How's FSX working for you?

[Lowflyer 97]

FSX can still after 7 years be a bit of a pig to get running well (or so I've heard), but is it really as bad as the forums may lead you to believe? After all most people would not make a new thread about how excellent the simmers life is every time they had a flight and FSX didn't crash. I'm guessing AVSIM would be flooded with one post threads with zero discussion value if people did, but I could be wrong...

 

In order to keep it as close to reality as possible please only vote if you use FSX as your primary sim or am at least honestly trying to. ;-)

 

 

A clarification on the options:

 

1. If you've been able to enjoy FSX from the start pick this. "Fine" doesn't necessarily mean 30 fps with the PMDG 747 at Aerosoft London with all sliders to the far right, just good enough to make FSX your primary sim right away.

 

2. If you were unable to enjoy it at all before say the service packs were out go for option 2. That said if your PC wasn't near the recommended specs at the time of release but you could enjoy it once you got at least a Core 2 Duo or similar it might be more fair to go for the first option.

 

3. Choose this option if it works fine most of the time but may end with a CTD after a long day.

 

4. You're experiencing rather frequent crashes and are rarely able to complete a long flight.

 

5. It's hopeless. FSX crashes after a few minutes of flight and sometimes even before takeoff and the men in white coats are on their way.

[spokes2112 179]

Rolf,

Excellent survey! The only hiccup I've ever had was during this years race since the install of FSX (a late bloomer) .. LOL

We racers know what caused it..

I hope you where on the top end of the survey, if not.. The team is here.

Hope your spring is treating you right.

Roman

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

I started FSX with the wrong specs. On my 2nd attempt I got a new PC, specs derived from PMDG NGX hardware recommendations (rather an inexpensive piece of hardware!). PMDG advice, too, for the installation (non-standard location etc.)

 

I hardly use any tweaks and I've set up a number of profiles for the scenery/graphics settings.

 

It's been working great for months, no CTDs, hardly any freezes, no OOMs (except for those I provoke when turning the sliders to the right intentionally and still trying to land in ORBX Essendon with nearby ORBX Melbourne installed over FTX Australia, lol!).

 

I can even use the Aerosoft AAX Airbus v1.1 with time acceleration ...

[martin-w 3,234]

None of the options in the poll applied to me.

 

FSX used to be "okay" but performance was an issue.

 

Now, with modern overclocked hardware, and tweaks like BP=0, I have no issues.

 

I have never had an OOM ever since I have had FS9, or FSX.

[Guest]

I can't believe so many people vote 1...! FSX was utter crap until SP2...! It's even utter crap now on a brand new PC unless you install SP1. Imho...

[William J.S.S 173]

Never really had to many issues at all. Got a good PC.

 

Only issue I have now it seems is AA.

 

 

Sent from my Apple communications device.

[woodhick 504]

FSX works like it always has done, days and days of fine flight simming and then an OOM crash, etc.  I think it will never be a 100% stable trouble free program.  I once heard that the game (for such it is) was designed for guys who want to tweak their computers as much as fly.  That certainly has never been the case in my experience, but I can certainly pick out any number of simmers who seem to be constantly tweaking and not flying much at all.  Me??  I just want to see the pretty airplanes fly around.

 

Nice survey.

[tf51d 284]

I can't believe so many people vote 1...! FSX was utter crap until SP2...! It's even utter crap now on a brand new PC unless you install SP1. Imho...

 

Maybe many people didn't buy FSX before the SP's were released. As for me FSX did run fine. It was before it had complex aircraft models like PMDG, and once we figured out to disengage the jetways from it's AI performance wasn't that bad if you had a decent computer for the time. Mine was a E6700 2.66Ghz which at the time would be considered pretty high end. Now I have an E6850 3Ghz C2d, which today would be not so much, but still not too bad!! Take a look at my earliest videos from Jan 2007. I apologize for the quality, but it was before youtube had higher resolutions. (480P, and YT has since cut them to 240P)

[BilboBaggins 82]

I've always enjoyed FSX, from the beginning, and the only times I've ever had to deal with instability is when I've pushed my system beyond its capabilities, or run into inevitable interactions between add-ons, with each other inside the core program.

 

The amazing thing is how massively flexible and stable FSX is, for all the things it is doing simultaneously.

 

It harks back to a time when people enjoyed and were intrigued by that complexity.

 

It is not software for the Twit(ter) Generation.

 

Given the massive variety of configuration possibilities, it always rewards patience, and punishes impatience.

 

The only issues lately have been the extra meta-software fight one has to engage in with Microsoft's ongoing 12-step security program; be it DEP, security lockdown on executables, security privileges, hidden folders, install location madness.... as with all things MS, 15 committees and 32 dev groups have all been allowed democratically to introduce their own special security sauce, come what may, and it's a real ongoing party getting to know them all. Great education for hackers along the way, to boot!

 

The last most recent annoyance has been the Twit(ter) generation's collective decision to give up on the past, and on experience, and to consider "legacy support" an annoyance.

 

Better to give up on all those things hurting their pretty, empty heads and to play "FarmVille" instead.

 

It's a philosophical decision, ultimately.

 

 

[Lowflyer 97]

I hope you where on the top end of the survey, if not.. The team is here.

 

Yep, speaking for myself I can honestly say that FSX worked ok from day one. I got it for christmas 2006 while I still had my Prescott P4. It wasn't excellent but by turning autogen sliders down to minimum (not completely off though) and sticking to default planes it was at least playable and still looked better than FS9.

 

Of course, on current hardware and the most essential tweaks (affinitymask and highmemfix) applied it runs really well with graphics cranked up and flying the most demanding payware planes, but even back in the grim old days I still had a lot of fun with it, and that is my point with option 1.

[flyinion 280]

I had to go with option 2.  While it did "work" for me from day 1, I didn't have the hardware to run it where I wanted compared to my FS9 visuals (full mesh, GEX, etc.) and that DIDN'T "work" for me lol.  Now I have the hardware to run it at least to my minimums and I'm happy.  I get an occasional CTD, however that is recent and I know for SURE it's because I'm running SweetFX.  Luckily I hadn't had any since right after I first started running it until last night trying to save a flight at the end.  FSX just disappeared after I clicked OK to overwrite the file.  I can live with that once in a while though for the benefit SFX gives.  I haven't tried a long enough flight to test OOM though.

[pocketwatch50 6]

I couldn't vote. it's a complex consideration.

 

I've been using MS Flight Sim since the very first version back in the 70s? and it has always run very well. it's all the add ons that cause the problems and before FSX I never had issues with the program. Now with better hardware if you make conservative decisions with settings and add-ons it runs fine or at least for me it does. The only issue I have is now and then it will minimize to the desktop. I can get it back but the issue is another program automatically coming on. As fast as I try and eliminate those another seems to take it's place and some there is nothing I can do anything about.

[LHookins 3,102]

FSX has never been too bad on performance for me, even on older computers with the sliders set appropriately.

 

I first installed it and SP1 immediately, and it ran fine. When I got a new computer, I did a test flight before installing SP1 and the instrument updates were a slide show... on a high end computer. If that's what people saw when they first installed FSX, I don't blame them for preferring FS9 at the time.

 

I ran SP1 for a long time, only installing SP2 when I got some program that required it. I'd gotten 3 CTDs my whole time with SP1, then about one every three flights after installing SP2, even after uninstalling whatever program it was that caused me to upgrade to SP2. The frequency of CTDs has stayed about the same after upgrading to a new computer with a new version of Windows and a different brand of graphics card.

 

I'm still getting WAY too many CTDs of various kinds, and the occasional blue screen, but have only gotten one OOM ever and I don't believe it was actually an OOM. FSX can run fine for days or even a few weeks, but the problems always come back. I've given up trying to solve them, just accepting it as part of the whole FSX experience.

 

Hook

[Sunaru 12]

I voted option 3, but I'm afraid I may still have to wish I voted 4 owing to my return to FSX not having reached the level to do long distance flying; I'm having too much fun with QW's Avro, Majestic's Q400 and especially the PMDG 737NGX. I am glad I decided to give FSX a whirl on my return though rather than FS9. There's so much more detail, so much more fidelity, ...

 

If only Lockheed would openly embrace third parties to add-on to Prepar3D, I'd never even want to consider X-Plane 10. Then again, I've heard all X-Plane needs to trump FSX is 3rd party support as well, so there's that too.

[Nuno Pinto 1,394]

Simply flawless. I can perform 15-16h flights with no issues at all and still load another plane and keep going after landing.