If you are NOT playing around with DX10 Preview...GET RID OF...

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

I've been reading this post with a lot of interest, and would like to make a few observations:First of all, I think Aces did the best job they could do with the two SP's, FSX ain't half bad with SP1 and SP2 installed.If you follow the advice given by people like Nick.N, and install properly, including defragging properly, FSX can be stunning.Before you read any further, take a look at my system specs underneath: a last generation system based on an AMD 939 socket, admittedly with the fastest hardware available for that platform, but nowhere near as powerful as a Core2Duo system.And nevertheless, FSX runs like a dream: FPS locked at 30, no stuttering, no texture problems, no graphic problems with menus etc.I have my settings medium-high to high (terrain mesh at 90%, MyTrafficX set at 30% AI, AA 4x, AF 16x, etc, you get the picture, except for no autogen at all.In complex scenarios (major airports etc) of course my FPS drops down to occaisional single digits, but who cares? Not me, I fly mostly bush in BC and alaska, or other places in the world where you can fly rugged bush stuff.(snip).....--------------------------------------------------------Grahame,Like you, after Nick N's procedure, FSX (please excuse the pun) really took off! Mike T's post above has me thinking though that I probably should wait for FS11 to come out, then...sit in the bush and listen to the comments of the early adopters. If their current high-yield DuoCore's give even MEDIAN 'great' performance as Nick N. pondered upon, I'll upgrade. At my P4's 3.4GHz textures-snapping-into-view near the aircraft, and the occasional banking stutter, FSX is still something to be enjoyed. From the first, I ALWAYS liked the features of FSX, right out of the box, just not Cartoonville as it was (of course...personal opinion). Since adding UTX and GENh...(where you hang out in the Alaska bush..) and flying extensively, I have been running at 3,500 feet over the entire Easter Seaboard of the U.S., I feel that I am now actually back there, at places I know quite well. Myrtle Beach stands to mind. FS9 ***PALES*** compared to the immersion factor of a smart-runing FSX installation. Absolutely! Absolutely! I now fly FS9 for the performance envelope (high end on my P4) but for actually feeling that I am flying to...and landing at a certain airport in the U.S. and Canada....it is with FSX-Plus ALL THE WAY!Like yourself, not a cutting edge platform do I own...but lovin' the FSX experience all the same!Cheers,Mitch

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>One could argue that the reason for Vista SP1 is caused by>releasing Vista RTM to early and even now the web is buzzing>with people that have problems caused by the delayed (and>beter?) Vista SP1.>>Working in IT myself I have to say that there is a general>feeling that Microsoft has trouble getting things right the>first time. Common wisdom is to wait for a SP2 before>implementing the new software or OS. Part of this is caused by>the immense market that Microsoft has for its products but the>sentiment is undeniably there and lets face it FS-X with>unique DX-10 feautures only came true after SP2.>>Microsoft advertising department is outperforming their>engineers all the time and makes it hard for them to deliver>the bloated expectations.None of that makes what Osama said an "absolute". He said that EVERYONE in IT knows that Microsoft is always pushing out crap too early, and that is obviously not true, as I documented above. Vista was delayed, SP1 was delayed, other products are delayed.I've been in IT for a while too, and I've never heard anyone suggest that poor quality or early releases was a business justification for waiting for upgrades. You wait to upgrade because you want a stable and proven platform to rest your productivity on. You wait for software to be updated to new versions to full support the new OS. You wait for all of your vendors to fully support the new OS so that you can extend your service plans. You have to update internal software and products to support the new OS and you have to test all of this and make a strong business case to upper management on why they should spend so much on updating.None of those reasons is "lol M$ releases crappy RTM software".

[bob.bernstein 0]

Rhett, the opaque windows do not occur after my upgrade to 8800gts...I guess x1900xt from ATI was simply insufficient for fsx sp2.Bob

[Mike T 208]

Mitch:I am at a loss also. I consider myself an expert in computers (I own a network & systems consulting company www.avergent.com) and I know for sure that there is nothing wrong on my end which leaves me scratching my head.Look, had I gone out and bought a $1000 Dell then so be it, I'll shut up and deal with what I have. But how much does Aces expect us to spend to "enjoy" the experience of moving the sliders to the right? I have NO intention of spending another $4G next year for that privilege as FS11 comes out and I sit staring at 4 FPS in that.1 1/2 years after the release of FSX it is REASONABLE to expect to be able to run the game at the highest levels with the latest hardware. I am simply left shaking my head and thanking GOD for FS9. In FS9 I am fly over NYC with Aerosoft Manhattan, Imaginesim KEWR, KLGA, Simflyers KJFK, UT USA and 100% custom AI and getting almost 100 FPS!!!!!!! That is a jump of ~80 FPS from the maximum I would get on my old rig. This is versus +5 FPS jump in FSX.*SIGH*Mike T.

[Mike T 208]

Yeah, when I ordered the PC last weak the Skulltrail CPUs weren't available yet! But since FSX barely recognizes 4 cores, I'm not betting that its going to do anything with 2 x 4 cores for a full Skulltrail setup.Mike T.

[Mike T 208]

Bill, My friend.My system has been FULLY OPTIMIZED within the first hour that I had it running. I've already done my benchmarks in Sisoft Sandra and 3DMark 2006. I've already opmized all of my hardware to run as fast as they will possibly go and still remain stable in all regimes which is why I can run FS9 fully maxed with every hardcore addon at 100-150fps over NYC.Understand, I'm no n00b, I am a hardcore modder and I've been building and optimizing my own rigs since 1992. I don't need a week to fully optimize my rig. I know what every single BIOS setting does and how to use them to give me more (or less) speed. An hour or two of trial and error for a given hardware config is MORE than sufficient to post screaming results. Of course, software drivers and software is out of my control however, I've already applied all "tweaks" posted by Phil Taylor in his blog.Now, understand I am talking about running the sim at FULL sliders, not medium-high or kinda high or almost high. 1 1/2 years after the release of FSX should be plenty of time for the hardware to catch up with the software. This is not the case.Warm regards,Mike T.

[n4gix 4,947]

>Now, understand I am talking about running the sim at FULL>sliders, not medium-high or kinda high or almost high. 1 1/2>years after the release of FSX should be plenty of time for>the hardware to catch up with the software. This is not the>case.Mike, I am doing precisely that (full right sliders) on my rig, which is why I'm astonished at your dismal results.Unfortunately, there are times when all our "expert knowledge" gets in the way of perceiving the actual proximate cause(s) of our difficulties.Many years ago, the Airforce was transporting some (unarmed) missles near my (then) home in Raleigh, NC. The convoy got stuck at an bridge, when it was determined that there was one inch too little clearance for the load to clear the bridge. After hours of head-scratching and discussion (read: frequent shouting matches) between many "experts," it took the suggestion of an eight year old neighbor boy to solve the puzzle...He finally got one of the "experts" to notice him shouting "let some air out of the tires stupid!" ;)Whatever it turns out to be, I'm confident that with enough time, you'll find it...

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

>Mitch:>>I am at a loss also. I consider myself an expert in computers>(I own a network & systems consulting company>www.avergent.com) and I know for sure that there is nothing>wrong on my end which leaves me scratching my head.>>Look, had I gone out and bought a $1000 Dell then so be it,>I'll shut up and deal with what I have. But how much does Aces>expect us to spend to "enjoy" the experience of moving the>sliders to the right? I have NO intention of spending another>$4G next year for that privilege as FS11 comes out and I sit>staring at 4 FPS in that.>>1 1/2 years after the release of FSX it is REASONABLE to>expect to be able to run the game at the highest levels with>the latest hardware. I am simply left shaking my head and>thanking GOD for FS9. >>In FS9 I am fly over NYC with Aerosoft Manhattan, Imaginesim>KEWR, KLGA, Simflyers KJFK, UT USA and 100% custom AI and>getting almost 100 FPS!!!!!!! That is a jump of ~80 FPS from>the maximum I would get on my old rig. This is versus +5 FPS>jump in FSX.>>*SIGH*>>Mike T.----------------------------------Mike, your angst is noted. I feel badly that you are NOT enjoying at present. Perhaps something will kick into the mix...new driver combo, whatnot...and bring your system up to the expected kick-a** state. Good wishes for ya...Mitch

[frankla 44]

The DX10 artist rendition they showed was intentded for industry audience. They never mentioned or advertised it on the product box, nor did they advertise it in any media. In fact I'd wager that over 95% of FSX users don't know about that DX10 rendition. So you can call it a situation where ACES got egg on their faces, but they didn't mislead the public. Finally, I'll ask you the following question: Would you have not bought FSX if you knew that DX10 artist rendition would not come to frution?

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

You defragged in name order within the first hour? Also, per Nick N, motherboard RAID is bad. You have the RAID on a dedicated card?

[Guest Nils79]

If you only had invested a few hundred bucks for an usual C2duo system, you could be very happy, but because you invested 4000$ you expect the impossible.I would never invest in such a system like you did, because there was no real jump in the CPU market and i don't think that your GPU setup is reasonable for FSX.Thinking in terms of 'high', 'medium' and 'low' settings will make it very hard for you to enjoy FSX. Don't think you have to set all sliders to the right to get a realistic sim experience, because FSX allows settings wich are sometimes not very useful (e.g. bloom in DX9). And they are nearly always far more than FS9 delivers, so a comparison with FS9 is far off.You have to find the corresponding settings for your system. That's what everybody has to do, because there wasn't a breakthrough on the HW market in the last months. But a reasonable FSX system is far less expensive. Of course not with all sliders @maximum, but sometimes full settings are making no sense, because you get more than it would be realistic (e.g. trees.. i don't need tons of trees in cities so, i would never set the autogen slider above dense). I have an E6750, a GF8800GTS, 4GB Ram and i can use FSX smooth, but i don't have all sliders @maximum, but for me it's the most important thing to get always sharp textures and the sky full of clouds and ai traffic and that's why i can live with autogen or scenery objects, water and special effects NOT @maximum. For ai traffic i use MTX and with traffic @40-50% and i get a very realistic experience. Use the traffic explorer of the SDK to see how much ai traffic is in the air and also consider the moving jetways.Besides your FSX settings, i'm not sure if the current Catalyst driver is working perfect for the X2 and a RAID setup is also not very useful for FSX.What do you get in current games/benchmarks?

[Guest Grahame Myers]

I must in honesty say that I did not follow NickN's method to the letter, as I dont use O&O.I really meant the principal of installing clean and carefully, in the right order, and defragging properly and regularly.I actually use Ultimate Defrag, using folder and file names as defrag method. Since I changed from Perfect Disk(which I was happy with for a long time, it's an excellent all-purpose defragger, but not as good for FS as Ultimate Defrag, as you can't choose which defrag method you want to use), all my problems with texture loading and stutters are gone.I'm hoping my 939 system will last as long as possible, at some time in the future I'll be forced to upgrade, and then I'll have to replace everything, as I won't be able to port any parts over.The vid. card is AGP, the drives are still IDE, and of course the RAM is first-gen 184-pin DDR, real steam-age stuff :-)RegardsGrahame

[boshar 6]

>I've been in IT for a while too, and I've never heard anyone>suggest that poor quality or early releases was a business>justification for waiting for upgrades. You wait to upgrade>because you want a stable and proven platform to rest your>productivity on.My 20 years in IT learned me 2 things.1. You never buy a first version period. Wait for the early adopters to stumble upon the problems2. With a Microsoft product you either skip 1 verion and wait for the next 'improved' version (if its realy new technology) or you buy the slightly improved product after its SP2 has been out for a while.Microsoft realy has a nasty reputation. Some of it is because they are the biggest player/target but most of it they have earned by their conduct.Mind you this sentiment is widely shared. For example http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/03/27/...-decline_1.html>versions to full support the new OS. You wait for all of your>vendors to fully support the new OS so that you can extend>your service plans. You have to update internal software and>products to support the new OS and you have to test all of>this and make a strong business case to upper management on>why they should spend so much on updating.You have a very idolised view on IT. Last week we downgraded From MS SQL 2005 back to MS SQL 2000 because the Vertical TeleVantage IP telephony phone system (7.5) could not handle SQL 2005 even while running in SQL2000 support mode (Caused by Vertical not by Microsoft BTW). In IT you run whats needed be it old legacy programs held together with compatibility shells spit and polish or new fangled never properly tested software introduced by that new HR chap that has those high level management connections. Big IT decisions are almost always strategic (sometimes launch customers are just 'bought') and made without consulting the IT department. Every manager considers his/herself an IT expert. If you can't fit their of the shelf non standard software with the rediculous licensing scheme into the network its your fault not theirs.The problem I see is that we have accepted the way Microsoft products perform as an industry standard. I have been the sysadmin of a high level IBM iSeries and I can tell you that real professional hard and software is up 99.9% of the year and it phones the mechanic for you if some of its components are about to fail or the sales representative if you are starting to max out the hardware. There are many other ways of doing IT besides the Microsoft Wintel 'IT on the cheap' sollution.

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

Will do Tom. Thanks!Gary

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

Osama,Perhaps you misunderstand the concept of absolutes. An absolute is where you use words like always, everyone, everything, everytime, none, never. etc. All it takes is to show one example where your absolute is not the case and your argument is proven wrong. I suggest you avoid them unless you are absolutely sure there are no refuting cases ;-)Gary