Sign in to follow this  
Guest weeniemcween

What's the verdict on Windows Vista and Flight Sim?

Recommended Posts

Or is the jury still out? I am considering upgrading to Windows Vista but I'm a little apprehensive about it.Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I was wondering the same thing earlier. I've read quite a few reviews in the computer media that were very positive about Vista, but at the moment I don't see any point in upgrading from XP. As it stands at the moment I've got XP running beautifully, it's very stable, and it does everything I want it to do.Now, when DX10 is released, and assuming FSX will be updated to take advantage of the much vaunted new technology, then that will probably all change.You can download a Vista compatibility checker from the MS website that will scan your hardware and advise you if your PC is Vista ready. I did a check on my laptop and it flagged up a couple of issues with my network adapter, which doesn't have any Vista drivers (yet).My plan is to hang fire on Vista until later this year, when DX10 graphics are available for laptops (I'm restricted to using laptops). In the meantime the hardware manufacturer's can catch up with Vista drivers for all the legacy hardware that is out there.In the meantime, I don't think Vista & DX9 will do much more for FSX than XP & DX9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about its performance with FSX but the out of memory problems referred to in this forum look like a show stopper. Of further concern to me is that Zone Alarm is not available for Vista (or it wasn't a week ago). The inbuilt Vista firewall is open to outgoing traffic unless you configure it correctly. You can have all sorts of programs phoning home without your knowledge.Edit for speeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had no issues with it. Everything runs smooth as silk, a few graphics issues due to the multimon issue and the need for driver/game updates, but nothing serious.I certainly haven't run into the much-heralded "buggy mess" that a new Windows OS is normally referred to on the internet. Also, it looks beautiful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm running FSX on a dual boot 32bit XP Pro/64bit Vista Home Premium and have had no problems whatsoever. There seems to be little difference in performance on either system.George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been running FS9 on Vista since early MSDN pre-beta. I've had Vista Ultimate since it was released at MSDN. I can tell you that IF you have a current system and IF you have enough memory and IF you have a good video card you should have no problems.There is a system evaluation tool available from Microsoft which will tell you if your system score is high enough for you to do what you think you want to do with your Vista system.My Vista score is a 5.3 (My RAID 0 array being the bottleneck and slowest part of my system according to Vista as it should be).FS9 runs without issue along with all of the popular addons. I've been suffering FSX woes but I simply don't know if its a Vista issue or simply a FSX issue (pre-SP1). I'm anxious to see where I am post SP1 as I have high hopes of finally getting my feet wet with FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I moved to Vista x64 in December. I have a pretty fast system with 2 gigs of memory--this helps. It has been pretty smooth sailing...the only issues I have encountered are:1. The out of memory message...BUT...I haven't had this happen since February. And it was kind of rare when it did happen.2. Immature drivers...specifically Nvidia video drivers. They made great strides with the 100.X drivers back in Feb. I got a 5-6 FPS increase with those, so the drivers are getting better.3. A few of my older devices (like a webcam) won't work, but that is because I have 64 bit Vista...they won't work with my Windows Server 2003 x64 either..4. I disabled UAC cause its annoying.I was building a new system, and wanted the latest and greatest OS so I wouldn't have to rebuild it in 6 months. I also wanted DX10 so I am ready for the DX10 patch.Also, do some searching...this has been discussed a lot in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've read on forums with technical people, it's pretty clear Vista is the advantage.That also matches my own experiences with the Beta's at work and at home.However, I did not and do not plan to upgrade a single XP computer I own to Vista. They will stay on XP.I did purchase a new computer for FSX, waiting until Vista was available OEM. Any new computer purchases will be Vista only, even though XP is on sale everywhere these days.No regrets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vista will certainly mature, but from what I have heard others say and have experienced, fsx frame rate is worse for most people on vista than on xp. That is provided both are fresh and optimal. The exception seems to be the minority, probably those with faster core 2 duo systems threading greater operating system demands on the other core(s) while fsx sucks up one core. But I would not put my money on performance being better, merely close to the same. Until the directx 10 update comes along, I'd stick with xp. If you can't resist the temptation, after installing vista, reinstall xp on a partition or additional hard drive and dual boot using vistabootpro to set everything up automatically. That way you can compare performance and decide for yourself, perhaps opting to simply just use xp for fsx and games (what are those?), meanwhile running vista for everything else. Either way, you won't have to commit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob,I asked the same question 2 weeks ago as I was building a new system. I decided to give Vista a shot so I pick up an OEM copy and installed it in the new machine.I don't regret it one bit. It's been rock solid for me. FSX loads in a snap ...thanks to superfetch. Overall it's been all good.Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rob,As has already been mentioned here and elsewhere, if you have descent hardware. you'll never look back. Given the lack of maturity in some of the drivers, there's bound to be problems.Overall, Vista's been a pleasure and I'd never return to XP under any circumstance. If you're hesitant, you could always dual-boot and see for yourself.Regards,Jim Karn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll chime in, too, and say I've been loving Vista. I'm running the 32 bit Home Premium edition.My system is centred around an E6600, 2gb, Nvidia 8800GTX so it's no slouch but it's certainly not the quickest around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought a brand new notebook with the following specs:- XPS M1710, Intel Core 2 Duo Processor T7400 (2.16GHz/667MHz/4MB)- 2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM 677MHZ,2 DIMM, for XPS M1710- 512MB NVIDIA GeForce Go 7950 GTX, for XPS M1710- Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium Edition, EnglishI have maxed out most settings with the following exceptions:- No traffic- No autogen- No bloom- Water set to 1x highI have my frames locked at 25. I pretty much get 25 fps outside of the big cities. With normal autogen in the country side and minor cities, I sill get 25 fps. The worst fps I experienced were in downtown Tokyo during the helicopter mission. In other big cities, I get between 10 and 12 fps.I really like the graphics, and I look forward to what SP1 and DX10 have to offer.My ultimate goal is to get a high-end desktop that will give me great fps all around and also to wait for realistic add-ons like PMDG and Ultimate Traffic to catch up with FSX.I still spend most of my sim time with FS9 enjoying add-ons such as Active Sky, PMDG, PSS, Level D, Ultimate Traffic, AI Smooth, etc.Cheers!LuisKMIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any technical problems with Vista/FSX itself. In fact, I have seen and documented a increase of about 5 fps with Vista and experience less of the dreaded FS9-like stutters.However, I am having some driver issues with my 8800GTS when switching from windowed to full-screen mode. Usually the screen flickers for a few seconds and I have to manually Alt-Tab to enter Task Manager and re-activate windowed Mode.I'd also recommend to use the 32-Bit version for now as the 64-Bit version is incompatible with some 3rd party add-ons (Wilco Airbus, Eaglesoft).Other than that: Recommended!Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice looking specs for a notebook :-><>While the SP1 update will probably help out, the DX10 update won't be of much use since the 7950 isn't a DX10 compatible graphics card (I'm pretty sure only the 8000 series cards are DX10 compatible).Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only on a P4 2.8 Ghz with 1 GB of PC3200. I love Vista. It's solid, stable and just as peppy as XP was. However, FSX runs like a dog on it. With XP, I could stay locked at 24 fps nearly anywhere, no stutters, things were great. With Vista, I'm lucky to get a constant 18, and it's full of hesitations, stutters, coughs, gags and sneezes.I've got XP set up to dual boot, but the Vista boot selection screen isn't turning on my USB devices (like my keyboard), so I'm stuck running FSX in Vista until I get a PS/2 keyboard (or upgrade to a C2D (which is likely not going to happen)).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find performance of fsx about the same as xp on my rig (p3.2 2 gigs ram, nvdia 7600). I love Vista though and would never go back.With that being said-there is an occasional crash-and I have a feeling it is due to nvidia drivers not being up to snuff-they keep updating the drivers but have a feeling they are behind the 8 ball.All in all-if you like being cutting edge-go for Vista and suffer a few growing pains. If not go the conservative route.I've always chosen the cutting edge path myself but understand that doesn't suit every user.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I took the plunge. For FS9 I found the frame rate much more stable. Havent flown FSX much as waiting for the heavies but frame rates are similar or better for both. 3dmark06 slightly higher. The overall user interface, tools, search functions etc are much better that xp in my view. Would not go back!Only snag is that HP have still not released Vista drivers for my network printer and the xp ones only just about work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have Vista on my main desktop (a fairly modest AMD64 3000+ machine) and have had no problems running FSX.Last week I bought a midrange laptop for business purposes. It has a Core 2 Duo 5500 CPU, 2GB RAM and a Geforce Go 7600. I didn't think this Vista notebook would run FSX very well at all - thanks to the modest graphics horsepower.I was wrong.I've got all the scenery sliders on full except:No autogen (not used it for over a year, I'm a no-autogen convert for aesthetic purposes, besides the UK cities look completely wrong with FSX autogen).No bloomWater 2 lowTraffic 20% (Still gives me loads thanks to JF Traffic 2005)And pootling around the skies of the UK in the Cessna 172 I get 40-60 fps. Much better than my desktop machine with its more powerful 7600GT. And I've not seen a single blurry texture yet.I'm delighted with the performance of Vista and FSX on this machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I wonder what the deal is with my system? Perhaps 2.8 Ghz is just not quite enough for FSX to be happy in Vista. It is certainly a CPU issue, as changing graphics setting has no effect (resolution, AA, AF, water 1.x to 2.x, etc). Maybe it's something else. I've disabled services, stopped programs, done memory optimizations, defrags. FSX and Vista don't get along on my computer. Too bad, too. Bottom line: I'm still using Vista, and I love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALSO:I tried my sytem above with 4GB of RAM, istead of 2GB and noticed no changes inperformance. Vista 32-bit also lists the total memory as 3.3GB. I still plan on keeping the additional memory. The next improvement can only come from SP1, which will supposedly optimize Core 2 Duo usage.Happy flying!LuisKMIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the original poster:Unless you just want to upgrade for the sake of upgrading, or just like the challenge of wrestling a new OS to the ground so it will do your bidding, I'd recommend you stick with XP until and unless Vista does something meaningful for you that XP can't.Could be that DX10 will be that thing for me, but for now I'm leaving my systems on XP Pro (and two lesser peripheral systems are still on Win 2000), and happily letting the rest of the pack lead the charge to be the beta testers for drivers and add-on version incompatibilities.You're asking "Why not upgrade to Vista?"...I instead would pose the question "Why upgrade?"CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

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