I don't understand the frustrations with FSX

[Guest Peter Wilding]

yea,the points you make regarding not knowing whos talking an echo.Yes, first the echo, yes we need to use head-sets as a matter of respect to other players so not to spoil things for everyone else.AS for not knowing who's talking that's why we have an ATC conventionFirst say "who you are calling" then "who you are" then give them the message you want"Example; "Fairoaks radio, FOX (your call sign) is with you 12 miles west of the airport, would like to enter the pattern for full stop landing."Fair oaks radion may then call back with somethingn like;"Fox, clared to enter the pattern be advised runway 04 in use.... enter left downwind advise when established on final....This is not a good example of ATC but more simplistic to help you get an idea of the kind of things you can say to help each other.If somebody else tries to speak the Fairoaks radion controller may say "break, break" to ask eveyone to keep silent.You should not speak to other pilots and only speak to the controller when reporting postitions or needing assistance or to give an advisory etc.same applies from the controller to you.Peter

[Guest JSPuonti]

Oh, *I* know that. But it can't be expected that everyone does - especially the "wider gaming audience" FSX is supposed to attract.In a perfect world I'd recognize my co-pilot's voice simply by the fact that he doesn't use our plane's callsign or say "tower" or "ground" or whatever frequency we're currently on. But in FSX's free-for-all multiplayer not everyone can be expected to follow those strict guidelines. Some don't know how to and some simply don't want to. Hence I'm left guessing which one of all the people who are not identifying themselves is my co-pilot :( But ok, let's assume that a "who's talking" list is not forthcoming in a patch.. Does AVSim have an official FSX server where everyone is expected to try their very best and be courteous and use callsigns and all that? I'm sure I'll eventually stumble on a good server (in fact I had a pretty good experience just moments ago on a server called "Free Flight KPFN"), but if there's a dedicated one out there right now that is not centered around a large, framerate hungry airport and thrives to offer a good environment in which to fly all types of aircraft I'd like to know about it.

[Guest MD11Forever]

I respect everyone's opinion on this- but it is extrememly hard to quantify the results of FSX when everyone is looking for something different. Personally, with all the addons I have for FS9 and the rig I am running it on, I think I meet or exceed the look FSX provides. Sure, I may not have moving traffic or animals roaming the jungles, but I do have all sliders maxed, 100% AI traffic, all with multiple addons and consistent FPS never dipping much below 20FPS. I was the very first person to buy FSX at my nearest Best Buy, getting it for the nice sum of $47.99 (price matched to Circuit City's sale flyer) plus a $10 gift card. Not too bad. When I got home I installed FSX and made some attempts at flying with it, trying to get a somewhat equal FPS average (I aimed for 20). I was able to get close to that, around 15, but this was with most of the visual improvements turned down or off. I even went so far as to port in an IFDG A319 and fire up a flight, using the default A321 panel. Turned off VC's (never have liked them) and went to an airport that is smallish (KATW, Appleton, WI). My FPS tanked out to the 8-10 range. IF I would have been able to stay near 15FPS I may have considered more testing...BUT- factor in a quality weather addon such as Active Sky, maybe a buiser airport such as KSEA, lots of AI traffic (using the FPS-freindly models)...and I can see FPS tanking much further. At that point I would be forced to cut out STILL MORE details and the things that make the sim enjoyable for ME. It just isn't worth it. Imagine someone wanting to fly with the PMDG 744, which is much more resource-intensive than the plane and panel combo I tried.My system is no slouch- P4 3.4GHZ, 2GB Corsair DDR2 RAM, PCI-E 7900GTO/512mb...but FSX pretty much brought it to its knees. To be fair, I did not apply any of the tweakings that have surfaced, such as redoing the autogen textures to DXT1. These things *may* increase my performance. The thing is- the sim is designed to appeal to everyone, while the FS community has "splinter" interests- such as the VATSIM crowd, the PMDG and LDS flyers, the AI buffs, the GA guys, and the like. It would be impossible to make a blanket statement about how good or bad FSX is- because it all depends on your viewpoint. To me, I like a few things I saw in FSX, but didn't feel that it was what I wanted- at this time. So I uninstalled it and will continue on with FS9. I have a large number of addons for it and the sim is what I am looking for. Certainly, at some point I will use FSX. When I get there, the box will be waiting for me on the closet shelf. Hopefully by that time MS will have issued some patches, and/or the community will have found the secrets to making FSX work better. We're already on that road. In the meantime, it doesn't do any good to bash FSX, or to bash the people who DON'T like it. Different people have different needs for the sim, and quite obviously FSX isn't meeting everyone's expectations or "needs".The parting blow- when I uninstalled FSX from my system it was nice enough to mess up the registry entries for FS9. So I had to spend a couple hours tracking down the problem and correcting it before I could fly FS9 again. Gotta love this hobby.

[Toys_R_Us 0]

George:That's exactly why I didn't install it on my machine. Since it's a bit older, I figured it would "tank", and I was a little concerned about screwing up the registry with an uninstall so that FS9 would not functiom. Will a simple backup/reinstall of the registry do the trick after you remove FSX ? Or how about makeing an XP "restore point", and then just going back to it after FXS removal ?Las Cruces, NM)

[Guest MD11Forever]

>George:>That's exactly why I didn't install it on my machine. Since>it's a bit older, I figured it would "tank", and I was a>little concerned about screwing up the registry with an>uninstall so that FS9 would not functiom. Will a simple>backup/reinstall of the registry do the trick after you remove>FSX ? Or how about makeing an XP "restore point", and then>just going back to it after FXS removal ?>>Las Cruces, NM)If I was going to do it again I certainly would set up a restore point prior to installing FSX. For some reason it didn't occur to me Tuesday when I went to install it- and I nearly paid the price. I got lucky when the AFCAD program asked me if I wanted to repair the registry entry for FS9. Otherwise I would have been searching for the problem much longer...

[Guest MD11Forever]

< double post, apologies...>

[Guest cschmokel]

George:Before you give up on FSX, try flying with all sliders maxed except for no traffic, no autogen, and normal scenery. My system isn't nearly as speedy as yours, and I get great FPS with no traffic and autogen .. looks pretty good, too.

[Guest MD11Forever]

>George:>>Before you give up on FSX, try flying with all sliders maxed>except for no traffic, no autogen, and normal scenery. My>system isn't nearly as speedy as yours, and I get great FPS>with no traffic and autogen .. looks pretty good, too.I mean no disrespect- but doing that would result in a sim that looks worse than what I use now. Why should I give up everything I like about simmming *just to upgrade to FSX*? My post was not meant to be divisive- merely another way of looking at it that I hadn't seen mentioned anywhere else.

[Damian Clark 1,332]

Hi,"BUT- factor in a quality weather addon such as Active Sky, maybe a buiser airport such as KSEA, lots of AI traffic (using the FPS-freindly models)...and I can see FPS tanking much further. "Just an FYI reports are coming in that actually the reverse is true regarding ActiveSky. The performance is improved over stock while increasing the visuals significantly. I've heard the same about AI traffic with the recent release of MTX - more traffic, better visuals, more frames...RE Sophisticated aircraft add-ons, that's yet to be determined but I wouldn't be surpised if the same effect holds true. In short, the FSX platform appears to be a bit more bloated by default that previous releases leaving lots of room for add-on developers to increase visuals and content while also providing better performance.Best,

[Guest Len]

Maybe I'm just blind to all of the negatives, but I don't understand why so many people are bashing the greatest FS chapter everBecause it isn't the "greatest FS chapter ever"? I hope it is the end of a series andthe complete reworking of the engine. Time for a major overhaul.

[Guest]

yes, I'd say you are blind to the negatives! Awful landclass, shorelines, bizzare textures such as desert in British Columbia, and that is for the "covered" data, imagine looking at the data for outside the coverage area, such as Asia, Russia, Eastern Europe, Africa, etc.Still no good ground friction model, according to PMDGFramerates are awful unless you spend a weekend tweaking and even after that its hard to be happy, FSX was supposed to be this brand new engine taking advantage of new technology so you could run FSX as pretty as FS9 and get much better frames.And last but not least, having to wait for your addons to be updated for FSX because minus 1 or 2 default aircraft, the sceneries are bland and the default a/c are a bore.

[Guest CocoLoco]

For people interested in using Teamspeak as an alternative, there is a nice little program called Teamspeak Overlay (http://www.teamspeakoverlay.com) which shows you who is talking (and in what order), what channel you are on and even who has arrived/left. I use Teamspeak and Teamspeak Overlay (TSO) all the time and it works very well. I'm British but most of the guys in my 'Team' are German and it makes it much easier to work out who said what. TSO overlays itself on top of your current application by making calls straight into the graphics driver so it appears as though its a feature of your game.Teamspeak is a nice package since you can mute individual players, set it up to use push to talk or voice activation, create channels, pick a transmission quality to suit your bandwidth etc. It is more than capable of handling a few networked players in FSX and appears to have no noticeable impact on the networked games I play. P.S. I quite like FSX - the Extra and the glider with VC are excellent. I can appreciate the land class is going to need some work and major airports are a frame rate killer. The bottom line seems to be that FSX has great expansion potential and will be worth investing some effort into for the long term.I say this without any intention of getting Vista and DX10 (I hope MS don't release an FSX patch that demands DX10 - I think I would have to buy Xplane). Vista's basic requirements are going to slow down my current PC, resulting in a step backward. Bar security issues, XP is a good OS from Microsoft and provides all I want from a Windows environment. If I want OS security and a nice interface, I'll just keep using my Mac Powerbook...

[PhilTaylor 45]

Lets be careful here.Just to re-introduce myself, I am Phil Taylor and am PM for Graphics and Terrain in the Aces Studio. I joined the studio during the end-game of FSX and hence my contribution is coming during the DX10 update.Its true there is a general perf hit to running Vista, given the Desktop Window Manager and 3D compositing for Aero Glass.Remember that when XP came out, it had a 5-10% delta from Win98 due mainly to the extra validation NT-based OS's perform. It is too early to tell for final numbers but Vista is only a little higher right now, maybe 10-15% hit. Before RTM that may be reduced a bit, but its clear there will be some overall perf hit between XP on DX9 hw and Vista on DX9 hw.Its also true that DX10 hardware was late, is still in very short supply, and is in "A1 rev level" quality with underclocked core and memory. So it is way premature to make any claims wrt DX10 hardware.Developers need to get final DX10 hardware in-hand and get experience with it before anyone can state authoritatively what DX10 hardware will and wont do. We are looking at a handful of DX10-specific features now for the DX10 update and are in "prototype" mode. This has been hindered by the late availability of hardware.As we get closer to final DX10 hardware and understand the performance envelope better, I expect to make a post talking to what the DX10 update will really be all about and set clearer expectations than the artistic impression "screenshots" you have seen to date but its still too early for me to do that. So please be patient, as we have solid info on DX10 we will discuss with the community.

[Guest Peter Wilding]

Oh, yes it is! The greatest ever update......It's fantasitic

[Guest Flyguy767]

It looks like the only computers that are running FSX well have INtel Core Dual CPU's ( E6600 and 6800) . Most users are reporting good frame rates at around 60-70% settings. Wherever you read, these CPU's blow the AMD X2's out of the water!HOWEVER , this is the DEFAULT game we are talking about. Wait until addons become available and watch the FPS dropFSX at max settings looks absolutely incredible. Simply a work of art ... Imagine when accurate mesh and landclass is release by 3rd party devlopers. we are going to see a completly new sim. Remember FS9 3 years ago? Looking like crap compared to it now. Any fast computer today can run FS9 + addons at max settings and good FPS. However , certain situations can really bog down even the most powerful system. Try loading up a complex add-on plane at KORD with 100% AI traffic , and stormy weather. Even with a AMD 4800+ CPU and a 7900 GT card, FPS are as low as 10!!! Flight simulators are designed with longevity in mind.... If you could max out settings right away with the fastest hardware out there and still get 25 FPS, things would get pretty boring quickly!