FSX was designed for Vista not XP...

[sawacs 0]

Who does microsft cator to?There might have been a mixup in the advertising department regarding what system it was designed to run on but who cares?If aces was less than truthful, then sue them for everything they own. That appears to be the most common thing to do these days correct?My sim runs absolutely wonderful on my old system with smooth frame rates and I am perfectly happy.My argument is kind of pointless but..Mycrosoft created a great game that will sell a ton of copies and they were under no obligation to cator the third party developers. When you change a game engine, you change everything and as far as I am concerned and they they did it right..Sawacs

[JerryG 1]

Thanks for re-stating this Bill!Rather than wasting energy on what some people are saying how "MS/ACES has screwed us with FSX" let's work with those who are already finding performance boosts - all this BEFORE the official FSX Retail is ready for it's 10/17/06 release (I know ... I know ... some people already bought it at Best Buy, Walmart, etc.).JerryG

[n4gix 4,947]

>This sounds great Bill for the people turning off autogen>and/or have the sim running at 14-20fps. For the majority>that can't get past 10fps without turning off all autogen, I>don't care what you do that CX is going blow the big one.... I'd be willing to bet that you haven't even tried Matt's new autogen file(s) that reduce the variety of trees and bushes that are displayed at any given time. It has boosted performance a lot for those who've tried it (like myself).I can now run autogen at "NORMAL" and still have a solid 30+fps on my piddly 3.2 GHz PIV, 1 MB DDR, X700 Pro system.Jean-Luc (RXP) has also posted some extremely valuable tips to increase performance without throwing the baby out with the bath water.Why not spend some time trying to contribute something useful to the situation, instead of continuing to flog the horse??? :-sun1

[Guest Water Mango]

"Why not spend some time trying to contribute something useful to the situation, instead of continuing to flog the horse???"I won't be able to do that until I buy the product (FSX Retail) Bill. I won't buy this sim until I get a new computer (current PC is a P4 2.8gig). I can't bring myself to purchase a new rig until Vista is released as I'll only have to upgrade once. That's the whole problem with this release versus past efforts; in the past the OS preceded the simulator. In rare cases where that wasn't the case, the new sim performed decently on hardware of the time.Bill I would love to dive into FSX but it makes no since to do so at this time. I'm not made out of money and my time is limited (I know it seems otherwise but much of my posting here occurs in various places like work or at friends houses who are fellow simmers). I've grown weary of endless tweaking. I wish Vista was out or FSX performed decent on my current rig. I would take the plunge and buy a new system if it weren't for a whole new OS on the horizon that promises to do wonders with FSX. I would buy if top of the line hardware could deliver with FSX (all sliders maxed out). I'll sit back and watch what you guys come up with in the coming months. If Aces and the rest of you nail down the performance problems I may buy this sim before Vista. Then there will be the dilemma of whether to even bother with Vista once I have FSX set and stable. At least at this point the option is clear. If FSX turns over a new performance leap in the next few months the choices will become more difficult. Right now you can't buy a rig fast enough to run FSX with its settings maxed or almost maxed out. Might as well wait for Vista and hope by then hardware will have catched up...

[virtuali 4,421]

>.DLL files, yes, gauges properly built to SDK standards - no.Not exactly. .GAU files ARE .DLL ( in fact, you can simply change the extension from .GAU to .DLL and they will still execute ).So, both in-process DLL modules (out of process Simconnect exe clients will not need to be signed under Windows XP only, they will in Vista) and .GAU files will need to be signed in order not to trigger the "unsigned code" FSX warning, that the user can of course choose to ignore and assume as trusted.The only gauges that do not need signing are the ones written in XML.

[rich135 0]

<<>>Because the title of your post is "FSX was designed for Vista not XP". :-) <<>>??? You have some catch-up reading to do I think.<<>>They used only ordinary hardware to insure the rest of us would have a reasonable experience. They do not have DX10 cards either.<<>Tdragger and Adam have done a reasonable job explaining this. FS is not the only "game" that has a problem utilizing other cores: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34916<<>(1) I talked to the developer of the terrain engine who had a different opinion. (2) I have been a technical manager in a corporate setting for 20 years (call me cynical). (3) Articles like this: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34915<<>>You should probably distinguish between DX10 and the OS. Other than the optimizations of the DX10 driver, there are no magical Vista system calls that you can stick in the render loop that are going to revolutionize performance.

[rich135 0]

Yup. You got it.

[Guest RGH]

Hi all.This may through some light on the subject.http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/dis...ce-preview.htmlRegards.Rex

[Guest tdragger]

<>I'll dispute you, Chris, though I'm not sure the good it will do, seeing as how you've already made up your mind we've somehow deceived you. ;)You've simply taken the readme statement out of context, though admittedly the sentence construction could have been clearer. The point of the section in the readme was to help folks trying to run FSX on Vista. What it was trying to say was that while we tried to make sure the game would run without issue, Vista was still in beta when FSX was released. Therefore we had to add some additional steps for those users who may have run into issues. The statement about FSX being designed to run on Vista was a true one. We designed FSX to run on two versions on Windows: XP and Vista. That means we did *not* design it to run on onther versions such as Win98, Win2000, 2003 Server, etc.You might want to be a bit more attentive to context when citing our documentation in the future.

[JerryG 1]

Chris,You've not purchased FSX (and won't) because you will not be able to run it the way you like with your current PC.I thought you were testing/tweaking and providing feedback from your experience?While I still need to buy FSX (when it's available on 10/17/06), I've at least posted my findings with the Demo2 version. I know, I'll stop my positive comments until I personally own FSX. It would be only fair for you to stop posting your negative comments until you can provide your actual experience with using FSX.But, others have reported some fairly good results with some high/max sliders/settings with just a few tweaks that have been posted in the last couple days.Please don't shoot down those people who are trying to make FSX work well on their PCs. It may not be your cup-of-tea, but there are some good reports of enjoyable FSX use.JerryG

[JerryG 1]

Chris -Any additional comments based on ACES reply above?JerryG