FSX challenge. . . let's settle it?

[Guest Tingoose]

I propose the following in the spirit of genuineness and fair play. I say this because I have been a FSX critic. I would like to see from someone who says they can run FSX and preferably someone who says they are satisfied with FSX, a screenshot with FPS showing, of a flight over Seattle with the following, some cloud weather, some autogen, and some visible AI, some water detail, no blurries. In short a shot to look something like the quality of the Aces screenshots we all saw a month or two ago. This seems like a good and fair way to settle some of the heated debate we have going at the moment. Can anyone provide such a shot?

[Paul Kane 0]

So what you're doing here is calling those who are satisfied with their FSX experience and FPS liars and putting the burden of proof on them? Now before you say it, I know you didn't "actually" call them liars, but it's quite easy to read between the lines.Nice.....I don't think for second you're doing this in the spirit of genuineness and fair play. I can't believe how far downhill this forum has gone........

[Guest dutton]

Fully agree with you Paul! Time we just walk away from these guys. Move on everybody, nothing to see here.duttonhttp://dutton.fsblogger.com/

[Guest JIMJAM]

I fly in that area with Active Sky 6.5,MyTraffic X, full clouds,autogen and scenery at medium,ground traffic cars at 10%,2x water detail. All vid card settings at full,high quality with AA and AF at 8x. Ai is 30% for both.With Matts textures mods and the fsx.cfg tweeks, Im getting 30-40 fps average.If the weather is bad and Im in the 747 or 737 it dips into the high teen- mid 20s. But smoooooth.You just need ALOT of muscle to run it and a computer that does NOT have a bunch of clutter running in the background.Problem is like FS9, FSX "morphs" and changes as the current situation changes along with the demands. One minute I might be seeing a super clear picture with great fps and the next start to get blurs. I have given up on that Holy Grail setup that works 100% of the time.BTW- AMD FX-62 dual core,Asus M2N32 Deluxe 2 gigs HyperX ram,7900GTX,Raptor 150.Let me figure out how to get some screenshots.

[Guest FxF3]

For anybody that really wants to see photos of FSX doing very well on most computers just go to the screen shot forum. There you will find some very nice shots of Both FS9 and FSX.Then please leave your comments some of the best screens around are there for both Sims. They both can just be stunning and if your not in to Flight Sims yet you can see why we do it.:) Like the poster said nothing to see here just follow this link and enjoy.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=147

[RFields5421 1]

I propose this for people who do not think FSX is worthwile.Lock your FPS in FS2004 at 15FPS - fly a landing at KSEA with the FPS counter off.Open FSX - lock your FPS at 15FPS - fly the same landing at KSEA with the FPS counter off.Tell us which is better or smoother?My graphics card cannot display the setting in the first post (water detail / no blurries), and I promised my wife I would not buy a new card until the DX10 ones were available.

[Guest smarti05]

Oh give me a break!! someone says he wants reasonable evidence and you guys start crying because he might be calling you a liar. HE ISNT, GET OVER IT.Now if you are a liar we're not interested, otherwise if you have got good fps, well done, now please do something to help everybody else apart from saying 'i've got good fps'We need to know:1) is your perception of good fps the same as ours2) is your perception of good image quality the same as oursif the answer is yes then we need to work out why you get a better fps and try and fix ours, i think that is a reasonable request.IF you get good fps, please quote your system spec (briefly) graphics drivers and 3dmark or other benchmark score.If you cant do that then you lose your credibility, its up to you.So far everyone who has said they have good fps has gone no further than a screenshot which may look good but doesnt help solve our problems. We are a sceptical lot.PLEASE SOMEONE WHO HAS GOOD FPS ON AN ATI CARD< POST THE DRIVER YOUR USING AND IF YOU POSSIBLY CAN A BENCHMARK SCOREIf no one does this, you will all lose credibility and i for one will assume its because you dont really know what you're talking about...goes of to bang head against brick wall cos it feels nicer...

[Guest FxF3]

Like I posted there are screen shots every where with FSX doing fine.Why bother with a post we no that will only lead to another round of trouble. You can find screen shots here just look.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=147

[greengriffon 51]

What debate do you imagine this is going to settle? There are people who hate FSX because it runs like a pig on their machines, and there are people who are enjoying FSX with whatever performance they can squeeze out of it.You mean if I showed you a screenshot of FSX running at 22FPS over downtown Manhattan with a reasonable level of autogen and detail on my very mid-range machine, you're telling me that all of you FSX-bashers are going to stop flooding this forum with your angry anti-ACES threads? Give me a break.Enough people have already done that, and yet you still keep creating threads like this.

[Guest smarti05]

And what a complete and utter waste of everyones time that would be duh!!That wont tell you anything fsx is not smoother than fs9, the only thing that makes a smooth flight is higher frame rate, I thing some of you people live with the fairies down the bottom of my garden

[Randall 82]

The premise of your challenge seems to be that unless one can get a certain framerate at a certain location, one cannot possibly be satisfied with the sim.I never have cared for flying in cities (prefer bush flying) and I have used flightsim products for many years.There is a enough improvements in FSX over other versions that I am quite "satisfied" for the places and the manner I prefer to fly. I also have a desire for performance improvements just like everyone else.Randall

[Guest smarti05]

So your a great help then, fsx runs great on my machine and i'm going to gloat about, but not only that the rest of us have to stop crying for help and even if it does run great on some rubbish old machine (which it doesnt) you're not going to tell us any details of your set up so that we can try and find the magic bullet.That just proves that you have no idea whats going on in your computer and thus your comments are as usefull as someone admiring a car because its got a nice song on the radio.You make me laarrff

[Chock 17,769]

So the criteria for satisfaction with FSX is being able to fly into, or over Seattle? Granted, it may be your desire, but there are many for whom Seattle remains resolutely off the destination list.Not everyone is from the USA you know, or interested in flying there for that matter. Personally I'm more interested in flying UK European routes for example (for WestWind VA), and in the soaring potential of FSX too, being as that's a real world interest as well.But even a Transatlantic flight from dear old Blighty would put me on the other side of continental USA, still a long way from the city of Grunge. I'm not maligning Seattle here BTW, I went there once and very nice it was too, apart from when Mount St Helens erupted, but I don't hold the Americans personally resposible for that :-)I'm sure some people are keen to fly around that area, granted my FSX copy might struggle with stuff cranked up over that city, but that doesn't stop me enjoying other areas now, does it? Or from turning the detail down if I have to, I'm simulating flight here, not a walking tour of the city and I'm going to use navaids for that, not a look out the window, even in VFR flight.And ultimately, as has been stated many times, FSX is a primarily a flight simulator, not a scenery simulator, and it does a great job of that.But even if the view of the ground out of the window is your prime concern (not sure how safe a pilot that would make you in the real world if that was your main concern, but warn me if you are ever flying near Manchester for real if it is) when the hardware catches up, the sliders can go all the way to the right, every version of FS has had that wait too. This is nothing new as far as the latest FS version is concerned.So, I'm happy with FSX on reasonably detailed settings which include:, full commercial traffic, some GA traffic, no autogen (hate it, always have), real-time weather and textures on full. That gets me a smooth FPS which drops to 15 when it gets busy (still smooth though and no stuttering). I admit it did struggle a bit at Paris CDG, but who wants to go to France either? :-) That was a joke by the way. I guess I'll have to stick the settings a bit lower for that.This is with some add on stuff in there, including Ultimate Traffic, VFR photographic terrain, FS2 Crews on the airliners and a few other bits and pieces.

[Guest]

Screenshots are useless and can easily be manipulated. You need to see videos.

[Guest FxF3]

>So your a great help then, fsx runs great on my machine and>i'm going to gloat about, but not only that the rest of us>have to stop crying for help and even if it does run great on>some rubbish old machine (which it doesnt) you're not going to>tell us any details of your set up so that we can try and find>the magic bullet.>>That just proves that you have no idea whats going on in your>computer and thus your comments are as usefull as someone>admiring a car because its got a nice song on the radio.>>>You make me laarrffike I said you can see post of photos all over AVSIM forum some are mine.:) Should it not be laugh. I make you laugh.:) Yes FSX does very well on my computer I have even posted my computer specs also.Thery are really tons of tips here. Hope this helps you.http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41