A bit of FS-X advice

[1mikel151 71]

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

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

[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' ;-)

[1mikel151 71]

>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

[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.

[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!

[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

[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

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"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

[Dillon 2,197]

"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. :-)

[kerosene31 349]

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.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"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. :-)"Understood, but that's not the point of my thread. Exactly the opposite--there will be a number of pp who won't/can't upgrade who won't even try fs-x in part I think due to a belief they can't get any entertainment from the product. The whole point of my post was to give them a method to try. That's all.'Out-John

[Mace 1,902]

>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. Well FSX is way better in the fluidity aspect...in other words 15 fps in FSX is much smoother than 15 fps in FS9.RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.

[Murmur 3,941]

>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. HALLELUJAH BRO'!!! I thought I was the only one in these forums who can't fly satisfactorily below steady 35 FPS (yes, 35). My suspension of disbelief is much more higher with FS98 style graphics and 40 FPS, than with photorealistic scenery and 20 or 25FPS.I can't even image how one can happily fly at 15 or 20FPS, but hey, everyone's different... :(Marco

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"I can't even image how one can happily fly at 15 or 20FPS, but hey, everyone's different..."So much depends on how high one is above the ground I think. If a simmer generally prefers ATP, 15 fps at FL350 isn't going to be too noticeable, but bland, boring scenery like that we had in FS98 would. On the other hand, when it comes to GA flying and flying a couple thousand feet above the earth, the difference between 15 fps and 30 fps is night and day. The wild card however is how efficient each sim is at doing the types of background tasks (fetching textures from the HD) that generally are perceived as stutters. I think most simmers would take 15 fps with few stutters vs. 20 fps with a stutter every minute, especially when flying the pattern. And many of us "old timers" come from the days of the C-64 and FS-II, where 4 or 5 fps coming into O'hare was a big deal. One of the things I do to max realism and fluidity on my older system is keeping the terrain detail as high and sharp as possible, and using autogen only outside of the major airports, such as when I am bush flying. At FL350, I don't care about autogen. And in a heavy jet on a 170kt approach, I don't look at it much either :)-John

[kerosene31 349]

I'm not really talking of stutters, those are a separate issue. Stuttering is bad at any FPS. 15 fps without stutters is still not fluid to me. John has a good point, it matters a lot about what plane you are flying. The biggest plane I have flown in fs9 in a long time is the Navajo twin :)When you are flying something that is supposed to be light and nimble, 15fps does not feel right. It might not matter nearly as much to someone flying the heavies, as the heavies are much slower to move in real life anyway. It isn't altitude for me either, it is the horizon. I want the horizon to roll perfectly smooth, along with smooth instruments (RXP stuff is great, RealAir VC's etc...)