FSX haters you need your own forum

[MD83 1]

That must make you a a really excited user of FSX? ;)----------------------------------------I'm not a beta tester, and I certainly don't wish to pay for the 'privilege'. Software should run smoothly on release ;)

[Guest Jimbofly]

Autogen is on None.'sif need autogen :)James

[Guest Jimbofly]

I guess I must be! It's THAT good!!James

[Guest AOA]

HiHaving to shred the sim to get acceptable performence on a high end machine is all I need to know really about weather this might be the sim for me at this time.Pete

[Guest PowderBlue]

I'm under the impresion that there are alot of screens going around paused. I also have a really high end system that is tweaked specifically for FS9. ANd FXF3 just to prove a point it blows your sytem away. I get about 10 FPS on the norm and you even throw a semi complex cloud at me and I am a stuttering fool. I think that for some unkown god awful reason there are also alot of people out there trying to convinve themselves the sim is working fine and are fibbing there way into it. I agree that I doubt this will ever work as intended and tweaks or no tweaks it might just never be the same as FS9. I have everything maxed out on FS9 except for autogen and I'm getting about 30 FSP Steady. When I can get that in FSX 2000 more dollars later and in 3 years then I can say my life is officially complete

[OHN 1]

Oh no autogen, that explains alot. But i doubt many users are happy running it without autogen. We need a performance patch, and we need it fast, im not using FSX at all anymore until these performance issues are fixed.

[Guest gulfstreamg100]

Very happy FSX user here... I locked my framerates at 20 as thats the value i found that gives totally smooth feeling...I've used the Garmin G1000 equipped birds around major cities, and if i bring the counter up (trying hard to fight against that OLD habit) the lowest fps i've seen is 13, but the feeling is equally smooth...almost all sliders to the right, except i have light bloom disabled (nothing so awesome really missing here imho)..air traffic 50%, land and sea 33%, water low 2x (looks amazing)...and the tweaks for the FSX.cfg, no more tweaks, i've imported many of my favorite birds...You know i find kind of amusing to read some posts, something like "aha! but go to KLAX, slew at high speed for 5 minutes, see?? there are blurries"...LOL....Anyways, its the same old story, all over again...Just do a search and read the same arguments when FS2004 was released.

[LAdamson 240]

> I get about 10 FPS on the norm and you even throw a semi>complex cloud at me and I am a stuttering fool. I think that>for some unkown god awful reason there are also alot of people>out there trying to convinve themselves the sim is working>fine and are fibbing there way into it.>> I agree that I doubt this will ever work as intended and>tweaks or >no tweaks it might just never be the same as FS9. I have>everything maxed out on FS9 except for autogen and I'm getting>about 30 FSP Steady.>Why would I have to convince myself that FSX is running fine?FSX is not a make believe world that I have to live in.It doesn't have to please anyone but me.My FS9 maxxed out with auto-gen runs in the upper 30's as a minimum, is very smooth and stutterless.MY FSX with no auto-gen looks better than FS9 with auto-gen in many cases, runs at a very smooth 30 fps over my city/mountain areas, and has an exceptional feel of flight in the air mass.I always have the option of FS9 & X-Plane V8 in addition to FSX. And I can always go next door to the airport to fly real airplanes.Your statement regarding fibbing and convincing is rediculous.L.Adamson

[boshar 6]

>there are blurries"...LOL....Anyways, its the same old story,>all over again...Just do a search and read the same arguments>when FS2004 was released.Go back in the forum and count those FS2004 arguments. There are much more arguments about FS-X performance then there ever where about FS9 and we are quickly coming to a point where there are more FS-X tweakposts (how long is it released now 1 month?) then there are tweakposts about FS9 in 3 years time.

[slashed2 53]

It's not the criticism that is bothering anyone. It's the constant barrage of truth stretching that sounds like a political campaign.It's much easier to bash a new product than it is to give an honest, constructive review but there have been many posts that give a good honest pro and con, like and dislike. Unfotunately, there are the MS$ sucks and Aces are retards and don't know how to program etc.... etc... I believe those are the "critcisms" being referred too. They are trolling, flame fanning posts that do nothing but incite a response from regular posters and readers.Add in those holier than thou posters who quip small but irritating responses such as I told you so or I agree and I'm sticking with FS9 in response to the trollers then you have the flame invested forum we have today.I'll post script by saying I enjoy all sides of a discussion and respect all opinions based on fact be it for or against or middle of the road FS users. I understand the add-on/performance dilemma of heavy iron flyers and the joy of the GA flyers. I do not judge those who want to stay with FS9 for now or those who will not purchase FSX until hardware catches up. Trolling on the other hand has no place in this forum.Ian.

[slashed2 53]

I read these forums daily to resolve AI and autogen problems and microstutters for FS9. Buy a 1 ghz computer with an onboard 32mb videocard and 128mb ram and see how a default FS9 runs with maximum settings across the board. Similar to this release, there were those who got good performance with FS9 and those who didn't. I was one who didn't until replacement autogen, AI, landclass and clouds became available. Even then flying around the east coast was a nightmare as it is for me now in FSX.One of the largest hits was AI traffic. Eventually for FS9 I ditched the original traffic file and used PAI and GA traffic which improved smoothness and frames.Microstutters were cured by flying at medium global textures. At high I would drop to 5 fps every 10 seconds even if fps were at 50 around the carribean. FSX has seemed to solve this for me. I get the same performance with FSX at medium, medium high settings as I do with FS9 and add-ons. I don't have a top end pc so I wonder what type of performance I'd get out of a high end machine with the settings I'm enjoying now? I can only dream.Ian.

[Guest]

>Why would I have to convince myself that FSX is running fine?Because that's what you always do, even with the last release. Everything always works perfectly for you, without tweaks or adjustments, or anything else.>FSX is not a make believe world that I have to live in.Apparently, it is.>It doesn't have to please anyone but me.And your delusions.>My FS9 maxxed out with auto-gen runs in the upper 30's as a>minimum, is very smooth and stutterless.See what I mean?>MY FSX with no auto-gen looks better than FS9 with auto-gen in>many cases, runs at a very smooth 30 fps over my city/mountain>areas, and has an exceptional feel of flight in the air mass.30 fps over cities? Let's see a video of that.>I always have the option of FS9 & X-Plane V8 in addition to>FSX.So FSX is not the be all and end all.>Your statement regarding fibbing and convincing is>rediculous.Oh, I think that when it comes to you, he hit it right on the head. Not "rediculous" at all.BTW...you might want to check out Firefox 2. It has a built in spelling checker.

[barneycanoe 0]

Absolutely agree. For the price of half an hour of real-world flight I get the latest and greatest flight simulator and can fly anywhere using many different aircraft. If you don't like it, return it and go back the FS2004 forums.Dave BarnettToronto, CanadaBeta Tester, Dreamfleet 727

[greengriffon 51]

I can see where this thread is going....yet again.What I don't understand is, what's with this arrogance that a 1 or 2 year-old PC should be able to run a cutting-edge simulation (or any other new game) at 40 fps? Is it impossible for people to simply accept the fact that the game is beyond the capability of their hardware (by design, apparently), and that if they want to run it well, they need to upgrade their PC's?There is no official rule in the PC gaming development industry that says a game must cater to the lowest common denominator spec-wise. It's in a company's best interest from a sales perspective to make the software perform well on a wide range of hardware, but it's not a legal or moral obligation to design FSX to run blazingly fast on your HP Pavilion circa 2003.And please stop with the "FSX is buggy" garbage - it runs very well on my mid-range machine. If the performance of FSX is unacceptable to you and you're not willing to tweak it, then part with some cash and build a machine that can handle it.

[boshar 6]

Just look at the numbers Ian. Its not the individual experiences but its the volume of genuine used to tweaking FS people with decent hardware that have problems with FS-X thats telling.Also in the forseable future we will not have a big jump in single core Ghz's. A bit worrying while FS-X is still basicly a single core program.Don't be to imagine your current PC's perfomance on newer hardware. The processor core's of modern PC's still run the same amount of Mhz's that you have now. With no significant support for dualcore you will only see some performance gains from the more efficient core and a bit of extra power due to the fact that system services can run on the 2nd core. FS-X needs either even more efficient cores (not on the drawingboard) or higher cloced cores (industry chooses for multi cores). Bottom line currently we do not scale well on future hardware.