Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jonss1948

FSX 7 Years Old Now.

Recommended Posts

Observing the age of the program and the leaps and bounds hardware has made during its lifetime, I'm wondering if there was a point where any further improvement in FSX was a bit superfluous. ie: Technology eclipsed the program.

 

I'm going to unload some serious change on a new computer. How serious does it have to be to max FSX out?

 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post

I can max out FSX now, doesn't mean it is going to be "Smooth" 30fps. If this is what you are looking for, you will probably need something from Win20 era... that is backwards compatible software to allow FSX to even install

Share this post


Link to post

Sadly there still isn't a computer out there that runs FSX fluently with high settings, and you can forget about maxing everything out. That said, fluently is a highly subjective concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

Observing the age of the program and the leaps and bounds hardware has made during its lifetime, I'm wondering if there was a point where any further improvement in FSX was a bit superfluous. ie: Technology eclipsed the program.

 

I'm going to unload some serious change on a new computer. How serious does it have to be to max FSX out?

 

Jon

 

Give it another 5-7 years of hardware development and I think you should be able to max out everything with any add-on and retain 30 fps min (overclocked of course). However, the real limit is going to be FSX is a 32bit application ... what this limit effectively does is cap how many 3rd party add-ons you can have ... in fact, it's already like that now where one has to be VERY selective about what 3rd party products they use together to stay away from out-of-memory errors.

 

Although the P3D folks "might" be working on DX11 version -- everyone seems to think they ARE working on a DX11 version but everything I've read (if you read the words carefully) has not gone as far as saying "we're coding DX11 support in Version 2.0 of P3D" ... but a lot of people seem to think they are??

 

FSX still has many years left in it, but there is a real cap on how many 3rd party add-ons you can have installed at the same time ... and this is obviously not good for 3rd party content. However, as CPU/Motherboard/RAM/GPUs continue to improve this effectively moves up the LCD user (Lowest common denominator) ... ya know, the user that thinks everything should work maxed out on a 5 year old system. For example today's i7 3970X is around $1000 and can run FSX very well ... as new CPUs come out, the 3970X will drop in price so that it becomes affordable for those on a budget (LCD users) which will revive the LCD user and get them motivated to use FSX and buy 3rd party products.

 

It's a slow process of dragging along the LCD user, but once that user catches up, we will all be captive to the limits of a 32bit address space. And like I said, moving FSX to 64bit WILL break any and all 32bit DLL's unless some type of IPC is used to communicate with the 32bit DLL as a separate thread -- not great (read slow) but would give 3rd party devs time to update to native 64bit DLLs.

 

But as I understand it for FSX, there is some direct assembler code that is 32bit (this is usually done for speed) ... not many really good Assembler programmers left in the world so figuring out that code and moving it to C++ or to 64bit Assembler could be the big hold up as to why FSX wasn't moved to 64bit a long time ago. My hunch is that FSX Assembler code has been around for a long time probably going back to 2000 and is a key code chunk -- so much for OOP -- do what I say not what I do ;).

 

Cheers, Rob.

Share this post


Link to post

Sadly there still isn't a computer out there that runs FSX fluently with high settings, and you can forget about maxing everything out. That said, fluently is a highly subjective concept.

 

This. We need a 8GHz cpu or more before maxed out will be smooth. In other words, buy the current fastest you are willing to purchase.

Share this post


Link to post

If ACES Studios would have been able to push a software update (a hypotherical Service Pack 3) to make it truly 64-bit and DX10 compatible, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I really enjoy FSX and run it with DX10 preview since it runs smoother, despite some add-ons not being compatible. In theory, my system should max FSX out, but with the older code, it's very difficult. P3D does not seem to have our community in mind with its development plans, and I don't know if Lockheed would want to separate P3D into separate training and gaming versions. The current Lockheed policy makes it impossible for great developers like PMDG to get involved. Just my humble opinion...

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, Quite frustrating really that we probably already have a computer capable of maxing it out or near. But old FSX code won't allow it.

Share this post


Link to post

Just when I was thinking of moving from FS9 to FSX I see threads like this. FS9 runs flawless and fluid these days with nothing more to do than jump in and fly. Outside of a scenery upgrade (that would actually run slower than my current setup) there's really no incentive to switch. FSX has better water and clearer ground textures but that's about it over FS9.75. I love the new add-ons coming out for FSX but if the experience is not fluid or you can't finally today see FSX in it's maxed out glory what's the point? On top of that if I want to see what a great looking sim looks like, runs, and takes full advantage of today's hardware I load up 'Flight' (the gutted FS11). I hope Microsoft rethinks their development of Flight Simulator (which I actually think will happen at some point), we can then have a true 64bit version that moves us all forward once and for all. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

Acceleration/SP2 - October 23, 2007

 

So, we're 5.5 years old, going on 6. Surely, nobody is really running RTM (or even SP1) by now.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Sorry for being pedantic, but FSX is actually 6.3 years old.

 

You are correct sir. The first copy of FSX hit the shelves on October 10, 2006, so how does that make it 7 years old now???

 

 

Anyhow, FSX is the only software I can think of that is as old as it is and has this many third party developers actively working on it. No sign of that letting up soon as well.

 

So on October 10, 2013 we can say happy 7th birthday to FSX but that is in another 7 months. I think that day will come and go and no one will really notice.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going to unload some serious change on a new computer. How serious does it have to be to max FSX out?

To answer your direct question, buy the best system you can afford...period. But most importantly, ensure your MoBo will support an upgrade or two over time. Do not attempt to build a FSX specific computer. As others posters have stated above, there is no such thing. You are better off building a good computer that will serve you or many years in all the other things you might want to use your computer for. This will give you a computer you can also enjoy FSX on, but perhaps expand to another sim if one ever comes along worth getting into.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi!

 

When I first raised this topic, my thoughts were on things like sli and crossfire. I understand that this particular bound is useless in FSX. High-end card Yes but do I need sli?

 

On the subject of cpu's: It will be a 6 core (Intel). Replacing my current Q9650X. This is probably my last kick at the tin Computer-wise'. It's almost gotta outlast me.

 

Jon

 

...and thank you to all who have commented and advised.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry for being pedantic, but FSX is actually 6.3 years old.

I stand corrected. How do I change the topic header? The shame.

 

Jon

 

To answer your direct question, buy the best system you can afford...period. But most importantly, ensure your MoBo will support an upgrade or two over time. Do not attempt to build a FSX specific computer. As others posters have stated above, there is no such thing. You are better off building a good computer that will serve you or many years in all the other things you might want to use your computer for. This will give you a computer you can also enjoy FSX on, but perhaps expand to another sim if one ever comes along worth getting into.

Good advice. I remember 30 or so (I'm sure someone will check the date) years ago, I had a Commodore 128. Actually fooled myself and my wife that we were going to use it for Household accounts. But 'Precious' had other plans.

 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post

Almost 7! Seems like just yesterday it was only a little Piper Cub! Wheres the party? What are gonna get it!?

 

If we wanna go halfsies on a gift, I'm down..........

 

Uhmmmmmm......... Is it a boy, or a girl? :blush:

Share this post


Link to post

Just when I was thinking of moving from FS9 to FSX I see threads like this. FS9 runs flawless and fluid these days with nothing more to do than jump in and fly. Outside of a scenery upgrade (that would actually run slower than my current setup) there's really no incentive to switch. FSX has better water and clearer ground textures but that's about it over FS9.75. I love the new add-ons coming out for FSX but if the experience is not fluid or you can't finally today see FSX in it's maxed out glory what's the point? On top of that if I want to see what a great looking sim looks like, runs, and takes full advantage of today's hardware I load up 'Flight' (the gutted FS11). I hope Microsoft rethinks their development of Flight Simulator (which I actually think will happen at some point), we can then have a true 64bit version that moves us all forward once and for all. :unsure:

I run fs9, too. I'm loving it as I have many payware add-ons and the whole program is max'd. I read one of the justifications for not porting to 64 bit being: There are only 100,000 flight simmers. Which particular fundamental orifice did they pull that figure from?

 

Jon

 

Almost 7! Seems like just yesterday it was only a little Piper Cub! Wheres the party? What are gonna get it!?

 

If we wanna go halfsies on a gift, I'm down..........

 

Uhmmmmmm......... Is it a boy, or a girl? :blush:

I'm in if it we can get it a coat of 64 bits.

 

Give it another 5-7 years of hardware development and I think you should be able to max out everything with any add-on and retain 30 fps min (overclocked of course). However, the real limit is going to be FSX is a 32bit application ... what this limit effectively does is cap how many 3rd party add-ons you can have ... in fact, it's already like that now where one has to be VERY selective about what 3rd party products they use together to stay away from out-of-memory errors.

 

Although the P3D folks "might" be working on DX11 version -- everyone seems to think they ARE working on a DX11 version but everything I've read (if you read the words carefully) has not gone as far as saying "we're coding DX11 support in Version 2.0 of P3D" ... but a lot of people seem to think they are??

 

FSX still has many years left in it, but there is a real cap on how many 3rd party add-ons you can have installed at the same time ... and this is obviously not good for 3rd party content. However, as CPU/Motherboard/RAM/GPUs continue to improve this effectively moves up the LCD user (Lowest common denominator) ... ya know, the user that thinks everything should work maxed out on a 5 year old system. For example today's i7 3970X is around $1000 and can run FSX very well ... as new CPUs come out, the 3970X will drop in price so that it becomes affordable for those on a budget (LCD users) which will revive the LCD user and get them motivated to use FSX and buy 3rd party products.

 

It's a slow process of dragging along the LCD user, but once that user catches up, we will all be captive to the limits of a 32bit address space. And like I said, moving FSX to 64bit WILL break any and all 32bit DLL's unless some type of IPC is used to communicate with the 32bit DLL as a separate thread -- not great (read slow) but would give 3rd party devs time to update to native 64bit DLLs.

 

But as I understand it for FSX, there is some direct assembler code that is 32bit (this is usually done for speed) ... not many really good Assembler programmers left in the world so figuring out that code and moving it to C++ or to 64bit Assembler could be the big hold up as to why FSX wasn't moved to 64bit a long time ago. My hunch is that FSX Assembler code has been around for a long time probably going back to 2000 and is a key code chunk -- so much for OOP -- do what I say not what I do ;).

 

Cheers, Rob.

Wouldn't it be absolutely thoopa if M$ made all the code open source...out of the goodness of their hearts...as a gesture of goodwill...to the FS Community. Loooooong silence.

 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post

If ACES Studios would have been able to push a software update (a hypotherical Service Pack 3) to make it truly 64-bit and DX10 compatible, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I really enjoy FSX and run it with DX10 preview since it runs smoother, despite some add-ons not being compatible. In theory, my system should max FSX out, but with the older code, it's very difficult. P3D does not seem to have our community in mind with its development plans, and I don't know if Lockheed would want to separate P3D into separate training and gaming versions. The current Lockheed policy makes it impossible for great developers like PMDG to get involved. Just my humble opinion...

Hands-up everyone here who thinks Lockheed Martin are Elitist lapdogs of the Proletariat?

 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post

Hands up everyone who had to google the meanin of "Proletariat"....{raises hand}

 

Nice one!

Share this post


Link to post

Just when I was thinking of moving from FS9 to FSX I see threads like this. FS9 runs flawless and fluid these days with nothing more to do than jump in and fly. Outside of a scenery upgrade (that would actually run slower than my current setup) there's really no incentive to switch. FSX has better water and clearer ground textures but that's about it over FS9.75. I love the new add-ons coming out for FSX but if the experience is not fluid or you can't finally today see FSX in it's maxed out glory what's the point? On top of that if I want to see what a great looking sim looks like, runs, and takes full advantage of today's hardware I load up 'Flight' (the gutted FS11). I hope Microsoft rethinks their development of Flight Simulator (which I actually think will happen at some point), we can then have a true 64bit version that moves us all forward once and for all. :unsure:

 

It's hard to base what might be or might not be the experience you'll get off of what is posted here about FSX. Since the FSX forum is used mainly as a support forum amoung other things, its expected or normal to see numerous post about CTD's, blurry this or that, why are my FPS low etc. More people use this type of forum talking about how to make it run better than comming here talking about how great it is or how great it runs.

 

Take me as an example, i've been here since 2003, was a prior FS9 user and have had nothing but positive experience with FSX. Granted I have bought a few addon airports thru the years that were not so good and caused some FPS problems that might not have been as apparent in the FS9 version, and I had an issue with a new video card driver a few months ago that caused CTD's but was fixed after a day by using a different driver suite. Aside from that, my install of FSX runs as smooth as silk using the latest payware addons if I set the sliders reasonably for the type of flying I am doing. Does that mean when flying the NGX I have every slider pegged to the right? No, of couse not, but even with the autogen turned down a few notches or scenery complexity at Dense from Extremely Dense, it is still a lot better looking than FS9 and performs great. Now if I want to fly a nice g/a aircraft that is less of an FPS/RAM hog then I can raise the autogen and some other stuff to match the performance needed and still get more than ample FPS and performance.

 

The thing that you see a lot of times here regarding FSX is that a lot of new comers get FSX, load it up on a new state of the art system or older sytem, peg the sliders right and check every box and then complain about FPS or OOM's. A lot of times they don't know how to manager their problem sceneries by mipping them or removing problem files that cause low FPS, their computers or OS may have underlying issues than manifest themselfs in FSX, they try to run numerous other programs in the back ground like internet browers, watch movies, chat, etc at the same time, or any other numerous problems.

 

Think about it this way,if FSX was really that bad and most people hated it or had problems with it, most would have already ditched it and returned to FS9. But they haven't and that's why some developer have already stopped developing for it and others will most likely in the future. If it was as bad as you think the devs would have stopped FSX developement and returned only to FS9.

 

Bottom line is until you either upgrade your rig (dont know what you have since its not listed in your profile) and get FSX unless you already have a new copy of it since you beta'd it, then you'll never know how how it is if you keep basing your opinion off of what you read in the forums. Yes, you can't set every slider right like you might in FS9 for all aircraft and forget about it and its no secret that it works better on new equipment, but until you try and stop reading about the problems some people have you'll never get to see for yourself. I've posted many pics thru the years with the FPS counter showing at places like JFK and lot of AI showing 25+ on my old C2D rig, smooth as silk 99% of the time. Yes, screen shots can't display the fluidity so it's up to you whether to believe me or not and it might take you a little while to tweak the .cfg and mip/fix some rogue sceneries that cause issues and get it working to your satisfaction. In FSX you need to manage your expectations and set sliders reasonably for the type of flying you do. Remember that FSX even at normal autogen and normal other settings still draws more objects than FS9 does in most places at max settings and gives the same FPS. It not until you max those things and run extreme resolution clouds and other 4096/2048 texture sets that you might start running into problems. Keep everything at 1024 with reasonable settings and you'll get great FPS, no OOM's and it will still look better than FS9's ground and water textures. 25 to 30 FPS in FSX feels about the same as 50 to 60 FPS in FS9 from my experience.

 

Personally, I don't care if you get or use FSX at all, but I hate to see you waste time and not try just because you read what are often support topics here. You might get it setup and think, damn I should have done this years ago I wish I hadn't waited. Or maybe not, maybe you will get it peg everything right and say darn the FPS suck I will just go back to FS9. Either way, dont base what other peoples problems are off of what may or may not happen in your case or keep it from doing what you want to do. If you want to get FSX then do it and see how it goes, maybe you'll love it. If not, return to FS9 and then you wont have to spend anymore time considering it like you have been for the last few years everytime you post about it.

Share this post


Link to post

I hate to see you waste time and not try just because you read what are often support topics here. You might get it setup and think, damn I should have done this years ago I wish I hadn't waited. Or maybe not, maybe you will get it peg everything right and say darn the FPS suck I will just go back to FS9. Either way, dont base what other peoples problems are off of what may or may not happen in your case or keep it from doing what you want to do. If you want to get FSX then do it and see how it goes, maybe you'll love it. If not, return to FS9 and then you wont have to spend anymore time considering it like you have been for the last few years everytime you post about it.

 

Great post and thanks. I'll make the change and try FSX once I have the money for an i7 or better machine. I want a high end video card with as much memory I can get on it and no less than 16gigs of Ram in the machine. From there I know I'll be able to run FSX with decent settings. The biggest installs for me will be Global Scenery (hopefully Orbix), Orbix scenery in general (Alaska), only the best add-on aircraft (I don't need every add-on out there only the proven ones), Rex, and Activesky. It will be a process in getting all my major airports purchased for locations around the world but that will be an ongoing process. Outside of Auckland I have every major airport in the world covered in FS9. For the more detailed environment I want to do things right and have a good running experience that's why I've waited so long.

Share this post


Link to post

I want a high end video card with as much memory I can get on it and no less than 16gigs of Ram in the machine. From there I know I'll be able to run FSX with decent settings.

 

Be careful with getting a video card with more than 2GB's of memory. I've heard two different things regarding that. Umberto at FSDT says that a GPU with more than 2GB of RAM will work ok if you fly in DX10 preview mode as it will not consume as much VAS, but its (DX10) not compatible with some addon a/c and sceneries, but that running a GPU with more than 2GB of RAM in DX9 mode consumes to much VAS and can cause OOM's. Personally I don't think you would notice any difference in performance running a GPU with more the 2GB of RAM in FSX since its 32bit and you dont want to the GPU to 1/2 your available memory. I'm running an older GTX250 which is old by todays standards and compared to a 560ti (another older one), I didn't notice any difference in performance. Having said that, if you play other "games" on the PC then the bigger better video card will probably suite them better. FSX being only 32bit, you will probably be fine with 8GB RAM and something like a 2GB GTX680, unless of course you do video/photo editing or play other game which will benefit from 16GB of RAM.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

Be careful with getting a video card with more than 2GB's of memory. I've heard two different things regarding that. Umberto at FSDT says that a GPU with more than 2GB of RAM will work ok if you fly in DX10 preview mode as it will not consume as much VAS, but its (DX10) not compatible with some addon a/c and sceneries, but that running a GPU with more than 2GB of RAM in DX9 mode consumes to much VAS and can cause OOM's. Personally I don't think you would notice any difference in performance running a GPU with more the 2GB of RAM in FSX since its 32bit and you dont want to the GPU to 1/2 your available memory. I'm running an older GTX250 which is old by todays standards and compared to a 560ti (another older one), I didn't notice any difference in performance. Having said that, if you play other "games" on the PC then the bigger better video card will probably suite them better. FSX being only 32bit, you will probably be fine with 8GB RAM and something like a 2GB GTX680, unless of course you do video/photo editing or play other game which will benefit from 16GB of RAM.

 

Thanks for the tip. By the time I'm ready to dive in in another year I might not have a choice but to use a video card with more ram and upwards of 16gigs for on board PC memory.

Share this post


Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...