FSX has just about done me in----

[brucets 94]

I have a very strong 2 yr old system, but for 8 months I've tweaked and tested, uninstalled-reinstalled, tweaked and tested. I read and re-read Phil's blog numerous times, tweaked some more, listened intently to Allcott (I'd buy the house next door if it came up for sale), and all the other regular AVSIM Forum heavys. I undid the tweaks, redid some tweaks. But, ya know what? I'm over it! Nothing is happening. I have relatively low fps at major airports, though quite good and fairly smooth graphics, but VERY blurry terrain textures from takeoff up to fl200+! I use 30% airliner traffic, 10% airport vehicles, 0 special effects and animations, 0 autogen, 0 weather, 0 cars-boats, and there is certainly no overhead available for add-ons. This FSX/SP1 is going nowhere for me. I have, therefore, postponed, indefinitely, all purchases of hardware, software and any kind of add-ons ( and I was ready to pop for a big time power house pc, and display setup for FSX based on all the phony pre-sale hype)!!To express the degree of my disappointment and frustration with FSX/SP1 adequately would be very difficult. On the other hand to walk away entirely from FSX, as it does have some great features, would be like breaking off a relationship with a good natured, cross eyed, hair lipped girl who staggered around with a 26" waist and 38-Ds ----Very, very difficult!!Scott

[Daveo 36]

What are your system specs?

[peppy197 165]

http://www.thescientist.com/article/home/53231/That article in The Scientist explains our problems with FSX and everything else in lifeTitle = Programmed Dissatisfactional

[Guest UlfB]

>I have a very strong 2 yr old system, but ...Scott,A two year old computer cannot be a high end computer. Scrap it and build yourself a new rig with high end mobo, 4gb ram, cpu, gpu, raid 0. Install XP Pro and FSX and SP1 and come back and repost.Ulf B :-)

[brucets 94]

Hi Dave -P4 3.47 Ghz Extreme2 Gb ram2 WD Raptor 10k ATI X850XT Platinum EditionThis rig is not online and the ONLY programs on it are FS9 on C drive with the OS and FSX/SP1 on D drive all by itself. I have the best performing drivers (not the latest) and I constantly defrag etc. FSX looks great and is quite fluid, but I get 13 - 18 FPS on the ground at the high detail airports and once in the air the fps are somewhere between 20 and 60, usually over 25. But even when they are 30-50 the textures load very slowly at low altitudes over cities causing a blurry mess. If I pause the sim and wait a minute or so the textures catch up and it looks great. See pic.Also I made a night landing video at LAS:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7861408813467927476Scott

[JDWalley 354]

Need I remind you that not everyone can afford to buy a brand new "high-end rig" every couple of years? Strangely enough, some of us have house payments and child-care expenses, among other things, and can't adopt the solution of throwing money at every problem (especially one involving a hobby as opposed to life-and-death matters). And, in response to the likely jibe that "who says Flight Simulator isn't a life-or-death matter?"...wait until you have to worry about your spouse possibly having a fatal illness (she didn't, thank God) and see just how important that DVD of high-res terrain mesh seems to you.

[brucets 94]

JD is absolutely right on, but beyond such mundane issues as day to day survival, I would venture a guess that compared to the overwhelming majority of FSX purchasers, who probably can't play FSX at all, this is still a very strong rig --- and it's sole purpose is to play FS9 and FSX.Too, I wouldn't have a clue as to how to build a computer. Surely I would muck it up somehow (that's why I want to buy the house next door to Allcott). And, besides, I've seen a few posters on this forum with brand spanking new high end, whiz-bang boxes seemingly reporting results as bad or worse than mine!!Scott

[Paul J 349]

Scott's case, like many others, IS a matter of throwing more money at it. Sorry, JD Walley, if Scott CANNOT throw more money at it - his only answer is to get a different hobby, or stick with (and develop) FS9. With the countless excellent addons, such as Flight Scenery's FZ02 - Portland, and the FlyTampa offerings it's still an extremely good flight simulator.He will NOT get what HE wants with that proc: maybe the video card will work alongside a C2D - I don't know - I don't think it's good enough, but mine certainly DOES work, and I had to pay for it. I had to swallow a few things last September and I'm now enjoying the fruits of it. The single proc DOESN'T cut it for FSX. Hard drives double in capacity every 12 months or so: procs double in speed every 18 months or so: Software development dictates it takes full advantage of every capability increase of the hardware. It becomes - perhaps the wrong words - but fat and bloated - come to mind. Texture squares at 1024 x 1024 take more system resources to paint than 256 x 256. Even the monitor is bigger nowadays. If you want to get this at 25 frames minimum (anywhere), then you need Horses and SOME texture size tweaking: you WILL get it, but you need better hardware Scott. Default Vancouver; 100% autogen; ASX: 50% airline; 30%GA; 12%road, no boats; X1H water. (not a particularly good pic, but it'll do)http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173459.jpg<"To express the degree of my disappointment and frustration with FSX/SP1 adequately would be very difficult.">Regards and comiserations, Scott: Your words are very poignant, and I've written it myself in other posts. We all want our dreams to come true, and sometimes we have to wait a while.Take care,

[Guest allcott]

I don't want what PJ has. If I want Yogi Bear and the Thundercats 'll tune in to the Cartoon Channel. The lack of realism in that detailed screenshot is really quite stunning. All the elements are there, so why don't they seem to work together at all?And that, ultimately is FSX's problem. It can be good looking, but not smooth. It can be smooth, but not fast. It can be fast, but not good looking. It's so reason for being at the moment, even after SP1, is to show everyone just how good a modified FS9 is.I'm sure FSX will get there eventually. A mature Vista, DX10, higher level hardware will all allow FSX to deliver its true potential. Eventually. But here we are, eight months in, one patch down, and FSX still isn't lighting the fires that FS2004 did at the equivalent point after launch. Something is seriously wrong and like Bruce, FSX is nothing to me other than a benchmark and tweaking program. I don't take pleasure flights, I don't flightplan. I don't sightsee. I just make one change after another and load the same flight, over and over, to see what effect, if any it might have. I can't load aftermarket aircraft without seeing single-digit performance, I can't use 1m scenery resolution without suffering a blurry mess, and the much-trumpeted 2x water brings FSX to its knees, AND crashes my system...I just hope DX10 will fix it, like I hoped SP1 would fix it. Like I hoped RTM would fix the woeful results of the demo. But no way am I going to lay out on the hardware necessry to run it until after its been proven.Allcott

[Guest heinzwerner]

Hello Scott,I'm diappointed, as you and I also putted my hope into the SP from the ACES-Team. The Result for me was that my Medium performant System (ATHLON64 3500, 2 Gig of Ram, Radeon 1900XT 250 GB 7500er HDD SB Audigy System) bought for many Money 2 years ago, updated for MEMORY and Video Card for FSX is not capable to Display, what I expected for my Hardware and the FSX skills. SP made my Simulator more stable against some long term bugs (good result, but I also recognized that the FSX-Framerate counter lies a little now) and more stable on short impacts on actual frame rate (also partial acceptable) but it does nothing for my long-term Framerates (the former configured Tweaks were more successfull) but it reduced the Quality of my Video output at the same Framerate (I also have unavoidable Blurries now - and not only for higer Altitude, higher Speed and/or more crowded Regions) and it lies on some of my slider settings now (I.E. unlimited Framerate). I'm sligtly tired to hear the Comments from some ACES, some Forum moderators and some of the - often same - posters that state that they have no problems, that I have to high Expectations on my Slider Settings (I.E. AI Traffic <10%), that i do not invest acceptable money (I have a Family and a house to pay on and I cannot invest 1500..3000 EUR each 2 years on a Computer), or that they don't understand my (or our?) problems. I'm a Flightsimmer since nearly 25 years now and so it was always a Problem to get acceptable performance at the first 6..12 months for a new Simulator on a not-High-End system. But this time it frustrates me that also the SP and my Hardware updates (actual medium price system for other Applications) is not capable ro resolve basically problems like Texture blurries, I. E. flying at crowded Areas like SF or NY or I. E. appoaching large Airports and under the line no performance is reasonable improved. It would been OK for me to reduce my game settings for this Situation but FS2004 shows much better results then, other programs also do not have these kind of massive problems and FSX is now 9 Months on my Computer, I spent 550 EUR addtional on new Video card and Memory, I waited 9 months for a SP (initial announced for Begin of 2007) but I had to exchange more stability of FS against less Graphics quality on not improved frame rates (4..20(!) Frames/sec angainst 40...60 in FS2004 on maxed sliders with many addons installed there). I was many years (>20) SW-Developer and SW-Development leader and so it is recognizable for me that the ACES-problem with FSX is most related on fixing of too many bugs and their FSX-Engine is meanwhile outdated and massive overloaded on Eye candy and added features (it urgently needs a re-factoring since much more than only the last release). This causes massive problems for improving performance (to less time, too less developers and too many side effects). So the actual SP is not a resolving of the (by most simmers) expected performance Problems, it's more a resolving of the heaviest CTD and framerate-relevant memory leak errors. The aces stated some month ago that they don't support Dual cores and so I invested my available Money in an expensive PCI-express Video card with 512 MB and 2GB of Computer RAM. But Dual core system users are the luckiest Simmers now (only the have reasonable performance improvements now) and my Video card update (former PCI-E 1600XT with 256MB) was an unhappy decision by me. No wonder that I've seen that FSX can be bought meanwihle at AMAZON UK for less than 10 EUR.But don't hesitate and hope for the Future...Maybe the medium coast dual or quad core systems of 2008 christmas will make it possible to fly FSX with acceptable success. Until then I'll continue to have a recently look all 2..4 weeks to my FS2004, FSX and the usual known Websites to don't forget my long-year Hobby.Too dissapointing that many Freware Enthusiast still lost their Interest on FSX and the public (some times very frustrated) reactions on it partial against themselve. Only one name to quote here is I.E. Mike Stone. but I also read the last Interview from Holger Sandmann and he decides to don't give up on FSX. So I'm looking forward on his work and hope on his still unbroken optimism.So have alwyas happy landings (if you still have an older performat and stable simulator like FS2004 for this) and try to benefit also on the meanwhile partial low price commercial and non-commercial (again Holger Sandmann!) addons for this System. There is still many potential at FSX (think I.E. on Aircraft carrier landings on moved Carriers in stormy sea or future ADDONS that may benefit from the improved 3d-Engine or I.E. the multiplayer features) and maybe our next System with a Family-acceptable price in the next 1..2 Years may be capable to benfit from FSX. DX10 is actual a remaining and still announced improvement - but this time I'll wait on the Update and the comments on it before I'll believe to early announcements to invest my money on. Heinz-Werner Arens (Germany)

[LAdamson 240]

. >>Something is seriously wrong and like Bruce, FSX is nothing to>me other than a benchmark and tweaking program. I don't take>pleasure flights, I don't flightplan. I don't sightsee. I just>make one change after another and load the same flight, over>and over, to see what effect, if any it might have. I can't>load aftermarket aircraft without seeing single-digit>performance, I can't use 1m scenery resolution without>suffering a blurry mess, and the much-trumpeted 2x water>brings FSX to its knees, AND crashes my system...>For starters, I still have not tried SP-1, I still have not tweaked; but much prefer FSX as my primary"sight seeing program", out side of third party FS9 scenery such as FlightScenery Portland or Glacier Bay. The crisper textures, and especially an awesome sense of depth over mountains makes all the difference!For my personal flight throughout the Mountain West of the USA, I consider FS9 as the muddled mess, which looks much more cartoon like than the crisper photo type textures I get from FSX. At least I'm keeping the options open by running both simulations, because some of the best visuals period, come from scenery such as the FS9 FlightScenery Portland, where it looks good from any altitude! However, once away from this detailed area, FS9 reverts back to it's muddled swirl of ground textures populated by extremely cartoony subdivisions.I have really got to the point in FSX, where I prefer auto-gen off. I can do without cartoonville until 1500' agl; whereas, auto-gen is almost essential in FS9 to hide the blurry low res ground textures.Athlon 3800+/2Gig/Geforce 7600GS 256MB/ 1600*1200*32 res. -- Not an extremely high powered machine but gets consistant fps from the mid 20's to low 30's. Very few dips to the teens.FSXhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173461.jpgFS9 blurred without cartoonville autogenhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173462.jpgFSXhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173463.jpgFSXhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173464.jpg

[brucets 94]

Hi Heinz-Werner!!I guess most of us are in the same boat!! If an experienced simmer like you feels the same and has had the same frustrations and disappointments I know there are many of us. I'm a newbie by comparison and, like yourself, I have great hopes that FSX will straighten out after DX10 and future hardware and driver improvements etc. I spent my whole working career in the airline and travel business riding every thing from DC3s, Viscounts and C-580s on up to and including the Concorde. I have always been fascinated by commercial airplanes and airports. FS will always be my #1 hobby and pastime in retirement; and I will continue to fly FS9 and fiddle with FSX.Best to you!Scott

[LAdamson 240]

Here is a screenshot from FSX, that shows just how much crisper it is, resolution wise. Expand this pic to fill a 21" monitor, and it's still focused, considering I've reduced the crap out of it, to get it within screenshot guidelines! http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173465.jpg

[dave belsey 54]

Scott,All I can say is don't give up, it is possible to get good results.My rig is nearly 3 years old, and is very similar to yours.P4 3.6Ghz2Gb RamRadeon X1950 ProSata Hard DrivesI dislike the defult scenery and almost exclusively fly with the Horizon Generation X photoscenery for England and Wales. I do not use autogen, but I do have Active Sky X.I have felt all of your pain and more, but with persistence and after making some concessions to the software, I am now achieving reasonable results. These are a few screenies taken since SP1 (which caused me anormous problems) - some of these were even taken during multiplayer sessions :They may not be perfect, but I don't think they are too shabby either.Dave.Thanks to ImageShack for free hosting.

[rhumbaflappy 113]

Hi all.This blog by Torgo 3000 is very interesting:http://blogs.technet.com/torgo3000/archive...rmance-art.aspxWhat this tells me is that FSX is either CPU bound, or it's file accessing is causing troubles.File accessing can be helped by weekly:defrags, spyware removal, registry maintenance, removal/deactivation of non-essential background processes.The binding of the CPU is another story... this is where dual-core CPUs are at an advantage. But there are other steps to help:do not use bloom, or any shadowing, or 2X water settings. These add rendering pases, and this extra processing by the CPU will kill framerates.Blurries? CPU generated. Adrian's blog does show the GPU spends almost all of it's time waiting to draw something. A fast GPU with lots of memory will help during the actual draw period, but it's the calculations and draw calls from the CPU that are slowing the display. The graphics card keeps up just fine.The Aces team is going to pay great attention to performance with the DX10 version, but no guarantees yet. Honestly, money is better spent on hardware, as Vista will most probably not increase any FSX performance. Eye-candy? Yes. Rendering speed? No.All along, we've been told the sim is designed for hardware that has not yet been created. It will be 2 years before the hardware gets to the point where sim will really perform. If your system is already 2 years old, and you cannot upgrade, then perhaps continuing with FS9 isn't a bad idea, and wait a couple of years for the mid-level hardware to get to the price where you can afford it.This has all been the same since FS98.Dick