Vista + ATI RTM Drivers + FSX = HOLY COW!

[Mike T 208]

Okay:I had to wait until now to post my results because I tested last night and figured it all to be a dream and had to test again for certainty while I was awake. So, after hours and hours of verification, I, Mike T., the original not happy with FSX person, hereby state...YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! FSX is a GOOD thing.ATI released its RTM drivers for Vista RC2 and that combined with Vista RC2+ (almost RTM) is a GOOD THING! With all the tweaks I had before and with RC2 release it was a stuttering slideshow. POST upgrade, I was able to get rid of ALL FSX.cfg tweaks completely (I still am using the texture reduction tweak).I am running, FSX with NORMAL Autogen (both sliders) 100% AI traffic (imported from FS9), 50% cars, 100% ship traffic, highest ground texture resolution, water at its highest levels, plus imported FE clouds at high density, 38m Mesh. At SEATTLE, I am getting 15FPS (locked). New York (well, its still New York :-( , but the rest of the world FR as high at 50+ FPS, epecially in less dense areas. Mountain flying through mist will bring tears to your eyes.Right now, I can honestly say that light bloom, terrain mesh and 100% vehicle traffic are the only sliders not maxed and the sim is flyable in 80% of the world. I don't think the current tweaks allows to go any higher.I think I've made it infinitely clear that I will NOT dumb down FSX to utilize it. FSX is now solidly in that ballpark for me. With that said, there is still some pausing for texture loading (I don't believe ANYONE who says there is not), and FRs can get ugly in certain areas. But right now, performance is still a bit less than FS9 (to be expected) in exchange for much more visual treats.After last night, FSX has offically met MY expectations and I can finally say that I am happy. With that said, make NO mistake that current hardware would be hard pressed to run a PMDG 747-400 or PSS 777. Complex airports will probably bring FSX to its knees and require dumbing down. However, I can see that Vista DOES bring something to the table. Again, the caviat is that you WILL need a highly tweaked, higher end system to start really bringing the power of FSX to bear. But at the end of the day, there IS promise on the horizen with Vista and ATI at least.Thanks for listening.

[Guest OneTinSoldier]

Hi Mike,I happy to hear your happy. :) FSX is pretty good, but it sure does have a way of making me wish I had a newer system. (-: Oh well, one day I will. So how about showing us some screenshots of your FSX goodness now that you have it, in the screenshot section of the forum! And don't forget to change the ATI Driver to 'RC2' in your system specs sig. ;)Cheers,Jim

[vgbaron 3,485]

Careful now, someone might acuse you of being a sheep! :)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]

Glad to hear things are better for you, Mike. The darn thing better run well--you've got a killer system.Have a look at my lowly specs and you'll see why I'll be waiting to switch to FSX. However, with PC gaming bottoming out in general I just don't know if it's worth an upgrade at all. My priorities are definitely starting to shift.Have fun with it!

[Geofa 108]

Congrats! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[JerryG 1]

Thanks for posting these results Mike.We've had the RTM version of FSX for just under 1 month now and it's good to see the tweakers, tuners, and OS/video driver folks like you, Matt, and others add the benefits of their findings. We all learn from these people's efforts.I have a moderate PC (about 2 years old), 3.4GHZ, 3GB RAM, Nvidia 6800,and I find FSX to fly reasonably well in most areas other that the high details cities/airports.I've applied the tweaks on this forum, but not many! I've not scaled back textures or Autogen. I've used the FSX.cfg file tweaks only.I'm getting about 20-25 FPS at a minimum. In some missions, I get from 30-50 FPS!. In more rural areas, I can get about 30 FPS on average. This is with AI down to around 25%. At KSEA, I get around 12FPS or so on take-off from 34R, but then the FPS value increase as I bank to the West.For me, FSX is a good purchase!Looking forward to the future advancements.Thanks!JerryG

[victorwest2 0]

>Careful now, someone might acuse you of being a sheep! :)>>Vic>>Is that a baa baad thing? :-lol

[jackcnd 0]

Mike T ... Is that running at 1920x1200 ?What specific texture reduction tweak are you using?Lastly, do you have a XP install you can compare to?Thanks sounds promising!

[glsimpilot 2]

Mike T.AVSIM Staff Reviewer---------------------------------------Simmin' System: AMD Athlon 64 Dualcore 4800+ (OC @ 6000+) - 2GB Corsair XMS Pro PC3200 Low Latency DDR SDRAM - 2x ATI Radeon X1900XTX Crossfire PCIe 32 - 2x SATA 240GB WD Caviar Drives in RAID 0 - 1x SATA WD Caviar 120GB Drive - Phase Change Cooling @ -15F - Asus A8R32 MVP MoBo - Creative X-FI Platinum Sound - Logitec THX certified 6.1 Surround sound speakers - Antec Trueblue 500 Watt PSU - Wavemaster Aluminum Case - Dell 2405FPW LCD @ 1900x1200 - Windows Vista RC2 (MSDN Universal) - ATI Vista RC1 Video Drivers - Creative Labs Vista Beta Drivers - DirectX 10 - OCX 2 MB Flash Memory for Vista ReadyBoost---------------------------------------WOW..... Your system is a PC of Mass Destruction. I mean you have TWO, count them TWO X1900XTX video cards. LOL... I appreciate your effort to test and report, kudos to you. Wow though, shoot if most people can swing one X1900XTX, and you have two, and still the add-ons will bring it to its knees.anyway... looks like my upgrade may still need me to sit on my hands a bit longer and build something beefier in jan/feb 2007.Thanks for the info!!http://www.lemosnet.com/misc/gpilotsig.jpg

[JSkorna 137]

Very good Mike! I mentioned running real software and drivers may make a difference!Jimhttp://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/

[MD83 1]

Only fast PCs seem to be cutting it ....

[Guest keffenhunde]

It's about what I said earlier...we'll all need to spend thousands of $ to get a decent running and looking game...I haven't touched FSX in a week...too disappointed :(Some of us can afford it...some of us cannot...So I guess MS caters to the haves and "oh well, tough luck, fix it yourself" to the have nots LOL...You want a better running game...spend massive amounts of cash on Vista and hardware and you'll have it...uhhh. So sad...If MS would have thought farther ahead and implemanted things we have now instead what they thought ( I read that"this way is cheaper") we all would be enjoying it alot more...I'm going to go buy X Plane :)Larry

[Mike T 208]

Yup, running at 1920x1200 16xAF HQ, 6x AA :-) Unfortunately I don't have XP running on any of my PC's at home. I made the migration over to Vista since pre RC1.

[Mike T 208]

Hey Geoff!We're on the same side of the fence now...now we'll most certainly have to go have that beer! :-beerchug

[JSkorna 137]

HiWould an AMD 3400 64 and an ATI 9800 XT be a "fast PC"? I have that and run 25 maxed in MOST situations.Jimhttp://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/