Blast from the past

[Guest]

FS2000 had a patch alright but it fixed nothing as far as performance is concerned if i remember correctly. Ozark: It's confrontational posts like yours that ruin it for everyone and get threads locked. Please control yourself or post elsewhere. If you guys want to believe that a magic patch is coming, then by all means keep believing that. I will continue to fly in FSX and enjoy the sim and be grounded in reality unlike you. Stop getting everyone's hopes up about this so called patch. Unless you work for Aces and come out and say we are releasing a patch that increases frame rates by 50% without taking away visuals then stop leading people on. It's not right.I have already stated my definition of a performance patch. If that differs from yours then so be it.

[Guest cwojackson]

This all kind of reminds me of:1) When FS9 was released; what a resourse hog!2) When FS9 was eventually patched; big deal!Maybe I should just go over to the FS9 forum and complain my butt off.

[Guest FxF3]

That was funny. It seems like all the FPS problems FS9 had has now have been forgotten as if FS9 was perfect out of the box with 60 FPS on any system.:) I remember never being able to max FS9 out untill I got my latest video card. Even my Geforce ultra 6800 could not max out a stock FS9 with full shadows turned on.

[Mace 1,972]

>>"50%?" and "where they need to be"? Totally subjective and>>without regard for the performance others are seeing.>>Not sure where you've been lately if this is the case.>You must not forget, the loudest voices will be the people having the most problems. The people who are running it well, YOU DON'T HEAR. They have no fps problems to post about----there are more of us than you know.>>Just like the man says above about directx never improving>frame rates when a new version comes out;"The man" knows this, but is wondering if it is fact or not, because he is not absolutely sure...>never before have they released a flight sim patch that increased >performance without tricking the sliders to improve it at the expense >of the visuals. ??? where? what patches?But the man does not know what in the world you mean here. First off, there have been only two "patches" that I can think of offhand in FS history: FS 5.1, and FS 9.1And in the first case, there was no such thing as "sliders". And 99.999999% of Fs people will say that FS 5.1 was a considerable improvement to 5.0 and 5.0a in all respects, and that means visuals and performance.Oh, that reminds me. There was a 5.0a patch too.And in the second case, most people, 99.999999% of fs people, know that the 9.1 patch fixed a glaring memory leak in the xml. Now if that's not improving performance, while maintaining visuals, I don't know what is.I'm just trying to make sure you know the facts here and not try and pawn off this notion that there's never been patches to FS that didn't sacrifice visuals for performance, because offhand I can't think of any. If you have any specific patches that you can bring forth, do it.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Guest CyberSimmer]

-------------------------------------------------------------------- RE: Blast from the past That was funny. It seems like all the FPS problems FS9 had has now have been forgotten as if FS9 was perfect out of the box with 60 FPS on any system.:) ---------------------------------------------------------------------Yet here we are again with FSX. New Flight Sim same problems! But hey as long as some are happy with poor framerates why should anyone at Microsoft care as long as a profit is made. If any of the numerous other games that I have suffered from such poor framerates at even the minimum of slider use ,I would literally use each and every diskette as a frisbee for my dog! ---------------------------------------------------------------------I remember never being able to max FS9 out untill I got my latest video card. Even my Geforce ultra 6800 could not max out a stock FS9 with full shadows turned on.---------------------------------------------------------------------^This may have something to do with MSFS not knowing what a video card is...Maybe you should have got yourself a 5.6ghz Quad, triple stacked, super HT , nuclear powered processesor.

[Guest FxF3]

"Yet here we are again with FSX. New Flight Sim same problems! But hey as long as some are happy with poor framerates why should anyone at Microsoft care as long as a profit is made. If any of the numerous other games that I have suffered from such poor framerates at even the minimum of slider use ,I would literally use each and every diskette as a frisbee for my dog!"What ever. I get great FPS when I use my sliders so I guess you must have the only copy of FSX that has porked sliders since you can't. There seems to be a bunch of new posters comming into the Forums with nothing but complaints makes you wonder whats going on. When the first post from some people are the same old spill about FSX.

[Guest CyberSimmer]

>"Yet here we are again with FSX. New Flight Sim same>problems! But hey as long as some are happy with poor>framerates why should anyone at Microsoft care as long as a>profit is made. If any of the numerous other games that I have>suffered from such poor framerates at even the minimum of>slider use ,I would literally use each and every diskette as a>frisbee for my dog!">>What ever. I get great FPS when I use my sliders so I guess>you must have the only copy of FSX that has porked sliders>since you can't. ---------------------------------------------------------------------...Porked slider's? Aint it as simple as turning everything down, turn off bloom, turn off autogen.. tweak it, and tweak some more! I dont believe its rocket science! And even after all that FSX blows at any major airport!>>There seems to be a bunch of new posters comming into the>Forums with nothing but complaints makes you wonder whats>going on. When the first post from some people are the same>old spill about FSX.---------------------------------------------------------------------^Maybe this serves as a good indication at how peaved some people are with FSX if they are new poster's and finally feel the need to post to vent some of their frustrations with FSX POOR PERFORMANCE!

[Guest FxF3]

Yep right FSX is the devil we get it. Nothing works on FSX we get it. We are sheep we get it. We hate FSX we get it. The problem is we get this every single day.No matter how much we try to help we a always told nothing works for my FSX Which is impossiable because you can adjust the settings on FSX to work on almost all computers.So what if it looks bad when you have a better computer you can also use the sliders to make FSX look great. I have FSX on my computer looking much better then my stock FS9 and getting around the same FPS with no stutters which does happen on FS9."Maybe this serves as a good indication at how peaved some people are with FSX if they are new poster's and finally feel the need to post to vent some of their frustrations with FSX POOR PERFORMANCE!"Yea right poor performance. Ok now tell us you have the latest computer with a monster Videocard and get 6 FPS oh we have heard that one 2 a million times untill somebody that does have a great computer post photos of his getting 60 FPS with FSX almost maxed out so those storys are getting old also.Anybody with a good cpu and good videocard can run FSX very well if they will take the time to install a few minor tweaks to the cfg and do a search for help.

[Randall 85]

I believe it was the move from Directx6 to Directx7 that showed much improved performance in games. I was playing European Air War at the time and the improvement in performance was quite noticeable. However, I never remember seeing that much of a difference since.Randall

[Kabs 0]

Hello Guys,I dont post much on this forum but this I felt I had to get my voice in on the FSX saga.I am one of those who was and still is dissappointed with the performance of FSX on my machine. I am not sure about what everyone else remembers but when FS2004 came out, I had bought a P4 2.5 ghz machine from Dell for a little over $800 dollars. I was using an ati 9700pro video card (from my earlier machine) and had 1Gig of ram. I concede that FS2004 did not run smoothly with all sliders to the right, BUT, at least I could make it run at 25 fps in the city while still looking better than FS2002 (at comparable framerates) and enjoying other enhancements like a clickable VC.As far as I am concerned, what us "whiners" are complaining about is that in order to get the same performance, we have to make FSX look worse than fs2004. Of course the looks and smoothness of the sim are in subjective. I for one want my autogen though it may look "cartoony" to some. I do not appreciate being called a whiner because another user thinks we can do without it. To me the FS world without autogen is a step backward. If you do not feel that way, then you are fortunate, and I am glad you enjoy the sim. You do not have to read my whining post and then get angry about it.After all is the forum not a place to express ones feelings about the software.I also have serious misgivings about FSX running in full glory on future computers. I bought my current machine about a 7 months ago. I have an Athlon 64 3800 with 2 gigs of ram and two Nvidia 6800 GT cards running in SLi Mode. I think that my machine would have been considered "future hardware" when FS2004 was released. Sure I can ran FS2004 much better than my old machine, but I still have to cut back on certain settings such as cloud draw distance (even with the downsized clouds). Even then, I still see drops in Framerates when I enter heavy weather. There are still areas such as the Washington DC area (around Reagan International Airport) and also in NYC where for no concievable reason, after a flight from Chicago, my framerates just plummet.If history is anything to go by, I cannot see how we will be able to run FSX in its full glory with "future hardware" in 2 to 3 yrs.I am also disturbed by those who tell others that they were stupid to upgrade when they saw that the demo's performance was not to their liking. I downloaded the demo, and I was worried about performance, but I read in this very same forum that there were supposed to be major optimizations after the release of the demo, and that the retail version would perform better. My experience with the program say otherwise.I am done ranting for now, but I guess the take home message is that I have bought a piece of software which I am dissatisfied with. I am not a Microsoft Hater. I love microsoft products. Have any of you tried installing drivers on some of the Linux ports out there. I have and it usually involves reading some looooong obsure text files and typing some magical incantations into a terminal window.I would take the double click and forget anyday. The point is I love simming very much and it pains me when I have to spend more time tweaking the product and worrying whether I will have to land on the grass because I have a slide show ils approach awaiting me at my destination, than flying. I feel is my right to be able to come onto a forum and voice my dissappointment without fear of being called name. I will try to label my posts well so that those who might get offended can just skip the post.I hope with all my heart that Aces comes up with a viable patch soon.Thanks for listeningKabs

[LAdamson 240]

> I for one want my>autogen though it may look "cartoony" to some. It does look cartoony! :-hah http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/162289.jpgFSX with no autogen & FS9 with full autogen from the same area.Reducing to 800*600 takes away from the crispness of textures that I see on my 21" monitor at 1600*1200*32 resolution. Do I miss autogen for this type of flight? Not at all. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/162290.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/162291.jpg

[Guest]

Don't feel alone Kabs. I feel the same way. Unfortunately this forum is filled with many old curmudgeons who immediately resort to name calling and vilification of anyone who speaks the truth. I always conduct my posts with the utmost professionalism and respect of other people but many on here do not, and from my experience so far, they are usually on the fsx cheerleader side. These people seem to take it personal when someone says even the slightest negative thing about the sim. Mention that it runs slow and it must be that your box is misconfigured or that you didn't spend two hours tweeking archaic files, etc, etc, etc. I am neither a lover nor hater of the sim myself. I love many things about it but hate an equal amount of things so that makes me neutral i suppose. I do appreciate Aces for giving us the ability to have such a great hobby though and have never lost sight of that. As others can attest to on here, don't get me started on them releasing a patch. ;)

[Geofa 108]

Since you are interested in the truth:Here is the patch for fs2000-notice "performance" is mentioned right at the top-along with a lot of other fixes:http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimul...s2000update.aspHere is the one for fs2004-notice that "addressed slow frame rates" is mentioned right at the top.http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulator/downloads.aspI am not sure where your pessimism on patches is derived from-or the past precedence you mention on patches? I have never done name calling either-appreciate your politeness. :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest FxF3]

:-roll sure AstroDave. Thats all we do all day long is beat up on the poor people who for what ever reason dont like FSX.Wait a 2nd there goes an FSX whinner now:-hang Ok I'm back he almost got away. Is that what you truly see us doing in this forum. :-wave Don't think so remember we have the right to complain about you if you complain about us. If you need help with FSX most that have it working well will really help you its just those that tell us we are stupid and that ACES lies all day long that we have problems with.

[NM5K 1]

All the complaining about frame rates is most certainly nothing new. I think the sims have come a really long wayssince the FS4 days when I started. That was 1992, and I started with a 33 mhz box, which actually was fairly highend at that time. I still had frame rate problems in certainareas. People think the code in FS9-FSX is slow? I hadmuch lower frame rates in my FS early days than I do now. I remember getting about 4 fps on some approaches with FS5with that old 33 machine. I had to upgrade to a 80 mhz box.I wrote scenery for FS4. In those days, you basically had noextra airports besides the major Chicago, New York, S.F.and whatever else they had. If I flew over Houston, I saw nothing but flat green. So that got me into designing FS4scenery. Then I got FS5, and had to start all over again. We hadto learn how to make scenery totally on our own at first.All we had was a compiler with no docs on how to use it.So we had to fiqure out not only how to actually code newscenery, but also how to work the compiler itself. But I got the hang after about 2-3 months, and started spitting out new Houston stuff for FS5. It's actually still available on the web.. Ditto for my ancient Hot SpringsAR. scenery I made for FS4 in 1993. :/ It used "see" which enabled me to add some night lighting, and also eventuallyclouds.. Who would have thunk it.. Pretty lame clouds comparedto now.. But back then... Cool..FS5 was the first time I used custom textures. Made a huge difference in how things looked. And, also let me add customnight lighting. As far as I know, I was the first person to usetextures as intentional night lighting. Well, if not the veryfirst, at least one of the first three or so.. The stock sim didn't have em then. Only the goofy orange dotlines, etc..MS eventually adopted the method I used, and added it to laterversions combined with the goofy orange dot-lines.. The aircraft and panels looked like Fisher Price compared tonow. If I had seen FSX in 1992, when I started with FS4, I would have wet myself. Photorealism was a fairly distant dream at thattime. The panels were nothing more than rectangular "blocked" areas with the instruments. Nothing even close to a real airplane as far as looks.I remember it being a big deal to get the "ISS" packs with most every runway in the U.S for FS5. Nothing but a runway. No taxiways, no buildings, no nuttin.. Just a runway. But it wassure much better than no runways at all at most airports. FSX runs better on my present box, than FS9 ran on the box I had then. Sure, CPU's may have stumbled a bit, but I'm not really worried about it. Until I have the horsepower, I juststay away from the certain "killer" airports. In reality, I don't fly to most of them anyway. Most of the larger airportsI use are only "semi-killer" :/ , and I can get by ok. FSX's frame rate on my present box absolutely blows away the frame rates I got with FS4 on a 33dx. I don't think I started seeing the really fast 20-30 fps plus speeds until about FS2000?or so.. But part of that was hardware related with the newervideo buses, better video cards, etc.. Flight simulator was the only reason I bought a puter at first. Up until then, I didn't have much use for one. But I saw FS4 on a friends box, and after trying it, had to have one myself. I thought it was the cats heiney, and finally something a computer was actually worth buying in order to run. There were still people running C-64's, etc back then.. I had a friend try to entice me into one of those for a long time, but with only silly, fairly lame games that ran off floppys, I didn't have much interest. My present video card has more ram than I had HD room in 1992.I had a mighty 85 mb HD on that 33dx box.. I still have that drive, and it's still has it's original 1992 format. MK