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

[kjackson 0]

>" Even at 10FPS with Vista the sim is very smooth and fluid>">>I'd have to see it to believe it :-roll>Jason, what I meant was that the FPS count fluctuates between 10 and 25. It doesn't just sit at 10 FPS. It seems to fluctuate much more than on XP. That's my point.Regards,

[kjackson 0]

I have a core duo 17" Intel/Mac laptop and with XP boot camp FSX runs smoother and better than any PC. I didn't want to add that to the mix here though. Just sticking with conventional computers.

[kjackson 0]

Very funny hopsing88. I think most will understand that I meant that FSX fluctuates between 10 and 25 FPS. I have it locked at 25. It runs very smoothly even though it sometimes dips to 10. I don't see micro stutters as I do when it gets that low when using XP. I'm not making this stuff up here. I have no reason to do that. I have been very frustrated with FSX on both OSes and am just trying to provide info for others. I am very honest in my portrayal of the experience I have experienced. I'm sure there are other factors at work here but I'm not willing to go that deep. I don't work for Microsoft or anything like that. I fly real GA aircraft and enjoy my flight sim environment as well. I've been around here for some time and only like to give positive feedback.Best to ya'

[Guest captaindobbin]

To a large extent, I agree with Hopsing. As far as Vista performance goes, I have to say like others have that it is too early to tell. The geforce drivers are beta and apparently the ati drivers are not much better. As a result, my frame rates are at least 15% worse. I personally have spent a small fortune towards FSX, getting a 8800gts along with Vista, and honestly do feel cheated mainly by the inefficiencies of the FSX code. One of the biggest problems is trying to make sense of ACES' cryptic messages, such as the service pack and ultimately the directx 10 update. We now expect the sp within the next six weeks which is great; but the update, 6 months or probably longer? Good lord. That's not the impression I got originally. Therefore, I do not think FSX should have ever come out prematurely for XP, though a later dual OS release would have been welcome of course. This mess about bufferpools, fiber frame, and texture bandwith, why doesn't the FSX UI address such parameters (along with widescreen support only in the cfg file, COME ON?)! Moreover, I don't see the point in a new version suffering for the sake of back compatibility. Indeed, we all love the Carenados, but was it really worth it? The scenery add ons, e.g. airports, don't function anyway. The old flight models are mostly inferior. Great planes like the d-aviation cheyenne and the dreamfleet bonanza don't work properly. The worst of it is the majority of the add on companies themselves, charging excessively for half-assed updates and keeping the same prices for outdated material: everything for fs2004 should be cheaper, that's common sense. Friends, I realize that a flight simulator is far more complicated than a game (sure, I don't know what I'm talking about). But it is not unreasonable at all to expect 30 frames a second more or less solid when you get 60-100, 40 at the lowest in programs with more graphically intense HDR rendering and similarly impressive physics. And we can of course forget about decent performance with the Garmin G1000. Just so you know, games mean very little to me compared to the flight sim, but they are a good gauge of the problems with the FSX engine. I can't even turn on either bloom or up the water effects from 2x low without an intolerable frame rate hit. With a state of the art video card that will run shader model 4 why not? Shader model 3? FSX with any autogen barely supports it if you think about it. The sheer number of objects? A good video card has plenty of ram for that, as I noticed when pop ups disappeared once I upgraded. CPU bound? A conroe - better architecture so still better single core - peforms only slightly better than a pentium 4 in FSX. It's the code, the code, the infernal autogen programming! Bah! We pray to the service pack gods.

[B777ER 2,486]

>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.Your so wrong your not even in the ballpark. Developers want to move forward but the FSX SDK is junk. If you read other forums other than the this "FSX is great" forum you would know that. Why do you think it has taken PMDG going on 6 months just to get their FS9 planes working in FSX????A ton of us are staying with FS9 as that is the sim for heavy iron. AXP IS making the right choice.

[KennyG 0]

Hi Fellow Simmers.Just my two cents worth.I installed Vista Ultimate and would not consider going back to XP.Like others before me who have posted results, I find that FSX runs very smooth and fluid, and I do not get those nasty stutters like we experienced with XP.I have not had one CTD with Vista, which I can not say was the case with FSX and XP.I believe the problem with XP and FSX was that I was running a duo core processor.Tks. for reading my post.Kenny G.Due core NVidia 7950