The: They always whined about the FPS argument

[Hornit 3]

I think boshar has a very valid point. Geofa your view on this is well known, If your ok with 10-12 or 15 fps on a dumbed down sim, than that's cool. I know I am not. I think most of us EXPECTED to not be able to run at even medium settings at release time. I dont think its out of the question to be at least able to run at low to medium settings with SOME of the new features enabled with a crisply running default aircraft and scenery.This is obviously not the case with what we have. I don't see any of this as bashing at all. We all can be mature and try to help one another out, it's what is really great about these forums. There are already some very valid fixes to the autogen bloat. They even work well on my machine here running the last beta build. Last go around, and the same with the one before that, I could start up the new software on my midrange machine and still run enough of the new features at acceptable frame rates to enjoy moving up. This time it seems already that this is not the case. I know a lot of folks are going to have issues and problems with add-ons and new tools, that is to be expected. What is different this time around is that with just the default program on bare minimum settings, it looks bad, and it runs worse, even on some darn high powered set-ups. I think there are too many MS a really excited user in here. It's really OK to call a turkey a turkey. boshar has a point, If we don't hold thier feet to the fire, who will?Hornit

[Guest myskja]

> We all can be mature and try to help one another outAnd then a moment later:> I think there are too many MS a really excited user in here. Good god... Way to help out...Yeah, I enjoy FSX and it runs ok on my machine, so therefore I must be a MS a really excited user :(

[Geofa 108]

:-beerchughttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[flyinpilot212121 724]

I have not tried the demo or havnt got the retail version(Although it is available at my local futureshop) But with everyone saying im only getting 10 to 15 fps, with default aircarft, now imagine you throw in a PMDG aircraft say the 737 or 747, imagine the frames then, then put in a scenery here a scenery there and youll be flying at 4 fps(just a guestimate)Its just plain and simple not dooable. As much As I would like to go and purchase the fsx i know that i will just be sticking to fs9(for now anyways). I'm not a big fan of MSFS's default aircraft(which I dont blame MSFS at all, like everyone else says its a good platform and for that I thank MS). I like to flick switches and start apu's and get the hydraulics online etc. etc. So the default aircraft just dontcut it. My point being there is no way to run a pimgee aircarft and get good frames(on my ssytem anyways) so i would have to resort to the default aircraft= I think not lol.All in all I am going to stick with fs9 for a long time because I dont see the point in going to spend 4000$ on anew system when i have a perfectly good running sim as it is(And I cant really afford it either so meh)With this being said, I dont fault microsoft for anything, I thank them very much for giving us a great platform in fs9 for developers like pmdg, lds, dreamfleet, flight1, aeroworx, carenado, etc etc.I dont really care to complain about fsx, if I cant play it I cant play it, so fs9 will do.

[Mace 1,926]

>At the moment you can't have any autogen>without tweaking files. Thats sad.Why is that so sad? We've done that many times in the past.At the moment... you say. That speaks volumes.Also, in FS2004, remember the autogen memory leak? For a long time, we had to download the tweaked xml file to avoid the mem leak issue. And then, after about a year, FS9.1 patch was released to deal with that problem.RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.

[Mace 1,926]

Asking for polite and civil debate and then calling people "a really excited user" is a little contradictory, don't you think?RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.

[Guest flight]

No a really excited user in here...just turkeys.Frankly, I am glad there are some that will hold MS's feet to the fire. It does help in making them at least be a little cautious about software they possibly may release in the future. At least I hope it does. Don't forget, remember the minimum specs given by MS in order to run this sim. I believe those specs are for those who want to buy FSX and then look at the pics on the outside of the box.However, I did run the latest demo on my rig, and when I give you my specs you will be mind-boggled. I think some of the features didn't even work, but I was up and flying in the Baron at a consistent 10 fps, explored, did some touch'n'goes, however the missions would not run smoothly. Here were the settings. I had water turned all the way up, however didn't see any significant change in its appearance, so my card probably can't even display the new water textures. I had autogen on sparse, detail ground textures on. I can't remember the exact location of all the texture sliders but each one was turned on to at just above the minimum. I had all traffic (autos, boats, planes, etc.) all turned up to at least 10%. The traffic on the roads was there, but looked quite cartoony. Don't get me wrong, it all worked, but it did look ugly, most assuredly because of my set up. But I am amazed that I could even run it with my system, which is above the recomendations MS gives, but not by much. The one thing that really amazed me was that although it did get sluggish where there were lots of trees on the islands, it didn't stutter like FS9, just got real sluggish but it was still flyable. While taxiing I could do 360's without a stutter. Still something I can't do with FS9.I'm amazed that people with top of the line systems can't run it. I think it must be something else on their system interfering. I had FSX on a HD with nothing else on that drive, and a very old HD at that. See specs below.Dell w/ default biosIntel P4 1.8 ghz256 MB RAM, 500 MB Page FileDirectx 9cGeForce 3 TI200 drivers Tweaksrus, 64 MBMaxtor 8GB HD (lol)WinXP HomeC'mon quit laffin'.

[JerryG 1]

Boshar -You cite your FS9 FPS. You did not answer Geof's question - do you own FSX?There are a few people (Chris and perhaps you now), that are making claims without even using FSX on your own PC?I've only used Demo1 and Demo2 at this point. But, I can safely say I'm happy with what I've seen. A lower FPS on FSX is MUCH smoother compared to FS9.There are several posting with tweaks (Matt and JeanLuc). They work.Please don't shoot down people who are trying to help others succeed.Let those who are enjoying FSX enjoy it!JerryG

[LAdamson 240]

> I think boshar has a very valid point. Geofa your view on>this is well known, If your ok with 10-12 or 15 fps on a>dumbed down sim, than that's cool. I know I am not.I want and expect close to 30 fps.Figured I just go straight to X-Plane with global scenery disk's if I had too. But pleasantly, I'm surpised that I can usually maintain mid 20's to my high setting of 28. Terrain features are at high settings, while water is off. Running at 1600*1200. At this point, I'm not dumbing down anything. Kept water off in FS9 also.Will run both X-Plane & FSX at this point. Both sims are excellent for anyone interested in flying around mountain topography.I also figure that a few vendors will have high quality, fps friendly aircraft such as my RealAir SF260, to keep those fps on the high end.L.Adamson

[boshar 6]

I'm not shooting anyone down thats offering tweaks and help. I have FS-X Demo2 on my main machine and my old machine so I have a pretty good picture about how well FS-X performs. I'm about to try the mentioned 3rd party autogen tweaks. I still stand by my statement that out of the box with (by FS-X) suggested settings its a disgrace. When you want a steady 20 FPS using only the program UI your only option is to disable autogen completely.I'm sure there is no difference between demo2 and the box released code. It seems that some people beter if they can kid themself into thinking that the boxed version will offer beter performance. Fine by me but be ready for a big dissapointment. So, no if this is the way FS-X performs I will never own FSX.Maybe the patched version on DX10 hardware but the current release? No Way.

[Guest drdaru1]

I don't think they like to be called a really excited user, it might set off a 'pay for good comments' scandal. :)I wish that gas was cheap and everyone could afford at least a discovery flight at their local flight school. It might change the opinions of some of those that like 12fps in the sim. Might also let them see that some of us being disappointed about this simulator(game) isn't such a bad thing.

[LAdamson 240]

>When you want a steady 20>FPS using only the program UI your only option is to disable>autogen completely.>>And that all depends on areas where you want to use varying degrees of auto-gen.For example, in the mountains where I want more trees, upping the auto-gen adds more trees, but doesn't have a disaster effect on the fps.For some of these photo-realistic cities, I like the auto-gen on off or sparse. The photo-real look of "off" just looks too good to have subdivsions populated by "cartoon" houses. 3D city structures such as known skyscrapers, stadiums, etc, are still there anyway.As has been mentioned, an easy on/off or automatic user set auto-gen switch would be handy.L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

>I wish that gas was cheap and everyone could afford at least a>discovery flight at their local flight school. It might>change the opinions of some of those that like 12fps in the>sim. Might also let them see that some of us being>disappointed about this simulator(game) isn't such a bad>thing.Geof Applegate was told, in this thread, that he apparently finds 12 fps acceptable, but then he owns a Beechcraft Baron twin, as well as IFR, Multi, ratings,etc.I don't think he finds 12 fps as acceptable. Either do I. But apparently, as pilots we both like a lot about FSX; and don't run it at 12 fps. L.Adamsonedit: I believe Beechcraft has the two "e's". Instead of "ea". At least I think?...

[greggd 12]

dupicate

[greggd 12]

i disagree out of the "box" the BETA2 at default settings has more autogen greater terrain detail more detailed airports more airports better atc tracking better clouds better water the list goes on than out of the box fs9 with default settings. the scalebility of the scenery acts as headroom for future more powerful machines.i was at the AVSIM convention and I believe MS made it clear that it was ready for continued periodic upgrades or patches starting in during the holidays preceded by the Vista dx10 etc. whether or not you buy FSX is your opinion and yours only so who cares but you will be missing neatest part of simming the developement and perfection of the sim!byeGregg DAMD 64 4800x2 2gb Corsair TwinX 7800gtx 256mb etc etc etc