A bit of FS-X advice

[John_Cillis 2,406]

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

[Manny 1,293]

"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

[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

[John_Cillis 2,406]

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

[Ricardo41 5,935]

>>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

[Manny 1,293]

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

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"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

[n4gix 4,947]

>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? ;)

[windycloud 30]

Are you still running FS9 on a PIII800?

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"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

[Mace 1,896]

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.

[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.;-) .

[Guest Water Mango]

Great point Manny...If you

[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...

[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...