FSX - Slow, slow, slow/Unflyable

[Guest Len]

But the general indication I got was that shewould gently remove my head and place it somewhere where therewasn't very much sunlight. Im not exactly sure what she ment bythatLOL!

[jasonX 24]

Just marketing by Microsoft and good marketing by>putting DX10 on Vista and Vista only. It's going to make>everybody make the upgrade to Vista not that you weren't going>to anyway.I will not be upgrading to Vista for a long time (if ever), come to think of it neither will I be getting FSX or at least not until a lot of issues are sorted (possibly a couple years or more).PS I can assure you that I am not alone.Regards Pete

[Guest Len]

Have you tried using the "autogen trees" mod posted by Matt in the other thread?It has boosted my fps with autogen on NORMAL by well over 50%... where I was getting a solid 20fps, now I'm seeing 30+fps...BillI'm not using autogen. So why should I even use a modified version, which, while it may increase fps for those using the default autogen, would actually result in further degradation for me because I'm not using it, period?

[Guest Len]

Jerry and TonyThanks for the comments.

[Guest Piston]

ROFL.My sim gets 20fps smooth on high settings. 3.4ghz P4, X850 and 2gb RAM.

[Guest Piston]

>>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.Oh yes but it does run on a 1ghz Pentium 4 since that's whats required to make it run. Though I don't know what they run for recommended.

[Guest Piston]

>Ok, here's quote I'm taking from one of thelinks:>>Putting the slider situation another way:>If you put FS2004 and FSX head-to-head with equal perceived>performance values (smoothness and frames), FSX looks>superior. Improvements have been made to landclass and>roadways, texturing, the feeling of flight (flight models),>environmental effects, autogen, weather, and a host of other>things - all of which make for a better experience. Sure, your>sliders in FS2004 may be 100%, but the equivilant setting in>FSX may only be 50% or less! The position of the slider>doesn't matter, its what is being driven by it that>counts.>>With all the additions I've put to FS2004, ultimate terrain,>mesh upgrades, texture upgrades, clouds, 3rd party addons>galore (particularly PMDG, EagleSoft planes..) etc. running>FS2004 at 1600x1200, 32 bit, the ONLY thing FSX has going for>it is the water which is impacting. Any gains achieved by FSX>are diluted to the point that the benefits are lost or minimal>just to get a flyable level at lower resolutions. Something's>wrong with this picture.Except fs9 stutters like #### and has no shader effects? Please, I get higher fps in fsX than fs9 with mods.

[MD83 1]

"My sim gets 20fps smooth on high settings. 3.4ghz P4, X850 and 2gb RAM"A screenshot would be nice ;)

[Guest dutton]

I installed the Deluxe version on my son's computer. He has an AMD 1700 - 1.4 Ghz, ATI 9700 PRO, 512MB RAM. We turned off water,cars and autogen, everything else is pretty much set mid to high range and he gets 20-30 FPS with real weather.duttonhttp://dutton.fsblogger.com/

[Guest Tingoose]

So if you turned off all that why buy it it in the first place. . . ?

[Guest dutton]

Why? Because it is better overall then FS9. He has his gliders license and loves the tow plane and glider, along with the missions which he spent all day yesterday flying. Oh, also it appears that he likes the default aircraft in this version much more then the last... I am the only one who purchases aircraft, so he is one of the majority out there that never puchase an add-on. He was having great fun landing the Grumman yesterday.Oh, one last thing.... 15 GIG's of an application provides a heck of a lot of terrain/scenery detail. I think it is fair to say this has greatly increased since FS(... wouldn't you?Would you like more reasons? duttonhttp://dutton.fsblogger.com/

[FTD1949 0]

So if you turned off all that why buy it it in the first place. . . ? Probably because he paid for it and therefore can do anything he wishes with it. ce

[Guest davewins]

>>>How can I back up my claims on something that is not even>out>>yet. >>So how can you make the claims? Just by believing the MS hype?>Before XP was launched they were stating that this would be>such a secure OS that you wouldn't need a personal firewall!>Two service packs and hundreds of security critical updates>later we all know what to make of MS hype!>>Iain SmithWell usually when we step into the future things get better not worse. Is that so hard to believe????

[Guest Len]

Except fs9 stutters like #### and has no shader effects? Please, I get higher fps in fsX than fs9 with mods.And FSX doesn't stutter? I'll answer for you:it does.And what about 'light bloom'? It will suck easily 5 fps off. Next.

[Guest davewins]

>>There is no definite answer. There is no right or wrong>here.>> It's all assumption. You want to assume that DX10 won't be>a>>big deal and it won't overcompensate for the 10% or so drop>>with Vista then so be it. I want to believe that the next>>generation hardware (graphics cards) with next generation>>software (DX10) will easily outperform any current setup.>>Now, you are introducing hardware. That's ok. I already said>multiple times that only future hardware will "do the job and>get FSX running like FS9 currently does". DX10 + DX10 hardware>+ optimized drivers will certainly bring a new level of 3d>performance. The only question is, how much of this new power>FSX will utilize and my guess is: not very much of it,>unfortunately. Same goes for the fact that FSX doesn't benefit>from multiple CPU cores a lot. FSX is just "too early" for>making use of all the possibilities of future hardware.>>>are stepping forward into the future not back. It really>>amazes me that you still think that games will play worse on>>Vista/DX10 then currently on XP/DX9.>>If the game is not specifically written for DX10 and does not>fully utilize new DX10 features and/or multithreading (to make>use of multiple CPU cores), it will run worse than under XP>and Vista. Plain and simple.>>>may be true if the game isn't optimized for Vista/DX10 but I>>am sure MS has something under their sleeves. They aren't>>going to wait 3 more years or so to release FS11 to run on>>DX10 or possibly DX11 by that time.>>I'am almost sure that FSX is something like FS2000 was years>ago. The introduction of a "new step" bringing a lot of new>technology and changes under the hood. We all know that FS2000>was never fully fixed, performance-wise (stutters, I think we>all DO remember).>I think you misunderstood me from my very first post. I know that vista + dx10 isn't just going to magically make FSX play better or improve graphics and what not. It's the DX10 cards with DX10 and most importantly the software fully enabled for DX10 which I am really hoping Microsoft does. A patch or something. I'm just waiting on that news.