Microsoft...Ya' didn't KISS.

[MD83 1]

>How so? It has been well documented that FSX was developed>with DX9 as that is all they had to develop it with! They>haven't even looked at DX10 yet. I wouldn't put all my eggs in>the DX10 'basket' if I were you........Another good point. If they do release a patch it will take months, if not a year! DX10 isn't the cure for all FSX woes ....

[Guest brian4FSX]

I have long load time issues and slow gmae play. Please note: I'm not complaining what-so-ever. This game pushes the extreams that even the fastest most prowerful gaming systems can't handle! I almost find it funny, Hurry up NVIDIA and AMD, get with the program!!! Here are my specs. I built my computer myself and at one time it was THE top of the line gaming system.AMD 3200+ 2.4ghz. 1gig 3200 DDR400 RAM - AGP 8X NVIDIA 6800GT 256 - Creative Augigy 2 - Nothing overclocked, overclocking is for people who take the chance of burning up their computer because they're too cheap to upgrade.Symptoms: Long load times (1 more gig of ram might help?) Very choppy gameplay settings on high) Incremintial choppyness with settings at med. (ex. beaver will fly fine for about 10-15 sec. then chop.) I know the video card can handle it because it will fly for a while then chop.If any other infomation is need please let me know. Again, MS put a lot of time and effort into this game. The game is way before its time. I have never seen this with any new realease, not Doom, not Far Cry nothing! The semi top of the line systems always seem to run new games, not this game. Congrats MS tell Intel, AMD, ATI, and NVIDIA to get with the program!Thanks for any help guys and Gals,Brian

[Guest davewins]

I think this is a great post and all points are valid. I just think this post would really mean a lot more if it was made after the patch. I can't understand why MS would force this game out the way it is and how badly it performs even on top of the line computers. I am just waiting for the DX10 patch however to make my final judgment. I'm not saying it's definetley going to play beautiful with the patch. I do have a very good feeling that this will be the best patch MS has ever put out for a FS product. That is all that is keeping me going right now.

[aerdt 0]

The Core 2 Duo is ranked #4 on 3D Mark 2006 and #3 in the FEAR benchmarks. The 7900 is ranked similar to the X1900s and you're saying that this is NOT a high-end system. Are you kidding me?I benchmarked my system with the new internal Vista benchmark and scored a 4.8 on a X2 4800+, 7600 GT and 2GB DDR400 RAM. A score of 5 is 'the most powerful hardware that was available at the time of the Vista release' (according to the documentation) and FSX is supposed to run 'optimal' with a score of 4.5 or higher.However, I tend to agree that FSX was supposed to be the showcase for Vista/DX10. Let's wait and see what happens six months from now.Pat

[Guest il fanciullo]

"I also don't buy any of this "it renders the whole world etc etc"Have you seen "Just Cause" on the PC or the 360? Renders the a whole world (island) that is huge in beautiful graphics with mountains traffic cars boats people all at a juicy 30FPS (360) and 60+ on a PC.That's pushing hardware. All i can say is, if you haven't played it or seen it do so, and you will see what i mean, plus you can fly stuff to boot."Thanks for the tip, I'm downloading the JustCause Demo, looks cool.I completely agree with the point you make above, I can run FarCry on my 3 year old PC and it looks amazing at 40-50 fps, every blade of grass rendered and tons of AI, animated animals, birds, vehicles, the lot. FSX set to medium low runs at 15-20 fps if I'm lucky and looks crap in comparison, it certainly isn't a patch on my FS9 setup.I just wonder if any of the people who are praising the 'cutting edge' graphics have any idea what real cutting edge actually looks like, i.e. do they play any other games (ooops sorry simulators) to have anything to compare FSX with?

[aerdt 0]

DX10 is supposed to take some significant load off the CPU and do some more processing on the card itself and therefore should significantly improve performance. I think most people don't care too much about new shaders - most developers have not even tricked out the most current hardware.Pat

[DadJokeCinema 145]

Before my update, Just Cause ran like crap on my system.It's a decent game overall. Just another sandbox GTA clone, really. Can't find myself getting too into those.

[Guest Buck Bolduc]

I picked up FSX- Deluxe.I ran all sliders to max.Just for the h*ll of it.Got 0.2 FPS, talk about a slide show!Doesn't take rocket science to know a H*ll of a lot more computing power will be needed before we experience FPS's like FS9.Sure some tweaks will help SOMEWHAT, thats it.If VISTA allows one to run the OS on 1 core and the simm on the other???DX-10???It's all up in the air, no pun intended!

[gassa 36]

Hi again,@Dutton: I'm getting 22FPS (locked at 22) when I'm in the air too. The problem is, that that is only the case when I'm at a high altitude and autogen isn't displayed anymore or, if I'm somewhere over a desert, with no autogen at all. As soon as airport buildings get involved, the frames kick back to about 12-13. 12-13 FPS on a DEFAULT airport is quite lousy in my opinion. And please don't get me wrong, I'm mot a Micorsoft hater or something. I really think Windows XP is a #### of an OS (in a positive way). But the poor performance that FSX shows without addons makes me feel uncomfortable. As mentioned, I think that the real frame killers are the default airport buildings. Maybe there is something wrong with them. I keep my fingers crossed, that that's the case and Microsoft will release somekind of patch in the near future (I'm not to optimistic about that, honestly)Kind regardsMartin

[Guest dutton]

I fully agree with you Martin. Airport buildings and cities are where I do see a hit, like you. As I have said in some other posts, there is definitely some problem it seems unlike the other scenery in FSX with airports and cities.Now, that being said, to those that worry about the heavies like PMDG or Captainsim... I seriously think these might perform better than we may think in FSX. There just seems to be a different method of the actual load times of aircraft. In other words, they seemed to have changed the load patterns in some ways. No idea if I am correct, I just have a feeling after playing around with so many other features and importing things to FSX.

[Guest Charlie]

I respect and appreciate your posting these honest remarks here. And yes, I remember having good reason to consider you a MSFS a really excited user. That makes your FSX appraisal even more significant.Though I like FS2004, I have long felt that Microsoft

[Cedhed 0]

Correct me if I am wrong but I remember a lot of the same problems when fs2004 came out. The fourms wrere flooded with people getting stutters and poor performance on high end (for the time) machines. Autogen was a large part of the issue then as it is now.On my p4 2.4ghz w/Radeon 9600 I had the sliders below half to try and get a decnt rate, 16-18 and even then it wasn't that smooth. After a few days spent tweaking things improved 100% and It was smooth as can be. A hardware upgrade or two later and I could floor everything and still hit the frame rate limiter.Same thing here I have a Athlon 64 3000+ with a old decrepid 256 meg 9800 pro and on windows Vista RC1 (beta os==Slowwww). when I first got it FS chugged along around 10fps. After a couple days of tweaking. I have most sliders more right than left, the sim is beautiful and I'm holding steady at 24fps. And it is just beautiful. The water.. just can't believe the water.It's important to remember that having the sliders full right in this program is insane. There currently is not terrain data that detailed on the market. FSGenesis just released 10 meter terrain files, and it is a 4 gig download. FS is capable of displaying better. Basically this program is designed to be expandable and current for some time to come.My advice, do some tweaking, set the sliders back to get a good rate, fly and enjoy. Then wait for the mod community to transform this program into something wonderful.

[vgbaron 3,508]

I have to totally ditto your post! I've been buying FS since version 1 and can NOT remember a version where these same discussions weren't made, over and over. I haven't received my copy yet but, if the demo is any gauge, I'll be satisfied. I don't care about framerates, I only check them when I'm testing something. I want the experience of FS, if it looks good and appears smooth to *ME* - that's what matters. I've been following posts on more forums and newsgroups than I can count and I've determined that everyone is correct. I've seen posts where two people with almost identical systems get totally different framerates. One considers FSX fantastic and the other considers it a bomb.A little patience and thoroughly checking your settings will go a long way to enjoyment of the sim. It would be interesting to see if people turned OFF the FR counter and just set the sim to where they enjoyed the view and the flight. Then check the FR - I'd bet a lot would be surprised at how low it might be. One doesn't *need* 100 fps to enjoy FSX.I've read some posts stating that, " Well, I shouldn't have to tweak a product to get it to run". Valid point, go away and find a perfect product - then come back and tell us how great it is. No insults intended but if you're not willing to tweak your system a bit, etc - then maybe this kind of product really isn't for you. I hear online crossword puzzles are quite nice.Point of this whole thing - as is said after EVERY FS release - chill out and wait a bit. Smarter folks than you or I will tweak away and find programs that are conflicting or other items that cause a problem. Then we can make the changes and continue to enjoy.As always just MHO,VicVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/

[Jimmy Angel 19]

>Correct me if I am wrong but I remember a lot of the same>problems when fs2004 came out. The fourms wrere flooded with>people getting stutters and poor performance on high end (for>the time) machines. Autogen was a large part of the issue then>as it is now.I'd say there was some similiar posts, but definately not to this magnitude. FSX is a different beast.For example, here's my first post about FS9 compared to FS8."The most surpising (to me) thing is that the fps is comparable in this situation (sitting on the runway at KSEA) between both sims, even with the 3d clouds (other sliders the same). It's pretty hard to be critical about the performance of the sim in this context....I think the overall look is much more detailed and realistic in FS2004."Arguably, the only major visual update in FS9 was the clouds, and that's where we saw some issues (lots of us downloading the "fix" to reduce the size of cloud textures). At the time, however, I was running FS9 on the same (aging) system I had been running FS8, and I was able to achieve consistent performance and visuals through the sliders.And, of course, before that we had FS8, which was a HUGE visual upgrade over FS7 and actually smoothed out many performance issues.With FSX, even if you tune the sliders to FS9 level visuals, you are taking a big performance hit--apparently because of the Shader 2.0 model.

[cgbart 7]

We all know FSX will be tweaked and will run faster like all the other versions have over time, but the point here is not that. The point here is why can't MS just come clean and re-engineer an engine to give FSX the performance one sees with other high tech, high graphic candy demos or programs such as GTA, Far Cry, Battlefield, etc... It's same old same old all over again. I'm just gonna wait till at least early next year to see what changes. It's really sad because if this wasn't MS, the company would be out of business by now. I still hope some solution emerges for the speed issues.P4 3.0/2gig ram/Audigy 2/ATI 9800pro