FSX - Slow, slow, slow/Unflyable

[Guest SilverCircle]

>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).

[Guest SilverCircle]

>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!That was really well said and I good example how to deal with marketing hype.

[Guest myskja]

Don't be ridiculous, Aces did not code this badly. FSX doesn't come with extra CPU and GPU, it's that simple, expect no miracles. And FS9 looked HORRIBLE at default, and it performed worse on my at then current hardware than FSX is doing on this current PC. People complained just as much or worse then.Anyway, after I put my settings from 32 bit color to 16 bit color (My absolute biggest improvement factor BTW, and no drastical difference in visual quality (Unlike 16 bit in FS9...)) and turned off the bloom, I now have ALL sliders at max (Except water at 2.x low, clouds at 1/3 and no scenery shadows) including Global Texture, and I'm currently running the default flight scenery with the mooney airplane at 15(At no point lower than 15)-20fps (With max autogen trees and buildings!!!). My videocard settings at AF 8x, AA 2x, "Quality" texture settings (As opposed to Performance)Specs:Athlon 64 2.8 ( single core )2GB RAMNvidia 7800 GTXZonealarmAvast Antivirus

[Guest]

> 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.No all DX9 games (no exceptions) will run alot faster with a DX10 video card on Vista. This has been well known for quite a while.http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32713

[Guest Foxtrot 125 Tango]

http://blogs.technet.com/p-12c_pilot/archi.../08/454952.aspx"ExpectationsThe common theme of those disappointed with the new version seems to revolve around performance. Unfortunately, I don't feel all that sorry for them... Even in it's unfinished, unoptimized and buggy state, Microsoft has created a program that performs better than the previous version with the same visual detail. At the same time, they've both created a platform which extends to tomorrows technology, AND significantly improved or created new ancillary details with their multiplayer system, connection API's and mission system." Nice post and sounds quite good however; I wonder why the blog says that this FSX version performs better than the FS9 version with the same visual detail. I can crank my FS9 all the way to the right on most settings and still see 20-28 fps, (FPS limited to 35) in some populated areas. This apparently does not seem to be the case with FSX as discussed in this post.As for "being a platform for tomorrows technology", I am not an expert on the subject, but I tend to think that if the FSX main program has not even been re-coded, ( except they ripped out the multiplayer engine and started from scratch as I recall hearing ), to take advantage of todays common multi-core PC technology & high end graphics cards, what performance enhancements can we expect in the near / distant future that will make this program run properly? I personally doubt W-Vista/DX 10 will make any significant difference in the performance levels. I'm sure it will help with all the eye candy though. I'm not in to slide shows anyway.;-) I think I'll take what now seems to be the advice of the majority and stick with FS9 indefinately. Many thanks to the posters for saving me $80.00 worth of disappointments.:-) Cheers,:D Mark.

[JerryG 1]

Thanks, Len for this post. Thanks EVEN MORE - for your additional testing, tweaking, and experimenting!!We're all learning with FSX being installed for only a few days now.I can understand your concerns - the FPS is still not up to what you want or need. But, as you've seen, with some tweaking you've gained a few FPS here and there. And, as Geof and others have also found, FSX with no Autogen looks nice - quite nice. Opinions and individual tastes, of course. I really like Geof's suggestion, it would be GREAT to have Autogen on for low altitude flying, then turn it off at higher altitudes. We can do that easily now with differnt .cfg files, but Geof would like it "automatic". Perhaps someone will figure that out.Again, folks are trying, YOU are trying to make FSX perform well.Stay with it. Don't get frustrated, though. Wait a few days, weeks, see how others have optimized FSX for their PC and perhaps you can benefit as well. Fly FS9 - enjoy it. Soon, FSX will be as good too.JerryG

[Guest SilverCircle]

>No all DX9 games (no exceptions) will run alot faster with a>DX10 video card on Vista. This has been well known for quite a>while.>http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32713 This also assumes a new video card. And now, we are there again: New hardware is the only way to fix FSX performance. But just switching to Vista and DX10 while keeping your old hardware won't do it for sure, and I still think that some people believe it will.DirectX is designed to be backwards compatible all the way down to DX5. DX9 can run DX8 or even DX7 code (or else, a lot of older games won't run on any DX9 system). DX10 will most likely be able to run DX9 games and these will run faster when you have a DX10 video card - yes. But that's nothing new - a new generation of video cards always means better performance.

[FTD1949 0]

found it

[B777ER 2,484]

Well, Robert and Craig, I speak for myself only but I have been one of the ones complaining. You want to know my age? It will be 36 in a couple months. I have a professional job and the money to buy a computer. I have been saying and I know others agree, its foolish to upgrade now for FSX when Vista/DX10 and the hardware to run it is around the corner. A combination of all 3 of the above will surely make FSX enjoyable. But now? No way, FSX is just too much for the majority of users. Heck most if not all people have to turn most sliders midway or below to get it to run and that is with autogen off and this is with default stuff only. Imagine what intense 3rd party aircraft from say PMDG will do to this sim! I think MS should have waited to Vista was released to launch FSX but I imagine money spoke louder than common sense out in Redmond, WA.

[TonyB 1]

Yes, I'll second JerryG. Thanks for hanging in there and keeping us updated on your findings. Tony

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

:-lol Gary

[n4gix 4,947]

>> 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... ;)>>> The trees are apparently a real fps killer here.>>Stop pulling his leg. I tried that tweak and got a got>increase of about 2 fps. Theres no single mod that can improve>performance by over 50%! Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are others who've gotten HIGHER than my 50% boost. Ryan Butterworth even posted picture... Check it out yourself, and quite pissing in my Wheaties, please.

[Guest]

> But just switching to Vista and DX10 while keeping your old hardware won't do it for sure, > and I still think that some people believe it will.Its won't be possible to 'swtich' to DX10 unless you buy a DX10 video card. > DirectX is designed to be backwards compatible all the way down to DX5DX9 cards cannot run DX10 there is no backward compatibility for DX10.

[Guest FALC]

>>>I posted a precursor to this recently in the AVSIM hardware>forum, believeing that one must have a "super-PC" for FSX-->having seen it run generally very poorly at AVSIM 2006>convention--and the replies were interesting. I think the>gist was that if you expect FSX to run well, keep the sliders>limited and mainly get a high end dual core machine.>>In other words, spend about $3000 now to get a decent new>generation PC and then be prepared to spend more when VISTA>comes out and you also need to get DX10 compliant video cards.> And don't pull sliders full right, etc., cos no ordinary PC>can handle FSX.>>FSX is totally stunning, but it will require a whole heap of>new generation h.p. to run it well. I flew it at the>convention on a lovely VELOCITY PC that was stutter free and>smooth as butter, but I suspect it was one of their $6000>machines.>>That's why folks like Bob who posted here the other day are>quitting--and he nearly got flamed for saying he was fed up>with the upgrades and incessant PC issues and tweaking, etc. >So am I. I ain;'t buying anything new for FSX and if it means>I never get it, so be it.>>MS constantly understates everything and overpromises as well.> Their behavior with regard to FS' performance has been>particularly questionable over the years as they tout that the>next generation of FS can run on a machine that is laughably>inadequate. Remember FS 2000 and how that "broke" a lot of>simmers' machines because it needed so much PC h.p.? Same old>same old yet again with FSX. PC not powerful enough? Just>spend $3K and buy another one. Simple!>>It's long since become a mug's game. Sad, but true.>>JSHmmmm... Boy having read this and all the other posts I havea really tough decision here.. I can take this 6 or 7 thousanddollars and either....Pay my golf club membership and get 8 months of fresh airand exercise... Make the minor house repairs needed... Andtake a vacation in a Caribbean Island... Ok for the vacationI'll need a little extra cash but not much....Or.....I can buy this super-duper computer thats so rediculously overpowered for any other software I have or will ever have, itslaughable. Just so I can get FXS to run smoothly withouthaving to move all the sliders which would result in removingall the features I bought the sim for in the first place...Well I discussed it with the wife, and I cant repeat verbatumwhat she said. 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 bythat :)Seriously though. For all you guys with the extra disposablecash. Go for it, have fun, knock yourselves out. I honestlyjust hope your not disappointed in the end however. As forme Im not going to touch FXS with a 10 foot pole. Same can besaid for Vista. Ill wait for FSXII and the 'Kookamonga' versionof Windows in 2010. Then Ill think about it. But for now Im notwilling to give up LDS, PMDG and a bunch of other good aircraft,nor am I giving up ASV, RC, or any other of the excellent add--ons for the sake of see a few bird flying when Im on the groundor some extra trees that I wont see because 95% of the time Imat FL370 above the clouds anyway. Nope its FS9 with its smooooooothframe rates and excellent add-ons for a long time.Yeah I know, "into the future with flight sim and computers".Ive heard it all before

[Guest]

:-lol:-lol:-lol