FSX Patch?

[Stelios 11]

>OK guys, let me make a prediction. SP1 will be out on the 1st>March!!!>Any bets?>>SteliosSorry guys I never said what year...Stelios

[Guest Jacky Brouze]

>ah darnit he did say AFTER Jan!! crap!eeee ... which year ?:-))A+Jacky

[jcboliveira 1]

> Can anyone name any? Just one would do... :9 Some of my industrial software is not licensed, the ownership is passed in to the entreprise after the gold. Jos

[Guest Hocking]

Nobody is able to make FSX run on their computers the way it was intended. Come on guys. Sitting around for hours tweaking the game and dumbing it down to run on your current system in a state that is not any better than FS9 is not getting FSX to run properly. I don't know why so many people are claiming they have FSX running fine on their computers. Nobody does, until after the DX10 patch release anyway.When I first got FSX, I also was able to get FSX working on my computer at acceptable frame-rates. However, I decided that FS9 looked much better than a currently optimized FSX on my machine that required turning all the goodies off so I could fly in a bland looking environment. That is why I went back to FS9, and put FSX back on the shelf. I bought FSX thinking that I would be playing a DX10 capable game by March at the latest because that is how FSX was marketed. In fact, I was also told that FSX would run better on Vista, and I am now finding this to not be the case either based on some reports out there. Until FSX is capable of running on DX10, we are not getting anything much better than what we already have in FS9.Now my other point is that many flight simulation enthusiasts do not know how to change a bunch of settings in FSX files to get it to work on their machines. They simply know how to go out and buy a game, install it on their computers, and then go fly it. That is it. These type of people probably make up over half of the number of FSX copies sold (this is only my opinion or best guest), if not more. Most of these people have a bad taste in their mouth right now concerning FSX, and possibly PC gaming in general, and this is where FSX has turned out to be a disaster.I am glad that you are enjoying FSX, and any body else who has it running to their standards. But like I said earlier, we have all been mislead into thinking what FSX would offer us early this year in an effort to drum up excitement over a Vista/DX10 release. This is where FSX is a disaster, and I bet most people at ACES completely agrees with me at this point. I imagine their hands were forced by Microsoft.

[Guest Hocking]

This DX10 being tied to Vista only is completely laughable. This is going to do nothing but delay any game development using DX10 until after Vista sales pick up, which may not be until next year sometime. Think about it. You are a game developer, and you are going to start development on a game that will take millions of dollars to fund. You can either develop a DX9 game and release it to nearly everyone who currently has a computer. Or, you could start working on a DX10 game and release it only to those people who have Vista on their machines. You want to release this game late this year, or early next. Which direction is the riskiest? Which direction is the least riskiest? That is what game developers are thinking about right now. What they see is very low sell levels of Vista OS's right now. In fact, the main story around the Vista release is how computer manufacturers are not selling many Vista computers, Vista is not flying off the shelf at the retail level, how Vista is not much of a great improvement over XP, and Vista is overpriced by at least $150. This leads me to believe that any game developer who currently has a DX10 game in the hopper knows they should not get into any hurry finishing that game. They may have a release date for later this year, but I am willing to bet you these games won't hit the shelf until way into 2008 (similar to the STALKER experience). Delay after delay after delay!!!!!What Microsoft has created is two opposing forces working against each other. Consumers are waiting on one side of a fence to upgrade to Vista so they can have DX10 capabilities to play DX10 capable games when they come out. Game Developers are waiting on the other side of the fence to invest a bunch of money to develop a DX10 capable game to market to gamers who have DX10 capable machines. Talk about a huge stand off. Who is willing to take the most risk, a gamer who buys components to build a new machine (or buy a new Vista Computer) today to play DX10 games in the future when they become available, or the game developer who releases a DX10 game that hopefully compels a bunch of people to upgrade their machines to Vista/DX10 so they can play it. Who jumps first? Who takes the risk on? When do they finally take this risk on? There is absolutely nothing out there right now compelling any consumers to go to DX10, and this will make DX10 a very lightly owned technology for quite sometime. Why would anyone want to spend millions on developing a game only to sell to the few who do have DX10 capable machines. I know many of you think as soon as a DX10 game is available, more people will upgrade to DX10. I agree. But what game developer will want their game to be the one to start this slow migration process. That is the huge risk these DX10 game developers must be willing to take. Why not eliminate risk, and continue developing DX9 capable games, and be able to sell to the entire market. Hold off on developing your DX10 games until DX10 is more widely held. Let FSX, a Microsoft game, be the first to start sucking people over to DX10, and then we will follow later. When is FSX supposed to be DX10 capable?My point exactly. FSX was never meant to be a DX10 only capable game for this very reason. FSX wasn't even wanting to take the risk of being the only DX10 capable game out their that would be the big draw to bring people over to Vista/DX10 capable machines. That is why we are now finding out that DX10 capabilities for FSX will be many months in coming. FSX has always been designed to be DX9 capable up to this point, simply because that is what we all currently have. Even they were not willing to take the DX10 risk all by themselves. I mean, it sounds as if they are just now starting to work on the DX10 capabilities for the game. I guess it all makes sense to me now. I was a huge sucker to really believe that they were developing FSX to be both DX9 and DX10 capable all at the same time. This game has been 100% DX9 all the way throughout the entire development process up to this point. By tying DX10 to Vista only does nothing but slow down the acceptance of DX10 as the next big thing to come to gaming. It will be at least two to three years until DX10 is accepted as the gaming standard at the earliest is my bet. If DX10 was backward compatible to XP, this issue would be completely void. At that point, game developers would be jumping all over the DX10 standard to just keep up with competition. They would know anything they develop that is DX10 capable would be marketable to anyone who simply upgraded their graphics card instead of their entire machine and operating system like the current situation requires. DX10 would be the standard for nearly every game currently under development more than likely.I am very disappointed with this whole Vista/DX10/FSX fiasco. I was really looking forward to building my new machine that would have all these great things in it. Eventually I will be able to have these great things, but the way this has been handled will dramatically delay my build schedule until sometime next year at the earliest I think. This keeps slipping further and further away, so I can't be sure. I wanted to be Vista/DX10 capable by March of this year, now I am thinking it won't be until after March of next year. I was never a hater of Microsoft because that is the only OS I have ever used and I enjoyed it, but I am being turned into a hater because the way they handle themselves in the marketplace anymore.Just think what all this does to the big "Game Console vs. PC Gaming" controversy? I don't even want to go there. What a disappointment.

[tf51d 284]

Nobody is able to make FSX run on their computers the way it was intended. Come on guys. Sitting around for hours tweaking the game and dumbing it down to run on your current system in a state that is not any better than FS9 is not getting FSX to run properly. I don't know why so many people are claiming they have FSX running fine on their computers. Nobody does, until after the DX10 patch release anyway.I wouldn't say nobody!! I've posted any screenshots showing I'm getting high twenties to 30's and even 40's in dense urban areas (Other than NY) at a very high detail level, much higher than anything in FS9. Here's an example, note the frame rate! I messed up the jpeg conversion of this shot, but I'm sure you get the idea. You can also see my videos on youtube, just search for tf51d. Also check my benchmark score in the benchmark thread. I don't know why I seem to be getting better results than many others even with faster stock or OC'd cpus and GeForce 8800GTX, which is suppose to be faster than my ATI X1950XTX crossfire cards (Currently running in non Xfire mode). If it's Hardware, there is nothing much I can do about that, but if it's something in my config, I would like to know what it is, so maybe it might help others. I have tweaked my system, (No different than we did with FS9, as every FS version has required some form of tweaking!) but probably less than many, as I haven't done any texture resizing until yesterday, when I installed the great tree replacement package that just was released. I did that because of looks not performance. Well anyway here's a shot over Molokai Hawaii at tree top level.Intel Core 2 Duo E67002GB MemATI X1950XTX Crossfires, running in non Xfire modehttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/167484.jpg

[FTD1949 0]

>Nobody is able to make FSX run on their computers the way it>was intended. Come on guys. Sitting around for hours>tweaking the game and dumbing it down to run on your current>system in a state that is not any better than FS9 is not>getting FSX to run properly. I don't know why so many people>are claiming they have FSX running fine on their computers. >Nobody does, until after the DX10 patch release anyway.>>When I first got FSX, I also was able to get FSX working on my>computer at acceptable frame-rates. However, I decided that>FS9 looked much better than a currently optimized FSX on my>machine that required turning all the goodies off so I could>fly in a bland looking environment. That is why I went back>to FS9, and put FSX back on the shelf. I bought FSX thinking>that I would be playing a DX10 capable game by March at the>latest because that is how FSX was marketed. In fact, I was>also told that FSX would run better on Vista, and I am now>finding this to not be the case either based on some reports>out there. Until FSX is capable of running on DX10, we are>not getting anything much better than what we already have in>FS9.>>Now my other point is that many flight simulation enthusiasts>do not know how to change a bunch of settings in FSX files to>get it to work on their machines. They simply know how to go>out and buy a game, install it on their computers, and then go>fly it. That is it. These type of people probably make up>over half of the number of FSX copies sold (this is only my>opinion or best guest), if not more. Most of these people>have a bad taste in their mouth right now concerning FSX, and>possibly PC gaming in general, and this is where FSX has>turned out to be a disaster.>>I am glad that you are enjoying FSX, and any body else who has>it running to their standards. But like I said earlier, we>have all been mislead into thinking what FSX would offer us>early this year in an effort to drum up excitement over a>Vista/DX10 release. This is where FSX is a disaster, and I>bet most people at ACES completely agrees with me at this>point. I imagine their hands were forced by Microsoft. I'm not sure how you can make the claim that nobody can run FSX on their machine the way it was intended. Exactly how in your infinite wisdom is it intended to run? I have it running just fine. FSX out of the box is many times better than FS9 out of the box. That means with 0 add ons. Craig

[Guest Hocking]

That is a great screenshot. Looks very nice. I am glad you all are happy with how you are running FSX on your machine. But, you are totally missing my point.My point is this, nobody is running FSX the way it was marketed to be ran. You do not have the capabilities to due to software reasons. It is totally impossible. Not until the DX10 patch is released for FSX will you be able to run FSX the way it was marketed to be ran. We all thought we would have DX10 capabilities shortly after Vista was released. Now we are finding out that DX10 capabilities for FSX are going to be months away. Are you guys that went out and upgraded your machines to run FSX in a DX10 environment totally shocked now that you are being told that FSX won't be DX10 compatible for many months from now? I bet if you all would have waited to buy your exact same machines that you have today when FSX is truly DX10 compatible several months from now, you would have saved several hundreds of dollars if not more than a $1000. Not trying to rub it in at all, and I am sure you are happy with your machines. Your machines will definitely run FSX better than what my machine will run it at today. But, the way FSX runs on a DX9 machine is not worth me changing over to from FS9 and all of its add-ons that I have for it. So, the only choice I have today is DX9 capable FSX or FS9. I choose FS9 because of all of its great add-ons, and the fact I don't think FSX is that much greater than FS9 graphically in a DX9 environment. I will only choose FSX when it becomes DX10 capable. At that point, I am sure FSX will definitely be much better than FS9, and worth the upgrade to me. This is all that I am saying. We have all been sucked down this Vista avenue because we mistakenly thought we would have DX10 capabilities right off the bat considering how FSX was marketed. Now we are finding out that we won't have DX10 capable FSX for many months from now. Furthermore, there are no DX10 games scheduled for release until late this year, and please folks, don't think those release dates for these new DX10 games are going to hold. We should all know that is not going to be the case at all. Expect most of these new DX10 games to hit the shelfs in 2008 sometime.

[LAdamson 240]

>Nobody is able to make FSX run on their computers the way it>was intended. Come on guys. Sitting around for hours>tweaking the game and dumbing it down to run on your current>system in a state that is not any better than FS9 is not>getting FSX to run properly. >>>>I am glad that you are enjoying FSX, and any body else who has>it running to their standards. :-lol My standards would be running FSX and FS9 with full sliders to the right, with full AI, the most complex airliner, weather, land mass, full functioning glass panels, and terrain addons..............and still achieve 50 frame rates of shutterless, fluid smoothness at a minimum! And I'd require FSX's high resolution too, for ground textures, airframe exteriors, and panels. But, it "ain't" happening!So, being realistic, not a team player, and following no sheep; I've compromised with "both" simulations; and do FSX & FS9 side by side, for the foreseeable future! :-hah I don't need testimonials telling me how only a "bland world" exist's for FSX, or that FS9 is always going to look better, when I personally have experienced just the opposite, for four months. Or how I'll spend hours tweaking for reasonable and dumbing down performance, as neither is true. In all these months, I have yet to tweak.Since we all have different requirements for preferred types of simulated aircraft, areas of the world that we fly, as well as a tremendous variance in hardware, it's rather lame to follow one persons thoughts, based on their own experiences; as if that particular experience will apply to all. In other words, I simply do not agree with the majority of your thoughts, on this subject; and will continue with FSX and FS9, side by side. L.AdamsonAthlon 64 3800+/2gig/Geforce 7600GS 256MB/ 1600*1200*32 res 21" monitor

[LAdamson 240]

>That is a great screenshot. Looks very nice. I am glad you>all are happy with how you are running FSX on your machine. >But, you are totally missing my point.>>You've missed the point too. I've seen and experienced too many advancements in FSX, to go back to FS9 only; even considering FSX's current state.I'll continue to use both, as I personally know I'd be missing a lot, if I didn't. All your thoughts, and assumptions, will not change my mind. IMO, you're just wasting space...L.Adamson

[tf51d 284]

What DX10 features are you talking about?? The only extra benefit is maybe even better water effects, in which the level 2 water in D9.1 even now is better than FS9. Also Aces already warned us, even before FSX release, that DX10 effects, will probably affect performance even greater. Don't expect DX10 to be the performance magic pill. If anything , hopefully that will come with SP1. DX10, will just enhance the graphics even more than they are, which already meets my original expectations for FSX, graphically. Performance wise, even at the levels I'm seeing, it still lags behind FS9 on this system., but then again it runs better and at greater detail then FS9 did on my previous system which was a P4 3.8Ghz 2GB GeForce 7800GT. Also even though FS9 runs higher frames on my system, it still suffers from periodic scenery load pauses, and greater occurances of the blurries, which are almost non existent in FSX, at least on my system!! The only time I saw stutters in FSX was when my frame rate exceeded the 60mhz frequency setting of my display. That was because I didn't set the display frequency to overide in 3D, so it used the default 60Mhz. I no longer have this issue. I still do use FS9 when I want to fly the LDS 767 or the CS-757, which admittedly perf is terrible in FSX. Other than that I do most of my flying in FSX.

[n4gix 4,949]

>> Can anyone name any? Just one would do... :9 >>Some of my industrial software is not licensed, the ownership>is passed in to the entreprise after the gold. >>Jos

[neil0311 366]

>This DX10 being tied to Vista only is completely laughable. >>By tying DX10 to Vista only does nothing but slow down the>acceptance of DX10 as the next big thing to come to gaming. >It will be at least two to three years until DX10 is accepted>as the gaming standard at the earliest is my bet. If DX10 was>backward compatible to XP, this issue would be completely>void. This has been discussed on these boards ad nauseum, with members of the Aces team, principally Phil Taylor, providing very specific explanations of why this was/is not feasible and won't happen. Now if you choose to ignore those explanations and ignore the details that have been place in front of you, that's your business. Of course you may feel that you know better, and that also would be your business.

[LAdamson 240]

> Also even though FS9 runs higher frames on my>system, it still suffers from periodic scenery load pauses,>and greater occurances of the blurries, which are almost non>existent in FSX, at least on my system!! That's exactly the way my setup behaves. FS9 gets the blocks of blurries, than corrects, while FSX just fades off into the distance, without having very defined sections of blurries versus clear, that are so close to each other. But seeing how I have not tweaked FSX or FS9 on this machine, I guess I could always start spending all those hours tweaking FS9 to help the blurry situation, while just leaving FSX alone! :-lol L.Adamson

[tf51d 284]

While you say you haven't tweaked FSX, there are 2 things that I think is a must for you to do, which I don't consider tweaks, rather they're work arounds for bugs. One of which was also in FS9. Renaming the default.xml, this is one of if not the biggest bottlenecks affecting performance. This has been a known problem I think even dating back to FS2002. The other is removing the BufferPool section in the fsx.cfg. I think this is the root of the problem that causes FSX to go to single digits after a little while. After I removed these lines, I'm able to fly for much longer time without FSX slowing to a snails pace. I have flown flights as long from VHHH-KJFK realtime with no loss of performance this way, and I see no significant difference in graphic quality.