I think it is kind of sad when I can run around using my computer for highly intensive computational fluid dynamics, and FSX manages to take it down :( It really is quite a sight when I see my CPU eat science for breakfast, only to balk at FSX.

you can't make a silk pig out of a sow's purse. You're all trying to get more out of FSX than it has to give! Get it as nice as you can, then leave it alone!

Couldn't agree more.

I'm perfectly happy with FSX and hope it still has many years of life left. I have a feeling XP10 will replace FSX in the far future when they get enough third party support and better looking scenery.

 

I'm running FSX with many add ons (PMDG, AS2012, ENB, FS Cabin Crew, EZCA, UT2, UTX, GEX etc) and I don't get CTD's or OOM's. I'm also using the BP=0 tweak. When I first got my PC, I had a lot of CTD's but later found out I had a bad stick of RAM. Since replacing it, it's been running perfectly.

 

Ooops, I just remembered. There is only one thing that can give me a CTD, and that's Airbus X, which is known for giving CTD's.

 

I just noticed a lot of people are experiencing ctd's. Makes me nervous about upgrading to my next PC. I hope it will run FSX flawlessly like my current one.

And Aerosoft has put their Flightsim,ulator on a hold till around 2015...

Why do people think it's all about hardware when it comes to FSX? Hardware is only half the story.

 

Look after your PC and it will look after you.

 

That 64-bit flight sim will still hang if your PC is full of rubbish.

I think the X-plane idea is about right. 64 bit will allow more VAS, preventing OOM but will do little or nothing for the processing bottlenecks,

 

scott s.

.

This is correct. People have sometimes strange beliefs that 64-bit computing is a holy grail. Yes, it can also improve performance, but not in general and performance benefits are in the area of encryption/decryption, compiling, encoding and HPC solutions, where large registers decrease the need to reads/writes from/to cache or memory. In fact, games are one application where performance gain is negligible. Thus with games and *ehem* simlators, the pretty much only point moving to 64-bit is the larger memory address, which of course becomes critical at some point as we have experienced.

 

Regarding FSX/ESP/P3D, we still have to remember, that many addons running along the simulator on a separate executable, like REX weather engine, doesn't consume FSX VAS or memory space. Only modules loaded within the sim does this. Also, transition to DX10/11 will decrease the VAS usage, because with DX9 you have to have a copy of VRAM in system memory and DX9 command parts of VRAM usage needs to be mapped to process VAS. That is also the reason why DX10 users experience far less OOMs and their VAS usage is significantly lower. So, when P3D makes the transition to DX11 with their 2.0 version during the 2013, change in graphics rendering engine also alleviates memory consumpiton, not giving full remedy of course.

Have them both, never fly FSX, I could, but FS9 runs so well on 64bit W7 I am glad I spend more time flying then tweaking something in hopes it might perform. No, I spend my time playing and adding the never ending sceneries and liveries. No, I won't have a PMDG 777, and many others I would like at times, but who cares, I have a sim that I can enjoy, and not fight consistantly trying to get it to be the FS9 I have currently. ^_^

FSX will never be 64 Bit as it is no longer in development -- so really you are talking about P3D going 64 Bit.

 

Think of P3D as a Model T ford. Great in it's day -- Engine, Body, Tyres, steering, instruments all pretty much evenly matched and with the same level of complexity.

 

Now replace the engine with one from a Ferrari Racing car. GREAT Engine -- sure can rev high -- plenty of power. Lets go for a run and open it up -- you'd get up to 2nd gear at 80 mph, and the rest of the car would disintegrate !!

 

My point is, you will have to do a lot more than just go to 64 Bit, to make any significant improvement to the Sim. Yes, you might eliminate OOM, and you would certainly enable far bigger, complex addons .. but then the overall sim would run even slower with all the bigger addons, and you would still be processor/graphics limited, because the basic design is still a single processor, DOS based design.(with few tweaks for Windows and a weak attempt to take limited advantage of multi-core processors)

 

For any significant improvement in the sim, it really needs a complete re-design to take advantage of modern hardware and multi-core processing design, and modern operating systems, and not be weighed down with its legacy DOS design.

 

Maybe this is why LM is initially concentrating on improving the Graphic processing with current versions of Direct X, before looking at 64 bit ?

 

It sure is going to be an interesting next 3-5 years.

 

While currently I am an avid FSX/P3D supporter, to me, X-Plane would seem to have the best potential for the future, for a State of the art, consume (+ Commercial) Flight Simulator.

 

Also, X-plane is being developed for the mass market, with a medium size team within a medium size company. A company that s 100% about X-Plane.

 

P3D is clearly being developed by LM for LM, with a priority on whatever LM wants for LM , and with a small number of those interested in P3D as an "educational" Flight Simulator, as a mass beta testing team.

 

And the end of the day, one always seem to come back to the idea of the saying

"You can't make a silk purse, out of a sow's ear" -- (no matter how hard you try !!)

Edited November 17, 201213 yr by FSMP
Image removed - exceeded 1600W limit

LM might quit P3D in a heartbeat, just like Microsoft shut down ACES. It's a beancounter's world, so one just have to enjoy whatever is there for as long as it is there. Compared to the ORBX scenery I fly in using P3D and FSX, X-Plane 10 looks terrible. I even prefer the default FSX scenery over XP. That said, after flying in Outerra, even ORBX land looks dated. With just a very few textures Outerra looks more real than any flightsim environment in history. The problem with the flight sim hobby in its present state is that it fails to recruit new blood, and only a new sim can change that because the iPad generation want things with good usability, not a spiderweb of tweaks and addons. Learning to fly and operate aircraft in the sim takes up more than enough time for the average user. I know lots of people who are very interested in flight sims, but X-Plane and FSX just dosen't cut it for them. Make a flight sim that looks as good as a 2012 game, make it stable and control addons in an appstore and you'd have a winner.

Didn't someone try that this year already? Who'd want to go there now?

Didn't someone try that this year already? Who'd want to go there now?

 

Extremely bad execution, so no wonder they crashed and burned.

Didn't someone try that this year already?

You weren't the only one thinking exactly that. ^_^ Especially on the 'amazing' store concept.

 

I really love FSX for what it is. Currently cruising around in my old Maddog and those new 'Plus' clouds. But, for a new and modern setup, it seems like X-Plane just needs some more addons, mainly working on the artwork of the thing, since the technical basis already is current in my eyes.

 

Their 64bit engine already is in beta and they also make use of modern graphic hardware. So if they keep up the pace on the technical side, we may 'only' need more fans and some more devs. Although some are already offering good stuff for both, GA and tube flyers plus scenery. Looking forward to more. :smile:

 

I have no trouble with buying new addons for a new sim.

What people at AVSIM loves doesn't really matter since most are die hard sim fans in the first place. It's how to get new blood that worries me.

A positive attitude and a fresh sim engine may do ok. Now the first thing isn't what's happening all the time and the latter is a question of the actual perspective. In my eyes, it's there.

 

I really doubt that whole mankind is in need for single button solutions or restricted shops with ridiculous DRM and 'we collect data to enhance our service' policies. Regarding fresh blood, ask how some of the 13 to 18 year old folks around, in this very forum, came to FSX for example.

 

In short, I wouldn't draw the picture too dark. :smile:

The problem with the flight sim hobby in its present state is that it fails to recruit new blood, and only a new sim can change that because the iPad generation want things with good usability, not a spiderweb of tweaks and addons. Learning to fly and operate aircraft in the sim takes up more than enough time for the average user. I know lots of people who are very interested in flight sims, but X-Plane and FSX just dosen't cut it for them. Make a flight sim that looks as good as a 2012 game, make it stable and control addons in an appstore and you'd have a winner.

Serious flightsimming will never be part of mainstream gaming. It never has been, though it seemed so in the early days. Sims just were an integral part of the PC gaming, but mainstream gaming was focused first on 8-bit computers and consoles and later on 16-bit machines. And people were mostly playing other games, that is for sure. In the learly 90's when PC started to gain market share as a serious gaming machine, simulator titles become less and less smaller fragment of the offering. If they would be popular and a source for big bucks, simulators would be popping out constantly instead of another FPS shooter. MS FS series is probably one rare exception, which has had so wide recognition in the public in the past. It still doesn't mean that it draws a lot new people in the hobby. I know few who has bought FSX a time or another and it hasn't been even installed on their computers for ages.

 

It is not the platform stability, lack of graphics or anything but the amount of learning and investment serious sim consumes. You just don't jump in and fly for 15 minutes for a short leasure time and enjoy flying with keyboard and mouse or with gamepad. Or you can do that, but compared to mainstream games, that gets boring pretty soon. Whole idea of simming is learning and mimicing real world aviation, something that takes time to learn. People go to school or work where they need to learn different quite tedious stuff and they don't want to do that in their free time. They want to hop in and get short relaxation with their games. FSX isn't an exception, look at DCS or Rise of Flight platforms too. Beautiful modern engines and still hardly knocking on the top sales even though doing well for a serious flight simulator. Even seroius car simulators don't do nearly so well than many of the arcade racers.

 

I just don't see why those people not interested to FSX/XPlane or even RoF or DCS would jump to another serious sim just if it would look like Outerra. Same rules apply. And MS tried a different approach with Flight for those who "X-Plane and FSX just dosen't cut it". It looked good, had relatively low learning curve and was cheap to start with. No magical sales number there either and I just don't see how Flight would've fared any better for those people if it would have beem any harder or more realistic as we simmers hoped it should be. Simming will always be pretty small but enthusiastic crowd interested in this sort of stuff.