FSX can't have multiple copies to run different flying eras.

 

Yep, you can.  Slightly more involved than doing it in FS9, but you can most definitely have multiple copies, complete with individually tuned config files, separate scenery and textures, and either separate or shared aircraft.

Yep, you can.  Slightly more involved than doing it in FS9, but you can most definitely have multiple copies, complete with individually tuned config files, separate scenery and textures, and either separate or shared aircraft.

 

You know what the next question's going to be? :LOL:

Yep, you can.  Slightly more involved than doing it in FS9, but you can most definitely have multiple copies, complete with individually tuned config files, separate scenery and textures, and either separate or shared aircraft.

 

 

Why do I not see post it topic on how to do it correctly. Still, stand by statement that fsx was coded like crap. The average person can run fs2004 without overclock with maximum graphics, and FSX not possible. FS2004 is good one to have on the hard-drive as backup. 

Why do I not see post it topic on how to do it correctly.

 

I posted about it a week or so ago, didn't look like it was anything new or else no-one was interested.  Came up with a system that works for me.  It works really, really well, but requires that a person learn to use symlinks.  I currently have 4 versions of FSX working: An OrbX version, a military specific version with photoscenery, a 'big airports' version, and a completely clean version.  To switch between, I simply delete and recreate a single symlink.

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/403483-possible-fsx-multi-install-solution/

 

Not arguing anything else of course. FS2004 runs better for me too, but I can't always do what I'd like in it, hence I fly both.

Why do I not see post it topic on how to do it correctly. Still, stand by statement that fsx was coded like crap. The average person can run fs2004 without overclock with maximum graphics, and FSX not possible. FS2004 is good one to have on the hard-drive as backup.

Do you really think FSX is "magically" faster than FSX somehow? FS9 is faster because it does LESS! About 70% LESS than FS9, AND, FSX isn't "coded like crap", it just has a wrongly based judgement on being poor on performance most often because:

 

1. Settings are too high, (users fire and forget)

 

2. Not using FSX native scenery polygons, or textures.

 

Getting a intel core i7 over-clocked, and an expensive graphics card, and then installing Fs9, and thinking "Oh, i'll get 900 fps!" Sorry, dosen't work like that. You are entirely WASTING your system, because fs9 dosen't take advantage like FSX does. AND, getting a system that can run FSX isn't "so expensive" anymore, not *much* more than getting a new laptop would be. (A decent laptop), so you are better off using FSX anyway.

Getting a intel core i7 over-clocked, and an expensive graphics card, and then installing Fs9, and thinking "Oh, i'll get 900 fps!" Sorry, dosen't work like that. You are entirely WASTING your system, because fs9 dosen't take advantage like FSX does. AND, getting a system that can run FSX isn't "so expensive" anymore, not *much* more than getting a new laptop would be. (A decent laptop), so you are better off using FSX anyway.

 

 

If your flying VFR then FSX is good to have, but if your flying 30,000 ft do not see a difference in having fsx and fs9 acutally. In fact, better to have both to use FS2004 got a lot freeware airports and planes. FSX like golddigger girl she looks good but it rotten on the inside.  To be fair to Microsoft they did not know that computers would have mulitple cores and cpu speed improvements grinded to a crawl in 2006 improvements been incremental since then. When FSX came out the developers thought by 2008 people would have 8 ghz cpu running fsx ops.   Still, a program like fsx should not require hacking and tweaking to death to make it run acceptable to the average user.  Take to 2020 to run fsx with overclocked cpu at max with add-ons.  FSX is the last of the programs to use more CPU and GPU. "Oh, i'll get 900 fps!"-Maybe if my cpu ran on autocoolant be possible :lol: . 

 

getting a system that can run FSX isn't "so expensive-It depends what you call acceptable in terms of usability everybody different.  There no absolutes in regard to that answer a 20 year old kid does not have 1500 to buy computer nowday with economy we have. 

 

1. Settings are too high, (users fire and forget)-yeah 80% of users do not want to bother with config files.

If your flying VFR then FSX is good to have, but if your flying 30,000 ft do not see a difference in having fsx and fs9 acutally.

 

You REALLY think Fs9 looks as good as FSX ? So your saying that *everyone* is flying VFR 100% of the time? What are we going to "takeoff in FSX" than switch to FS9 at 30,000 ft ? If you are really saying that Fs9 looks better than FSX, you really need to get up with the times, or something is wrong with your computer screen. (Or the person looking at the screen..)

 

In fact, better to have both to use FS2004 got a lot freeware airports and planes.

 

And most of these airports are getting developed in FSX.

 

To be fair to Microsoft they did not know that computers would have mulitple cores and cpu speed improvements grinded to a crawl in 2006 improvements been incremental since then

 

Well of coarse, but how would they develop a program that supports for multiple cores that havn't been invented yet? So it's not FAIR to blame them now, for something that didn't even exist, according to your theory.

 

Still, a program like fsx should not require hacking and tweaking to death to make it run acceptable to the average user

 

Wrong again! FSX does not require ANY of those things, in fact, FSX is BETTER with only very few tweaks, when you add multiple tweaks is when you run into problems!

 

And as i've said, with a *decent* system, you CAN run it acceptable, as long as you are WISE, and make CHOICES of what you stuff into it when it comes to addons.

 

Take to 2020 to run fsx with overclocked cpu at max with add-ons.

 

We're not talking about 2020, maybe an Intel Core i-27 will solve this..

Do you really think FSX is "magically" faster than FSX somehow?

 

Yes, as a matter of fact my FSX is magically faster than FSX...

 

And FS9 does work faster, when I ask it to do 70% less...

 

FS9 is faster because it does LESS! About 70% LESS than FS9, ...

 

Assertions are better formed when the logic matches what's written! B)

Yes, as a matter of fact my FSX is magically faster than FSX...

 

And FS9 does work faster, when I ask it to do 70% less...

 

 

Assertions are better formed when the logic matches what's written! B)

 

Obviously I meant the other way around... as others picked up..