Sign in to follow this  
Guest AOA

FSX haters you need your own forum

Recommended Posts

Really the FSX forum has turned into a bashing free for all. Some of you people are just starting to make things up about FSX and repeating rumors.Name calling must be at an all time high in here. There are few posters in here that are really going out of their way to post BS about FSX. No way in heck can they be getting 5 and 6 FPS on some of the systems they claim to have and it be the Fault of FSX. Keep it up untill we have no Flight Sims left. Oh yes we will have 600 First Person Shooters and not one complaint. Yet let somebody put out a Flight Sim then starts. No matter what the give us.I have seen so many good posters in here try to help you guy's only to be might with it don't work I tried it nothing helps blah blah blah. I hate MicroSoft I think thats the real problem so many of you have a hatred for MicroSoft you pass it along to everything that comes out from them.Look at the threads you have about six poster that are really stiring the pot on this Sim. It makes you wonder who or what is behind this.If FSX ran like they claim it does I would have shelved it a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

The sad and simple truth is that ACES has laid another CFS3 on us. I have a very sneaking suspicion it may not ever run quite right on ANY box you throw at it. I can run this crippled, and its almost ok. If I turn stuff on, the good stuff, then it runs like crap. If I cripple a bunch of files and the cfg then it runs almost ok again. When this is happening with folks with dual core cutting edge systems run by folks who KNOW HOW TO TWEAK, then we pretty much know there is a problem. The reason its getting hot in here, and I predicted this, is that the product was released a bit too soon, and MS decided not to allow more time for a few nice to have features. Namely support and optimization for Dual cores or even quad cores coming next year. This sim has a number of fairly big bugs, which dont cause it to crash, but need to be addressed soon. It has a ton of little polish bugs which could have been fixed with more time. Hence you are seeing the product of this situation which equals a lot of unhappy users. This is the only place for them to do it and I believe its a good thing too. If nothing is said we wont get better products or patches in the future. If you dont like it, then dont read the threads! Pretty simple really.Hornit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Hornit I know a lot about CFS3 in fact under another user name. I did all kinds of tweaks and made CFS3 work fairly well for many users.I did a lot of work on the texture trees showed people how to get more from CFS3 as Ruff Dawg but I got feed up with the BS from so many poster about how CFS3 was the devil and IL2 ruled as if 2 Sims can't coexist together.Now it looks like the same old stuff is going to go down with this if some have there way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,Then how is it that I can get 25-35 FPS, autogen Normal, water at 1X high, every PAI, WOAI and UGA AI plan installed, using default textures, and Active Sky weather on this machine:AMD64 3400+ATI 9800 XT 256 running at 1600 X 1200With a secondary monitor installed1GB RAMJimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> The sad and simple truth is that ACES has laid another CFS3>on us. I have a very sneaking suspicion it may not ever run>quite right on ANY box you throw at it.>Like **** they have! I was a great fan of Microsoft's CFS1/CFS2, but immediately junked CFS3. At this point, I like FSX so much, that I could almost junk FS9, but won't.Sorry, but your sad & simple truth just doesn't apply here. Speak for yourself, not me. And I've been running flight sims since the invention; therefor, all this certainly isn't new to me. L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HiI get 15-25 FPS (max set to 25) on most situations (95%) and I am very happy with FSX. The missions are a blast. FANTASTIC!!!Stelios

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive been flight simming for quite a while too. Ive been around the block on just about every major flight sim you can name since the early 90's. I have participated as a consultant or beta tester on at least 4 major sims you all play. I have produced a lot of freeware for the community also and I'll likely continue to do it. I'm glad some folks are satisfied, thats fine. Im not bashing anyone or anything. I'm simply laying out what I see. There are multiple problems with this sim, especially in any non tweaked form. This is how you judge a sim, you dont tear it up and disable or cripple files and claim its a success. You judge it by how it runs out of the box after managing it to your systems capabilities. I don't have a crappy machine right now either. It's not cutting edge but it runs other software very well. By the way, I appreciated all the work with CFS3. I'm enjoying it now as "Over Flanders Fields". That sim STILL has issues to this day which even those developers admit. You dare to compare IL-2 to any MS WWII sim? Wow, that just knocks my socks off. I'm not here to compare sims or hardware or whatever. I'm just excercising my right as a member of this community to post here. We can all be mature about it, why don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You dare to compare IL-2 to any MS WWII sim? Wow, that just knocks my socks off. I'm not here to compare sims or hardware or whatever. I'm just excercising my right as a member of this community to post here. We can all be mature about it, why don't you?"Why did that come from I may have missed something did somebody compare Il-2 to any MS W2 Sim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your post above you made a comment about it, I see now you meant something else I guess, forget I brought it up. Sometimes this aint the best medium to correspond in. Hornit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really the FSX forum has turned into a bashing free for all. Some of you people are just starting to make things up about FSX and repeating rumors.Name calling must be at an all time high in here. There are few posters in here that are really going out of their way to post BS about FSX. No way in heck can they be getting 5 and 6 FPS on some of the systems they claim to have and it be the Fault of FSX. And what makes you think that those posting pro-fsx are all pristine and honest? You start a post by referring to those having problems with FSX and posting same as liers (making things up) and BSers. You need to examine your own flagrant and unjustified assertions before you go castigating others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey all, While I don't particularly care for having to sort my way through the pro and anti FSX threads to find what I'm looking for, I can understand both sides of the issue. There is no doubt in my mind that FSX has the potential to be the greatest simulator of all time, in fact, for some people it all ready is. But there are some of us who have been capable of running FS9 very well that expected the performance of FSX to be a little better. In my case I was averaging 45 fps in FS9 with everything maxed out and a ton of add-ons, but FSX at the lowest settings only gives me 20 fps with a lot of micro stutters. Unfortunately I can not afford a new computer right now, so I will have to wait awhile until I can fully appreciate FSX, but when I am ready, I'm sure it will be great. On the other hand, I would like a reasonable explanation for why FSX was released without the capability of performing well on a system that ran FS9 so great, at least in my situation. I don't mind going through the tweaks because I have gotten used to that after simming for 20 years, but it would be nice to be able to enjoy FSX without having to spend more time in my .cfg file than the simulator. So go ahead and let the childish comments commence, but I am a little disapointed that MS put a game on the shelves that won't be ready for some of us for another year or so. That is why some people are so upset. After all, when I look at the bare minimum requirements on the box and compare them to my specs, I would naturally assume that I should at least be able to fly a jet without it looking like a slide show."Tell Mayor Daley to bring back Meigs Field"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> The sad and simple truth is that ACES has laid another CFS3>on us. I have a very sneaking suspicion it may not ever run>quite right on ANY box you throw at it.>> I can run this crippled, and its almost ok. If I turn stuff>on, the good stuff, then it runs like crap. If I cripple a>bunch of files and the cfg then it runs almost ok again.>> When this is happening with folks with dual core cutting edge>systems run by folks who KNOW HOW TO TWEAK, then we pretty>much know there is a problem.>> The reason its getting hot in here, and I predicted this, is>that the product was released a bit too soon, and MS decided>not to allow more time for a few nice to have features. Namely>support and optimization for Dual cores or even quad cores>coming next year.>> This sim has a number of fairly big bugs, which dont cause it>to crash, but need to be addressed soon. It has a ton of>little polish bugs which could have been fixed with more time.>Hence you are seeing the product of this situation which>equals a lot of unhappy users. This is the only place for them>to do it and I believe its a good thing too. If nothing is>said we wont get better products or patches in the future. >> If you dont like it, then dont read the threads! Pretty>simple really.>>Hornit>Howdy,Hornit, I read your post soon after FSX was released predicting that FSX may be the laying of an egg by MS. I would say that I think it may be a little early to predict the future for FSX performance. There are a number of people that have stated a concern over the lack of FSX's ability to take advantage of Dual Cores. A valid concern imo. If the MHz race in CPU's is over and the future is more Cores, then in all likelyhood FSX will not scale well on CPU platforms of the future. Which of course would be considerably different from past versions of FS which had no problem scaling up as CPU speeds advanced.Now, I have seen an ACES team member state that they will have a look at and perhaps make an attempt to make FSX more multi-core friendly(multi-threaded) for a future patch. I have a system that is a little over two years old, mid-range system I guess you could say. I would say that in comparison to how the past couple of versions of FS ran on my past systems, and this system, I'm not too awful surprised at the performance I am able to achieve with FSX on it, and I think they have included some nice new features that have admirable, qualities such as Simconnect, SDK's released at same time as the sim, and much more.Should the sim have been in the cooker a little longer? Well, I can certainly remember that being said about FS2004 when it came out, becuase of it's performance no less! But look how it turned out. However, I will start to wrap up my opinion on what might be considered a little less optimistic note about FSX compared to what I have said so far. ;) The Landclass or Textures or a combination of the two(I'm not technically inclined enough to say for sure) leaves a lot be desired! Huge swaths of desert where they do not belong. The Rocky Mountains are not the Rockies, but instead are now the Sand Dune Mountains(mountain peaks in particular are what I'm talking about). This jumped right out at me the first time I fired up the sim and have continued to do so every time I have used it. If more time was needed to get this aspect of the sim done correctly then more time should have been taken, imo.As far as performance, I can say it's about what I expected when compared to previous versions at their time of release. Although I feel I should state that I am one among a few(perhaps many?) others that wouldn't mind seeing the sim a little more oriented towards present day CPU capabilities rather than be quite so forward oriented. Yeah, I can run it with quite a few of the sliders turned down, but how's it going to run on CPU's of the quad-core octo-core future? Which will supposedly run at not much more than the clock speeds we have today. Unless a patch that addresses this concern is forthcoming then I can see the need for concern. Or, depending on how well they work, if we actually end up getting Reverse-Hyperthreading(AMD speak)/Core Multiplexing(Intel speak) CPU features, which have so far been speculation and vaporware, they may address the problem for apps/games that are not multi-threaded in such a way to take advantage of multiple cores. Last ditch hope... perhaps there will some some kind of incredible discovery that will allow the clock speed race to begin anew?But for the right here and now I sure with I could get my Rocky Mountains and the Great Plains back, rather than what we have now, the Sand Dune Mountains and Great Sahara Desert.Regards,Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>And what makes you think that those posting pro-fsx are all>pristine and honest? You start a post by referring to those>having problems with FSX and posting same as liers (making>things up) and BSers. You need to examine your own flagrant>and unjustified assertions before you go castigating others.Nothing unjustified at all.I happen to agree with him, there are many that take every chance they can just to take a job at MS and FSX and posters that are sharing their good results with the sim. Since many seem to say they have uninstalled it, then fine, you have NO need to be responding to threads. I am lucky I thought since I have no activation issues and it runs fairly well with no tweaks. I did a test and uninstalled tonight and installed on my design rig which is less than my gaming one (Asus A7N8X dlx, XP3200, 1 gig 3500DDR, 9800 pro), thinking, ok here is the test, I'll have all kinds of issues and poor performance and I can jump on the bandwagon of the whiners. Well, that didn't happen. I actually got comparable performance that I do on the gaming rig (which kinda peeved me, LOL)YES, I want to max the settings out, YES I want ALL my addon aircraft to work in it now, YES I want all my scenery to work in it NOW, YES I want to know where the dang animals are, YES, I want more comprehensive SDKs, YES I want my AI back like in FS9, but, there are so many new things I haven't had before that I am able to enjoy them till I can get the other things working. Just because someone gets decent performance and defends the sim, doesn't mean they are full of it. We are all aware there are issues and many are having a bad time of it, but stop taking it out on those that are enjoying it and/or trying to help others have a good experience. Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi,>>Then how is it that I can get 25-35 FPS, autogen Normal, water>at 1X high, every PAI, WOAI and UGA AI plan installed, using>default textures, and Active Sky weather on this machine:>>AMD64 3400+>ATI 9800 XT 256 running at 1600 X 1200>With a secondary monitor installed>1GB RAM>>JimIs this in major cities and what is your traffic % on the planes? Also what plane were you using when you got these frames and what viewpoint, VC, spot, etc...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Keep it up untill we have no Flight Sims left. Oh yes we will>have 600 First Person Shooters and not one complaint. If you have to go through a song and a dance to get something to work still halfway then WHO WANTS a new one? If all you guys want is 6-20FPS and be happpy, I am sure there are some people that can put together something nice for you using flash animation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK.I HAVE to admit its working!AV6.5 running, water 1X, 50-75% sliders, 20% cars etc, dynamic activities on etc etc.Airbus 321 is best default aircraft I have seen since I started in Bruce Artwick days.FPS, I changed from holding at 23 (as I had it in Fs9) and released sim to find its own FPS. Now smooth.........similar stutters at say O'Hare 1000ft approach as Fs9, but flyable. (Scenery 75% and dynamic 100%)I am a senior. I therefore tend to leave well alone nowadays, as I have so many senior moments (60 a minute!) that I quickly forget what 'tweak' I did 2 nanoseconds ago. So, I just increase settings to where I feel I can control aircraft smoothly and see a pretty world.I have a 3 year old HP Pavilion, 2.4, 2MG RAM, GeForce 5700. Going by posts here this antique system should NOT be running the sim.However, I have a daft idea of what happens. Each boot of FSX (as Fs9 was) it gets a little better. XP 'learns' as you boot up stuff.Initially, on first boot up of FSX I was presented with barren landscape and a wee fence dictating perimiter.Now? I am easily where I was with Fs9, with only AS6 as add in. I believe I can take it up notches yet, and I will continue to do so.Tell you what though..chasing elephants around Kenyan landscape was one of the funniest FS experiences I have had..great fun! Missions are terrific.Just my experiences...FSX works!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there has been a lot of disinformation about FSX. Some poster have lied about FSX even admited they did not have a copy of it yet were going on about how it runs. I back up what I say this is why FSX is still on my computer.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/160171.jpgOh thats Seattle you know the airport where so many are saying you get less then 10fps out of. I'm lucky. Thats with AI traffic at 50%http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/160172.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/160173.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/160174.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/160175.jpgThis is New York I ran the Rez all the way up to 1792x1344 put autogen sliders to the max. No clouds and it still held to around 17fps. Thats tons more the FS9 would do if its autogen was kicked up to what FSX can do.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/160176.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/160177.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/160178.jpgNow let us that Have FSX working enjoy it. If you want and need help its here. If you can't get it to work for you FS9 is a great Sim. Not to many of us rush onto the FS9 forum and bash the crap out of that sim or its posters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to trick people into believing fsx gives good frame rates and no stutters:1. Take snapshots after pausing the sim.2. With varibale FRs take shots when the fr shoots up momentarily.3. When the discussion is about FRs in large airports post screens from spot view and/or say i fly GA and give shots of GA scenery. 4. Downright baloony saying it does not stutter. Afterall stutters are not caught on screen shots.5. If all these fail call everybody else liars!!6. Make virtues out of the silliest of thing. You see I married a donkey now even if she manages to operate the dish washers I get so excited about it that I proclaim to my neigbours what an extraordinary woman she is!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"1. Take snapshots after pausing the sim."One photo is on pause the rest are not you lose that one."6. Make virtues out of the silliest of thing. You see I married a donkey now even if she manages to operate the dish washers I get so excited about it that I proclaim to my neigbours what an extraordinary woman she is!!"You married a Donkey that does dishes and your upset over FSX, Amazing What she can't get FSX to work for you.Like I said help is here use it. You will sleep better at night.http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/productrefund/refund.aspWe know Bill and FSX are the devil we get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense!I admit to having stutters, just as I have on Fs9, at heavily dense scenery.However, I am smooth as glass above say 1000ft?The point is that the stutters I am having on FSX, do NOT stop me flying and controlling the aircraft.In my rig with Fs9, I had active sky, put on Radar in cockpit and was reduced to 2ps! That is unflyable. So, easy answer, switch weather radar off, enjoy what I can, and that is Active Sky's delightful, stutter free clouds and weather.I will upgrtade to a dual processor, I will buy Vista, I will expect improvements on FSX, but until that day, I am getting happier and happier with FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL most of them are probably Linux a really excited user with a vengeance.James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not running A SINGLE TWEAK on my system (I re-instated original files) and the thing runs like a charm. I'm loving it, the improved graphics, the INCREDIBLE soaring realism, the improved flight realism, and the awesome missions!James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jim.I dont know how you acheved that,I wish I could .Done all the Fox & microsoft fixes and still get low double figures at heathrow with only half the hangers showing.best regards.Rex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FS haters?The opposite of love in this case is not hate, it's indifference. Most of the people posting negative comments realy care about FS-X. When they stop caring and just return the game to the shop then its time to get worried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this