fsx-se Are people making the switch to FSX Steam?

[Pastaiolo 1,688]

Yes, yes, and finally... yes!

 

Moreover, you can install it on as many computers as you wish. Of course you can only play it on one computer at a time...

 

And to add to that, you can also install it on a different drive from where Steam is installed in

[tf51d 284]

Isn't that tweak for Prepar3d only?

Well I'm certainly not seeing the boosts reported on P3D, but I have read posts (Not on AVSIM, and a youtube video that claims it works on FSX. What I'm seeing withe NGX with static weather no traffic, about a 2-3FPS boost. As I say I don't have a strong system. but with no traffic I can get 17-18 in the cockpit, sitting on the runway of KSFO, without this tweak. With it and no other changes though, I get 19-21. Not a big boost but with my system I'll take anything I can get.. FPS are taken from FRAPS over a period of time.

[Jude Bradley 659]

A few FSX SE questions.

 

Can you purchase FSX SE but not download it right away?

Can you download it, install it, uninstall it, reinstall it without paying additional?

Do you get all additional updates for free?

 

Thanks

Yes Dennis,I bought last night at work and am installing today at home 45% installed at the moment.

[glenecho3 9]

Have you tried the OPTIMIZE_PARTS=1 tweak in the SIM section of the FSX.CFG file? People are reporting huge gains with that for both FSX and P3D, (especially though for P3D) I see a little boost, but I have a weak system to begin with (3Ghz C2D).

 

I estimate that since FSX has come out I've probably spent 80 or so manhours on screwing around with the fsx.cfg file with tweaks. And the vast majority either made no difference or caused more harm than good. Outside of affinitymask and himemfix...I'm DONE messing around with these tweaks. D-O-N-E. I want to fly...not tweak (although the incurable IT guy in me will certainly at least try this tweak on my standard FSX installation....HA!).

For many, of course it is!!!

 

But why are you concerned about how I won't spend my time or money?

Not concerned...just bewildered...and not at you per se but at several. Other than some concerns I've seen from people about Dovetail in general, I'm not sure why people seem to be literally threatened by FSX:SE, as if it somehow nullifies what they do with their hobby. I think, at this point, it's more irresponsible to claim that there is no performance increase as for many, if not most, the performance increase is quite obvious. There have even been accusations that people are LYING about this. Why in the hell would anyone bothering lying about such a silly little thing? What's in it FOR THEM by doing that (correct answer: NOTHING).

 

Don't know why this seems so impossible to people...Dovetail has stated what they've done for the increase and it makes perfect sense. The fact that FSX still runs as crappy as it does on equipment that is light years ahead of what was available at the time of release, is the part we *should* be flabbergasted at. Let's face it...FSX was a rush-job with a horribly inefficient engine. Had the Wings guys (that was what they were called right?) been allowed to remain intact and continue to improve and patch it as they seemed to want to, improvements such as these would have come years ago.

 

I love FSX, but I'm totally unafraid to call it what it is/was...which was a bit of a botch job from a performance standpoint. It's mindblowing that my brand new gaming laptop can run Skyrim with all the details cranked with super high framerates but a how-many-years old Flightsim with a tiny fraction of the detail can still get bogged down in NYC. There is no computer on earth...still to this day...that can provide high FPS in that region on FSX.

 

I'm passionate as of late on this subject as I gave up simming for at least 4-5 years because I found FSX performance to be all frustration and not enough payoff. After years I figured that modern gaming systems must be taking FSX to new heights only to find out that even my 2k gaming laptop still struggles under certain conditions. It's at least playable now, so that's nice. I just find it odd that people are being negative about performance increases.

 

At the end of the day...I just want to be able to fly out of Laguardia or JFK in some overcast conditions or even rain without wanting to bash my monitor in with a sledgehammer. I know the NYC area probably is the worst performance culprit/region in the entire game...but I absolutely CANNOT believe that with the system I have now...I'm still down to 10-20 fps in this region. Inexcusable.

[JSkorna 137]

I know the NYC area probably is the worst performance culprit/region in the entire game...but I absolutely CANNOT believe that with the system I have now...I'm still down to 10-20 fps in this region. Inexcusable.

 

What FPS are you getting in the SE version compared to the FSX version?

[jcomm 5,939]

I moved and wont go back...

 

Smoother ride, easy re-install when needed, no fancy tweaking required, my best add-ons ever - PMDG, RealAir, A2A, Aerosoft, ASN... - all running beautifuly, no OOMs or CTDs...

[Capt Speirs 52]

I moved and wont go back...

 

Smoother ride, easy re-install when needed, no fancy tweaking required, my best add-ons ever - PMDG, RealAir, A2A, Aerosoft, ASN... - all running beautifuly, no OOMs or CTDs...

...and no "FSRecorder". What else doesn't work? I have the Steam version ($5 couldn't go wrong), but I don't think I am going to install it. Trying to go forwards, not backwards. There is too many issues still with Steam. I also have no OOMs or CTDs with FSX-MS.

[AKStirling 44]

here comes my tuppence worth ... i am driven in my life by logic ... therefore on this issue i am bound to ask what kind of logic is it that inclines anybody to cling tenaciously to a piece of software virtually unimproved since its release 8 years ago?? ... when there exist adequate alternatives which are of the moment ........... i think most people would accept the fact of aviation being a leading edge, pushing the boundaries, sort of activity ... so one would imagine anyone wishing to place the seat of their pants in the virtual aeroplane seat would prefer a simulation of it that is, at least current ...... apparently not .... maybe it's a cult thing ... who knows???????

[Jude Bradley 659]

Hi Ric, I installed today and so far, no stutters. The fps were about 15 fps with NGX and CYYZ (yes that one), with DX10 and fixer. This was out of the box with no tweaking apart from infinitymask=14

Didn't touch the scenery settings at all.Two test flights - CYYZ-KBUF on the NGX and OTHH-OMDB with the 777-200.

Nothing to complain about yet..

[AviatorMoser 353]

here comes my tuppence worth ... i am driven in my life by logic ... therefore on this issue i am bound to ask what kind of logic is it that inclines anybody to cling tenaciously to a piece of software virtually unimproved since its release 8 years ago?? ... when there exist adequate alternatives which are of the moment ........... i think most people would accept the fact of aviation being a leading edge, pushing the boundaries, sort of activity ... so one would imagine anyone wishing to place the seat of their pants in the virtual aeroplane seat would prefer a simulation of it that is, at least current ...... apparently not .... maybe it's a cult thing ... who knows???????

 

What other civilian-centric flight simulator out there is pushing the envelope?

 

P3D is just FS 10.5. Oh, there is improved lighting that makes it difficult to see inside your cockpit. It's got better water surfaces. Smoother texture and autogen loading. But it's still FSX at heart. Run them side by side. Someone convince me it runs and looks an order of magnitude better as so many love to claim! Please. Because I got 20/20 vision, and I see marginal differences. I'm not drinking that Kool-Aid yet. And I'm certainly not going to invest hundreds of invested dollars into P3D as of now when it's planned to lose backwards compatibility once they rewrite the engine. And if they don't do a major recode, forget P3D whatsoever.

 

X-Plane needs a lot of work to just feel alive. I'd proclaim, if I was allowed to, the future of flight simulator lies in X-Plane. It's got the graphical options everyone desires. It's 64-bit like how everyone wants ESP to be, so it'll eat all of your 32GB of RAM without restraint. But even then, it has some serious deficiencies when it comes to FSX.

 

So please, enlighten me on the logic that concludes FSX is not a viable platform these days. Here's what I can tell you. Has there been a mass migration into a new platform and have developers abandoned FSX? Nope.

 

 

There goes P3D again. Pushing that envelope!

[JSkorna 137]

when there exist adequate alternatives which are of the moment

 

And it sure isn't XPX.

 

So if you are driven by logic, (your words not mine) I think you drove off the road a long time ago!

[glenecho3 9]

What FPS are you getting in the SE version compared to the FSX version?

 

If you are talking about the NYC area I referred to, I am still stuck in the 5-10 FPS in that area running FSX on Windows 8.1. I get 10-20 with FSX:SE. So there is about a doubling for that area. Keep in mind I'm also using Drzewiecki Design NYC Airports, ORBX Global and Vector. So that's pretty heavy duty. This is on a new MSI Gaming laptop...16gig of RAM...NVIDIA GTX965M....i7x2.6ghz processors. The nicest system ever? Hardly. But able to handle FSX? For the most part yes.

 

Other areas aren't as drastic. For rural areas the Steam edition will get me up into 150 FPS while standard FSX seems to top out at around 100. But I am noticing consistent increases in performance all across the board.

 

Still I find it discouraging that with specs like that...I still can't comfortably fly into a scenery filled NYC area but whatever...that ship has sailed and barring moving to another platform...it simply is what is is...to use a cliche.

 

Edit: My standard FSX installation is the deluxe installation with Acceleration added on. It's my understanding that this is more or less what comprises the Steam edition.

[robert young 2,897]

Other than some concerns I've seen from people about Dovetail in general, I'm not sure why people seem to be literally threatened by FSX:SE, as if it somehow nullifies what they do with their hobby. I think, at this point, it's more irresponsible to claim that there is no performance increase as for many, if not most, the performance increase is quite obvious. There have even been accusations that people are LYING about this. Why in the hell would anyone bothering lying about such a silly little thing? What's in it FOR THEM by doing that (correct answer: NOTHING).

 

I agree with you that it is utterly pointless playing King Canute and claiming that Steam FSX is somehow not running better overall than the original Gold FSX release plus Sp2. I agree also that it is pointless having an irrational or tribal preference if you were solely looking for a bargain (launch price) that eventually runs slightly better than the boxed version.

 

But there are perfectly sound reasons why some users are not thinking in the way you assume they should. Not everyone needs the VAS you say Steam edition improves. Many users of FSX have never had an OOM crash, and do not fly FSX in a way that would provoke it. It is the so-called "power users" who most often are confronted with VAS limits. I would estimate the average user of FSX never reaches that point. Other users have perfectly adequate performance using the boxed edition and they have a ton of addons which they've optimised and are happy with. Most of those users are not "denying" FSX-SE is better in this regard - they simply have no need to change. That is not being luddite. They are just being practical.

 

But there is another aspect perhaps you are ignoring. Some users actually DO care about the conduct of businesses, and I certainly do, both as a customer and developer who works extremely hard in an increasingly difficult market that has now been sliced up four ways. That also impacts on customers and users who are spending increasing amounts of cash supporting and buying addons for 4 different sims, hoping one of them will satisfy the natural desire to get as close to immersion and flying pleasure as possible.

 

Therefore, intimately connected with FSX-Steam. and not just whether it happens to be a bargain, or claims to be the "future" of simming, are all sorts of other aspects which I, and quite a few others, find significant and worrying. Firstly DTG announced that in releasing FSX again they were constrained as to what they were allowed to alter. That CLEARLY is not the case. On the one hand they said they could not interfere with the core product, yet no doubt as a result of dissatisfaction from many launch users, they have been doing exactly that. While the outcome has been an improvement and a (very late and seemingly reluctant) dialogue with users that I don't think they expected or wanted, I have good reason to suppose that on launch DTG thought it could get away with a product stripped of parts which were included in the Gold edition, including the SDK. So right from the start DTG lied. It wasn't re-releasing the Gold edtion. There is no doubt about this and I suggest you might read the cached google searches of their initial announcements.

 

The fact is that DTG intended to release FSX-SE with no SDK from the beginning. Yes of course you can obtain that elsewhere but the point is it SHOULD have been included right from the start. Why is this significant? Well, forgive me for being an old cynic but it seems utterly obvious to me, and I don't even need to spell it out.

 

The second significant subject here is about co-operation with 3rd party developers. The fact is that for many, many years, Microsoft recognised that in order to attract sales of FSX it would be suicide to restrict or hamper addon developers. They never announced it officially but it was made absolutely clear they recognised the symbiotic relationship with addon developers. Not so with DTG. Dovetail made several statements saying they "had profound respect" for addon developers and had "reached out to them". THE PRECISE opposite is true. They weren't reaching out at all. What they were doing was "contacting" addon developers with a view to offering them derisory cuts for stuff DTG wanted to control which they did precisely nothing to produce but wanted the maximum profit from.

 

Of course those developers had, and have, the freedom to carry on as before, and release their wares independently. But I can tell you categorically that I personally was bullied, and I really do mean bullied, by a person acting on behalf of DTG, into signing up for what would have been a completely disastrous deal which would have left my organisation with 23% of the revenue from products I took TWO years to develop, on the completely untested conviction that "thousands" of products would be sold. I take exception to being bullied in this way, and I also take exception to being asked to sign a gagging order before I even know the broad outline of what is being offered. DTG is not a touchy-feely organisation intent on "co-operation". It has been forced into actually dealing with real people against its initial intentions. I don't trust people who behave like that, and never have.

 

Now look at the DLC currently on offer and look at the reviews (some of which have already been cut) and extrapolate from that how many DLC sales they've made. Then look at the quality of those DLC. Clearly Dovetail is disappointed that their master plan wasn't quite so easy. So next they actually start responding to complaints about the core product, realising their business plan wasn't the golden egg they thought they had laid.

 

Well done DTG for seeing the light! They've actually realised that they could not get away with claiming to re-launch FSX gold and then sit and wait for the DLC royalities to cascade in. But they already made a big mistake. They launched FSX at a ridiculous knock down price, hoping to profit from DLC. In a carbon copy of the launch of "Flight" they really thought they could subsidise the poor profit margin on the core sim with releases of addon DLC which in fact few have been interested in. Why? Because FSX DLC is largely old items that developers felt they could not sell elsewhere. No wonder there is just one "new" product so far. No developer is going to spend two years hard work to get 30% back, or less, and give the rest away to a few "executives" sitting round a table in docklands who agreed over a gin and tonic to award themselves a fat cut for doing precisely nothing. That's how out of touch DTG is with some highly intelligent third party authors who actually know the market FAR better than DTG does. 

 

It is these, and other aspects of the business conduct of DTG that has turned off many users, and certainly most of the major developers (have a look at statements by A2A, PMDG, Milviz and our own moderator Bill). The question of support is also highly relevant. As you can see, DTG is beginning to realise they just can't get away with releasing something and assuming everyone will be happy. They have learned, rather late, that responsibility and customer support happens to be crucial to how successful they are. The penny has dropped, but for me and many others, just a bit late.

 

Now, you may think none of this matters for the consumer and you would be partly right. All the customer is interested in, apparently, is a cheap simulator which runs better than the version before. Well, as odd as it might sound, some intelligent people who think with critical faculties switched on can see a little bit beyond whether some cheap piece of software runs better than the last piece of software. They actually do factor in the behaviour of who they are dealing with. If you want an explanation as to why some appear to be stubborn about accepting that the Steam edition does in some aspects run "better" you have your answer in what a few (and rather disappointingly few) have pointed out here and elsewhere, and that is that DTG have been forced to support their product properly from a previous position where they simply thought they could release a product that was NOT the re-launched GOLD edition of FSX but stripped of some rather important parts, yet claiming it WAS the Gold edition, then having to make all sorts of excuses as to why that should be, none of which are at all convincing.

 

In this niche market you reap what you sow.

 

Coming back to your frustrations with FSX in general, I think perhaps you are expecting too much from a sim that is not Skyrim - and it's not really useful to compare - skyrim does not have a whole planet to simulate, does not have a huge number of custom gauges, sound effects, flight models, hundreds of thousands of textures, environment maps, weather, effect, sound effects, custom programming, 3d models, addons galore, all running at the same time. The sliders in FSX are there for a purpose. Whacking them all up in a complex scenery with a complex aircraft is always going to tax any system (and especially a laptop, however state of the art). And 64 bit would not be the passport to nirvana some are claiming either. There is only so much a computer can achieve until the whole computer industry comes up with a solution for graphics and pixel pushing that does not rely on current technologies including the dissipation of heat, ever smaller chips, and tweaking to the limits a computing system that essentially has not fundamentally changed for a decade.

 

In the meantime, be content with pulling back your sliders a little and enjoying the act of controlling an aeroplane in a manner that only a few million dollar motion sims can emulate slightly better (and look at the graphics of those things - I have and they come nowhere near what FSX delivers) and which gets actually quite close to those motion sims in flight modelling too but for a thousandth of the price!

[glenecho3 9]

 

 

P3D is just FS 10.5. Oh, there is improved lighting that makes it difficult to see inside your cockpit. It's got better water surfaces. Smoother texture and autogen loading. But it's still FSX at heart. Run them side by side. Someone convince me it runs and looks an order of magnitude better as so many love to claim! Please. Because I got 20/20 vision, and I see marginal differences. I'm not drinking that Kool-Aid yet.

 

I totally agree. $9.95 a month is what I've spent the last three months but that is over. The eye candy was cool at first...but as you said once you realize that all it does is make your guages hard to read, the allure wears off pretty fast.

 

I'd love to know which flight schools out there loaded FSX and said "wow...no way" but then installed P3D and said "YEAH! That's the ticket!". Answer=nobody. I don't buy P3d's whole flight school angle. I think it's an excuse to tweak a very old engine very slightly...and then exploit hardcore simmers like ourselves for paying FAR too much for it. "OMG this is for REAL flight training? I just HAVE to get it now!". While that sounds like an exaggeration, I can tell you that line of thinking certainly got me to lay down the cash for it. So I'm no exception...I fall for it too. I love the cloud shadows but can't justify the monthly cost for that feature alone.

 

I'm probably making a lot of friends here I'll bet...lol.

I agree with you that it is utterly pointless playing King Canute and claiming that Steam FSX is somehow not running better overall than the original Gold FSX release plus Sp2. I agree also that it is pointless having an 

 

But there is another aspect perhaps you are ignoring. Some users actually DO care about the conduct of businesses, and I certainly do, both as a customer and developer who works extremely hard in an increasingly difficult market that has now been sliced up four ways. That also impacts on customers and users who are spending increasing amounts of cash supporting and buying addons for 4 different sims, hoping one of them will satisfy the natural desire to get as close to immersion and flying pleasure as possible.

 

 

I understand where you are coming from and mostly agree. However as I stated...I ditched the hobby for a few years and honestly haven't had time to research any of the little bits of Dovetail criticism I've seen. In my naive eyes...based purely since the Steam edition came out...I've only witnessed positives.

 

I'm just glad someone is taking up the mantle of trying to move forward while not trying to price gouge. The P3D seemed really neat back in October when I started simming again...but when compared to a $5 edition that has better performance...it really makes you wonder if you were chasing the wrong dragon.

I'll just finish up my rantings (of which you've all been very cool and patient about) by saying that FSX did get many things outlandishly right...even though I still feel the graphic engine is horribly inefficient. Although far from entirely real, the ATC and AI traffic is great. While some like to focus on it's weaknesses...it does a lot right and adds a lot of immersion. While this existed in earlier versions, it really was tweaked the best in FSX. And also, one of the things that makes FSX so frustrating is also what has made it last so long...and that's the fact that the graphic engine...while still dog slow...still looks really good even by today's standards. There are a ton of positives.

 

I will confess that I wish that X-plane would just get some default airport scenery...add better ATC and AI...provide seasonal changes etc...and just BECOME the "next great sim" but it just seems like that is never going to happen (it'd also be nice if they included something other than obscure and half-baked default aircraft). Until it does or someone else takes up the challenge...we're still stuck with various flavors of FSX. I think it's a shame...and that we as hobbyists deserve better...but the fact is that obviously nobody really seems to make a good business case for developing the "next great flightsim". To a degree, we've been left behind, which makes me even happier that someone...even if it is Dovetail...is trying to at least do SOMETHING to move forward.

 

And finally, what about the business case? It's my memory that every version of MS Flight Sim that's come out since I've been simming landed No.1 on the game charts at LEAST initially...and for older sims stayed number 1 for much longer (I remember FS98 being number one for weeks and weeks). Unless my memory is just way way off...and I don't think it is...is there TRULY not a market for a new kick-butt sim to hit the market? I have doubts about that....the other versions were very successful. There are simming "games" all over Steam and many are extremely popular. We deserve a next-gen flight sim people...we truly do.

[sumnr5@yahoo.com 1]

I have both versions installed. I tried uninstalling FSX and running steam only. Most of my add-ons work, but there are a couple of programs that are just temperamental enough to where I put FSX back on, and will continue to run it only, untill all other issues have been solved. The programs I am waiting for, are updates to ORBX, EFB, FS2Crew for PMDG737NGX. EZDoc has a patch ,but runs a little squirlly. Also waiting for apatch for AES.  Just a matter of patience. S. Sumner