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

[Max Kraus 339]

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

[scott967 62]

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..

[Guest]

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...

[Guest Kev_Is_Soaked]

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.

[jpravain 0]

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

[W2DR 1,860]

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

[Guest allcott]

>" 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

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>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

[Arklight1 140]

>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?

[Guest tracsim]

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.

[MD83 1]

"Even at 10FPS with Vista the sim is very smooth and fluid."http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/Dar...300/blink-1.gif

[Guest SoarPics]

Testing of Vista (Ultimate version) clean install vs. upgrade (from XP):http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2089952,00.asp

[Snowfalcon 18]

FSX running smoothly on Vasta Ultimate for me as well. Only question is where did Vista put the FSX.cfg file?

[Guest Kev_Is_Soaked]

The old "Documents and Settings" folder has been changed, you can still see the folder in the root directory of the OS drive, however you can't access it because it's simply an Alias.You can get to your FSX.cfg by hitting up :x:Users(Your Windows User Name)AppDataRoamingMicrosoftFSX-: where x is your OS drive.

[Guest hopsing88]

Ken Jackson stated: "Even at 10FPS with Vista the sim is very smooth and fluid."I've seen some pretty strange things appear in print in my lifetime but this is one of the more extreme.Yesterday many people watched what will go down in the books as one of the worst Super Bowls in history. Yet already, with the subliminal suggestion of the news media, we