[27FEB15] Latest News/Release Planning Notes, etc

[PMDG777 231]

I think fewer and fewer people are going to make the switch to SE. Too much trouble reinstalling addons, configuring .cfg files, etc for something SE users have said doesn't produce a performance increase, if anything more studdering with 1-3 Avg FPS loss. The only hope would we an effective and highly extensive service pack for the existing FSX

I don't know where you're getting your supposed sources but as far as I've seen, the majority are saying they've seen performance increases.

[davidzill 8]

Well that is what I've read from forums. From my understanding, SE is the downloadable version of the boxed FSX

[Captain_Edward94 0]

With the adding of a enhanced terrain radar and also adding the wxr radar. Can we also expect the datalink function that is in the 777 in the ngx?

 

Later on for SP2 it would be awesome if the FMC had an option to get metars and taf's just like irl with datalink. Shouldnt be too hard to merge with ASN to get these features implemented if you were able to do a wxr radar noticing precipitation areas.

[PMDG777 231]

Well that is what I've read from forums. From my understanding, SE is the downloadable version of the boxed FSX

Wrong. FSX SE has had updates and bug fixes. Why do you think there's such a hassle to update the installers if they were identical?

[davidzill 8]

Wrong. FSX SE has had updates and bug fixes. Why do you think there's such a hassle to update the installers if they were identical?

I'm sure you may be right, but from what I've read and YouTube videos with side-by-side benchmarks I've watched, I'm just not convinced it's worth the hassle to drop FSX for SE. If SE utilized a more streamlined coding, which would make much better use of multi-core processors, giving me an extra 20 fps, I would definitely do it. However, from the homework I've done, there is not much difference between either, with several posting performance decreases with SE.

[RotorWash 1]

I don't know where you're getting your supposed sources but as far as I've seen, the majority are saying they've seen performance increases.

I must admit, i have read the posts and reviews regarding FSX-SE and P3D, untill I went blue in the face. My personal conclusion, there definitely appears to be benefits and improvements in both platforms, though be it marginal. If your having issues with your FSX installment, either P3D or FSX-SE would most deffinately be good options.

 

Most of the reviews and discussions cover installments of your usual addons. However, I have all of them x 10 and lots of not so common ones, such as, FSForce, VoxAtc, FS2Crew, FSPanel, etc,etc. I am one of the lucky ones, they all work in perfect harmony with each other, and spit the dummy rarely.

 

I am glad the platforms are evolving and will review them for my self, perhaps a couple of years down the track. I know spend much much more time flying than i do tweeking. With so many complex addons and evolving platforms, constant tweeking will most deffinately become predominant to flying, this is unacceptable due to personal time restraints (been through this with DCS, one fix, two things broken).

 

I guess, if I really needed those beautiful shadows and cows mooing in the pastures, an evolving platform would be the best option for me. I don't need these, I have nice scenery, great flight dynamics, awesome weather (coming soon, a radar to predict it :-) Simply, if it ain't broken, why fix it. I'll stick with my FSX boxed edition for the time being. Good luck, whichever way you decide to go.

[davidzill 8]

I must admit, i have read the posts and reviews regarding FSX-SE and P3D, untill I went blue in the face. My personal conclusion, there definitely appears to be benefits and improvements in both platforms, though be it marginal. If your having issues with your FSX installment, either P3D or FSX-SE would most deffinately be good options.

 

Most of the reviews and discussions cover installments of your usual addons. However, I have all of them x 10 and lots of not so common ones, such as, FSForce, VoxAtc, FS2Crew, FSPanel, etc,etc. I am one of the lucky ones, they all work in perfect harmony with each other, and spit the dummy rarely.

 

I am glad the platforms are evolving and will review them for my self, perhaps a couple of years down the track. I know spend much much more time flying than i do tweeking. With so many complex addons and evolving platforms, constant tweeking will most deffinately become predominant to flying, this is unacceptable due to personal time restraints (been through this with DCS, one fix, two things broken).

 

I guess, if I really needed those beautiful shadows and cows mooing in the pastures, an evolving platform would be the best option for me. I don't need these, I have nice scenery, great flight dynamics, awesome weather (coming soon, a radar to predict it :-) Simply, if it ain't broken, why fix it. I'll stick with my FSX boxed edition for the time being. Good luck, whichever way you decide to go.

I think you bring up a good point...some people are continuously having issues with there FSX installations, and either Prepare3D or SE may offer benefical routes to obtain a more stable simulation platform.

[SKeller 5]

I wonder if people who report performance increases in FSX:SE might not take into consideration that they are (most likely) comparing a vanilla SE install with a several years old and tweaked to death FSX Boxed configuration? Somehow I'm not convinced ^_^

[PMDG777 231]

I guess it's a case of try it and see. It'll either work for you or it won't. 

[Alaaar 34]

I was going to mention if you want increase in performance uninstall FSX....De-frag and clean + fix registry ....re-install and here you go a significant increase in performance ......A new computer would be great as well 

[tf51d 284]

I'm sure you may be right, but from what I've read and YouTube videos with side-by-side benchmarks I've watched, I'm just not convinced it's worth the hassle to drop FSX for SE. If SE utilized a more streamlined coding, which would make much better use of multi-core processors, giving me an extra 20 fps, I would definitely do it. However, from the homework I've done, there is not much difference between either, with several posting performance decreases with SE.

I thought the same as you about FSX-SE initially. I bought it at it's introductory sale (4.95) mainly as a last resort backup for FSX. When the T7 was made compatible I decided to do a side by side install, and man I'm glad I did. While you are correct, FPS wise there isn't much difference, (...and BTW, there isn't much difference between FSX and P3D either with similar settings) I have never had a smoother fight experience in all my years of simming, dating back to FS1. Absolutely no pauses or stutters, that FSX is noted for. VAS management is much improved, reducing the likelihood of OOM's. (Unless of course if you pump up your settings even higher then you have now, then you again will cut down that margin of breathing room.)  Where Dovetail made a mistake was as RSR pointed out in how it handled the registry. What they should have done is implement a separate registry entry (FSX-SE) regardless of whether or not it was a single install or dual install. Then all addon installers would need to do is ask during install whether it's for FSX FSX-SE or P3D. Now if it's a pristine install it uses the same FSX registry FSX-Box does, If it's a dual install, or on a system that  had FSX box installed previously, then it creates the new FSX-SE registry and file structure, which is complicating the way these addon installers need to interrogate the registry to see which condition exists, and set their addon accordingly. I'm running in DX10 with Steve's DX10 fixer, now with VC shadows like P3D has, thanks to the hidden FSX.cfg setting recently found forcing them in most aircraft. The NGX was the exception because it had a solid cube around the VC, presumably to make the HGS work. It's not sure yet whether SP1D will have them either, although we do know the P3D version has them.

 

Tom Cain

[SierraHotel 974]

@davidzill

I would have to disagree with you, on pretty much every point regarding FSX SE, and definitely no stuttering and in my particular case an FPS increase of about 5. FSX SE, at least for me is, smooth as butter and sharp as a tac. My list of add-ons, which incidentally, were a breeze to install, are:- DX10 Fixer, GEX, UTX Europe v2, ASN, REX4, REX Soft Clouds, ProATC X v1.44, Aivlasoft EFB, AI Controller, Traffic Manager, PrecipitFX, 777Imersion, PMDG 777 200 and 300, Aerosoft Airbus A318/21, whichever VA software of the VA I happen to be flying with and UT2. I think FSX SE stands head and shoulders above the original, oh, and I have not touched my cfg file since Dovtail made the necessary changes.

[PMDG777 231]

I know Dovetail screwed up the registry etc by making it the same as FSX but if I'm 100% honest, I can't blame them. When they originally redeveloped the sim, they didn't expect people to have both FSX and SE installed. And why should they expect it? They're almost identical so having both installed is pretty pointless.

I know Dovetail screwed up the registry etc by making it the same as FSX but if I'm 100% honest, I can't blame them. When they originally redeveloped the sim, they didn't expect people to have both FSX and SE installed. And why should they expect it? They're almost identical so having both installed is pretty pointless.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

I know Dovetail screwed up the registry etc by making it the same as FSX but if I'm 100% honest, I can't blame them. When they originally redeveloped the sim, they didn't expect people to have both FSX and SE installed. And why should they expect it? They're almost identical so having both installed is pretty pointless.

 

Yeah. This one makes little sense to me, but I have a feeling it's also because DTG was like "OH HEY. SURPRISE! NEW SIM!" and all the developers are struggling to catch up. Since the new version isn't supported by various add-ons, people have been slow to migrate over fully. This creates an odd duality for the same set of code.

 

Poor implementation, regardless of how you cut it, though. Poor coordination with the market. Poor implementation of best practices. Poor forward thought.

 

...but hey...hindsight is perfect.

[PMDG777 231]

Yeah. This one makes little sense to me, but I have a feeling it's also because DTG was like "OH HEY. SURPRISE! NEW SIM!" and all the developers are struggling to catch up. Since the new version isn't supported by various add-ons, people have been slow to migrate over fully. This creates an odd duality for the same set of code.

 

Poor implementation, regardless of how you cut it, though. Poor coordination with the market. Poor implementation of best practices. Poor forward thought.

 

...but hey...hindsight is perfect.

I guess it's still in it's youth and they probably didn't realise they were going to get such high demand for complex addon compatibility straight from the go. I'm sure the kinks will iron out over time.