FS2004 vs FS2002

[AWACS 12]

Hehe, was searching for something totally unrelated and found this thread, please read through the responses (if your interested), sounds familiar doesn't it? I think you'll see, there's nothing extraordinarily different now with FSX having been released, like some of the old timers here have said, it was the same thing when FS9 was released. One things for sure, it's been interesting.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchJeff

[Guest MaskedCarrot]

Ya it was refreshing to read that thread.But if there is/was a point to be made about all of this, is that FS has been plagued my spagetti code over the years.The program should be written to on mid to higher end PCs TODAY, not 3 years from now. By the time we all have systems that will run FSX decently, there will be the next version out that runs like crap and the whole cycle starts over again.It all comes down to the fact that it isn't that the computers today aren't fast enough to run it, it is that the programmers are just that bad and can't write optimized code. When there are actually good programmers working on it, then I am sure it will be fantastic.The whole thing about not putting multi core support in the game was just horrible, and I hope whoever made that kind of decision was fired since they obviously have no forsight. But see, even the programmers said dual core support would require a rewrite of the code, so even if we were all running quad cores right now the game would still be crappy since it will be only using one core.

[Dillon 2,197]

Jeff I'm an old timer and FSX is a very different release than the versions before it. Yes you can find various threads were few had a problem but the overall shortcomings of FSX rival FS2000 if not more so. The advancement of underlying features is far less with FSX than it was with other releases. FS2000 brought a whole new world compared to FS98, FS2002 brought ATC and better weather, FS2k4 brought interactive VC's and more realistic weather, FSX brings nothing of real value outside of updated graphics (that do little more than bring the latest PC's to their knees). The community has become nothing but glorified beta testers trying to get the most out of FSX. Some of you are fine with tweaking instead of flying, the same can't be said for the rest of the community. Like the point made before this one, with each release people are getting sick of these glaring performance problems. FSX did nothing to improve this workload on simmers and in many cases made things worse. Simmers are like 'Screw It', "After 10 years of this mess we'll stick with the old and call it a day". FS9 ironically is a very satisfying version unlike FS98 was to FS2000. FSX is not worth the headache when there's a version like FS2k4 that precedes it.Jeff all FSX is remotely good for at this point is GA flying in the most remote areas (class G airspace). Every other version before FSX one could fly both airliners and GA aircraft. In FSX you can barely fly the default 737 into KLGA or KLAX without a slide show (furthermore FS9 looks better in places like NY versus how FSX depicts it). In versions before FSX you didn't have to turn off resident features that's been in previous versions in the series. In FSX autogen in most cases needs to get turned off plan and simple. Previous versions always had a problem concerning future hardware. FS2k4 for example took no advantage from HT Technology but just the same a fast PC ment there was hope. FSX on the other hand has run it's course before it's even been on the market three months. FSX only uses one processor. All new machines will be dual core. What this means is if a 2.6gig processor can't do it for FSX alone then anything in the future is #### out of luck. Computers will be running Dual or Quad 2.6gig processors while FSX will only be able to use one of them. All other versions were written and released along side new OS's (FSW95/Windows 95, FS98/Windows 98, FS2000/Windows ME/2000, FS2k2/FS2k4/Windows ME/XP, FSX/yet to be released Windows Vista/DX10). The funny thing now is Vista is rumored for slated release without DX10, the major piece that's promised to turn things around for FSX.Jeff no matter how much some of you try FSX is very different from all other releases of Flight Simulator. FSX now has FS2000 beat as far as the worst version of Flight Simulator released in the history of the franchise. The only hope here is to see what the proposed patch does before the final verdict is out...

[LAdamson 240]

> FSX is not worth the headache when there's a>version like FS2k4 that precedes it.>>Jeff no matter how much some of you try FSX is very different>from all other releases of Flight Simulator. FSX now has>FS2000 beat as far as the worst versions of Flight Simulator>released in the history of the franchise. Opinions, opinions! :-hah This old timer thinks quite a bit of FSX! I'd even say it's the best yet,in numerous ways.L.Adamson

[Dillon 2,197]

L.Adamson 'NO' dual core support in FSX is not an 'Opinion' it's a 'Truism'. Now if you can prove me wrong about Dual Core support and FSX I'm all ears. Show me how FSX fully utilizes Dual core hardware and I'll shut up. It's amazing how you have a talent for scouting out all FSX critical threads. I mean your in every forum spreading the gospel of FSX far and wide. How do you have the time to fly FSX to support your own argument??? Surely if you enjoyed FSX as much as you claim you couldn't possibly have the time to catch all these threads for rebuttals (From Simflight to Flightsim.com your like 'Old Faithful at Yellowstone'), you'd be too busy toying around in FSX. :-hmmm I hardly post because I'm too busy beta testing, developing, and enjoying FS9...

[Guest JohnEGPF]

The advancement of underlying features is far less with FSX than it was with other releasesWith respect I disagree with that I've been hooked since the Sublogic days and this release really made my Jaw drop ( in a nice way:) I Enjoy not only GA flight but a nice EGPF/EGLL shuttle flight in the 737 landing at a packed EGLL with FPS around the 25/30 FPS mark.For IFR flight FSX has the following advantages for me at FL310,much less texture repetition, flying over water we have lost the Square texture problem, the horizon and view distance is a huge improvement so expansive and real looking at altitudeFSX does use the second core a little( wish it was more).The new default Jets are far more advanced( graphic wise) so perhaps the drop in FPS moving onto payware jets may be less than it was in FS9, hope so.This is my honest Opinion of FSX not posting to shout down you or any other flight sim fan, hopefully when The patch is released more FS addicts will enjoy what FSX can Offer.Happy New yearJohn

[LAdamson 240]

. >>It's amazing how you have a talent for scouting out all FSX>critical threads. I mean your in every forum spreading the>gospel of FSX far and wide. >I hardly post because I'm too busy beta testing, developing,>and enjoying FS9...Well, this is the FSX forum, and your name stands out like a sore thumb. As to beta testing, don't forget that I've done all that, including FS9. :)L.Adamson

[Mike T 208]

Jeff:To say that there is nothing "extraordinarily" different about FSX is to be blind to the reality of the release.1. There is now a FS9 and an FSX forum. This has not been done in the history of this site. This was done because there are so many users who have either decided to stay with FS9 or have reverted back to FS9 that it was necessary to have a seperate place for FS9 posts. This is a first. Whether one wants to acknowledge it or not, the community is split at this time.2. Add-on Developers, for the first time, are supporting and developing products for BOTH FSX and FS9. Every single release of a new version of FS has seen development immediatly cease for the prior version and start for the newest verson, not so with FSX. When FS2004 was released, developers were not still working on FS2002 compatible products and so on and so on.3. Aces (read: Micrsoft) has acknowledged serious performance problems with FSX serious enough to require them to go back and work on a patch. Now, this is not a small ammendum like FS9.1 but full blown performance redevelopment that is necessary for FSX to be enjoyed as intended in the first place. This is a first.4. FSX is released at a time of flux and transition from DX9 and DX10. DX10 titles won't run on Windows XP or on current DX9 GPUs. FSX is moving toward a DX10 shift which REQUIRES an OS change from XP to Vista as well as a new GPU and in many cases a new motherboard and a new PSU. DX10 may well be required to get FSX running the way it was intended, this is a first.5. Multi-core. The CPU paradigm of simply upgrading your CPU to a faster processor to get better FS performance is no longer valid because instead of CPUs getting faster, they are multiplying. At this time, FS does not take advantage of muliple CPU cores nulifying the advantage of having them. Another first requires Aces to redevelop FS to support muli-core processors.6. FSX was touted as the Vista flagship game release from Micrsoft. I HAVE Vista, and I don't recommend that ANYONE run FSX on Vista right now. Could you imagine if FS2004 ran better on WindowsME than WindowsXP? And what will happen when FSX gets patched for DX10 and Vista? Obviously it will run better on Vista than on WindowsXP necessitating an OS change...this too is a first.The final chapter on FSX is still more than a year off and this too is a first. Similar systems run FSX totally differently. There are those will Dualcore systems extolling FSX while users with the same Dualcore system have shelved FSX. The tweaks posted here have worked wonders for some and done nothing for others. This too is a first.No, this release is not the same as all the rest. Right now, NO ONE knows what the magic bullet for FSX will be, not even Aces.If all you read into posts complaining about FSX is negativity then of course, it will seem that this is the same ole broken record. If you look at the big picture and give credence to those who have legitimate problems with FSX and even listen to the words of Aces themselves, you will see that the forest is much larger than one single tree.There are unique hurdles for FSX. Each hurdle is expensive AND time consuming for us as well as for Aces. Edit: Each release of FS has its hurdles, FSX just has many more than the other releases of FS. This is NOT an inditement of Aces or FSX just a statement of the facts that quite frankly can't be disputed.

[AWACS 12]

I understand Dillon, I've been doing FS since FS4, I was either 10 or 12, but anyway, I've only been participating in these forums since 2003, so it's neat to see how history repeats itself, I still use both versions, don't worry I see faults in FSX, but like I said in another thread, I flew around with what I felt was a top of the line system when FS9 first came out, and I had the same performance issues as people are having now. Jeff

[Guest possum]

"It's amazing how you have a talent for scouting out all FSX critical threads. I mean your in every forum spreading the gospel of FSX far and wide."It's also amazing how you have such a strong opinion about FSX and (correct me if I'm wrong) don't even own it. And you show up in just as many threads just to bash FSX and then call out the same people over and over and over again, sometimes when they haven't even posted in the thread yet. It is starting to get a little old dude.

[Guest Len]

>Jeff I'm an old timer and FSX is a very different release>than the versions before it. Yes you can find various threads>were few had a problem but the overall shortcomings of FSX>rival FS2000 if not more so. The advancement of underlying>features is far less with FSX than it was with other releases.> FS2000 brought a whole new world compared to FS98, FS2002>brought ATC and better weather, FS2k4 brought interactive VC's>and more realistic weather, FSX brings nothing of real value>outside of updated graphics (that do little more than bring>the latest PC's to their knees). The community has become>nothing but glorified beta testers trying to get the most out>of FSX. Some of you are fine with tweaking instead of flying,>the same can't be said for the rest of the community. Like>the point made before this one, with each release people are>getting sick of these glaring performance problems. FSX did>nothing to improve this workload on simmers and in many cases>made things worse. Simmers are like 'Screw It', "After 10>years of this mess we'll stick with the old and call it a>day". FS9 ironically is a very satisfying version unlike FS98>was to FS2000. FSX is not worth the headache when there's a>version like FS2k4 that precedes it.>>Jeff all FSX is remotely good for at this point is GA flying>in the most remote areas (class G airspace). Every other>version before FSX one could fly both airliners and GA>aircraft. In FSX you can barely fly the default 737 into KLGA>or KLAX without a slide show (furthermore FS9 looks better in>places like NY versus how FSX depicts it). In versions before>FSX you didn't have to turn off resident features that's been>in previous versions in the series. In FSX autogen in most>cases needs to get turned off plan and simple. Previous>versions always had a problem concerning future hardware. >FS2k4 for example took no advantage from HT Technology but>just the same a fast PC ment there was hope. FSX on the other>hand has run it's course before it's even been on the market>three months. FSX only uses one processor. All new machines>will be dual core. What this means is if a 2.6gig processor>can't do it for FSX alone then anything in the future is ####>out of luck. Computers will be running Dual or Quad 2.6gig>processors while FSX will only be able to use one of them. >All other versions were written and released along side new>OS's (FSW95/Windows 95, FS98/Windows 98, FS2000/Windows>ME/2000, FS2k2/FS2k4/Windows ME/XP, FSX/yet to be released>Windows Vista/DX10). The funny thing now is Vista is rumored>for slated release without DX10, the major piece that's>promised to turn things around for FSX.>>Jeff no matter how much some of you try FSX is very different>from all other releases of Flight Simulator. FSX now has>FS2000 beat as far as the worst version of Flight Simulator>released in the history of the franchise. The only hope here>is to see what the proposed patch does before the final>verdict is out... Could not have said it better. By the way a thread like this (or more) has already been posted to repeatedly in the last few months. FSX is a different ball game entirely. Any of the contemporary technology with FS9 could easily handle it WITH frame grabbing addon planes, scenery, 100% traffic, etc. and FS9 sliders pumped full out. That's not the case with FSX and will not be for the forseeable future.

[tf51d 284]

Mike! I agree that out of the box FSX has a serious performance issue, even after applying the published tweaks. However, others as well as myself seem to have resolved these issues on our systems. A common theme for those that now say their FSX installations are performing well, is that they either by choice or necessity reinstalled and applied the MS installation registry fix to it, had resolved their performance issues with it. For me, while I had to do the same since a program corrupted my activation key, I didn't notice a difference until I applied the TnL=2 line to my video card section in my display.cfg file. Since then though, in most areas I'm getting 30 to 40 FPs low level and 50+ high level. It does drop in some conditions, (Mostly heavy clouds) to high teens to 20's in major city areas like New York, but mostly get mid to upper 20's there. This is with scenery extremely dense, autogen dense and a rather large traffic file (Non default) at 100%. I still think there is going to be an issue though with more complex aircraft, such as PMDG and LDS. Judging by the CS-757, which got similar performance as the pmdg OR LDS aircraft in FS9. In FSX I see roughly halve the performance of other available aircraft in FSX, so I can only guess, it will be the same with the PMDG or LDS aircraft when released, unless they find a way to cut the resources, hopefully without losing too much of the detail they're noted for. While FSX is performing well now on my system, FS9 still is faster than it, with frames in the uper 50's to 60's in most situations with default aircraft, and 30-40 with complex aircraft. So if you exstrapulate that to FSX, PMDG or LDS type aircraft, would only get about 15 to 20 FPS and much lower in major city areas in FSX. Check the FSX vs FS2004 thread in the sreenshot forum, for examples.

[AWACS 12]

Tom, I'd really like to hear more about this tweak, I remember trying to do this tweak before, but I couldn't seem to find my video card in the list. I have a pretty common card, nVidia 7600GT 256MB DDR3, would appreciate it if you could give me some further info. P.S. These people don't care if your getting good performance, they'd rather, well, you know.Thanks,Jeff

[tf51d 284]

>Tom, I'd really like to hear more about this tweak, I>remember trying to do this tweak before, but I couldn't seem>to find my video card in the list. I have a pretty common>card, nVidia 7600GT 256MB DDR3, would appreciate it if you>could give me some further info. >>P.S. These people don't care if your getting good performance,>they'd rather, well, you know.>>Thanks,>JeffJeff! Go into your system information utility under Programs>accessories>system toolsUnder components click on display. You will find a line similar to thisPNP Device ID PCIVEN_1002&DEV_7240&SUBSYS_0D021002&REV_004&16020E22&0&0008The pertinent information is the PCIVEN and DEV section. The first is the vendor code for your card, the second is the Device code.Go into your display.cfg file in the FSX folder (Back it up first)and add an entry for your card below the generic entry for your vendor, in my case ATI, yours would be Nvidia. You will see different entries for different types of cards. If you don't see yours add one. Mine looks like this;----------------------------------------------------------------------; Radeon X1950 CrossFire Edition ; ;----------------------------------------------------------------------[00001002:00007240:ati2dvag.dll]TnL=2the last 4 digits of the first set of numbers (HEX) is the Ven # above, and the last 4 digits of the second set is the Device code. The dll is the driver for your card, in your case it will be the Nvidia driver. Note of the people that have reported a performance gain with this most have had a later model ATI card, so not sure how it will work for your Nvidia card. I did try it on my other system which has a Geforce 7800GT card, and did see a gain, but not as great as I did with the ATI card in my new system! So your mileage may vary!

[Dillon 2,197]

Joey I've tried the demo which more than covers the basics as to what one could expect with the full product. I have many friends who own FSX and have either shelved the sim or returned it. I also have friends who are hold outs for the patch. I've toyed around with FSX countless times.For the record, Geofa and L.Adamson are in way more threads than me touting FSX. 'Dude' you need to go visit Flightsim.com and Simflight's forums. I challenge you to find me in one thread in those forums mentioning anything pro or con FSX on the level that these guys do (go check their screenshot forums as well. I wish one was able to search by poster name). As far as Avsim is concerned there are way more people than me commenting on FSX on a daily and weekly bases. Look around this whole community first before you make blanketed statements. People like L.Adamson have me beat 10 fold concerning FSX. To turn this around correctly, L.Adamson praise is what's getting old. I respect the fact that he likes the sim but overlooking valid issues and shooting down every poster that raises valid points is another thing... That's why I mention these guys by name as their the only ones I see do this on a consistent bases. It's almost like these guys are damage control for Aces. I actually hope their efforts are compensated in some form outside of basic beta testing because their actually good at what they do... Anyone able to tell people to turn off key features like Autogen at this late stage of FS's evolution and actually get people to do it has the gift of gab far better than I ever could. I put that right up there with telling people to go back and using 2D clouds. The price of moving forward by going backwards is a hard sell but these guys are more than capable of doing it. They'd give a used car salesman a run for his money.Joey 'Dude', I wish you could do a head count as to who has more praise post versus my con posts. I'd bet you'd see L.Adamson has me beat hands down 10 times over... :-roll