need help with fsx RETAIL and dell 8300 2.8 ghz

[Dillon 2,197]

** Interesting ** Be careful before you jump on this one. Dave needs to confirm where to find this info... If it's true I don't know what the implications could be trying to capitalize on the market and sell FSX on WindowsXP versus waiting for the OS it was designed for (especially the alleged mis-information Aces has been spreading concerning FSX and WindowsXP). If there is a readme stating the above someone has some explaining to do. Either way people have the sim up and running and are more than happy with the performance or lack their of. It always made more since to me to wait for obvious reasons but having others dive in is more than a benefit to those of us holding off...

[scott967 62]

With identical setups, FSX runs slower on vista than on Win xp. Unless there is some magic in the retail versions of both, I can't see FSX performing better on vista, until DX10 hardware is out and the DX10-compliant version of FSX is released. Now it could be that if one ups RAM to 2 gig, that will make a difference, but I haven't seen any site testing vista which show better game play.scott s..

[Guest 2002cbr600f4i]

>"Nick is on the right track. In the readme file it clearly>says the following" >>"Microsoft Flight Simulator X and Microsoft Windows Vista>Flight Simulator X is designed to run on the Windows Vista>operating system. Flight Simulator X was released prior to the>completion of Windows Vista.">>:-eek >>I brought up this fact awhile back along with many other>simmers. People here including 'Tdragger' flat out lied and>said FSX was designed for FS9. Now we have official proof it>wasn't...>>'Davewins' where's this readme file located so nothing is>disputed (I sure hope your not pulling our leg because this is>big news)???Haven't you guys ever heard of Marketing Dept getting ahold of the truth and changing it to suit their needs? I have NO doubt that tdragger's statements were 100% true - from an engineering perspective... From a corporate "message"/marketing perspective, FSX is a flagship product that will be used to promote Vista and help push people to upgrade to Vista... Hence they put statements like that in there to make people believe they need Vista to run FSX properly...Marketing people = paid liars.... DEAL WITH IT!--2002cbr600f4i

[Guest]

Well i shudder to think Microsoft would release an OS that runs games SLOWER than its predecessor. They did that with Windows 2000 Pro and it was quickly relegated to a 'work only' OS status and gamers everywhere shunned it. I'm fairly confident that Windows XP's release a year later was due to the fact that games and application compatibility were horrible in Windows 2000 whereas with Windows XP they ran better, as well or at worst case 'slightly' worse than in Windows 98.Vista is hyped as a gamer's OS and if games are going to run 10-20% slower in Vista than in XP, I can assure you that no gamer will install and use it, or at least not as a primary OS. I know I won't. I may dual boot it when DX10 games start to arrive so that I can run them, but no way I'm going to accept a 15% frame rate decrease with my existing DX9 games in Vista.I think the slowness we are seeing in benchmarks now is due to an incomplete OS running non-optimized beta video drivers which accounts for the drop in FPS, at least I hope that's what is causing it. Nvidia and ATI had better get their acts in gear and make sure their drivers are highly optimized for Vista on the day that it is released. Nvidia I'm confident can deliver...ATI on the other hand with their sub-par drivers is another story.As far as this whole FSX made for DX10 and Vista: true and false. I spoke with the developers at the AVSIM conference and they told me that the game was designed for DX9 with every intention of supporting Vista and DX10 with a patch to be released at some unspecified time in the future after Vista's consumer release. This means that the DX10 patch may not be available until next spring at the earliest and more like summer if I were a betting man. What you are seeing now in final FSX release is the game optimized to run on Windows XP and DX9. There will be no magic speed pill if you install it on Vista as some are saying, even after DX10 and the patch are released. Best case scenario, the game will run the same in DX10 mode on Vista as it does now in DX9 mode on XP, just with more eye candy and effects.Dave

[dlhusk 0]

I have been going the same thing and have almost the same setup. This is what helped me:1.) I had just installed the most recent edition of ATI Catalyst software and drivers, I went back to original drivers and that helped immensely believe it or not, ther are about 6 generations of drivers from 2004 till now, but originals work fine. Also I started tweaking the setups in display until it works best. I started with very low and went up, finally found on my machine it works best with all set to Med Low, when i went to med High it started jerking. When I turned off autogen it got better, still tweaking as we speak...Danny

[FlyingsCool 3]

I dunno, I would bet not long after Vista is released that the patch is released as well. At the conference, they said they had just received their first DX10 hardware (but had not yet had a chance to put it through its paces). By Christmas, they will probably have more stable hardware and I imagine Vista will be very close to final beta, or whatever it is they call it. They should have the patch by spring as long as there are no major Vista or DX10 hardware hiccups.I can tell you they are working hard on improving FS now, based on comments by Adam and the work he is doing as we speak. Based on his comments as well, I think there is room for improvement that we will see in FS SP1 or whatever they will call it.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

[sawacs 0]

I am currently running an AMD Xp2700 with 1gb of memory and a 9700 ATI video card along with a creative XFI sound card.My game runs very smoothly but I do not run ships, vehicles, bloom etc and the game looks wonderful without them: I don't even think about turning on autogen as it is kind of a joke except for photo purposes. With my system the game runs remarkably well and actually looks better than 2004.Re-think the following statements.."I hate to be the bearer of bad news but no way that rig is going to run fsx""You could consider yourself lucky to run the game at all with marginally smooth frame rates with everything turned as low as it goes""Time to upgrade."Cheers, Sawacs

[JerryG 1]

Hi,While my PC is a little better performer than your's, check out my post here - http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...54123&mode=fullJerryG

[Guest davewins]

>"Nick is on the right track. In the readme file it clearly>says the following" >>"Microsoft Flight Simulator X and Microsoft Windows Vista>Flight Simulator X is designed to run on the Windows Vista>operating system. Flight Simulator X was released prior to the>completion of Windows Vista.">>:-eek >>I brought up this fact awhile back along with many other>simmers. People here including 'Tdragger' flat out lied and>said FSX was designed for FS9. Now we have official proof it>wasn't...>>'Davewins' where's this readme file located so nothing is>disputed (I sure hope your not pulling our leg because this is>big news)???I am not quite sure whether to take you sarcastically or serious but I guess I will take you serious. The readme file is located where all readme files are. Do you not have the retail version yet??I also do not understand what you mean by "...flat out lied and said FSX was designed for FS9." Did you mean it was designed for dx9??

[Guest SilverCircle]

>'Davewins' where's this readme file located so nothing is>disputed (I sure hope your not pulling our leg because this is>big news)???Its marketing talk, nothing else.FSX cannot be "designed for vista and DX10", because then it wouldn't run on XP and DX9. Pretty simple, hm? Just another way to tell people how cool vista will be and that spending a few 100 $ will improve your "overall experience" - well, we'll see. From what *I* have seen about Vista (and that's a lot since I've been following its development for the last 2 years), that's not going to happen. That OS alone will eat up twice the resources compared to XP. It does have some nice things, no question, but you're gonna pay the price for it, and that price is called hardware.It *may* take advantage from a later DX10 upgrade when Vista is out and DX10 video cards (+ stable and optimized drivers) are available, but anyone who expects a "magical" improve in performance by more than a few fps will be disappointed, I promise. As we all know, FS is very much bound to the CPU power and neither DX10 nor Vista will be able to magically improve the speed of your CPU.At least, half a year from now. Possibly longer.

[Guest davewins]

>** Interesting ** >>Be careful before you jump on this one. Dave needs to confirm>where to find this info... If it's true I don't know what the>implications could be trying to capitalize on the market and>sell FSX on WindowsXP versus waiting for the OS it was>designed for (especially the alleged mis-information Aces has>been spreading concerning FSX and WindowsXP). If there is a>readme stating the above someone has some explaining to do.>Either way people have the sim up and running and are more>than happy with the performance or lack their of. It always>made more since to me to wait for obvious reasons but having>others dive in is more than a benefit to those of us holding>off...I completley understand your skepticism. But let me assure you that I am not lying. That is exactly what it says in the readme. Not for nothing but I have a brand new cpu intel core 2 duo (2 2.13 ghz) which is plenty good enough 1gb ram (which can use some upgrading but still good enough) and a geforce 7600gs graphics card which should be good enough but maybe I can use some improvement. If I upgraded my graphics card I don't think I would see that big of a difference but who knows. I am not going to spend another 350-500 just to find out when I already spent a good $2000 in the last 2 weeks. It doesn't make sense that I have trouble running this game at all. What does make sense is Microsoft made this game and Microsoft makes windows and vista is coming out. Kinda obvious I know but it really explains the situation here. Or you can just read the readme file yourself if you have the retail version and read that short sentence and take it for all its worth. I really think vista and dx10 are going to really surprise us with its gaming capabilities. We just have to be patient (that's so hard).

[Guest davewins]

>With identical setups, FSX runs slower on vista than on Win>xp. Unless there is some magic in the retail versions of>both, I can't see FSX performing better on vista, until DX10>hardware is out and the DX10-compliant version of FSX is>released. Now it could be that if one ups RAM to 2 gig, that>will make a difference, but I haven't seen any site testing>vista which show better game play.>>scott s.You absolutley can not use a beta version of vista to test it on. You need the full version (it's not even completed yet) and you obviously need dx10.>.>

[Guest davewins]

>>"Nick is on the right track. In the readme file it clearly>>says the following" >>>>"Microsoft Flight Simulator X and Microsoft Windows Vista>>Flight Simulator X is designed to run on the Windows Vista>>operating system. Flight Simulator X was released prior to>the>>completion of Windows Vista.">>>>:-eek >>>>I brought up this fact awhile back along with many other>>simmers. People here including 'Tdragger' flat out lied and>>said FSX was designed for FS9. Now we have official proof>it>>wasn't...>>>>'Davewins' where's this readme file located so nothing is>>disputed (I sure hope your not pulling our leg because this>is>>big news)???>>>Haven't you guys ever heard of Marketing Dept getting ahold of>the truth and changing it to suit their needs? >>I have NO doubt that tdragger's statements were 100% true ->from an engineering perspective... From a corporate>"message"/marketing perspective, FSX is a flagship product>that will be used to promote Vista and help push people to>upgrade to Vista... Hence they put statements like that in>there to make people believe they need Vista to run FSX>properly...>>Marketing people = paid liars.... DEAL WITH IT!>>--2002cbr600f4iSo what's the point of having these settings if you can't max them out?? If no machine can max them out then what's the point of having them?? I have a brand new machine...only thing I am lacking is an excellent video card and if someone can show me what an excellent graphics card can make this game do graphic wise then I will be a believer but until then I will be skeptical. I don't want to go out and spend 500 just on a graphics card to find out that this game is indeed meant for dx10 and vista.

[Guest]

>>>I am currently running an AMD Xp2700 with 1gb of memory and a>9700 ATI video card along with a creative XFI sound card.>>My game runs very smoothly but I do not run ships, vehicles,>bloom etc and the game looks wonderful without them: I don't>even think about turning on autogen as it is kind of a joke>except for photo purposes. >>With my system the game runs remarkably well and actually>looks better than 2004.>>Re-think the following statements..>>"I hate to be the bearer of bad news but no way that rig is>going to run fsx">>"You could consider yourself lucky to run the game at all with>marginally smooth frame rates with everything turned as low as>it goes">>"Time to upgrade.">>Cheers, SawacsUmm..I thought that's what i said. I said that he should feel lucky to have it run 'marginally' smooth with everything turned down as low as it goes. Seeing as you had to turn down everything as low as it goes to run it smooth(subjective) you just proved my point. Not sure what you were trying to prove other than what I already said??