FSX SP1 on XP or Vista?

[spilok 1,132]

I'm just thinking out loud here......Are the testers for the new FSX SP1 patch working on computers with Windows XP or Vista? Since Vista is the new OS (although many have not upgraded to it), I'm hoping that at least some of the testers are working with it during the last few months.Perhaps it really doesn't matter, but as I said, I'm just thinking out loud on this.

[PhilTaylor 45]

We are building SP1 on both.

[aerdt 0]

I am sure MS selected beta testers with both OSes. FSX is designed for Vista and it runs flawlessy, if not better (~2 fps gain) on my Vista Ultimate.Pat

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>We are building SP1 on both.Thanks, Phil.

[spilok 1,132]

Pat,I have Ultimate too...upgraded from XP a few weeks ago. I lost about 2 frames. What are your settings, and what video card are you using? My specs are in my signature below.Thanks, Phil for your response. That was an important question for me. I am really looking forward to the release.

[Guest Logan826]

"FSX is designed for Vista" I beleive this is a false statement. FSX was not designed for Vista. It was designed with Vista in mind. As for preformance, I see a drop in FPS as most others have too. My specs are: Epox MB, Athlon 64 FX 74 CPU, 4 gig Corsair XMS4400 , Nvidia 8800 GTX. So please tell me what your doing different.Thanks, Dan

[aerdt 0]

Designed for Vista does not mean optimized for Vista. It simply states that the product fulfills the Vista logo requirements:1.1 Games Explorer Integration 1.2 Support Parental Controls 1.3 Support Rich Saved Games 1.4 Support the Xbox 360 Common Controller for Windows 1.5 Support Multiple Aspect Ratios and Resolutions 1.6 Support Launch from Windows Media Center 1.7 Direct3D Support http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb173456.aspx---As for my system and the benchmark comparisons, please follow [a href=http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=197&topic_id=24071&mesg_id=24071&listing_type=search]this thread.[/a]Pat

[Guest Logan826]

Sorry I misunderstood (if that's a word :)) your meaning of designed. When I read a game specs and it states that it's designed for a specific operating system, such as the Dreamfleet's Barons are "designed for WinXP" if means just that. Just because a game/sim fulfills the requirements doesn't mean it will take advantage of it's performance, which across the board of users so far is pretty poor. There are those, such as yourself that has had good luck. As for your specs, they are simular to mine. So my question again is: What settings do you have that you claim flawless ? I also don't classify a 2 FPS gain as anything to suggest someone run out and drop $250+ USD on an operating system. Just observations, not starting anything with you. I read your other post on the benchmark. One thing that really bugs me and not only with FSX but previous version aswell. Why do some people with lesser systems getting better frame rate then those with higher end. I think a fair test would be a complete stock install with no tweaks at all, then tested on samesame systems. Shy of that I don't think you can get fair results. The only reason I didn't reply to the other thread is that it's getting pretty full.Dan

[PhilTaylor 45]

I understand the angst over this, but I believe this reading of "designed for" misses the boat and let me detail why. First, though, this is not a dig at Dan or any others that have these concerns. It is completely valid to raise these concerns in a level-headed discussion that sticks to the facts.I see you are raising 2 issues:1)designed for Vista means ?2)performanceLets tackle performance first. The perf problems of FSX are independent of the OS, so I am not sure how that issue relates to "designed for" or "optimized for". We have a performance problem across the board, have discussed it in an open dialog with the community, and have committed to a free upgrade to address it; that is SP1.Our SP1 work will help Vista as well as XP. So we hope to provide you relief there indepedent of DX10 support. The fact that Vista graphics drivers need more time to mature is part of the problem as well.As far as "designed for", its a matter of what criteria you are measuring this against. Is it the criteria we use? If gaining logo certification isnt a valid measure in your eyes, then the discussion is moot. However, that is how we in MGS view it and how the Windows team views it. So that is how we performed the measurement. By the logo criteria we are certainly "designed for Vista". Just the setup work alone to get the install experience, Games Explorer, etc was not cheap. And then there is the security work, etc. And by the logo criteria we also meet the graphics requirement ( 1 of 7 ) since DX9 is the requirement there. Given DX9 is the base API supported ( the older APIs are remapped thru the DX9 stack ) that makes sense.In terms of DX10, if that was the criteria you are measuring "designed for Vista" against - FSX would still not have shipped. We couldnt code FSX to DX10 from the get-go, since SDKs for DX10 didnt show up until the end of 2005 ( Dec 2005 DX SDK ) which was less than 1 year from project complete much less code complete. FSX started in mid to late 2004 and was in full swing in mid 2005 with design essentially complete and the team heads-down on implementation. Just as an FYI June 2006 was code complete, Aug 2006 was lockdown for final test pass. So thats 6-8 months after 1st availability of the SDK and 3-5 months ahead of 1st hw availability. That isnt time to react on a product as complex as FSX. So coding to DX10 would have completely broken the schedule. After the repeated slips of Vista and DX10, we made the call to go with as much support as we could get at the time - which meant adhering to the exact logo requirements and not exceeding them. So while I understand the objection, once its measured against actual criteria hopefully you will understand where the term and the claim come from. We didnt invent the term, the Windows team did. And we did fulfilll their requirements.

[Guest Logan826]

Thanks Phil. Yes, that cleared up alot. Seems to be mid way of what both Pat and I was claiming from what we have read and seen with our own eyes. Since you are hands on with FSX could you please read my post again and maybe clear up my last question about the different systems and preformance. That is one that has bugged me for a long time and I'm sure other people aswell. I understand everyone system is different, but I've seen a lot of people running very close to the same specs but come up with different preformance and sometimes by a large amount.Thanks, Dan

[aerdt 0]

I understand what you're saying. For me there is a an advantage to prefer Vista with FSX, because of the performance improvement mentioned before. Is this performance improvement worth $300? Certainly not. But it will be in a years time with DX10 on the horizon.As for the benchmark: The tests conducted in the benchmark are fairly standardized and I have written numerous posts and results in that thread comparing the performance betweeen a stock, untweaked installation of FSX on both WinXP and Vista and a tweaked and optimized FSX. That said, I would think that the benchmark can't be more objective than that.It is difficult at best to say that a system is "lesser" than the other? What constitutes "lesser"? The CPU, the GPU, the amount of memory? The amount of maintenance that has been done to the OS? Or the sum of it all? A benchmark like this can point out some weaknesses. For example, when I upgraded my GPU to a significantly better one (7600GT>8800GTS) and only achieved a difference of 2-5 fps - untweaked. Wow, that wasn't worth $300 either ;)You certainly have a high-end system and should have some good, if not great, frame rates in FSX. I'd suggest to take the benchmark and compare it with the result posted in that thread. I'd be very curious to see and analyze your results.Hope this helps,Pat

[PhilTaylor 45]

Cool, glad that was helpful. Its sometimes hard to get the right tone :-).I too see widely varying perf claims by people with somewhat the same specs. I am guessing, but I suspect if we examined all of mobo, mobo chipset, ram stix type, FSB perf, HD speed, and graphics driver rev it might show that these configs are actually slightly different.FWIW, my Quad Core 2.66Ghz with 2G of RAM running Vista with a 7950 gets 25+FPS at KSEA with scenery and autogen at normal. I dont know why I get that and others see less, but it is what I get.I have to run my Single Core, 3.8G HT CPU with 2G of RAM and a X1900 on XP at sparse to get the same frame rate, which is the opposite of what most experience. Go figure

[Geofa 108]

I dropped about $200 at Costco for Vista and I would never go back to xp-kinda like looking at windows 3.0 compared to xp.I get a slightly better performance in fsx but all the bells and whistles of the operating system are a joy to behold. Here are a couple shots of my desktop-that is a movie of one of my favorite landings that plays as a desktop background. The 3d desktop is amazing-little things like turning it all off when you run fsx for performance are icing on the cake.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/168573.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/168574.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/168575.jpg

[Guest yarvelling]

Nice Vista Ultimate screenies!To comment further on the XP/Vista debate; I can see why there may be some concerns over performance differences...concerns which may be fuelled in part by Aces/MS themselves! Printed on the front cover of the DVD package (on the UK Deluxe version at least) is a logo that states, and I quote:"Works great on Windows XP. Works even better on the upcoming Windows Vista"Now whether that statement is an art dept/marketting addition, I don't know, but it certainly does tell any prospective purchaser that FSX will run better on Vista.The fact that many posters here are reporting lessened performance on Vista though (I haven't re-installed FSX yet after having upgraded to Premium), surely would lead to concerns and issues among users....

[Guest RonB49]

>Nice Vista Ultimate screenies!>To comment further on the XP/Vista debate; I can see why there>may be some concerns over performance differences...concerns>which may be fuelled in part by Aces/MS themselves! Printed>on the front cover of the DVD package (on the UK Deluxe>version at least) is a logo that states, and I quote:>>"Works great on Windows XP. Works even better on the upcoming>Windows Vista">>Now whether that statement is an art dept/marketting addition,>I don't know, but it certainly does tell any prospective>purchaser that FSX will run better on Vista.>The fact that many posters here are reporting lessened>performance on Vista though (I haven't re-installed FSX yet>after having upgraded to Premium), surely would lead to>concerns and issues among users....Ah but "works" is so very subjective. For you it means performance; for others it may mean more or better eye candy. If it promised better performance under Vista then it could be measured but "Works even better" will, I believe, need to be determined by each individual user. R-