#1 thing to do is run a stand alone Memory tester, like MEMTEST86+

#2 Run a Stress test on your system

 

Millions have had FSX running -- got to be your hardware !!

How many millions FSMP???

Welcome back!

Welcome back!

 

Thanks! :biggrin:

 

 

I have no idea how you are getting your "probability of error", but on a fully functional computer, and a clean install of FSX to SP2 or Accel, you should not get any errors.

 

What errors are you getting ??

 

Sounds like you have a basic hardware or OS malfunction on your system.

#1 thing to do is run a stand alone Memory tester, like MEMTEST86+

#2 Run a Stress test on your system

 

Millions have had FSX running -- got to be your hardware !!

 

Nevermind the errors anymore, I figured out the problems (Wont mention how I fixed for reasons of keeping my stupidity secret )

 

But FSX can still have many errors after many addons, addons conflict a lot, scenery bugs and errors, some other stuff can happen when addons start to be installed, and that doesn't appeal to me. FS9 rarely has these problems, and personally I never have experienced an error with FS9. So still, as pretty as FSX is, FS9 is the better bet.

How many millions FSMP???

 

14.65

 

After 4 days of intense mathmatical calculations, statistical analysis and studying many graphs I calculate a rate of successfully installing and running FSX with addons as 99.99 % for me.

Other-Chris... I don't know how you worked out your calculations, but your premise is fundamentally flawed. You assume that computers are rational devices that can be analysed via scientific methods, but from my years of working in IT can tell you they are in fact malicious, hateful imps from the nether depths of H-E-double-hockey-sticks, who delight in tormenting mere mortals. Since their secret goal is to sow frustration and consternation, the chance of a program throwing an error is entirely proportional to how much trouble it would cause youm how absurd and illogical the error would be and most importantly how funny the imps find it. Thus with a much loved and complex package like FSX that requires a lot of work to tweak and tune and would take a long time and effort to re-install, the chance of a fatal error developing approaches 99.999%

 

Trust me, computers make a lot more sense when you start thinking of them this way. :lol:

 

More seriously though, stick with FS9 by all means. But why don't you try doing with FSX what I've done with FS9 - don't spend another penny on it, but try tweaking it and enhancing it as much as you can as a side project? I found it fun to tinker with, but without the worry of screwing up my main sim in the process.

 

Dr V