FSX not designed to be maxed out seems to me to be a copout with a bad engine they knew would never handle large amount of addons. "it's not a bug, it's a feature!"

 

That explains why there are so many bugs with higher graphics settings, the reason for the highmemfix was lost on the Microsoft team until someone dug up that code and freed us all from disappearing textures.

 

Not to mention the sim1.dll crash that FSUIPC helps fix.

 

There are more bugs with autogen, memory leaks when setting it to full right.

 

What could be is all we can dream about now, it's FSX and maybe P3D in 5 years if they do indeed upgrade the engine.

That explains why there are so many bugs with higher graphics settings, the reason for the highmemfix was lost on the Microsoft team until someone dug up that code and freed us all from disappearing textures.

 

 

Not exactly.

 

It was a fix cfg entry Microsoft intended to add...

 

It was inadvertently missed out.

FSX not designed to be maxed out seems to me to be a copout with a bad engine they knew would never handle large amount of addons. "it's not a bug, it's a feature!"

 

That explains why there are so many bugs with higher graphics settings, the reason for the highmemfix was lost on the Microsoft team until someone dug up that code and freed us all from disappearing textures.

 

Not to mention the sim1.dll crash that FSUIPC helps fix.

 

There are more bugs with autogen, memory leaks when setting it to full right.

 

What could be is all we can dream about now, it's FSX and maybe P3D in 5 years if they do indeed upgrade the engine.

 

Some stuff might be bugs, but I've used other software where if you push the settings too high, the performance will suffer as well. Even if it's properly coded for multi-core and makes use of your GPU. I run a lot of Unreal Engine games and anything to do with shadow settings (4096x4096 resolution, plus shadow filter quality and radius set to max will drop your FPS like mad). There isn't a slider for this as most games are console ports.

 

Another example would be something like Skyrim where if you try to spawn 100 NPCs and have a brawl, watch what happens to the FPS. Even though every core is being used, certain things will tank your FPS regardless.

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

Lol, lol and more lol

FSX not designed to be maxed out seems to me to be a copout with a bad engine they knew would never handle large amount of addons. "it's not a bug, it's a feature!"

 

 

Agree.

 

The excuse given by Microsoft for bad performance, was that FSX had been coded to be able to run with high, or max sliders on "future" hardware. They claimed they had given us a sim that would come into it's own in time.

 

A copout of course. In reality it's an archaic engine that they bolted new [excessively demanding] bits too, and then charged us full price.

 

Long, long ago, the entire sim should have been recoded... then charging us full price would have been justified.

When MS speaked about FSX perfomance on future machines, they had in mind default planes and scenery. Remember how bad the perfomance was when you loaded FSX for a first time when you bought it few years ago. Then two service packs came out and suddenly FSX was considered much more as serious flight sim platform.

I think MS didn't had in mind that some of the addon planes will be that complex so even with present good machines you can't enjoy properly over some complex scenery, *cough* again MS didn't expected that level of detail.

 

Sent from my U8815 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

The excuse given by Microsoft for bad performance, was that FSX had been coded to be able to run with high, or max sliders on "future" hardware.

They probably had some problems getting their hands on "future" hardware to test this.

Cant get what you want out of fsx. If you compromise get what you need. Some of you will never compromise as you have disposable income to max it out. Majority will see its futile to buy gtx 690 for $1,000 or delided a cpu just for 3% bump in performance.

It is certainly a battle to get the smoothness.   I sunk $5000 into my new PC just for FSX and I still have to compromise.    With PMDG 737 running, Payware Airports, Rex, ORBX, FS Global and all the rest of the crap going,  I have to make sacrifices.   The computer whiz in me screams foul with FSX.   This beast PC should be able to eat this simulator but nope.   It makes it whine and beg for mercy in some scenarios.

 

I am smooth in flight unless I push that ONE extra thing that I WANT but can't have unless I want to fly with 15 FPS instead of smooth 30.   In my case... at Payware airports, I have to shutoff Ultimate Traffic 2...   It murders my FPS.   Those AI planes on the ground want to hog all the cycles, which considering they are not really having to THINK, as they are following a preplanned path, I don't know why they need so much cycle time.. it's irritating.   Coming into Flightbeam's KSFO my FPS was smooth until final then WHAM... 10FPS...  as I come in on the final I see why.. There are 20 AI planes lined up waiting to take off.   Looked great!   But the FPS/Smoothness was ruined.   T_T   

 

As the band Queen sang;   o~  I want it all!   I want it now!

 

But FSX is like;  NO.  You can't have it all!

The excuse given by Microsoft for bad performance, was that FSX had been coded to be able to run with high, or max sliders on "future" hardware. They claimed they had given us a sim that would come into it's own in time.

 

I never used FS2004, but was it like this? As in you couldn't run it decently back in 2004. You had to wait a couple years until it ran smoothly and with lots of detail

 

 

I never used FS2004, but was it like this? As in you couldn't run it decently back in 2004. You had to wait a couple years until it ran smoothly and with lots of detail

 

Yes, it was like that. I remember running FS8 and when FS9 came out everyone was complaining about performance as well. It wasn't until a few years later when hardware caught up and people were finally happy with FS9 and ditched FS8. I was on Avsim back then and it was just like when FSX first came out. It wasn't until SP2, newer hardware, and some tweaking advise that (most) people finally started to jump from FS9 to FSX. Every version has been the same as far as that goes.

 

I still remember trying the demo version of FSX on my P4 rig when it launched and was lucky to even get 15 FPS. It was horrible and was one of those people who swore I would never switch to FSX from FS8. 

 

For me it wasn't until April '08 that I upgraded hardware and was able to make the switch. Just put together a new rig a few months ago and can truly say that I have never been happier with FSX since I dont have the performance issues (OOM's, CTD's, low FPS, etc) you normally see discussed here a lot of the time.

A game that is released in 2006, a year in which people could only dream of REX, PMDG planes, 1cm airports, high resolution meshes, high resolution planes, advanced ATC systems, advanced weather engines, advanced animated scenery and with developers pushing the limits every year and you're surprised that your machine can hardly keep up?