Sign in to follow this  
Guest allcott

FSX on Vista is the best...better than FSX on XP

Recommended Posts

I've been reading many of the threads here about Vista and FSX not working well together. My experience is running FSX on Vista is quite the opposite. Here are some of my basic system specs - ATI Radeon X1300/512mb, 3GHz CPU, 2.5GB RAM, Vista Ultimate. FSX runs okay on XP but micro stutters are common (FPS locked @25; in game FPS 20-25)FSX runs very smoothly on Vista with no microstutters (FPS locked at 25; in game FPS 10-24)Even at 10FPS with Vista the sim is very smooth and fluid. I don't bother much to look at the FPS counter anymore.Installing Vista in a dual-boot scenario is easy and allows the best of both worlds. With today's cost of disk space it's an easy choice to make. It's also easy to install FSX in completely separate environments.I still have FSX installed on XP but have not gone back too often. I'm really enjoying FSX with Vista. I installed Vista in a dual-boot config back in November and have been happy so far. I just wish the developers would move more toward FSX so that we can get some quality aircraft to fly. AirlinersXP is looking mighty good but they plan to roll out for FS9 first. A mistake I think, since a few months from now most simmers will have made the switch to Vista one way or another. I don't think a flight simulator can keep us locked to an aging operating system for long. We will move forward I think.Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Hi Ken,I agree that running FSX and Vista together is a rather pleasing experience. Gone are the little stutters and pauses that I had in WinXP Pro. FPS are about the same but they seem to be much smoother. It's very hard to explain but my seat-of-the-pants feeling is that Vista has definitely improved the game.Regards,Jim Karn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

could it be you started all over with vista and have a bloated version of xp giving you the idea that one OS is better than the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got to agree with Alex here ...A new OS isn't going to give you any better performance in anything folks - you have what we could call the 'Shiny new fresh clean OS everything is better' syndrome - and an expensive one it is too ;)Seriously though chaps,... Don't lets not get all flamey here but all I would say is that if you were suffering 'microstutters' (?!) then that was most likley some other application butting in while you tryed to enjoy FSX (or even FS9) and executed some sort of process. It could be anything from a virus checker to an over-zealous printer and anything in between.Although if you really believe Vista has saved your world then by all mean go with that and good luck...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, looked at again from the `glass half empty` side, what you are telling us is that it wasn't worth the money. I know you're happy, but I wouldn't be spending that amount of money on an OS and seeing lower fps, smoother or not. In fact you are confirming what we told by ACES, that Vista does impose a slight performance hit. It's not a surprise, "they all do that sir".If I want a smoother sim I can get that for a lot less money by adding some more RAM. You already had 2.5 gig, a number that was almost guaranteed to cause you some problems with XP unless you have a mobo that offers three or more equal RAM slots (99% of motherboards don't, as all slots are most definitely not created equal).So you solved your problem by adding an expensive OS. I might have solved the problem by taking out that extra RAM, or installing matched pairs of 1 gig sticks. Cost less than the OS and benefits everything.Thanks for the report. Much more informative than Kev's, which is not the fiorst time he's told us all how happy he is with FSX under Vista, without actually giving any facts.Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Alex,I like to think the OS was in good shape and well maintained. That's not to say there wasn't some stuff on there that could have been deleted. It ran very well and I was always happy with the performance.Vista seems to have breathed some life into computing for me. It's GUI is very well thought out and I enjoy using it more each day.I was on the beta back in the summer of last year, and I see a big difference in the RTM. It's stable and performs well.I'm not trying to convince anyone of its merits or pitfalls. For me, it works well and I'm glad I made the move.Regards, Jim Karn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad for those of you having good results with Vista and FSX, but...are you sure it's not the "reinstall effect"?I must say that any time you re-install an OS, chances are things will be snappier and smoother, just from the cleaning out the reinstall has done. I am not sure if that is what you all are seeing here...I have found that even the most well-maintained OS will STILL benefit from a reinstall sometimes.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ken if your happy thats all that really matters. Like with all new OS I my self will wait for a while to test the waters.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I know you're happy, but I wouldn't be spending that amount of>money on an OS and seeing lower fps, smoother or not. Hi Allcott.I didn't buy a new OS to get better FPS in FSX. I brought it because I want to get a head start on what most of us will be using soon. I would never let FS or any other single program drive my decision for a new OS.This is just the direction everyone will have to take. XP will soon go the way of all the previous OSes.I have been using Vista and FSX since Nov. 17th and my experience has been good. I have re-installed XP and FSX as well and all works on that platform too.I just wanted to give another view of FSX running on Vista. I'm happy moving forward.Take care,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>could it be you started all over with vista and have a>bloated version of xp giving you the idea that one OS is>better than the other?I installed FSX on a new non-bloated Windows XP system, three months ago, and it doesn't stutter either. The system still isn't bloated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two comments:1. any comparison between XP and Vista is really only valid if both are fresh installs on virgin (or at least equally cluttered or non-cluttered disks). As has been pointed out more than once, any XP installation that has had ANYTHING else installed on it is not a fair comparison to a fresh install of Vista (or even XP!). As a for-instance, compare the registry file sizes of your nice new Vista installation to that of your new Vista installation.2. in my world, any framerate <15 fps is not really usable, no matter how fluid/non-stuttery it is. My framerate "requirements" are quite a bit more modest than what I typically see in these and other forums, but a fairly consistent 15 fps is my personal minimum and that is what I adjust my settings for.FWIW I don't often experience stutters in FS-X, unlike FS9. This may have to do with the fact that I have FS-X's features turned down quite a bit - e.g. I have Autogen and traffic turned off. But right there is a fairly unfair situation - I'm making an apples-to-oranges comparison, since I always had a low or medium level of Autogen turned on in FS9.Disclaimer: I am no fan of Vista, and have no plans to install it until I absolutely have to. The DX10 thing is in theory appealing, but that only gives rise to my annoyance that MS is only offering it on Vista. I will bet that there is no technical reason why it couldn't be released on XP - IMO it's one of the few things that MS has to offer in Vista that is at least potentially better than what XP has.And, don't even get me going on Vista's crazily over-the-top DRM policies . Dave Blevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Dave. I hear ya.I have done some meager comparison tests with fresh installs of FSX on both XP and Vista. Presently there are few add-on GA aircraft that will work with FSX. Even less that work with FSX on Vista. Case-in-point, the excellent Cirrus G22 by that Hamilton fellow and staff at Eaglesoft. It works great in FSX on XP but will not run properly on Vista due to UAC (User Account Control) issues. So my tests with default FSX aircraft was all that I could accomplish. Still, Vista won hands down in my opinion. The micro stutters were quite prevalent on XP with higher FPS than that of FSX on Vista. I generally lock my FPS setting on 25.FSX on Vista gave stellar performance even though the FPS counter dipped to 10 occasionally. On Vista the FSX FPS counter fluctuates more than on XP yet still provides smooth performance. Again, this was all with the default aircraft and default settings. I did not change one setting with regards to autogen, water, vehicles, etc. With some of the reported tweaks such as Fiberframe (I think) settings my experience is wonderful on Vista.More later,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm interestingI only disagree about simmers making the switch to fsx/vistaThere's still more simmer in XP....much less simmers using FS9...I'm pretty sure FS9 will still be alive and well in one year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see somebody giving positive feedback. On my Vista test rig I get much lower fps and plenty of microstutters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this