The thing about fsx, as I take it, is that it can be smooth, but you have to fit a config per scenario... you really can't use one config for all types of flying.

Short answer: Yes , its a myth.

 

Everyone that thinks the simulation is fluid is used to 5fps from sublogic.

 

I see lots of youtube videos where the title is: "FULL MAX TWEAKED, ULTRA HIGH, SUPER SMOOTH SETTINGS".

 

And it A: Looks like crap

          B: Runs like crap.

 

FSX is like the time before the Voodo 2 card arrived! Not going to be smooth even how fast CPU you have!

 

 

Don't be so concerned about frames, target smoothness as your goal

 

+1 It's the only way to enjoy FSX without going mad!

Just one rather large catch. P3D is not supported by PMDG, who just happen to make the best aircraft. IMHO.

 

Plus its licensing doesn't cover flight sim hobbyists.

Sorry I thought you were looking for a new flight sim platform, not a pmdg specific one.

 

I'm certainly NOT going to get into a licensing debate with you but it's been beaten to death......."anyone can purchase p3d for simulation purposes"

 

That is a direct quote from LM.

 

What more can on low it's settings .. Traffic is 0% Other settings are just Dense... probably guys tell me what you think about this?! http://www.jetlinesystems.com// <- The only cure to FSX performance?

I have 2 Jetline boxes; both are FSX dedicated, no other programs installed other than those needed for supporting FSX (Word, Adobe, WinRar, etc.). A 2700/580 (with F1 and Aerosoft scenery products only -2 years old) and a 4770/780 (just arrived a month ago with Orbx only scenery products -just finished the installs, still working on addon aircraft) both running FSX. Both boxes are the best FSX experience I've ever had (MSFS simming since 98'), both have been bullet proof for me and dealing with the folks there has been a pleasure.

 

But I can tell you that the above comments made by others regarding AI anything, Autogen settings around major A/P's and cities, and scenery and weather complexity are going to impact smoothness, even with stock FSX. And then the addons get piled on and tax the hardware’s capabilities further. There's no getting around it. I just reconfirmed it for myself (for the umpteenth time) flying a stock FSX Accel for two weeks on the 4770 before starting the addon installation dance and over tweaking the cfg, less is always more here but it's easy to go back. It was almost, but not completely, as stutter free as "Pong" at max settings.

 

As the various addons get installed things changed and so I had to adjust settings and tweaks accordingly to balance things out, compromises have to be made.

 

And it's my experience that just because 2 systems have identical hardware doesn’t mean they’ll perform identically, setups vary. Hardware performance variations can exist, especially with the key components like cpu’s and memory. Stability and ability to OC can vary. Settings and tweaks that work for one person’s rig may not be optimal for another’s. And I’ve also found that settings that perform fine with some scenery addon products will not play well with others and vice-versa.

 

You have to test things for yourself and make your compromises and be realistic with your expectations. FSX is an aging $50.00 software program with some bugs that never got corrected. Good hardware, setup properly, is just the first step. It helps to minimize (but not eliminate) the possibility that any anomalies your experiencing are as a result of inadequate hardware. But that’s just the start of the FSX experience.

FSX is like the time before the Voodo 2 card arrived! Not going to be smooth even how fast CPU you have!

 

Perhaps FSX wasn't designed to handle all these fancy add-ons that we have (not just multi-core/GPU limitations). The people at MS probably never anticipated having a PMDG 777 aircraft be running on this thing. Let alone 4096x4096 textures or other stuff. Default aircraft and scenery is probably all they tested this on.

 

I recall reading an interview or blog by a FSX 3PD (can't remember his name at the time) who stated something similar. Where FSX being an old engine and with all this stuff you're just piling it all on and when FSX starts throwing out errors or acting weird (graphical glitches, crashes, OOM, etc), it's telling us that it can't handle the stuff we're throwing at it because it was never designed to handle it in the first place.

you are so right magnetite! The great thing with FSX is the community.

 

Sadly the engine will never be upgraded and now i think even with the community input the graphics are to old to play around with

you are so right magnetite! The great thing with FSX is the community.

 

Sadly the engine will never be upgraded and now i think even with the community input the graphics are to old to play around with

 

Well when it comes to the CPU, you might be stuck with the main sim running off one core, but that doesn't mean performance stops if people can't overclock. There are other ways to improve performance of FSX, given the limitations we have to work with. Things like improved IPC, multi-threading (no go, with the limitations), increased work per instructions (CPU instruction set). I don't know what instruction set FSX makes use of, but if future CPU architectures can make use of it, you might see a performance gain.

 

If FSX is still being used in 2020+ you might see CPUs not using silicon anymore (or a hybrid of silicon and a newer material, whatever that is), which could mean extra GHz, less heat, which in turn, means more performance (less stuttering). They might be able to run a CPU down the road at 5 GHz on as little as 10W or so and very little voltage. Who knows. All that talk about power consumption and efficiency, anything is possible.

 

Regarding the graphics, FSX is a different beast than say, Crysis. It's not supposed to have those kind of graphics. Good graphics in FSX would be things like ORBX FTX Global, REX, etc.

 

Unless you mean turning the sliders all the way to the right. I recall reading FSX was never envisioned to work like that. As Phil Taylor stated, they wanted something that was "good enough to look at (no blurries), but performs well enough to fly", and people can tweak the settings from there. Was never envisioned to run with everything completely maxed out. My FSX performs well, although I don't have all the sliders maxed. AI traffic is off. Bloom/HDR is off (I use DX10), plus I don't have very high autogen settings for trees and such. Water is 2x high, as my GTX 670 can handle it without issues. Throw in some anti-aliasing and I'm all set.

If FSX is still being used in 2020+ you might see CPUs not using silicon anymore (or a hybrid of silicon and a newer material, whatever that is), which could mean extra GHz, less heat, which in turn, means more performance. They might be able to run a CPU down the road at 5 GHz on as little as 10W or so and very little voltage. Who knows. All that talk about power consumption and efficiency, anything is possible.

 

Excellent point.  I feel it will happen before 2020, however.  Technology has been moving so fast this 10+ years.  We've been sitting at the 3-4ghz level for a while now.  I think it's only a matter of time before they decide to increase this or stumble upon better materials to make higher speed and more efficiency.

Excellent point.  I feel it will happen before 2020, however.  Technology has been moving so fast this 10+ years.  We've been sitting at the 3-4ghz level for a while now.  I think it's only a matter of time before they decide to increase this or stumble upon better materials to make higher speed and more efficiency.

 

Sounds like we've got nothing to worry about. B)

you are so right magnetite! The great thing with FSX is the community.

 

Sadly the engine will never be upgraded and now i think even with the community input the graphics are to old to play around with

The engine is being highly upgraded by Lockheed Martin, so now that we've got DX11, I'm sure that 64 bit isn't that far off into the future.

That race is already lost, too late

 

P3D + DX11 + no 64 bit (no, not without the same fsx code) + no PMDG

Vs

X-plane 64-bit + growing community + PMDG + future updates

 

0-1

That race is already lost, too late

P3D + DX11 + no 64 bit (no, not without the same fsx code) + no PMDG

Vs

X-plane 64-bit + growing community + PMDG + future updates

0-1

Well if you fly PMDG then I guess the race is lost. For the rest of us the future is here, now. That said, nothing would please me more than if X-Plane or some other sim came along and blew our minds!

That race is already lost, too late

 

P3D + DX11 + no 64 bit (no, not without the same fsx code) + no PMDG

Vs

X-plane 64-bit + growing community + PMDG + future updates

 

0-1

 

 

XPX has a looooong way to go before I would even consider it.  Bad ATC, no default airport buildings, one season, plausible world, etc.  And where exactly is any PMDG add on for XPX?  Sure they showed interest, but there is nothing on the table yet and probably won't be for many years at least (if it actually happens).  They still have a lot of stuff in progress for FSX and they've also showed interest on a "secret" new sim.

 

For me the clear winner at the moment is FSX+PMDG and FS9+PMDG and various other complex add on like DF 727.

It's not a myth. 

 

Everyone thinks that you can put 100% AI, ORBX scenery, high definition airport scenery like FlyTampa, and still use a PMDG aircraft and maintain high FPS.

 

You can't!

 

I use PMDG, high-max settings, and 50-75% AI and I sit with 25-30FPS no matter where I go. And it's smooth, no stutters, nothing.