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

Whenever I reinstall install XP, my FS runs great again. It's a reinstall effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see OP has 2.5GB. I would really like to see what 4GB can do, due to the super cache. I think you need to tune Vista for FSX, or any other app, since the memory manager has a "learning" aspect to it.scott s..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear god not another one of those "smooth and nice at 5fps but bad at 30fps" posts.seriously guys, give it a rest. if FS stutters, that's a problem with your computer. Lack of ram, slow hard drive, background applications...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alcott.... I didn't give facts simply because its old news. I posted my finding months ago in these forums when I tested FSX on RC1. Too bad you missed all those ones.XP fresh install: Fairly fluid, some stutters, not satisfactory performance.Vista Fresh Install: Fairly Fluid and no stutters, not overall much better, but slightly more enjoyable. Not bad since all drivers were beta... can't wait for the 'performance' drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Even at 10FPS with Vista the sim is very smooth and fluid "I'd have to see it to believe it :-rollJason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the best single thing most knowledgeable Vista users can do is to turn off UAC. It's simply an unnecessary and overly intrusive "feature".Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>" Even at 10FPS with Vista the sim is very smooth and fluid>">>I'd have to see it to believe it :-roll>>Jason10fps as an average, no matter how smooth, gives no margin for addons. Addons are the essence of FS. The restrictive licensing also creates problems that dissuade me from going anywhere near Vista. It is unacceptable tome that, if I had some addon installed in FSX under XP, and I was happy with it, I need Microsofts `approval` before I can use the same software in the same game, just under a new OS? Who's in charge here, really? Put Vista on your computer and it isn't you, not any more.Again, it is becoming increasingly apparent that FSX Vista is no better than FSX XP. No magic pill. Therefore there is no reason to rush to the shops until the DX10 patch is issued and shown to be absoutely marvellous, the greatest thing since sliced bread, so real it makes you cry (anything less won't do after this fiasco); early issues with Vista are resolved; prices drop; hardware catches up and licensing and activation issues are resolved. I am quite happy that the only thing you stay in the forefront of by being an early adopter of a new OS is - trouble. And while I completely agree that Vista is not the exclusive preserve of FSX, and there are many other (bad) reasons for changing, this is the FSX forum and I expect to see Vista offering double the performance with its new, streamlined, ram-efficient Operating System, subject to hardware. So far, Vista is like a vacuous supermodel - very pretty to look at and a gracious mover, but as soon as it opens its mouth you appreciate why they are employed for their looks, not their brains. Vista is the Zoolander of Operating Systems!And perform? Vista doesn't, under ANY combination of hardware we've seen so far, so I'm not about to make the change. And on the more general basis, it really doesn't look like Windows Vista is rushing out the door like XP did when released. My friendly local PC World didn't even open the doors at midnight like they did for XP, there were no queues at the door, and even those who have purchased a new computer with Vista force-fed have been making regular use of the support desk wondering why software `x` won't work with Vista, and can they have XP put back on?This is is a very different scenario from the last OS release and should be sending alarm bells ringing all over the MS Empire. Meanwhile, us parochial FSX users can look at the results being posted purely for the sim, and see past the faint praise to the increasing number of posts about problems. Not being able to install a legititimate - and previously functioning - FSX addon simply because the OS doesn't like it is a complete justification of the stance that many of us have been taking that OS is intrusive AND invasive. Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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. Reasons why Vista may run FSX more smoothly: Vista is supposed to manage memory better than XP. I've noted XP forces a lot of FSX code and data into the page file to make room for loading a new app. Who loads new applications when FSX is running? The excessive 'free ram' also reduces the size of the 'system (HD) cache'. That can result in stutters as new scenery is loading. A larger cache greatly reduced HD light flashing in FS versions going back to FS2000 or earlier. Going from 512 MB to 1.5 GB RAM increased my 'system cache' in XP and stutters mostly disappeared in FSX. Finally, installing a new OS, then FSX, means there is more room on the HD so the scenery files are likely more contiguous as they are installed. Simply defragging the HD isn't enough to make the critical files contiguous, though some defraggers tend to place them that way. BTW, I'm running FSX on XP with a 2.6 GHz Pentium 4, 1.5 GB RAM, and a $50 ATI video card. I have it locked at 15 fps. I applied a few of the common tweaks and have the sliders about 2/3 of the way to the top. Performance is reasonable, clouds have perhaps the greatest effect on slowing it down. Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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)You get 20-25 on XP with micro-stutters....but 10-24 on Vista and don't see any micro-stutters?That's a pretty broad range of frame rate performance on the Vista test.I guess what I'm trying to find out is, if the frame rates are in the 10-24 range, how can you not see stutters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using an iMac 24", 2gb RAM, GeForce 7600 GT, 2.16 Core 2 Duo.All I can say is, with fresh installs of both XP and Vista Ultimate - FSX *IS* smoother - on my machine at least - in Vista. No doubt about it - stutters are practically non-existant.Plus, this machine runs at 1920 x 1200 with AA on, with most of the sliders mid way (except Autogen which I leave at minimum - no loss as I think it looks ridiculous for the UK) - I can lock it at 25fps. It flickers to 24, 23, occasionally to 20-21 - but mainly stays at 25, and I personally can live very happily with that.As for Vista itself - it is used for FS only. Anything else I do is always in OS X which is still IMHO a far superior operating system.

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