Just out of curiosity has anyone else gone back to FSX boxed version after problems with Steam?

As an FSX:SE only user, I've no yardstick, no experience of the boxed version to compare. However, in the interests of discussion I am curious as to what problems you've encountered.

I believe the general consensus is that SE is an improvement above the boxed version.

Thanks. 

I have moved on from FSX:SE but once I went to the steam version never went back to the boxed version.  Had no problem with the steam version and it was much improved.   

17 minutes ago, willultra99 said:

I have moved on from FSX:SE but once I went to the steam version never went back to the boxed version.  Had no problem with the steam version and it was much improved.   

Absolutely agree!

The Steam version of FSX is not only the most stable, the code was both updated and optimized.  There are plenty of posts about this so I won't regurgitate that information here, but I will say that I never had a single problem with FSX:SE in all the time I ran it as my primary flight sim (I still have it installed for testing purposes), nor did I know anyone else who had problems.

You could not have dragged me back to any of the Disk versions.

Best wishes.

 

Agree with all the above. I've used both extensively. and SE seems way more stable and optimized.

I bought Steam when it first came out but haven't done much with it.  My FSX is running flawlessly, although I don't use it for long flights.  Are all of the scenery and airplane files transferable directly to Steam?

Thanks,

Tom 

20 hours ago, THibben said:

I bought Steam when it first came out but haven't done much with it.  My FSX is running flawlessly, although I don't use it for long flights.  Are all of the scenery and airplane files transferable directly to Steam?

Thanks,

Tom 

I  would also like to know similar as above, are there any compatibility problems with any addons made for boxed FSX not working correctly in the Steam version?

Roughly 95% of all FSX payware add-ons will work in FSX:SE. But you should always check with the add-on developer.

The last I knew there were a few payware GA aircraft and a few Flight titles (Sound Stream was one) thst didn't work, though I can't be more specific than that (again, just check the add on sales description to be sure).

 

 

On Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 10:36 PM, HighBypass said:

As an FSX:SE only user, I've no yardstick, no experience of the boxed version to compare. However, in the interests of discussion I am curious as to what problems you've encountered.

I believe the general consensus is that SE is an improvement above the boxed version.

Thanks. 

I cannot comment on SE as I have only got the boxed version but up till a days ago I was running FSW and Aerofly FS 2 via Steam as well as my seldom used unoptimised and buggy non Steam FSX.  Then I moved my PC out of the study and lost Steam and my games. So I have taken the opportunity to unload my complete FSX installation and to reload it in the recommended order to optimise it and all my add ons. I am pleasantly surprised what a bit of care and tweaking achieved. I just find it nice not to have to be concerned about Steam and those constant updates for a while and I wondered if there were any other retro users out there too. 

I use both the boxed version on my flight rig and the steam version on my everyday PC. They both perform pretty well, the steam version has the advantage of being recompiled and also having the HIGHMEMFIX tweak coded in but I have noticed the draw distance for AI and ground vehicles is a bit shorter on the steam version

I also use FS recorder so boxed version is still relavent for me

 

 

I just transitioned to FSX:SE from FSX boxed and am very happy with it.  I've only had 2 problems and both were self induced.  It did take 13-14 hours to go from boxed to steam, but that was because of all of the Orbx scenery I had to reload.  Really glad I made the switch.

I went straight from FS9 to Steam. Tried FSX boxed when it came out, and had a slow slide show for FPS. Never could justify the hardware investment to make it work, although I think there was some embellishment on forums of what it actually took to run it adequately. The reduced price of hardware and the arrival of FSX-SE kind of coincided for me. 

Opposite here, dusted off the discs and installed boxed after 4 years. 

Much better performance in boxed for my rig. FSX really is strange.

3 hours ago, SpeedFlyer said:

Much better performance in boxed for my rig.

Could you have made some tweaks to the Steam version that you'd forgotten? After initially installing FSX:SE I applied a number of the popular, recommended tweaks (NickN and others) which I felt generally made things a little worse. I deleted the cfg file and I decided run it without tweaks and it now runs smoothly (better than with the tweaks!) at 2560x1440 with plenty of add-ons.

With an otherwise identical setup, it's difficult to understand how the boxed version could run better - FSX:SE has been built with a more recent, better-optimised compiler which should work more efficiently with modern hardware. Additional bug fixes mean that it also handles memory a little better. That said, running FSX has always been more of an art than a science so, in the end, it's down to whatever works best for you (FSX:SE for me, though).

Hi Vortex687,

Tweaks have not worked for me so I usually run vanilla cfg. 

It is really strange, I bet you I get a different experience if I reinstall SE, thats the art of FSX :-)