FSX - Slow, slow, slow/Unflyable

[Guest davewins]

>At this point,It look's like I will have to stay with>CF9,This is insanity,I cannot afford $3000,00 for a new>system. It look's like vista will be a bloated rotten dog,and>you all expect fsx to run good on that?so naive...

[Guest davewins]

>> "Q: Will

[Guest av84fun]

EDIT: I copied/pasted the wrong remark. The actual remark was basicially to the effect that no one else has posted that FSX is "unflyable>>HUH?? What are you talking about. There are LOTS of posts citing significantly unacceptable characteristics. Maybe there are too many that use the exact word "unflyable" but that is splitting hairs."Terrible", "waaaay baaad" and lots of other essential synonyms have been posted with great frequency...more than I have seen for any other release.If it is flying smoothly and stutter free at settings that produce the exceptional graphics available from several add-on developers then I am honestly and genuinely happy for you. But I think your post mischaracterizes the general sense of the significant majority of posts so far regarding the Retail version.My opinion is that at default settings, if the choices in a poll were rate in stars like movies, I think that this version would average about 2 stars on a 4 point scale...if that.I'm going to start a "Rate the Retail Version" thread and see if it gets any attention.Regards,Jim

[Orlaam 306]

Why do people keep saying they will run FSX when they can afford a dual core CPU, DX10, and Vista? I've seen several discussions that FSX isn't a dual core game, isn't designed for DX10, and might run worse on Vista. Why do you think all that will help you run FSX with add ons like you do with FS9?

[BrzI 26]

>Why do people keep saying they will run FSX when they can>afford a dual core CPU, DX10, and Vista? I've seen several>discussions that FSX isn't a dual core game, isn't designed>for DX10, and might run worse on Vista. Why do you think all>that will help you run FSX with add ons like you do with FS9? >You are right. If anything Vista will likely put an even bigger load on the system. And unless they figure out how to use HT/dual core/quad core they simply will not improve much.The only thing that might save us is higher CPU closk speeds - but that does not currently seem to be happening.

[Guest djbowler]

Currently taking this dog off my hard drive......

[Guest davewins]

>Why do people keep saying they will run FSX when they can>afford a dual core CPU, DX10, and Vista? I've seen several>discussions that FSX isn't a dual core game, isn't designed>for DX10, and might run worse on Vista. Why do you think all>that will help you run FSX with add ons like you do with FS9? >The readme file for one says that it was designed for Vista. With DX10 how could it play worse????I can afford it all. I have a dual core CPU I'm just waiting for Vista. I do not want to spend any money on a high end graphics card if a.) I'm going to have to gamble with my money to see if it plays FSX the way I am expecting it to and b.) if DX10 turns out the way to go and my card isn't DX10 compatible.

[Guest davewins]

It's too weird of a coincidence that fsx is out 3 months prior to vista. Just enough time for gamers to buy the game play it for a while and then have vista come out. DX10 comes out and a patch is sent out for FSX so it is now playable on Vista with DX10. You are playing older version and are blown away by the performance of DX10's version you weigh your options and you decide to purchase Vista. It's marketing...Bill Gates is the richest man in the world (or one of the...) for a reason.Either way whether that applies to you or not the bottom line is the better version will be Vista/DX10 and you can only get it by purchasing Vista which isn't a big deal because it will be a good os and it WILL play games better. Microsoft just needs extra reasons for home consumers to purchase the next version of windows. Gaming targets a lot of people. If there was no improvement in gaming I would have no business thinking about upgrading windows. It would be a waste of money to me.

[Orlaam 306]

Here's the kicker. MS went after the gamer crowd, as in casual flying, and nothing geared towards the hardcore sim community who demand a different level of realism. Well, imagine how many people are gonna buy this software, go home, and install it on a computer they use to play other current games, only to find out it runs poorly and basically turns them off completely. How is that a good marketing strategy? Those type of people aren't going to run out and spend a few thousand dollars on a new system just for a game. Stupid.

[Guest davewins]

>Here's the kicker. MS went after the gamer crowd, as in>casual flying, and nothing geared towards the hardcore sim>community who demand a different level of realism. Well,>imagine how many people are gonna buy this software, go home,>and install it on a computer they use to play other current>games, only to find out it runs poorly and basically turns>them off completely. How is that a good marketing strategy? >Those type of people aren't going to run out and spend a few>thousand dollars on a new system just for a game. Stupid.Well I thought more people were in my boat. I have a brand new top of the line cpu. I am not getting the performance I expect. I can upgrade my graphics card and ram and take a chance or I can wait for Vista/DX10 and then upgrade to a then cheaper DX10 compatible card.I understand your point but how much of a lower end cpu are you talking?? I don't think you should have anything that's too low where you can't upgrade to Vista on. If anything you would just need to upgrade ram and video card. Dual core processor isn't mandatory to run Vista...at least I don't think it is.

[Guest JuiceRabbit]

Try turning off virus checking (if you have it).I have Zonelabs anti virus and any game runs much better when the "on access scanning" is turned OFF.If you dont turn it off everytime any file is accessed zone alarm does a virus check on that file.

[rservice 4]

Well machines designed for "gaming" are higher end machines and so they should run somewhat better than a "home office" type machine. I think people are getting more sophisticated in their knowledge of hardware than they have in the past. True the FPS leaves somewhat to be desired, but I can see the potential, and Vista with DX10 will improve the situation, so I am not hasty in judging this version. It will probably need a patch or two down the road, and I hope that the 3d party developers, both payware and freeware can soon convert FS9 favourites to FSX.Ron

[Guest nibbles]

Would it be possible for someone to develop a online database where users can submit there FPS results. The users would submit * Machine Specs * External Processes Running* FSX Config File* FPS At particular Checkpoints, i.e. on Tarmac at KLAX, Slew 10000f at KLAX, Mountain Area etc.* possible screenshot at location to compare GFX qualityI only have the demo to FSX so cant comment on the Release but i have noticed one thing on my 2 year acer laptop is that in one 30 minute session the FPS will be bad with possible GFX issues (texture tearing on runways etc), most sessions it's fine with no real FPS problems or GFX issues..Having work professionally for a long time in the financial sector trying to get Stock traders pc's run as fast as possible, (top of the range workstation) you really appreciate how other aspects of a system don't play nice , this will be the same for FSX as it will be for Excel spreadsheets performing incredibly complex calculations.In the last couple of years PC are becoming more bloated with software some essential others not, now users are more likely to having applications that are will constantly be trying to do something, anti-spyware, AV, Google Desktop etc. Not all these applications play nice when it comes to cooperated with the primary task running, i.e. in this case FSX.(Indexing software IMHO is a particular pain).As mentioned from the developers there where/are issues with Autogen, its feasible that other aspects of FSX are at the moment not optimized , it is therefore essential that the various communities produced a comprehensive database of various systems with results that can be referenced and possibly give pointers to what 'things' are problematic. Intel M760 ATI Mobility X7001GB DDR2 533

[Guest david W.]

>>HUH?? What are you talking about. There are LOTS of posts>citing significantly unacceptable characteristics. Maybe there>are too many that use the exact word "unflyable" but that is>splitting hairs.>>"Terrible", "waaaay baaad" and lots of other essential>synonyms have been posted with great frequency...more than I>have seen for any other release.>You either have a poor memory, or you where not around when FS2004 was first released.The forums were literally flooded with complaints about terrible frame rates when FS2004 was released. Loads and loads of complaining posts. Infinitely worse than I have seen so far with FSX.And yes, FS2004 did not perform well on current hardware at the time. On my 2 year old system at the time, FS2004 was a slide show, as I expected it to be. History repeats itself over and over again, and for those with fading memory, when a brand new flight simulation is released, performance will always be much lower on current hardware. That

[G7USL 117]

Very wise words Chris. My sentiments too.I HAVE FSX on order, just because I want to try it out. We are told NOT to judge the Beta versions and that they bare no resemblence to the finished product.So, we all buy FSX. Without add-ons that MS proudly announced that the program was written for, it will run sweetly on most high end machines.To sum up, Aces are part of Microshaft and are there to provide programs that will make us ALL consider buying more and more and faster hardware to keep up with the potential that they give.My FS9 is running so sweetly now on my set-up and it's going to stay that way.Wiser people cry enough, spend the money on the family and get back to some sort of reality. I think that many of us will be following that example sooner or later?