FSX has just about done me in----

[Guest n99wb]

Scott,A friend, who has a very similar system to yours, was having much the same problem.He liked to use KSEA as a benchmark. He would get 20, then 6, then 15,then 4 FPS.It didn't matter what his sliders were set at. We went after the problemhammer and tongs because my system was steady 20 FPS, unless I haddowntown Seattle in view, then they went to a steady 15.After countless hours, emails and some teamspeak, the answer was upgradeto the latest drivers for his 850XT.That was it. No tweaks, no voodoo. Just the latest drivers.

[Guest rcoultas]

>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.With all due respect to the software developers...this statement always makes me ponder. Why do they want to "give the sim legs" by designing it for hardware not created yet? Especially, when this is the common shelf-life for MSFS, as a new version comes out around every two years. Does it not? This sounds like an unecessary cycle. In two years we will most likely be talking about how poor FS11 is running. Don't worry...just wait "another" two years and spend another $2K-3K and everything will be fine. This seems to create nothing but frustration for the hobbyists. Anyway, it seems a dangerous gamble to design for hardware that doesn't exsist, as who really knows what is going to happen two years from now (hardware wise). We might have a fairly good idea, but who REALLY knows? Anyway, I'm frustrated like you Scott.Regards,Randy

[Toys_R_Us 0]

My FSX remains in the box. I figure at least I'm supporting the future development. But reading these threads every day, in total, tells me that this is a sim that is not ready for prime time and probably never will be. I just want to fly. I don't want to do all the messing around I read about which for some still results in poor results on high dollar machines. And because of what I read here, I'm not going to make that investment at this time.I have concluded that a major upgrade in software and/or hardware in addition to DX-10 is the only answer. I also think the Aces team needs to start thinking a good deal more forward about what's going on in the hardware and game making industry than they have done in the past. It's not about the program catching up with the hardware (a.k.a. sliders), it's about the developers catching up with the times. Games have reached a level where they require much more intense programming and effort to progress and survive.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

[LAdamson 240]

>My FSX remains in the box. I figure at least I'm supporting>the future development. But reading these threads every day,>in total, tells me that this is a sim that is not ready for>prime time and probably never will be. I just want to fly. Good thing this is the FSX forum... :-hah Same here! All I want to do is "sim" fly. Well, at least when sitting at the CPU!. The mountain west, MegaScenery Hawaii, and so on. All great looking flight! The first day I loaded up FSX, I was simply amazed by the progress in improving the overall look of the simulation, as well as much improved airmass, and better overall detail of cockpits & exteriors. A nicely programmed 3D cockpit movement also comes standard.No matter how you look at it, resolution is increased by a factor of four, which is providing nearly 16 times the clarity; and it certainly shows. Unlike you, if forced to place FSX in a box, and revert completely back to FS9, I'd seriously give up simming totally. After eight months with FSX, I actually use the improvements, see the improvements, and greatly enjoy the improvements.There is a lot more to flight, than an approach into a complex airport with lots of AI. If that's your soul purpose for simming, and those are the type of forum threads you're most interested in; then fine, use FS9 for that particular purpose. I fly and sim fly for the scenic panaramic beauty of it all. For that purpose, FSX usually wins hands down. For other purposes, FS9 is still on the HD.L.Adamson

[Guest Len]

>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!!>>ScottI agree with much of what you're saying. You might want to stick with TileProxy though and FSX.

[brucets 94]

Larry, Dave, Dick, Bod, Randy et. al. -------Appreciate your input and views!My only real interest in FS is being able to *fly* the big ones on routes like DEN to SLC, LAS, SFO, LAX, PHX, ORD, JFK, MIA and so on. I also like the over the pond trips to LHR, and sometimes other major European cities, as well as trips to the Caribbean, Mexico and Hawaii.I can fly FSX/SP1 pretty smoothly, and with excellent graphics, into and out of these cities if I keep the sliders reasonable but no autogen and minimal ai traffic. The main beef is the blurred textures leaving and arriving and with the fps as it is I don't think scenery addons will be usable. I don't fool around with file mods other than trying some of the FSX.config tweaks which have done nothing for me. Any future addons I consider must be on CDs or DVDs and have self installers.I could, if I really wanted to, buy the latest hot rod box right now; but that is no guarantee, as we all now know, and for that amount of money it would be a foolish gamble. As Allcott stated, I am going to sit this dance out and wait for the whole mess to be sorted out even if it takes 2 years. When the box is finally built that plays the latest FS brilliantly, and in all it's glory then I'll plunk my money down -----right after Mr. Allcott does!!In the mean time I am seriously considering about 6 addons for FS9 as, at present, I have only RealScene and Ultimate Traffic installed.Bruce Scott

[Guest YukonPete]

Your running a 2 year old system so what do you expect? If you don't want to spend money on a new PC to run a new version of FS then stick with FS9.

[LAdamson 240]

>>In the mean time I am seriously considering about 6 addons for>FS9 as, at present, I have only RealScene and Ultimate Traffic>installed.Considering what you want to do, I'd stick with FS9 also. I've now purchased six FS9 addons since installing FSX. And about the same amount for FSX.L.Adamson

[brucets 94]

Well Pete, I see you bit the bullet and jumped into a big time Dell. Why don't you make me a nice video of arriving and departing SEA or JFK in a 747, in locked spot view, looking down and ahead of the ac so I can see how a real state of the art box plays FSX/SP1!!Oh, and thanks for the thoughtful and very insightful suggestion!!Bruce Scott

[brucets 94]

Larry, I didn't mention it before, but your shot of winter time SLC above is very, very good. I fly into and out of SLC frequently from and to DEN. Excellent visual destination. Arriving over the Wasatch is really neat!!I have compiled a list of addons for FS9, but I am hesitant to invest $300-500 at this point because the minute FSX is sorted out FS9 goes bye bye. FSX clearly has the features and improvements I will prefer.Bruce

[Mace 1,902]

>I have compiled a list of addons for FS9, but I am hesitant to>invest $300-500 at this point because the minute FSX is sorted>out FS9 goes bye bye. FSX clearly has the features and>improvements I will prefer.>>BruceI think FSX will not be sorted out for you until you get faster hardware.I am not trying to be blunt--I am simply saying that a mid-3's (as in, 3.4,3.5,3.6 ghz) P4 will do about what you posted--mid teens at busy airports with decent settings--even post SP1.Indeed, you will have a better experience in FS9 given the type of flying you like to do. All of those hundreds of panels and aircraft that you can use, too! It's great to have choices.I still fly the HJG DC-8's in FS9 because it's oh so good. I have not done an approach into KSLC but I should! You should try the circling approach into MHTG in Central America if you want fun.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Guest Alphahawk3]

Seems to me it might or might not help to buy a new system for FSX. I have seen and read lots of posts on here with high end machines that cannot get rid of blurries..stutters...and so on. Have viewed lots of shots with high end systems that have the blurries......viewed many screens with no blurries from so called low or mid range systems. The idiosyncrasy's of this program amaze me....works on one system just fine and on the exact same system with another person will hardly work at all. One should not have to be into programing to get a game to work on a computer. For those that the game works OK on your machine....Good for you. For the rest of us I am not sure what the answer is. But at the risk of being flamed...as many on here love to do.....this program has some serious problems. It remains to be seen if it can all get worked out.

[brucets 94]

Thanks Rhett -I know you are absolutely correct about the hardware, as were several others, but I won't spend the dough untill FSX matures a good deal more with DX10 and Vista etc. Till then I'll fly with FS9 (and probably bite the bullet with the upgrades) and I'll fiddle with FSX though. Can't help it.And just where might MHTG be in Central America?? Don't recognize the code, but I'd like to drop in there. By all means, do DEN/SLC or GJT/SLC (shorter trip)! As you descend coming over the Wasatch range it really is breath taking. Too, just before you arrive in the SLC area you will see a glitch in the landscape tiles that I reported to MS, but they didn't fix with SP1. It is pretty unusual and I wondered if MS was sending a message!!!Bruce

[brucets 94]

BINGO! Right on, brother!!!!Bruce

[Guest radivil]

I don't know if it is short memories or people just not being around for it, but when FS2k2 came out, it was the exact same situation. Seriously you could be dropping in "FS2k2" in place of "FSX" and could trick me into thinking it was November 2001. Which leads me to believe, everything will sort itself out when everyone's hardware matures. I have a fairly decent machine (hamstrung by a lousy video card) and its performance isn't mindblowing or anything. But I firmly believe that eventually things will change. It seems like people are livid that FSX, all 2005-2006-ish development has trouble running on 2004 technology because FS9, the child of...,what, 2002 development, can run amazingly. Something about that just does not compute to me.