you guys should try Train Simulator 2013, Farm Simulator 2013 or Euro Truck Simulator 2 :lol:    :LMAO:  :Love:

you guys should try Train Simulator 2013, Farm Simulator 2013 or Euro Truck Simulator 2 :lol:    :LMAO:  :Love:

Euro Truck 2 is awesome get to drive around listen to tunes and make $$$$. Farm Simulator, almost got it I am afraid got addicted end farming like my grampa did 

Christopher Low, on 04 Jul 2013 - 1:23 PM, said:

 

I get decent framerates at most detailed airports with my i5 2500k powered PC, but I certainly don't get 26fps when approaching UK2000 Heathrow Xtreme in the NGX with my UT2 AI set to 100%.

That'd probably be a red line for me as well. London is a framerate killer because of all the major airports, autogen, and custom buildings around and Heathrow has so much AI.

 

I may go give it a try just to see. Most large hubs I have no issues with though.

After perusing through all eight pages of this thread, I've come away with a couple of impressions...

1) It looks as if the OP's answer to his initial query is that, with a lot of tweaks, his system will be able to do what he wants it to do, but with some compromises (lower settings).

2) As with many software installations, results can vary widely, dependent on the system.

3) How FSX performs is heavily based on the mindset and expectations of the user, in addition to the amount of add ons and the user's particular system.

4) As with almost every Forum thread of this nature, the "I know more than you do, so I'm gonna prove it" M.O. rears its head like a hooded cobra.

I guess I'm like Dillon; I've got FS 9, I turn it on, and it runs. Look at my PC Specs, and you'll see why I'm not using FSX. I'm waiting until I have the funds to get the right system, then I'll make the jump. For now, FS 9 is fine.

One more thing...

I have an inkling of an idea that when P3D V2.0 is released, it will be done with a change in the EULA, opening up a very interesting future for simming. Only a feeling... :wink:

I think Rockcliffe has a good point. Let's be brutally and frankly honest here: the majority of P3D users posting here and on other FS Forums are truly not using the software for "educational and training purposes", are you? Really... each of the P3D users in this Forum, for example, operate a Flight School or Training Center, or teach an Aviation Fundamentals 165 curriculum in a school or college, or run an establishment for Pilot Currency training? C'mon... be honest!

It may be a 'grey area' to some, but the letter of the law trumps 'grey area' every time.

EDUCATIONAL OR TRAINING PURPOSES ONLY.

If Rockcliffe's supposition is correct, I suspect there's gonna be real trouble in River City... hate to say it, but it could be a great big SOL to everyone owning a copy.

I also recently switched to FSX and I also did a lot in tweaking my FSX.cfg, reading threads here and there. For me, I stopped now with tweaking as it seems that I found a good setting/cfg for my specs. I run my FSX on a [email protected] with 8GB RAM and a GTX670OC, and I usually get around 30FPS at big airports, with some exceptions (EGLL, VIDP are the worst). Some things I remarked after reading newer threads about removing affinity mask entries etc. from the FSX.cfg:

 

- with my current FSX.cfg, including the reject threshold entry in buffer pools section, affinitymask=14, texture_max_load=1024, texture_bandwith_mult=120, lod_radius=9.5 and highmemfix=1 I get around 35-37 FPS at Zurich (FSDT) with UT2 full load and aircraft shadows turned on with the FSX Bell and standart weather.

 

- with NickN's tipps to remove affinitmask=x, texture_bandwith_mult completely from the FSX.cfg and instead adding usepools=1, poolsize=x and rejectThreshold=x as well as this strange FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.15 entry, my FPS drop in above scenario down to 25-27 FPS, even when limiting the FPS in FSX to 30 and in nVidia Inspector to 1/2 screen refresh rate (which is in my eyes ridiculous if I am above 30 FPS without limiter...).

 

This tells me one thing: it is almost impossible to have a generally valuable FSX.cfg, it is necessary to play around until you get the .cfg that suits YOUR PC best, independent of what people say around the world in different forums.

Luckily for all of us our problems will be solved soon because NickN is writing the Bible for FSX computers!  ^_^

 

Seriously, the main problem usually is that we always want MORE...  :rolleyes: In that regard you could say that those who are content with FS9 are the wiser people. I did consider installing FS9 but I can't stand those low res textures and everything else I like about FSX that's not in FS9.  ^_^ Yes, I also want MORE!

Then what is it? A thread like this one or FSX works without issue? I just load up FS9 and fly and it has been like this for the last five years. I'm not getting that impression from FSX users and they've resorted to feeling like problems is just the nature of the beast (hence the quote above). I've never seen a version of FS where people felt like that before. It's either one or the other. If your having these kinds of problems look for alternatives, you may have to give something up (in the case of FS9 not that much) but your doing this already. People want P3D for a reason. You can't have a thread like this and make like FSX is just awesome over everything else...

This thread is indicative of an individual who has problems. Now consider the plethora of individuals currently running FSX to their satisfaction, that have no need to post topics like this. There are many. I am among them. You will find we are individuals who accept the logic of compromise. Just as you accept the logic of compromise when you stick to an old title, namely FS9. When you do that you compromise by not benefiting from the superior elements of FSX.

 

When FSX was first released it slaughtered frame rate. That is no longer the case with modern powerful hardware. However... it will be the case for those who insist on installing a plethora of hyper detailed add-on's with sliders to the max, and high AI, and super high AA. To do this is to push an archaic engine to it's limits.

 

Just because FSX struggles when we whack the sliders to the max, and load it with all the other extreme demands some insist on .... doesn't mean we have to adopt those choices. FSX looks great even with somewhat lower slider settings. And when we add the fine tuning courtesy of tweaks like BP=0 the situation gets even better.

 

A vast number or simmers, haven't abandoned FS9 because they are stupid, they have done so because FSX offers real benefits. Same applies to the developers who have abandoned FS9 and now only develop for FSX. They aren't stupid, they see the benefits of FSX.

 

I just load up FS9 and fly and it has been like this for the last five years.

 

I just load up FSX and fly it.

 

I'm not getting that impression from FSX users and they've resorted to feeling like problems is just the nature of the beast

 

People with issues post about it on forums, the plethora of individuals who are happy don't have to. FSX is the predominant title. Thus you can expect more FSX issues posted about than FS9 issues. If the situation was reversed, you would obviously see more FS9 issues.

 

You can't have a thread like this and make like FSX is just awesome over everything else...

 

I am not making like FSX is awesome. It's not, it's an archaic engine, just as FS9 is. Aces bolted on features that the engine could barely handle. That situation is now eased due to the powerful kit many of us now use. But yes, it still has it's issues. And those issues are amplified when users insist on a bucket load of hyper detailed scenery add-ons, crazy slider settings, and all the other things some insist on.

 

FSX for me, with sliders eased off a bit, is superior to FS9 with sliders maxed. You will always get higher frame rate in FS9, simply because it's an older title and doesn't posses the demanding features that FSX does.

 

I've never seen a version of FS where people felt like that before

 

I certainly have, it was FS9 when it was first released. Max slider settings hammered it for me. There were plenty of other issues to deal with as well.

I sincerely had no clue the topic would turn into FS9 vs FSX. I was rather expecting solutions and opinions..

Thanks to those who have helped me and guys please everyone has personal choices . All cannot be the same we're all different people who share different views. Simple

I sincerely had no clue the topic would turn into FS9 vs FSX. I was rather expecting solutions and opinions..

Thanks to those who have helped me and guys please everyone has personal choices . All cannot be the same we're all different people who share different views. Simple

My sincerest apologies for my part in the FS9/FSX debate.

 

I'll leave it at that and not reply further, it was wrong of us to divert your topic.

martin-w, on 05 Jul 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

This thread is indicative of an individual who has problems. Now consider the plethora of individuals currently running FSX to their satisfaction, that have no need to post topics like this. There are many. I am among them. You will find we are individuals who accept the logic of compromise. Just as you accept the logic of compromise when you stick to an old title, namely FS9. When you do that you compromise by not benefiting from the superior elements of FSX.

 

When FSX was first released it slaughtered frame rate. That is no longer the case with modern powerful hardware. However... it will be the case for those who insist on installing a plethora of hyper detailed add-on's with sliders to the max, and high AI, and super high AA. To do this is to push an archaic engine to it's limits.

 

Just because FSX struggles when we whack the sliders to the max, and load it with all the other extreme demands some insist on .... doesn't mean we have to adopt those choices. FSX looks great even with somewhat lower slider settings. And when we add the fine tuning courtesy of tweaks like BP=0 the situation gets even better.

 

A vast number or simmers, haven't abandoned FS9 because they are stupid, they have done so because FSX offers real benefits. Same applies to the developers who have abandoned FS9 and now only develop for FSX. They aren't stupid, they see the benefits of FSX.

 

I just load up FS9 and fly and it has been like this for the last five years.

 

I just load up FSX and fly it.

 

I'm not getting that impression from FSX users and they've resorted to feeling like problems is just the nature of the beast

 

People with issues post about it on forums, the plethora of individuals who are happy don't have to. FSX is the predominant title. Thus you can expect more FSX issues posted about than FS9 issues. If the situation was reversed, you would obviously see more FS9 issues.

 

You can't have a thread like this and make like FSX is just awesome over everything else...

 

I am not making like FSX is awesome. It's not, it's an archaic engine, just as FS9 is. Aces bolted on features that the engine could barely handle. That situation is now eased due to the powerful kit many of us now use. But yes, it still has it's issues. And those issues are amplified when users insist on a bucket load of hyper detailed scenery add-ons, crazy slider settings, and all the other things some insist on.

 

FSX for me, with sliders eased off a bit, is superior to FS9 with sliders maxed. You will always get higher frame rate in FS9, simply because it's an older title and doesn't posses the demanding features that FSX does.

 

I've never seen a version of FS where people felt like that before

 

I certainly have, it was FS9 when it was first released. Max slider settings hammered it for me. There were plenty of other issues to deal with as well.

 

People at this point should be able to add what add-ons they want and still have a good running sim. Outside of AI it shouldn't be too much to ask of a 7+ year old software package to run companion add-ons on top of it (especially scenery, weather textures, and a product like the PMDG NGX). I'll go even further to say an exception can be made in areas like NYC and London but everywhere else in the world shouldn't be a problem. No matter how nice you make it seem FSX was written poorly in an uncertain hardware/OS climate. It's a shame it was the last version Aces had the opportunity to do.

 

 

sidh, on 05 Jul 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

I sincerely had no clue the topic would turn into FS9 vs FSX. I was rather expecting solutions and opinions..

Thanks to those who have helped me and guys please everyone has personal choices . All cannot be the same we're all different people who share different views. Simple

 

Everytime FSX and FS9 are brought up in the same thread doesn't mean we're in here trying to compare the two. I know you'll have people who prefer one or the other. The point for me was to understand why would people settle for something they can't run if simulating flying is what it's all about. If my computer can't handle one software package I'll go to the next best thing that can or stay with what works. I've saved allot of money over the years by just staying put and letting hardware catch up. I'm surprised today you still can't max FSX out with add-ons and people would rather put up with a slide show or screenshot simulator just to have visuals. For me it's all about simulating flight with as many realistic aircraft as possible. Just like the real world Level-D simulators don't have the best graphics as it's all about the aircraft and learning technique. I take my pattern work I do in the sim to my local air field and back again. Silky smooth software performance is key. Understanding why anyone would want less than this is what's puzzling. For those that have FSX up and running at an acceptable rate is not who I was inquiring about.

I also recently switched to FSX and I also did a lot in tweaking my FSX.cfg, reading threads here and there. For me, I stopped now with tweaking as it seems that I found a good setting/cfg for my specs. I run my FSX on a [email protected] with 8GB RAM and a GTX670OC, and I usually get around 30FPS at big airports, with some exceptions (EGLL, VIDP are the worst). Some things I remarked after reading newer threads about removing affinity mask entries etc. from the FSX.cfg:

 

- with my current FSX.cfg, including the reject threshold entry in buffer pools section, affinitymask=14, texture_max_load=1024, texture_bandwith_mult=120, lod_radius=9.5 and highmemfix=1 I get around 35-37 FPS at Zurich (FSDT) with UT2 full load and aircraft shadows turned on with the FSX Bell and standart weather.

 

- with NickN's tipps to remove affinitmask=x, texture_bandwith_mult completely from the FSX.cfg and instead adding usepools=1, poolsize=x and rejectThreshold=x as well as this strange FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.15 entry, my FPS drop in above scenario down to 25-27 FPS, even when limiting the FPS in FSX to 30 and in nVidia Inspector to 1/2 screen refresh rate (which is in my eyes ridiculous if I am above 30 FPS without limiter...).

 

This tells me one thing: it is almost impossible to have a generally valuable FSX.cfg, it is necessary to play around until you get the .cfg that suits YOUR PC best, independent of what people say around the world in different forums.

 

A point of clarification.  you still need Texture_Bandwidth_Multi in your cfg file.  NickN was suggesting to remove another very similar setting called TextureMaxLoad which is in a different section of the cfg.

Well, that's a very good point to mention, thank you for this! But I was actually referring to the correct line, I have TextureMaxLoad=1024 in my config atm. I will anyway perform another test comparison with "my" config and Nick's tweaks on a airport where my config does not reach the 30 FPS. Like now, it does not make sense for me to limit the FPS, as long as I am above. But with the VIDP Imaginesim scenery (or EGLL) I should be around 25. There I will see if I get some extra FPS (or smoothness) with Nick's tipps.

Quote

People at this point should be able to add what add-ons they want and still have a good running sim. Outside of AI it shouldn't be too much to ask of a 7+ year old software package to run companion add-ons on top of it (especially scenery, weather textures, and a product like the PMDG NGX).

Err, we can! I run GEX, UTX, REX textures and heavy weather. All with the NGX. The killer is hyper detailed add-on airports. But then they aren't so much of an issue an issue if you compensate with the sliders. Less compromise required with FS9 of course, because it's many years old, and doesn't have the demanding features FSX does. FS9 is a piece of cake for modern hardware. And that's fine if you don't want the advantageous features of FSX at your disposal.

 

The above sounds nothing like an FSX disaster scenario does it?

 

Quote

I'll go even further to say an exception can be made in areas like NYC and London but everywhere else in the world shouldn't be a problem.

 

 

It's not a problem, with the latest hardware, don't know where you got the impression it was. The extreme detail levels of some add-on airports are a different matter, but I wouldn't blame the developers for their decision to push the limits of the sim, after all we do have sliders.

 

Quote

No matter how nice you make it seem FSX was written poorly in an uncertain hardware/OS climate.

 

True, as I said in my previous post. But the disastrous picture you seem to be painting is exagerated. That is my point.

Quote

The point for me was to understand why would people settle for something they can't run if simulating flying is what it's all about. If my computer can't handle one software package I'll go to the next best thing that can or stay with what works.

Good advice, anyone that truly hasn't the hardware to run FSX, and that would have to be basic kit by today's standards, but still sticks with it is illogical. But most people can run FSX. Sliders should be adjusted to suit the hardware. But if people have unrealistic expectations, and think they have a divine right to run with max sliders, with every demanding add-on known to man, then that's not sensible.

 

FSX ran VERY well with my old i7 920 system and it runs even better with my i7 3770K system. Nothing like the disaster scenario you seem to imply.

Quote

I'm surprised today you still can't max FSX out with add-ons and people would rather put up with a slide show or screenshot simulator just to have visuals.

 

It is what it is. But even without maxed out sliders an enjoyable experience can be had. Obsession with sliders isn't required. As for people who put up with a slideshow, then yes, I agree with you. They should be reducing their sliders to accommodate for the excessive demands they are placing on the sim. Or indeed, as you say, stick to FS9. There aren't many enthusiasts with kit that puny though.

Quote

Silky smooth software performance is key

 

Me too, and that's what can be achieved with FSX and that's what I do achieve.. Yes, you need powerful hardware, and yes sliders should be set sensibly, and yes, some "extreme" add-on airports are an issue. But no, nothing like your extremely negative and inaccurate perception of FSX.

 

Anyway, I said I wasn't going to continue to debate this, as it's not helping the OP, so perhaps a bit disrespectful, and now I've gone and done it. So no more comments from me. But what I would suggest, is that if you have powerful enough hardware, you actually try FSX, rather than commenting from the perspective no personal experience. :smile:

martin, thanks for saying what was on my mind.

 

Seriously these FS9 users need to leave this topic, because this user was clearly using FSX, not FS9, and we certainly don't need more users going to FS9.

 

We need more users moving away from FS9.

 

Reguards

martin, thanks for saying what was on my mind.

 

Seriously these FS9 users need to leave this topic, because this user was clearly using FSX, not FS9, and we certainly don't need more users going to FS9.

 

We need more users moving away from FS9.

 

Reguards

 

We need users using what works best for them so they don't get frustrated and leave the hobby altogether...