Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
GaryGB

A bit of FS-X advice

Recommended Posts

When FS-9 came along, people looked (well, "virtually looked") at me as if I was crazy even trying to run FS-9 on an old P3/800 with Windows 98. I've always been on the distant trailing edge of technology--flightsimming is a hobby, but not an obsession. I only obsess about missing time with my wife and daughter and the 24x7 schedule that keeps me from them sometimes.So I have just managed with what I have. I've upgraded along the way, but you'd never see me post specs. I am still on the trailing edge of technology and will never have anything to boast about, but I will boast about my gorgeous wife and pearl of a daughter all day long.FS2002 ran outstandingly well on my P3/800. But FS9 was so much richer visually, would it manage as well? I found if I tried the "slider" method of matching sliders to FS2002, NO! Was I kidding? I choked my P3/800 to death. But then I tried something that my CFI tells me enough when I fly "real world". I just "looked out the window". I scaled back FS9 so visually it matched FS2002. Then I added some clouds here, a little autogen there, an add-on aircraft, some nice mesh. And never once since have I bogged down the sim or forced myself into a situation where I had to reinstall it. In the end, I ended up with a beautiful flight environment and the same performance. Not a maxed sim, but something rich enough that it has given me years of entertainment value for the price of going to a fine dinner. Can I run FS-X on a P3/800? I wouldn't even try (well, maybe I would just for grins). But the point of my long winded post is almost everyone here flies with more hardware than I do. When you buy and install FS-X, your first goal should be "dumbing it down" so it looks the same visually as FS-9 before it. That may mean that in a spot where you have a slider maxed in FS-9, you keep it at 50 pct. in FS-X. Start low, and work up towards the level of "eye candy" and performance that you are willing to accept. Turn off the silly fps counter. It's not about fps--it's about whether you can create an environment real enough that you can escape from the room or study or cabin you do your simming in.The ACES team has offered unprecedented support, understanding and access to this project as it's rolled forth this year. Members here have more of an opportunity to "get it just right" than ever before, without some of the trial and error we had in past releases. I hope people give the newest sim a chance. And pardon any spelling issues in this post--I gotta go away now, no time to spell check :)-John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It's not about fps--it's about whether you can create an environment real enough that you can escape from the room or study or cabin you do your simming in.".Without the FPS unit of measure.. we have nothing to compare and understand what most people are talking about when they say..they have problems with "slow/poor performance". Its a unit of measure that we all understand. And within that context, I think its perfectly valid. JMO.BTW.. I just built myself a new PC Core 2 duo E6600. and running FSX Beta on it... with the sliders about 80% to the right.. I get 15FPS avg.That is without any addons.For what its worth.:)Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest SoarPics

Hi Manny,I agree with John's point entirely. I long ago stopped being concerned about FPS with this sim. There are simply too many variables for FPS to be the supreme benchmark. Instead my priorities are fluidity and realism (does that scene out the window of my aircraft look as real to life as I can make it). I will sometimes turn on the counter, but only when testing new drivers (I have a test flight that I've used for years for this) or scenery mods like REP.BTW nice thread you have going in the HW forum about your new build.Regards,Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manny,Thanks for your reply. If you use fps as a guide and "dumb down" FS-X so it displays roughly the same detail as FS-9 (I suppose the first thing to do would be to reduce texture size), how does performance compare? That's what I am suggesting members do--sliders @ 80 pct. in FS-X well exceeds the detail FS-9 offers with sliders @ 100 pct. What if the detail simply matches? I think that's where people should start. -John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>The ACES team has offered unprecedented support, understanding>and access to this project as it's rolled forth this year. >Members here have more of an opportunity to "get it just>right" than ever before, without some of the trial and error>we had in past releases. I hope people give the newest sim a>chance.One thing I don't need right now is the "trial and error" that comes with each new release of FS. I'll just sit back and enjoy my now fully "dialed in" multi-dollar investment called FS9. ricardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Greg.Thx. I know what John meant and I do not disagree with him on the bigger point he and you are making. :)But in a narrow context (which many people use it in) makes sense IMO.I know, when I add AI, I am going to lose some FPS (5? 6?). When I add another PC running Altavista, I'd probably lose 5 FPS more.. .and things like that.. On my Dell XPS 600, The default FS9 ran at 75FPS...today its running at 15FPS with all my addons.15FPS is just managable.So, thats the context when people talkabout FPS I believe.:)Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"One thing I don't need right now is the "trial and error" that comes with each new release of FS. I'll just sit back and enjoy my now fully "dialed in" multi-dollar investment called FS9."I was trying to write an upbeat and positive thread. One of the reasons I haven't been in the forums lately is I've been busy. The second--even when I do have the time, someone finds a means to sneak into the most innocent post to spew an agenda.Sorry I wasted my time sharing my thoughts, and Tom may feel free to delete the thread. I am sick and tired of wasting my time trying to add something meaningful to the group only for my words to serve as an opening for someone to hijack my thread with the same old cliche'-John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>One thing I don't need right now is the "trial and error" that>comes with each new release of FS. I'll just sit back and>enjoy my now fully "dialed in" multi-dollar investment called>FS9. Ricardo, I should think everyone understands what you've said. Is there any real point in mentioning it again, and again, and yet once again? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Are you still running FS9 on a PIII800?"I still do--I don't sim enough any more to worry about upgrading and. I think I probably wouldn't have kept the P3/800 if I hadn't started my flight training early in the year--prior to that, simming was enough and I invested more time and money in the hobby and I have bits and pieces of hardware I would use for building a new system. But I just don't have the urge or need to do it, so it's about priority 88 out of a 100.Also, after a real flight, a week can go by before I feel like firing up the sim. I just can't duplicate the feeling I get from being in the air. Since I provide both hardware and software support as a profession, it's been no real challenge to keep the P3 going and Windows 98 going. It doesn't crash, freeze, lockup, make odd whirring noises, or periodically dial out to strange offshore places--things that make us throw out our old equipment. It just keeps humming along. :) -John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Properly configged and maintained, the ol P3/800 *can* hum right along.I thought I was "behind-the-times" when I was running a P4/1.8 early this year. :) But then I did recall you running a P3/800.Very good suggestion about moving sliders to the point where it looks about like FS2004, and then slowly and methodically raising them. I think that's pretty much the same suggestion offered by someone else here, maybe one of the ACES team... And if you don't like to constantly mess with and tweak your flight sim, then you're in the wrong hobby buddy.RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FxF3

You can run FS9 or FSX on almost any computer if you have enough ram and modest video card. The sliders work both ways.;-) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Water Mango

John even running FSX at FS9's display level produces terrible performance compared to the older sim. I don't think this theory is going to work this time around. Have you seen the quality of most of those screenshots posted??? Most shots of FSX look worse than FS9...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Water Mango

John I for one am not trying to be negative here only offering a realistic viewpoint. Your post was a bit overly optimistic concerning FSX. Every other version had a new OS to go with it (FS95, FS98, FS2000 Windows ME or W2000, FS2k2 WindowsXP, and FSX which should have Vista and DX10). I could be wrong but I don't think your going to get FS9 performance out of FSX looking like FS9... Sorry if that sounds harsh but that's how I feel about it. People are really going to be in trouble trying to run the more demanding add-ons on top of FSX (whether it be scenery or aircraft). Only the most top of the line machines are going to get the performance we got with FS9 (when it first came out) including add-ons. That's what FS is really about for most of us, the wealth of add-ons. FSX barley runs default on most machines. What you wrote above John hopefully works for some but FSX may come out looking like FS2000 versus FS9 or even FS2k2. We'll have to see I guess. I'm glade I'm more than happy with FS9...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Good luck to everyone willing to take the plunge on October>17th...>Thanks!!!! :-)Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest odog

>>Good luck to everyone willing to take the plunge on October>>17th...>>>>Thanks!!!! :-)>>>Regards, Michael>KDFW:-lol :-lol :-lolblublabullabhuhlal is all i read, but i recognized it from the other 30 threads.originally a nice post John, I never judged you by your 'specs' ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>John I for one am not trying to be negative here only>offering a realistic viewpoint. Your post was a bit overly>optimistic concerning FSX. Every other version had a new OS>to go with it (FS95, FS98, FS2000 Windows ME or W2000, FS2k2>WindowsXP, and FSX which should have Vista and DX10). >>I could be wrong but I don't think your going to get FS9>performance out of FSX looking like FS9... Sorry if that>sounds harsh but that's how I feel about it. People are>really going to be in trouble trying to run the more demanding>add-ons on top of FSX (whether it be scenery or aircraft). >Only the most top of the line machines are going to get the>performance we got with FS9 (when it first came out) including>add-ons. That's what FS is really about for most of us, the>wealth of add-ons. FSX barley runs default on most machines. >What you wrote above John hopefully works for some but FSX may>come out looking like FS2000 versus FS9 or even FS2k2. We'll>have to see I guess. I'm glade I'm more than happy with>FS9... >Chris, you are obviously a glass is half empty kind a guy based on your posts and also someone that the new features in FSX don't appeal to. There is no doubt that many are not going to be happy with their performance with FSX, myself included since I run with everything maxed in FS9.Johns point is to give the sim a chance and NOT be so *bleeping* negative. I only have the demo and with some compromises, I can still get great texture resolution, denser than FS9 autogen, awesome water effects, full AI and fly around in my imported Bell 206 and get smooth performance even if at 10-18 fps. Ihe visuals are what I have wanted from FS9 and couldn't get.Not all of us are about addons, especially since they are the main cause for poor performance in FS9. I love all the posts where people complain about getting 6-10 FPS in their PMDG 747 at Heathrow, with full, realistic AI and real weather, DUH!Obviously these people are not going to be happy with FSX till hardware catches up, but those that can enjoy the new sim in other areas, GA flights, bush flying, rotary flight, gliding, even sailing with have lots to enjoy as it will be less demanding.I've been involved in many gaming communities where you get little interaction from the developers and when you did get something, it rarely worked as advertised and they could care less, With all that the ACES team has given us the last few months concerning the new version, I feel compelled to at least give them the support they deserve despite any bugs or shortcomings I might percieve. Thanks for the post John, although we should all chip in and get John a new rig, LOL.Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest SilverCircle

>John even running FSX at FS9's display level produces>terrible performance compared to the older sim. I don't think>this theory is going to work this time around. Have you seen>the quality of most of those screenshots posted??? Most shots>of FSX look worse than FS9...Well, that might come from the fact that most FS9 shots are far away from being produced by a default FS9 install :)When you compare the image quality of a default FS9 install with the image quality of a default FSX install, then FSX wins easily (at a cost, though).However, people who think that Vista or DX10 will "magically" improve anything and make FSX run like a dream are simply wrong and might be disappointed to some degree.For example, FS9 runs slower on Vista than it runs on XP, simply because Vista uses more resources for its own purposes (and, of course, drivers and even Vista itself are not yet optimized), so DX10 is the only hope right now. It will certainly improve things, especially with new video cards and DX10 ready drivers, but even DX10 isn't some sort of "black magic".The hardware which can run FSX at the same performance like a current high end system can run FS9 simply does not exist and won't exist for at least a year from now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest archtx

Thanks for posting that Michael.There are several posters whose names are quickly burned into one's memory that spend a great deal of time in this forum responding to every thread with why they aren't going to buy FSX. No problem, I respect that decision......but do they need to be so #### repetitive about it? You'd think once they had reached that decision they would lose interest in continued reading of FSX threads!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jimbofly

Why don't you take the plunge? What are you afraid of??Many people using the Beta (a buggy as #### version FSX) swear by it and are actually managing great performance from it after fine-tuning it. The release version will actually allow more flexibility in fine tuning it which will be a godsend, really.Forgetting about eye candy for a second, you'll get a lot more from this new sim:More realistic weather and wind patterns, which should equate to a more realistic flight experience, andA more "alive" World. Even if you don't spend time looking at things such as birds and ships that traverse the ocean, you'll still get a much higher level of immersion and escape. This can actually happen at a subconcious level.Even though it hasn't been made official, developers have hinted that the flight models are actually more detailed, and more variables are able to be taken advantage of. The release of an SDX will greatly assist 3rd party developers to make even better flight models.Head-latency that's the best implemented I've ever seen. This increases the feeling of immersion you get by 10x imho.Missions. Many of these are very real-World and can dramatically improve your skill. There will also be countless ones available for download.I for one will be "taking the plunge", and I'll ensure I post all about my great experience for you to read!James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest allcott

John, thanks for your input, but remind you that you are not here to dictate the positive or negative nature of the response to your comments. John if you don't want negative comments, then the only way is just keep your comments to yourself! I gave up caring what anybody thinks, otherwise I'd have taken this "computer game you spend all your spare time playing" of the hard drive long ago! I think you need a thicker skin too!As for the actual topic, well if you're going to do what John advises, why not just KEEP FS9 and save the bucks for the hardware upgrade that will always come later? :)Seems obvious the ONLY purpose to an established simmer buying the new sim is to IMPROVE the experience. We still have to wait to see whether the mission structure the new ATC and the simconnect features improve the sim beyond mere visuals. It really doesn't make much sense to get vectored into a prettier mountain. Less still to get vectored into a mountain that looks the same as it did in FS9!The Great Question this time is the balance of performance versus functionality. All those things we have grown accustomed to in FS9 may be missing at first in FSX, so unless the picture is considerably prettier, then unless the hardware upgrade is on the cards, stay with FS9, which has life yet. The Beta and demos may have given a false impression - I say `may`!I am fully reconciled with installing FSX, which I forward ordered months ago, then taking it off again until I complete a hardware upgrade around the middle of next year. I hope it won't happen, but I expect it will. That seems to be a sane attitude to the FSX experience, but as usual outside factors may impact on how I see things in the near future. Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"John, thanks for your input, but remind you that you are not here to dictate the positive or negative nature of the response to your comments."In other words, I can express an opinion, but can't express any followup opinions? LOL :) If someone hijacks my thread with an agenda and a comment completely out of context, I can remark on it. My opinions aren't censured, just as his isn't. I've seen so many posts here dismissing FS-X and it seems to be a bandwagon a select group is on. Some comments partial to sticking with FS9 are for honest reasons--people don't want to spend the money. But some serve only to get in shots at Microsoft, the ACES team, the beta testers, or the software industry in general. I didn't intend this thread to become the same discussion, but you are right in a sense--I am much more shy about expressing ANY opinion in the forum these days. Even if I make a post admiring the blue sky, someone is going to decry that color and champion green or purple, and call us "blue sky" lovers a really excited user of the Lord. -John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Some comments partial to sticking with FS9 are for honest reasons--people don't want to spend the money."John I have to comment on this one... I for one don't mind spending the money. I just feel down the road would be a better option for FSX as past mistakes have shown. Vista is not out, DX10 is not out, and Dual/Quad Core processors have a way to go yet. I don't want to go into DX10 compatible video cards.John if Vista/DX10 was out now I'd be right in line to get FSX. Yes it's been said FSX doesn't need that but down the road that'll be my upgrade path anyway. Why fight FSX on a single core box or a low end Dual Core machine... I'd rather wait for obvious reasons and get the best out of FSX. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally (note- this is my personal opinion) I'd rather run an older sim with higher FPS than a newer one with lower. I know there are people out there who fly with 15fps on average or less. They are perfectly happy. For me however, when I see that horizon "chunking" by instead of smoothly moving while I bank the aircraft, I lose that feel. The terrain below can look perfectly real, but if it isn't running at a high enough FPS, it feels more like a computer simulation. I'm not talking about stutters, but the overall "fluidity" of the sim. It is really hard to describe what I mean. The best example is for someone with a good PC to fly the RealAir SF260 (or another a/c with a great VC). Fly around with fps locked at 15, then try again at 30. It isn't about staring at the framerate counter, it is about fluid flight. Watch the horizon as you bank... maybe you will see what I mean. I've flown over numerous scenery packages, but nothing has ever given me that perfect "feel" like the smooth VC of the RealAir aircraft on my new rig with higher FPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...