Sign in to follow this  
Guest

A thought on FSX

Recommended Posts

I've had FSX since it was first released and I tried it a few times, but I kept going back to FS9. Recently I returned to FSX since I had an upgrade on my PC hoping for better performance. I did get better performance, but still nowhere as good as FS9. FSX has a lot of eye candy, but I just don't know if all that eye candy is worth giving up 20 fps at KJFK with all sliders maxed out and extremely dense custom AI traffic for 3.0 fps with mediocre settings at the same airport with default AI traffic. Somehow I just don't think it's worth it. Any thoughts???

Share this post


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

why cant you use custom traffic because I can and i'm running fsx on a 17 inch imac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's a KJFK? If I see another airplane in the airspaces where I tend to fly, it's an event. It all boils down to what you want to do and how you want to do it. You certainly cannot expect everyone else to fly the way you do. The only time I've touched an aircraft in FSX with more than 8 seats is largely because I needed to for a review. Of course, when the PMDG 737 ever gets released, that may be a different story...I would say that FS9 does some things better than FSX and FSX does some things better than FS9. If you own both and can keep them on your hard drive, then life is beautiful, no? (I do know what KJFK is.)Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff Reviewer AVSIM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that I can't use custom traffic in FSX, the point is that even with only default traffic set at 20%, I can't get near as good the performance I can get with FS9 with custom traffic set at 100%. And a KJFK is Kennedy International Airport in New York, New York, USA, one of the busiest airports in the world. I can't believe anyone who is even remotely familiar with flying doesn't know KJFK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you install the SPs a s well? JFK is one of the densest areas in the FS world. Kind regards Jaap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, FSX has the "eye candy", and that makes a big difference IMO. I usually prefer sim flying throughout the Mountain West of the USA. With FSX's higher resolution, shading, and what ever else; the mountains just have a far better illusion of photo like "3D depth". It's so much better, that I just won't use FS9 for anything but specialized scenery such as Flight Scenery Portland. Would love to see Glacier Bay type material in FSX too!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSX is a waste of time and money.FSX does some things better than FS9? SCREENSHOTS.Nothing else.PS.I`ll better use my hard drive for more FS_2004 Add-Onns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I've had FSX since it was first released and I tried it a few>times, but I kept going back to FS9. Recently I returned to>FSX since I had an upgrade on my PC hoping for better>performance. I did get better performance, but still nowhere>as good as FS9. FSX has a lot of eye candy, but I just don't>know if all that eye candy is worth giving up 20 fps at KJFK>with all sliders maxed out and extremely dense custom AI>traffic for 3.0 fps with mediocre settings at the same airport>with default AI traffic. Somehow I just don't think it's>worth it. Any thoughts??? Don't judge it with default AI unless you modify it to use Exits like FS9. Exit statements in the FSX default aircraft is what activates the gate jetways. Which will happen for all AI aircraft on a 120 mile radius when you start a flight, this is why you are seeing 3FPS at JFK. Where you have 3 maybe more major airports in that radius. If you wait a few minutes you'll see your frames pick up significantly, even at JFK. There are 3 ways around this. One modify the exit statements in your default aircraft which is used for Default AI with FS9 style which is basically removing the 3 coordinate fields in the statement. Downside, is if you use these for your user AC, the jetways won't work there either. Or you can use custom 3rd party AI (WOAI works great here, is free and is what I use) which AC are already setup this way. Then you'll see a noticeable improvement in performance. The other way is to reduce scenery settings, (I think down to normal, but I may be mistaken) Of course though doing this will get rid of other eye candy, you may want to keep. Ace's made a mistake to control the jetways this way, as it is one of the main reasons FSX gets it's reputation as a pure performer. When people load up a flight with high AI a a major airport like JFK, and see's single digit frames, people are immediately turned off, not realizing what's actually causing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>FSX is a waste of time and money.>FSX does some things better than FS9? >SCREENSHOTS.>Nothing else.>PS.>I`ll better use my hard drive for more FS_2004 Add-Onns.Wrong.....Well crafted aircraft models capable of aerobatics, or at least good rudder control, work even better when designed for FSX. For improved airflow over the tail, forget FS2004. Get an old copy of Microsoft's CFS!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would love to see Glacier Bay type material>in FSX too!>>L.AdamsonLarry, don't despair, the Victoria + scenery by Holger Sandeman is in the library now for FSX.Go, get it? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I have both SP's installed and although they did improve performance in FSX, it still just creeps along, the AI jerking along the taxiways. And if I have to alter the AI aircraft to increase framerates at the cost of losing the "improvements" FSX introduced, don't I just have another version of FS9 that still doesn't come up to the performance standards that the original FS9 has?What I'm saying is that FSX has a lot of "nice" new visual improvements, like the moving highway traffic, airport traffic and moving gates, and the first time I flew FSX, I was impressed with this eye candy. But when I flew into a densely populated airport and experienced the extremely low framerates, I was disappointed. My FS9 is loaded to the hilt with scenery, aircraft, ai flightplans and just about everything I could stuff into the simulation, and it still runs smooth at >30 fps in most areas with all sliders maxed. FSX, on the other hand is running vanilla with only the SP's and a few AFCAD's and just plugs along. If I want to see any decent fsp, I have to fly in unpopulated areas or push the sliders back and hide all the new eye candy so there's no hit on framerates. And why should I have to push the sliders back? I paid for those "improvements" so why can't I enjoy them without sacrificing performance?I'd like to know what kind of system Microsoft used in the development of FSX when there isn't an affordable system today that will run it with all the sliders maxed. I will probably keep FSX on my system but I won't fly it often. FS9 will still by my main filght simulation. Maybe in 5 or 10 years there will be an affordable system capable of running FSX and then I'll pull it out of mothballs and give it a another try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't feed the troll. Just another kiddo who thinks slamming FSX is "kewl" or something.What it needs isn't improved airflow over the tail, but a good spanking :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this