I give up...

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

Default FSX is worse than XPlane. But right now with hundreds of scenery and airplanes, FSX is still king in eye Candy. If Orbx and MSE sell thier goods no need to over to Xplane just let.

 

Like the default FSX autogen scenery just need better handlers then what it got. The fish shop, gas station, chruch, chicken fast food place fsx had looked good. X-plane 10 scenery sucks it makes San Diego and Phoenix look like Chicago. I dont mind it when I am flying Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago in Xplane 10 its plausable. Never fly San Diego or Phoenix in X-plane 10 nope, nada, it needs autogen makeover before all consider it.

[Fatback 84]

If FSX had been a simple plug snd play simulator I may have walked away years ago. The fact that it attracts so many people with so many skills - all contributing to try and get it to the promised land is what makes it such a great experience to me.

 

wow, that sums it up...

[BilboBaggins 82]

I believe there's something profoundly larger involved.

 

Flight Simulator came out of an era when computers were for geeks and nerds; your fascination with the software was part of your fascination with the yet-unexplored potential of the PC.

 

You expected to have to develop a certain level of sophistication just to get things working the way you wanted. Because the parameters of what was possible and interesting were so undefined, efforts were made to incorporate a wide range of possibilities, many if them conflicting significantly with each other.

 

FSX reflects the peak of that cycle: it's an amazing scene rendering machine, an amazing six-degrees of freedom traversal of 3d space machine (most ground-based games and simulations are, sorry, glorified 2D by contrast), an amazing ATC simulation, an amazing 3D cloud-rendering system, an amazing weather simulation, an amazing instruments systems simulation, an amazing tables-based flight modeling system, an amazing memory management system for an OS that for all its evolution is fundamentally FUBAR in conception, with different segments of memory poorly and statically blocked off from each other and unreliably resized dynamically based on gross parameters. An amazing physics system. An amazing lighting system. An amazing real-time rendering system.

 

And I'm sure I'm leaving a few things out. Oh, and it's been open enough to support an amazing variety of third-party development, extending its interest and utility for 3x the lifespan of the usual piece if software.

 

Can it do all that optimally in every possible user case or scenario? Of course not! But it is amazingly configurable so you can focus on a variety of different interests and reduce systems use in areas you don't care about.

 

The current generation of software and hardware is one-size-fits-all, anyone can use it without much thought, and it always works. It's 100% more reliable, a fraction of the cost, requires almost no setup, there's an underpaid contract "genius" who can fix it for you or recommend your trashing it for a shiny new version...... and it's totally dull. Though fine if you see computers as just a means, and not of intrinsic interest in themselves, which of course has its value.

 

A Prius that just works is great if you just need it for groceries and commuting.

 

A Corvette C7 is a beast which if you like tweaking, you can spend the rest of your life hopping up and tweaking to your personal satisfaction.

 

The Corvette is more fun, interesting and challenging, but also more frustrating, challenging and will kill you if you don't pay it very close and knowledgeable attention.

 

 

[pegger74 18]

In 2010, when I started playing FSX, I started attempting to increase framerates, then later on, the famous UiAutomationCore.DLL CTD's appeared on my newer system. Then on another newer system API.DLL and NTDLL errors. After upgrading some hardware components these were fixed, but I got microstuttering which according to most people were normal on high-end systems, even despite the big framerates I achieve(d). Luckily, later on, the great VSync tweak got introduced by Word Not Allowed, which made my FSX 100% whenever 30 FPS is maintained as in 90% of the time.

 

Excuse my ignorance please...but why is there such a desire to mess about with the core of FSX to TRY and acheive something that perhaps your computer cannot do? I note you mention hardware upgrades, which undoubtedly help. Thats always a good start when your computer struggles with software. FSX is a beast and I think everyone who uses it knows this. It takes a considerably good hardware setup to even give it a fighting chance.

 

So back to my original idea...why the need to mess about with the cfgs and the dlls and this and that and everything else? I have been running FSX reliably since the day

I purchased it as a new release. I have only had to re-install it once..because I bought a new computer with better hardware. It ran poorly on my old system, but it ran and I was able to use it. Now it runs on my new system, and purrs like a kitten WITH NO TWEAKS WHATSOEVER! I only use freeware addons, I do not use payware, nor have I ever used pirated copies of any product. And it runs soooo nice.

 

Now perhaps some will say "oh well, good for you, you just got lucky". But what if the constant grief and complaints about having to re-install FSX every 2 weeks, or whatever, is just because you are expecting too much? Perhaps your anger is generated from being disappointed that you spend an enourmous amount fo time trying to tweak things (with little understanding of what you are actually accomplishing), only to have a problem, and then thinking the only way to resolve it is to start at ground zero again.

 

I think a couple of the other posters here had the right idea....save a clean install. Or backup before making changes so you can easily get back to where you were before things went bad. That is the method I employ, quite successfully, without tryign to over tweak to accomplish something that may or may not even be helpful.

 

Any how, that's how I view it. I can appreciate your frustration too. Nothing worse than working hard at something to expect a return, only to have a total failure. Try doing things without all the tweaks. Maybe it'll be a little simpler.

[Boeing or not going 578]

You run FSX without any payware? Wow, I'm really sorry to hear of your loss. That sounds very boring to me. The high quality of Orbx or PMDG, FlyTampa, FSDreamteam, etc. There's no reason to run FSX default with only freeware, unless you don't have a budget for addons. Because you might as well just go to XPlane.

[pegger74 18]

Wow, I'm really sorry to hear of your loss.

 

Thank you for your sympathy! :lol:

I'm sure the payware addons are very nice, but I do not find that my experiance with the sim is intrinsic on such things. I am glad you enjoy yours though.

There are just as many nice freeware addons. I have no problem supporting those hobbiest developers...I actually prefer it, since FSX has such vast hobby potential. I find myself enjoying the occasional dabble into the SDK too.

 

If you are concerned with my financial welfare however, please feel free to contact me and I will provide you the necessary information so that you can begin sending assistance my way.

 

Other wise, the point of my comment is that perhaps the over tweaking is having adverse affects when it comes to all the payware addons that many use....just a thought that I was hoping could expand the topic. It just seems like a trend that those reporting unstability issues are running on heavioly modified software setups.

[Boeing or not going 578]

Certainly FSX becomes more unstable the more addons you throw at it. That's why I stopped using ultimate traffic and run no AI at all. It gets boring in the skies but that's okay.

 

I just can't imagine a flight sim without payware though! Right now I'm flying all over Orbx scenery, currently en route to KJAC in my beautiful Carenado Cessna 208 with Reality XP weather radar and gps.

[Fatback 84]

wow! The approach into KJAC is something else with ORBX. How could we live with FSX and not have that?

 

Edit: I usually fly the CS 727 in there, and it's great when you're low. I tried once with the PMDG MD-11 and forgot how heavy I was and ended up way past the runway. I didn't log that flight with my VA lol.

 

Edit1: Arjen, how could you possibly give up this community?

[tf51d 284]

We are saying the same thing here, FSX is not obsolete but work on the engine is a done deal, P3D will never make it as it should be, not enough man power for that and forget about 64-bit.

 

LM never ruled out 64bit, I don't know where you are getting that from? They did say they are interested in implementing it, but it's not as easy as one of today's apps like XP, because it still has some legacy assembler code, that would have to be rewritten, so it's something they have to take their time to do properly. Let's wait until we hear what will be included in ver 2.0 before we write P3D off too!

[Boeing or not going 578]

I'd love to see 64bit and DX11 support from P3D. Then I'd for sure change over, and happily buy the commercial license.

[fridbergj 4]

I haven't had a CTD in a long time. My FSX folder is over 100GB and I have on the biggest airports 15-30FPS and and cruising I have 30-50+FPS. I have played FSX since it came out and I have tweaked and upgraded my system which costed a lot.

I feel your pain though I remember to have lots of CTDs and I got really mad and wanted to throw my PC out of my window and burn it. But I never did I just have to calm my self down and take a break for one to two days and fix the problem.

[BilboBaggins 82]

See KJAC, great example. I'd find that less interesting than, say, IFR in bad weather between KLGA and KJFK, setting up and flying different approaches, with different levels and types of traffic, and a variety if flight plans, VOR and GPS.

 

Have to set up FSX entirely differently from the challenge of flying into KJAC, and it's great you can do so! I really enjoy flight planning and PMDG is great for that, as you have to learn about charts, airways, navigation.... whole system right there to concentrate on.

 

And then you can learn/master your favorite flight and approach, and pick/customize add-ons that focus on that.

 

And go in an entirely different direction another month.

 

[alainneedle1 97]

LM never ruled out 64bit, I don't know where you are getting that from? They did say they are interested in implementing it, but it's not as easy as one of today's apps like XP, because it still has some legacy assembler code, that would have to be rewritten, so it's something they have to take their time to do properly. Let's wait until we hear what will be included in ver 2.0 before we write P3D off too!

 

Exactly, trust me LM does not have a boat load of programmers working on P3D to make it a 64-bit (if they are) and correcting the FSX code at the same time, that is why if I have to pic one winner my money is on XP-10.

 

The point is not if FSX is better or if XP-10 is better because both have their problems but wich one has a better chance to become the sim. of choice in one or two years assuming 3PD get on board with XP-10?

 

I can understand the resistance about leaving FSX money wise as I myself spent a lot of money in it but if Austin and the programmers get their act together we should see something pretty good soon...time will tell.

[Fatback 84]

trust me LM does not have a boat load of programmers working on P3D to make it a 64-bit (if they are) and correcting the FSX code at the same time

 

Where did you get this information from?

[Dillon 2,197]

A thread like this does not make me and an FS9 user excited about upgrading for the latest and greatest add-ons. I have zero problems with FS9 and it looks very similar to FSX. For the last 5 years all I do is load up and fly... :p0504: