FSX - Slow, slow, slow/Unflyable

[Guest Len]

You can beg to differ if you want, but the fact of the matter is that MS *specifically* said that in this version, it is best to leave sliders where they are after install, and then test and move them up gradually to see where your system stands performance-wise.You don't seem to undertand my post. So I tried it the opposite way? In the end the result as I post below has gone to the extent that a boned up FS9 is far nicer than a stripped down flyable FSX. Furthermore, MS also notes on the box 'system requirements' - processor 1.0 GHz.' LOL! I've now slaughtered mesh, texture, etc. down to 25% - yuch.

[Guest firehawk44]

Len,I have the exact system as yours (Dell Generation 3) and have excellent graphics and FPS with the FSX Demo (2nd Version). I have my scenery settings set to Global Medium High; traffic at 15% (including traffic density); aircraft at Ultra High; and weather at Global High. My target frame rate is 100 and I rarely see FPS below 20. I hope you can find a tweak that works for you.Best regards,Jim

[Guest Len]

You need to get the real deal fsx (or maybe you shouldn't as I can't recommend it). I could run the demo not badly but this is a different ballgame. Try taking off from KSEA with those settings. But there are numerous settings you haven't noted which would require a substantial decrease in those settings as well. Maybe at some point I'll take a screen shot of the skeleton remains I'm left with once I can get off the ground without juttering to death.

[Guest david W.]

Get real. You post that FSX is "slow slow slow/unflyable"You first complain that LOADING is slow. (When has that even been an issue before)Then you complain you can't run FSX with everything maxed, and only get 2-3 frames on the ground.Are you new to flight simulations? Do you really expect to be able to max everything on a brand new flight sim (that is worth anything). I only have a 3 year old P4 3.0Ghz 1 gB RAM Geforce FX5600XT 256MB and the FSX Demo 2 is very flyable at the default settings. Only 2-3 frames? There is something seriously wrong with your computer. Something must be choking it. It probably is not set up correctly, or you have major hardware/software problems. Because with your systems specs, FSX is very flyable.A friend of mine has the identical system to you, except his is only a 3.4Ghz and your is 3.6Ghz.He easily gets 25 frames, and it is very flyable. I saw it in action today.

[BobP 56]

Jim,I had similar performance marks with the File Planet Beta and demo. For whatever reason, the retail version is tougher on my system. With auto gen off, I get very fluid motion and nice frame rates (steady 20). With auto-gen set to sparse my frame rates drop to below 12 and the jerkiness shows. What video card/drivers are you using?Dell P4 XPS 3.6ghzRadeon XT8900 pro with 256mb1 gig Dell memoryCatalyst 6.9 with the control panel installed

[Guest Len]

Then you complain you can't run FSX with everything maxed, and only get 2-3 frames on the ground.Are you new to flight simulations? Do you really expect to be able to max everything on a brand new flight sim (that is worth anything).Buy stock in MS? A bee in your bonnet? As noted above I've been flying these versions for years. I have a CH flight Yoke and Pedals which I have'nt been able to use yet with this version because I've had to incessantly lower the sliders to a shell of what this version is suposed to give. As I stated, I START high and work down as I have on all the series I've purchased. What's left with this version so far is a far cry from what it can offer at marginal frame rates.I only have a 3 year old P4 3.0Ghz 1 gB RAM Geforce FX5600XT 256MB and the FSX Demo 2 is very flyable at the default settings.Flew the demo and wasn't too bad (7-8 frames around airports and 12-15 looking into the ocean lol!) but my settings did not have to be sliced and diced as they are with the full version. You're still flying the demo I see.Only 2-3 frames? There is something seriously wrong with your computer. Something must be choking it. It probably is not set up correctly, or you have major hardware/software problems. Because with your systems specs, FSX is very flyable.No, there's nothing wrong with my system. I've been playing around with computers maybe since you were in diapers.A friend of mine has the identical system to you, except his is only a 3.4Ghz and your is 3.6Ghz.He easily gets 25 frames, and it is very flyable. I saw it in action today.Yeah, let's start with the anecdotal stories. Right.Loads of guys out there now have FSX but yours seems to be the only "unflyable" post, with your rig that is better than most others here have.Please. Give me a break. You got some pecuniary interest in saying nice things about FSX? And it's not the "only" post.

[Orlaam 315]

What gets me is the fact MS insists on making a product that has way too much overhead. People seem to accept the fact each simulator contains features only a very small minority will ever be able to use. It's ridiculous that MS is given a pass on this each and every cycle. I've enjoyed FS9 a great deal, however, it took a lot of tweaking and system building to get to that point. I simply don't understand the mindset of a development team who choose to make a product in this fashion, and at the same time ignore the community who asked for ATC and AI improvements, among other things.

[Geofa 108]

If you have been flying since the commodore 64 (as I also have) then you must remember at maximum you got 1-2 fps on fs1. Were you upset then too or did you simply acknowledge that the software pushed the machines of its time to the limits-as it always has? I remember being elated when the first 3d video cards came out and I could get fs4 to run at 8-12 fps.Of course that was pre "sliders"-what you got you accepted. Is choice (sliders) really a bad thing?http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Len]

If you have been flying since the commodore 64 (as I also have) then you must remember at maximum you got 1-2 fps on fs1. Were you upset then too or did you simply acknowledge that the software pushed the machines of its time to the limits-as it always has? I remember being elated when the first 3d video cards came out and I could get fs4 to run at 8-12 fps.Expectations were not high back then. Secondly, maybe it was above or another post I've stated that I expected my systems on previous versions to be challenged and adjusted accordingly. I have a decent system in my opinion now and it has floored it. Sure I can slice everything to make the thing look like a version of FS9 but FS9 with a full assortment of addons (UT, FSG mesh, etc.) running at 1600x1200 32 bit (and running well I might add) makes a stripped down FSX look like a poor cousin.

[Geofa 108]

"Expectations were not high back then"Yes-it does seem in todays world everyone expects a lot of everything....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[MarkW 1,494]

Well I was expecting the worst on my P4 2.8 9800Pro128 system. To my surprise it was smooth at very low default settings. I then slowly increased sliders and now I have things up half or 3/4 of the way and still locked at 17fps (down to 13 at big airports like EGLL) but very smooth and very flyable. I am quite honestly shocked. I have AI near zero and autogen at zero, water effects low. Couldn't be happier, this will do until I get a new computer.Mark.

[Guest Len]

Update.Well, after resetting sliders incessantly and then waiting for excruciatingly long load times just to see the changes I got fed up and reset everything back to default. Except for a few changes resolution lowered to 1024x768 (yuk) Global Textures High, lens flare, light bloom, advanced animations all checked, everything in scenery at default except that autogen went to off. Weather changed to 70 mi cloud draw distance with detail clouds set to high. All traffic on default.On the tarmac with the Baron: 5.5 fps. In the air, 7-9 fps. Doesn't look good at all. I reset the resolution to 1280x1024 with a marginal loss of frames.Not good.

[Guest archtx]

Len:If it is the deluxe edition, I'll give you $50 for that dog.

[Guest Len]

I paid $79 plus taxes!

[TonyB 1]

Have you tried turning Bloom off? It apparently requires each frame to be rendered twice.Tony