The FSX retirement....

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content ProtectionPeter Gutmann, pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nzhttp://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html---------------------------------------------------------------As this link was pointed out by another poster as a suggested read, I did so.Thank GAWD...I didn't have a cup of coffee on the go at that moment as my monitor would most likely been baptized with some of it....After reading the entire article at least twice, and believe me it is deep. You need to.I find that my hoping for FSX to actually run to a point whereby it suspends disbelief such as in a 30-plus frames per second- running copy of FS9 does, with the accompanying satisfaction, most likely will not happen for at least this flight simulation fan.If the FSX Magic Pill to bring FSX up to a point of performance that at least equals FS9 with present high-end components is DX10, AND that you must surrender sovereignty of your personal computer system by placing that VISTA abomination on your hard drive to get it---then I guess I shall never see FSX perform to a level of satisfaction that I paid for by purchasing the Deluxe Edition.I won't be going past XP Pro. Not with Microsoft Inc.I probably would have been one of the raiding ship boarders in Boston throwing that Tea Party a long time ago... Yeah..I know that I would have. I believe so strongly in personal sovereignty. My computer is part of that personal franchise.I guess that FSX on my system is a dead horse and has become a redundant issue in light of the entwining of VISTA/DX10.I have revisited FS9 over the last two weeks and have 'rediscovered' what I had been 'bulling' myself with---that mediocre performance of FSX can be tolerated as long as there might be a DX10 (whatever) 'pill' to make the sub-par performance go away...FS9 has tremendous life still in the simulation. I can't remember enjoying myself so much over the last two weeks as I have since again fired up all the great FS9 addons, the FPS horsepower to handle it all, and the fantastic real-life fluid motion of consistent 30 FPS touch down. What a high! What a simulation high!And all achieved without sacrificing control of my computer system!FSX is now off my computer. It was removed shortly before this post.It had great and promising features to be sure!!! . I just can't sell myself out by installing VISTA (DX10) to get hoped-for performance. I can't.Tomorrow, like I did with buying a copy of XP Pro, I am going to go out and buy another retail of FS9. For myself--I guess that this is the 'end of the MSFS' franchise for this MS simmer, not others...I only speak for myself. My MSFS franchise ends with FS9.I can't cry. MS put out ***one fantastic product*** all these years and I have enjoyed each one of them. I've been in this since 1978.FS9 has ALL the elements to give you a real-world environment. That's all I ever wanted. To be allowed to fill the left hand seat--and to be 'amongst' other pilots as we soared across the virtual sky. Great A.I. does that in spades!FS9 has accomplished that mandate.I'm not disappointed. Too bad DX10 was not left a stand alone A.P.I.Too bad for a lot of us.Back to FS9 with no crocodile tears. Just enjoyment of the hobby once more. Satisfied enjoyment.Cheers!Mitch R.

[LAdamson 240]

Is this the Mitch with the white Honda, clear back to the Pro-Pilot days and all of that? :)Anyway,.... I've kept FS9 right along with FSX. Thanks to the improved default detail of higher resolution textures in FSX, I've become much more pickier with FS9. In fact, the new desire to get past those old muddy and cartoony textures of FS9 is so bad, that I've now ended up with numerous payware addons, just to give that improved look to FS9. Anything less than FlightScenery Portland or Fly Tampa type releases are now history and unacceptable on this CPU! :-hah But, and a big one at that; I just can't populate the whole world with these FS9 addons! There is all those open spaces between these fantastic addons, and FS9 still looks like crud in between! I've been spoiled by the better default resolution of FSX, and that's all there is to it!So..............until I see world wide improvement in FS9 textures that actually have focused clarity as default; which would obviously require a few FPS from here and there, I'll continue to compromise by using both FSX and FS9.BTW-- 25 fps of smooth fluid flight with FSX, is as good as 30 fps with FS9. They're just different.L.Adamson -- former Pro-Pilot shill, FS9 beta-tester, FSX a really excited user, and whatever. :7

[Guest Sammie22]

2 words: Dual BootMight not be the ideal solution, but you can still have XP and Vista, running on the same pc (at different times), and not affecting each other. That is, if Vista/DX10 actually does improve FSX performance. Time will tell, but don't trash that copy of FSX just yet. Store it away someplace. Things may get better...

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

You are quite the drama queen Mitch. Good luck with your stay on Windows XP and FS9 Island!Gary

[dokelly07 0]

PREVIOUS QUOTE BY MITCH R.This will be my last post on this subject. I'll now be too busy discovering the fabulous world of FSX. Performance-Robbing FREE!With a lot of users saying that you will be putting your computer system at risk if you decide to change over your RAM processing from program orientation to file orientation.I can only say from hours of flying FSX under the RAM performance option that if you allow XP to run in this mode (with at least 3 gigs of RAM in your system) you will FINALLY get the flight sim performance that you up until now could only dream of and fervently wish for.Two others are currently using this option. In running with LargeSystemCache format, (the old NETWORK/SERVER option in Windows 98) I no longer have the following issues when running FSX1. No land-texture blurring or slur of ANY kind. Clear textures right out to the horizon, whether in level flight, banking, in spot-view, it doesn't matter. I have never had this performance since 1984 up until today.2. Fluid animation, and not dependant upon plane movements and or viewpoint. IF you decide to fly at ground level---the CLEAR, BLUR-FREE scenery blitzes past your cockpit. Before this, unheard of!3. Taxing...no stutters or pauses. Let me repeat that...no stutters or pauses, same as in the air. It does not matter whether you are in some back-swamp airport, or KSEA. Smooth animation4. All of this is happening at around 14 FPS and up. I even had a drop over Seattle to 6 FPS for a second, but yet...fluid animation. Unheard of!I don't get paid any compensation to try to convince my fellow flight sim users that this ONE option within XP will ERADICATE EVERY, EVERY rendering and performance critique any of us, you, myself have ever had in this edition and past edition.Through hours of R and R, I plainly see that FSX clearly needs file performance enhancement via the O.S. rather than the O.S. running FSX with PROGRAMS as its main hinge point.You all please do what you wish with this information I have provided. If you trust that I am no scattered brain fool that would recklessly put my computer system in jeopardy, then for one time, give yourself a break, and place your computer in FILE performance (server) mode and run FSX for yourselves. You then decide how you wish to see your FSX or FS9 flight and program experience!Like myself, you most likely will NEVER be able to run any flight simulation on an XP based system again other than in FILE performance mode. It is that dramatic..and problem-fixing complete. All our beefs go away with XP running the show in this mode.You MUST have at least 50 percent or greater RAM using XP ,3/4 gigs to have an optimal experience as I describe.I'm not too worried about any possible flack(flames) as a result of this post. I only have to go back to a permanently fixed and trouble-free FSX experience. I can ONLY imagine what performance any of you lucky dogs who have the DUO Core systems with faster RAM than my PC4300 (533 MHz) will see with this XP feature enabled.As a final note, I have always set my O.S. '95, '98 as a NETWORK computer (another name for SERVER) and as most of you who have also, have NEVER had an issue with a destroyed or non-bootable system. Just shut down XP after closing all open programs. If anybody REALLY sweats over this, then they could merely turn on FILE preferance, (you need to reboot to enable)fly their sim, and then before turning off the computer, go back to PROGRAM pref, for any other computer usage. The next time you boot..XP comes up as the default PROGRAM setting.To all, take this post as your ticket to FSX heaven, or shake your head, smile a bit...and move onto another thread...totally the reader's choice. But remember one thing...the next time you might #### about FSX performance, stutters, bleary textures, jerky animation, low FPS issues,....there is a choice in this. I found that out! I take my chances for the ultimate flight simulation experience. That is why I own this computer....Cheers, one and all!Mitch R.---------------------------------------------------------------------Mitch??Just wondering what went wrong? You came here and tried to convince people to do this "tweak" a while back. Then you vanished for a couple of months after a post was removed, now all of a sudden you are back? What gives? Drama Drama Drama. But to each his own. It just seems confusing to me I guess that you go back and forth drastically. Did this tweak stop giving you the performance you admired, or what?Danon O.

[Guest abulaafia]

Very informative article, thank you for that post. In Taipei and Shanghai street markets I have already seen Microsoft Visa copies with "DRM disabled" stickers. LOL

[Guest FxF3]

Vista can stay off my hard drive for now. I still like FSX it took me getting a geforce 8800 to get past most problems with it but after that and a few tweaks it runs great. I was going to get a faster Video card anyway so no big deal about that upgrade. Now the only problem I'm having with FSX is the slow load times after 82% I know I have seen a few post on how to fix that but can't find them now it takes about 5 minutes to load once it hits 82% but it will load so its not the 82% bug.Now back to Vista this is the first time I have really been uneasy about upgrading my OS.

[viz 139]

Firstly DRM has nothing to do with fsx - at all.DRM will only affect performance during the playback of protected content ie: DRM HD movies etc, if the media has no content protection vista doesn't put ANY restrictions on the media.Example:no protected content playing --> no performance costbegin playback of protected content --> small output monitoring performance coststop playback after watching said protected content --> monitoring stops - together with associated performance cost.If you plan on running protected content on vista, AND you have the secure outputs (hdcp, hdmi etc), you will get full unprocessed playback and the drm protection monitoring during playback will be small (besides you wont be playing games during this, you'll be watching the movie right?). :-rollIf you plan on running protected content on vista WITHOUT a secure output, you will still be able to watch it but the quality will be reduced somewhat. Still, to most people on small / mid sized screens the quality downgrade will be negligable.Just to be absolutely clear:Run protected content with secure output = DRM active, small perf cost, unprocessed playback.Run protected content without secure output = DRM active, small perf cost, downgraded playback.Run UNprotected content regardless of output = DRM inactive, no perf cost, unprocessed playback.I, like most people would like to see an end to DRM but it's not going anywhere (for the time being at least) and believe it or not but it's present in your copy of XP too but admittidly not as powerful. Do I think mountains are being made out of molehills here?Yes, I think so.If you want to object to DRM proteced media as I do, you should vent your anger (and use your purchasing power) against the content providers NOT microsoft.

[Guest Phantoms]

Spend the few minutes and actually read that article. The reason MS has jumped into the content protection market full steam is that in the future, they want to own content protection, with the millions it will bring them with every move having to go through MS. As for your comment on it only affecting protected content, there have already been some problems with Vista "mistaking" content as protected.That article, although long, is a very good read and brings up a ton of points nobody else has. Edit: You can run FSX without having to run Vista. So saying that you won't run FSX because of Vista is misguided.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Uh huh, :) Same chap...like you, have gone through them all, :)Gawd...Drama Queen, what a hoot...still laughing with that description in my head, :)))Like I said, FSX has many good points...but...you have to dummy down FSX and reduce/alter the textures, etc to get it to even come up into the FPS teens. We compromised the heck out of it to make it runnable (some even would not agree with that allowance).Even with my discovery---to run it in SERVER mode, it died a slow FPS death if you started having other programs running in the background. If you had a somewhat cloudy day...even the server mode could not abort the FPS into spiral. The server mode DID make for smooth stutter-free peformance. That stands!On my present system, I can have any number of background applications serving FS9 with no drop in FPS. I have the entire sim running at full open. I average 30-40 constant. That puts the 'S' in flight simulation.I don't want my/this reply to become an FSX/FS9 pro and con. My original post said it all in that to have FSX running inside an optimum (ACES and MS suggest this envelope) environment, you need VISTA and its embedded DX10. Of course a future event will show that to be true or false.Again, everything we have done here is a DRASTIC rigging of FSX so it will run somewhat acceptably. How about having those textures as default the way ACES released it to the public? Obviously that was their 'vision' as to how FSX would/should look. Problem is...that under XP at present, and with current HIGH END hardware---it didn't!I'm just answering everybody with this one post L. I used the word, FSX retirement. That is a good usage. I have not thrown it out, nor would I not ever NOT consider bringing it back on line if we saw that the XP Patch would make performance matters right. I just noted that by now concentrating my simming time on a proven (FS9) simulation performer, I have again achieved the satisfaction and pleasure that that release gave not only myself pre-release FSX, but for the most part all of us. No simming frustrations, and satisfaction galore.Sure you can run FSX with XP. We were all doing it, but unless you do NOT want to run it with DX10 where it will be (being promised) in a form of enhancement, you then must take on Vista.Not acceptable for myself. I of course am NOT speaking for many, many others that will take on Vista (and what it brings....) so as to have access to DX10. That's a given.I'm sure that there are many as well that will never allow Vista and its successors anywhere near their computer tower. For them, like myself, we can fall back on a perfectly wonderful MS flight simulation release. Thank goodness there WAS an FS9!Drama Queen...oh geez..LOL! Or, I simply have a true passion for in what I believe. It shows in my communication style.Cheers!Mitch

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Oh..just to let you know..I was looking at my Pro-Pilot the other day 'L', and then started rummaging through my old Voodoo II cards.I have to tell ya...LOLOLOLOL----> I almost threw the two in to see that old boy again. I remember for the time, it had the best graphics and engine rendering (start up/shut down) in the biz...To think that I paid $300.00 PER CARD blows my mind today...Did you ever go duals yourself?Remember, that was the only way you could up the resolution at that time. Right?Mitch

[virtuali 4,421]

>I have to tell ya...LOLOLOLOL----> I almost threw the two in>to see that old boy again. I remember for the time, it had the>best graphics and engine rendering (start up/shut down) in the>biz...Pro Pilot 99 graphic engine was made by the same guy (Adam Szofran) that worked on FSX terrain engine...

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Hi Danon.What I said in the post of months ago stands for what I published.I have always said that FSX had great features.For the time that my post was created, others were barely getting 8- 12 FPS. I found by merely switching to Server mode, I got the performance that I posted.By using that 'tweak', and starting to add programs like ASV 6.5, my FPS again started heading for China.You just had to live with it. Also, we all maintained the hope of the new and to be amazing O.S. with the WOW factor....VISTA. Nobody had any IDEA what this thing really was at the time. Cloaked in secrecy. No kidding?!?!?The 'wow' has now arrived...Wow is for sure..."wow...that will NEVER be placed onto my system...wow....".For myself, DX10 won't be happening. That is the 'what' of 'what happened'. No sour grapes Danon. Just reality. FSX was/is not going to perform for myself in the envelope that ACES said it needed to. Vista and its ilk are not getting past the front door.That's why I retired it in favor once more of a proven current-hardware/software performer; FS9 and its enormous support base.Thanks for reading,Mitch

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

You are very welcome. This publishing removes all the Microsoft Smoke n' Mirrors from their 'WOW' O.S.DX10 is like a pork-chop hanging around Vista's neck. If you are hungry enough to want it...then you most likely will not see the neck at all....just that pork-chop swinging in the wind....That is Microsoft's hope for sure....at least for its FS simming base of users."Oh..wow.....":)Mitch

[Guest Alphahawk3]

The old VooDoo cards an example.......just like Windows OS......the best sometimes does not win out. Those cards were great!!! Too bad they lost out to bigger fish...but not better.