Ah Kevin, you just don't want to have to paint up an entirely new fleet! You've done such a great job on your liveries, so I don't blame you...

 

(joke!) :Just Kidding:

Ah Kevin, you just don't want to have to paint up an entirely new fleet! You've done such a great job on your liveries, so I don't blame you...

 

(joke!) :Just Kidding:

Damn, nothing gets past you, does it, Bill. Haha.

 

In all seriousness, though, I tried running FSX on this computer, and with the QualityWings 757 as well. Unless I tone the graphics down, the performance is not that great, so I won't be running FSX anytime soon until I get a better computer many years from now. Ironically, I used FSX in 2007 up until 2009 when I got FS9, and that was on my old computer. Of course, now I'm trying to run some more complex add-ons than I was before, seeing as before, it was just the Project Opensky jets with default scenery.

This is great! Now we have 4 simulators and none of them are complete. :lol:

+1000 :lol:

 

By the way, FsX creates a lot of problems even with newest hardwares. Most of the time, FsX people are spending their energy and precious time for endless tweaking rather than flying (including me). I think this is one of the reason why there are a lot of people still flying with Fs9. If P3d 2.0 will be a tweak-free, ctd-free sim, then we can see a big migration from Fs9 to P3d.

I've never had any CTD, OOM, etc with FSX. Pretty stable for me. I don't run everything at max settings though. A few tweaks, but nothing major (BP=0, FFTF, HIGHMEMFIX, triple buffering/VSync (Nvidia Inspector), 6.5 LOD, that's it).

 

Other software I tend to tweak the config files to get the settings I want, because I can't do it when I'm using it. Not a big deal. 

 

For me, I am not in a "panic mode" for FSX. It is not so unstable or unusable that I'd give anything to solve all my issues. Does it have bugs? Sure. Lots of software has them. Some older stuff I use still has issues that have yet to be fixed. 

 

I guess I'm a little bit more forgiving about this stuff. I understand that FSX came out in a time, when they were migrating from single core to multi-core, and the GPU wasn't used as much as it is today. People probably didn't realize that these things could crunch stuff at 4 TFLOPS, compared to your average CPU which is 130 GFLOPS (Sandy Bridge). I don't even think they even had GPU encoding back then. Software was still 1-2 cores and the CPU did all the work. 

 

I'll still use FSX for some time yet. 

FSX is not "going anywhere". It will continue on until some outside event renders it unusable on most new PCs. But given what Microsoft is doing to the Windows desktop market, an outside event may render all flight sims except the non-Windows versions of  XP useless in the same manner.

 

If all I had was FSX, I wouldn't be too worried in the short term, except for the fact that new add-ons may not be designed for my sim. Anyone who didn't see this coming hasn't been reading the AVSim forums for the past year. 3rd party developers have made great strides with add-ons for both XP10 and P3d 1.4. That trend will continue with P3d 2.0 and may even accelerate.

FSX will live on for a bit more years . But i think P3D-V2 will be the future of flight sim, great progress might come within few more years from P3d-V2. 

Like should I jump ship now, before all the developers start going to P3D, and I have all this money wasted on FSX... like exactly what happened with FS9 users.

 

I don't see how you wasted alot of money most FS, addons port over to p3d all the orbx stuff will work from day one

 

 

A lot of people have been saying that if P3D becomes popular enough PMDG, they will eventually switch.

 

I think a lot of people should really read this...

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/426627-a-few-notes-regarding-pmdgs-position-on-p3d-development/

 

 

FSX is not "going anywhere". It will continue on until some outside event renders it unusable on most new PCs. But given what Microsoft is doing to the Windows desktop market, an outside event may render all flight sims except the non-Windows versions of  XP useless in the same manner.

 

Exactly. FSX will be around until MS decide to shut down the activation servers, which at this time seems rather unlikely. That's really the only outside event I can think that really will render it useless.

 

As for the Windows desktop market? Well...you could always just stick with Win 7 for a while  :smile: Mainstream support for it won't end till 2015 and then extended support runs till 2020.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7

Exactly. FSX will be around until MS decide to shut down the activation servers, which at this time seems rather unlikely. That's really the only outside event I can think that really will render it useless.

 

Even if they did shut them off, you can still activate FSX over the phone. I had an issue with Windows 7 the other day, couldn't activate. So I called up MS, entered a code, and I got activated. This is how activating FSX will work if the servers went down. 

MS still holds the key for "entertainment" Go carefully read about ESP and you will see why LM hands are tied (if they even care about entertainment).  You see this if you just start FSX on the home tab and click on the developers corner,,,,,

 

"Microsoft Flight Simulator and Microsoft ESP

Built on the core technology behind Flight Simulator X, Microsoft ESP is a visual simulation platform that brings immersive games-based technology to training and learning, decision support, and research and development modeling for government and commercial organizations. 

Of specific interest to the Flight Simulator developer community is the opportunity to expand on the powerful Microsoft ESP serious games simulation platform which is licensed to be sold by third parties and used in commercial, non-entertainment settings."

 

Is all this legal mumbo jumbo going to stop me from buying and using P3D?  No.. I already own 1.4 and plan on purchasing 2.0 In all reality you are required to "learn" a whole hell of a lot to even get most quality add-ons off the ground and from point A to B. It's a real fine line between education and entertainment.

 

The past 2 years most of the add-ons barring PMDGs that I purchased,  I made sure were P3D compatible. Most will work fine so I'm not going to be "out a ton of money". Even if they aren't compatible who says I'm required to uninstall FSX at all? When I want to fly my T7 I'll just load up FSX and fly it. Not sure why many people are all or nothing because in reality it's not that way. AFAIK P3D 2.0 will not force anyone to deinstall FSX. 

 

I guess I'm a little bit more forgiving about this stuff. I understand that FSX came out in a time, when they were migrating from single core to multi-core, and the GPU wasn't used as much as it is today. People probably didn't realize that these things could crunch stuff at 4 TFLOPS, compared to your average CPU which is 130 GFLOPS (Sandy Bridge). I don't even think they even had GPU encoding back then. Software was still 1-2 cores and the CPU did all the work. 

 

 

i agree 100% with most of the points your post, but this history bit is actually not entirely accurate. FSX is rather unique in not taking advantage of the GPU, it was quite a common practice back in 2006. that's partly why so many people were annoyed when it first came out. back then i could run most of my games at 60fps but FSX could barely do 10fps. heck, the first game product i worked on (descent 3) did all the rendering on the GPU if you had one, and that was back in 1999 using the ancient 3dfx voodoo cards. 

 

anyway cheers!

-andy crosby

I think Phil Taylor stated that FSX renders slower than your average game, because it's not a game. It's a simulator. The amount of things it has to render is much more than your average game. 

 

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ptaylor/archive/2007/06/08/fsx-tip-of-the-week-water-slider-and-fps-costs.aspx

 

In short, expecting 60 FPS smooth game performance from FSX with all the sliders maxed isn't realistic.Given that FSX is one giant level (whole Earth is 510 million square kilometers), while your average game engine (UE 3.5 for example can only make 6 km levels in size) should give people some idea why FSX doesn't perform as well as a game. 

people and myself not going to change that quick, wait till you here about PERFORMANCE, PERFORMANCE, PERFORMANCE., that will be the key

 

I am a die hard fsx man

 

What is this flavor of the month ??? We all drop fsx and migrate to the next journey????

I think a lot of people should really read this...

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/426627-a-few-notes-regarding-pmdgs-position-on-p3d-development/

I fully agree with the caution that they are exhibiting here. None of us will be liable for any possible liability losses.

 

On the other hand, I don't create "entertainment" products; I create "simulation" products, i.e., as close as possible to a  faithful representation of a real aircraft, that requires the user to closely adhere to the procedures of real flight insofar as possible.