Accept or pushing FSX beyond?

[Guest Stoopy]

Fully agreed. I started using FSeconomy with FSX and it's totally addicting, on top of that I do a lot of FS-Recorder flying to create formation aerobatics, this all demands a smooth app that is crash-free and stable, and it's achieved with SP2/Accell...system runs without rebooting, CTD'ing or BSOD'ing from dawn until midnight over weekends like this. I mention only in passing that there's an ATI vid card installed.

[PhilTaylor 45]

For the CTD:1)Fullscreen or windowed?2)What are the exact repro steps?

[Guest]

they are if they behave the way many of them do, with constant abusive and negative posts instead of simply asking for and accepting advise.My system is hardly state of the art (low end Core 2 Duo, low end videocard) but I get consistently over 20fps (got it locked there, it's quite enough) in any scenery with any aircraft (even performance heavy addons) with everything set to medium/high.And I've done nothing to optimise that system in any way, no overclocking or shutting down background programs to get that.So I can only conclude that people who can't get that either have highly deficient systems they're overstressing because of incorrect expectations or they have problems that lie well outside the scope of FS itself.

[bob.bernstein 0]

Jeroen, your posts lack empathy for the troubles of others. I suspect that makes sense to you because you object to these others tone. Truth is that your response style assures their negative posts will continue. One breeds the other.If we want the naysayers to soften, we need to model what that looks like. It starts here with posts from old-timers like you. How bout some sympathy that no matter how you take care of things, its hard for some folks.Best,Bob

[Ramasurinen 0]

Well said Bob, and I agree completely. I've been on the receiving end of a few such condescending posts and there's just no need for that. People come here looking for help because lets face it, FSX is hard on the system no matter what your hardware is. If you happen to be blessed with detailed knowledge of the system, software, and bottlenecks and how to overcome them it's still good to remember that you're one of the few that have such knowledge. Consider yourself lucky and perhaps help others if you are so inclined. Kudos to the many that do endeavour to help others solve their issues, they're certainly under no obligation to.And since when is being an "FPS Junkie" a bad thing? :) Framerate in my opinion is the most crucial element in the proper simulation of flight. It's all well and good to trundle along VFR in the 172 and get 20 fps if that's your thing, it's fine for that situation. But what about those who fly helos, fighters, aerobatic aircraft, or even enjoy heavy cloud IFR flight? Those are cases where high FPS, at *least* 30+, is crucial and it's really an uphill battle. On top of that lies the unfortunate fact that few developers consider the hit that their high poly aircraft and VCs have on performance outside the singleplayer experience and that can be really frustrating for multiplayer lovers. Get one or two addon aircraft on screen and watch the frames just tumble. SP1 & 2 helped a lot, but it still isn't enough for some, even if they have great hardware and a tuned OS.And make no mistake about the full screen CTDs with SP2, they're very real and very widespread, affecting a wide range of nvidia cards from the 7 & 8 series. This isn't a case of a very vocal minority. I lost eight multiplayer compatriots from that problem alone when Acceleration came out. They simply couldn't run SP2 without crashing whenever they accessed a menu. A few have returned after switching to ATI out of sheer frustration. Anyway, unless Intel's Nahalem turns out to give moore's law a really sound thumping I suspect we'll be fighting fps issues until the day FS11 is released, maybe beyond, and that means as much tweaking as flying for some. FSX is what it is and I absolutely love it but there are certainly days when I throw a few nasty words its way. I try to keep them to myself though. ;)-mike

[Guest]

If I lack empathy it's because of years of being exposed to the style of abusive posts that are typical of the "complainers".If someone has a genuine problem and and asks for help without immediately launching into tirades about how "evil" Microsoft is or how "FS sux" I'd be the first to try and help them if I could.But what I ever more detect is an attitude among people to seek to blame others for their problems and not expect help, resulting in them immediately becoming agressive and abusive towards the very people who could possibly help them but because of that attitude loose all interest in doing so.This is far from isolated to the FS community btw. I'm quite active in several software development forums and there we see the same thing happening, and to an even greater degree (no doubt because the average age of the FS user is higher than that of the average beginning programmer who's often no more than a spoiled highschool brat).There it takes the character of kids not just blaming their own errors on their tools (which is the majority of "complaints" about FS and Windows) but kids demanding to have their homework assignments done for them and becoming abusive when they're told that's not how things are done (the equivalent maybe of people coming here requesting "replacement keys" for commercial products and starting to cuss and swear at people when they're told to contact their reseller).

[Chuck_Jodry-VJPL 663]

Troll , Trolling , and Forum posts , this term first appears in Fraternity of Vagabonds (1561) to characterize the first four of twenty-five types of disobedient male servants or "knaves." my thanks to Wikipedia for thatSome may characterize a post as trolling, others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial, the term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent as seems the case post RTM of our claim to flame FSX.Problems and the solutions posted in forums fortunately don

[Guest Bob Z]

Well said.Actually I'm in both groups.My FS9 has 580,000 AI flight legs manually added along with parking spots to accomodate all of them at every AP they land at and many other AFCAD adjustments. I also have a respectable amount of scenery and I suspect that about 70% of my FS time was spent adding and tweaking. It was really quite enjoyable, but I can't bring myself to go thru it again at this point for FSX.As a result, my FSX is a stock install and I can't remember the last time I've used the shift-z or had a CTD.If I counted up all the hours I spent tweaking FS9 and paid myself a virtual minimum wage........well, I don't want to think about it.

[bobbyjack 61]

I think what we are talking about is having respect for everyone's opinion. If you truly dislike something, it is completely possible to state that opinion in a way that is respectful to others. Being polite and respectful seems to be a thing of the past. You get called a troll when you disrespect. I have been called a liar because i like FSX. How many of you have run RTM FS9, and then run RTM FSX. Even stock, FSX is a clear winner. Perfect? Um...no. But way better.Bob

[FTD1949 0]

Yeah, those people that want above 15 fps are real jerks! Buy better hardware. It's that simple. Craig

[boshar 6]

3rd category here. After trying both approaches (tweak the h*ll out of it AND pull back the sliders a bit) I've gone for the 3rd option: FS-X is not for me I'd beter use my time flying in FS9 (though the lack of new addon releases makes it a bit static) or fly in X-plane (some things I find better a lot of things I find worse but there are a lot of new things to try and lots of things I can tinker with).Every now and then I check the FS-X forum to see if there are new developments. But most time nowadays is spent at the x-plane.org forums or trying out new lowcost X-Plane add-ons.If I'm lucky I will get to tinker with the new X-Plane UNIVERSAL FMC when I'm home tonight (just bought it). Maybe X-plane will finaly be ready to do some fying with the heavies. I always wanted a universal FMC in the FS series (something like the old dreamfleet 737 FMC usable on all planes). kind of ironic that I finaly might get my wish granted but its for another simulator.So I'm still the passionate tweaker after all I guess. But now I'm creating simple add-on aircraft (so bad I keep them only to myself), adjust instrument panels, and do a bit of scenery building (placing standard objects from a scenery library). Its much more fun do creative and constructive tweaking.

[Guest Bob Z]

Bob Perhaps your post wasn't directed to me, but I don't see how what I stated is disrespectful. I have both FS9 and FSX installed and am merely saying that I've been there, done that.

[Guest]

> Yeah, those people that want above 15 fps are real jerks!>The real framerate junk would not be happy were he getting a hundred fps with everything maxed out...>> Buy better hardware. It's that simple.>For the majority of them, adjusting their expectations to something more realistic and tuning down some of the more CPU and/or GPU intensive options would be quite enough to get a very nice gaming experience.My hardware is lower midrange at best (from what's on the market today) yet I get plenty of performance with a sim that also looks very nice indeed while loaded with addons.So it can be done, with a little (maybe a few hours total over 18 months now) experimentation, some common sense, and in my case some background knowledge about what the most expensive settings are.

[Guest]

Here is the dead-on, simple truth: if ACES/MS wants to market this game to the masses, a "few hours" of tweaking, telling someone to go buy better hardware, go buy more add-ons, and "experimentation" is NOT going to sustain the franchise. Every average gamer that I know that bought FSX quickly stopped playing it because of the bugs at RTM. Sure the service packs have improved it tremendously, but the first one was six MONTHS later. For any other game, this would be outrageous to fix such serious bugs. You and I understand ACES' position and can deal with the wait, but if they want to keep the franchise heading into the direction they want then you're answers are very much in opposition to that goal.I may be a "hardcore" simmer, but I am perfectly willing to accept the direction that the franchise is headed if it keeps it alive. But it has to be done right and the community has to understand where Joe Schmoe is coming from. So what does FSXI need to have? First, a stable, speedy platform that looks and performs great. It needs to look better than FSX and have at least 20 FPS doing it. Secondly, patches need to come out in a matter of weeks, not months. Service Packs ala Windows took way too much time to release. Lastly, AA and AF need to be scalable in FSX itself. For such a complicated simulator, having simplistic options like a checkmark for AA is silly to me; having to download external programs to set my prefered options is even sillier. This is easier said than done of course and I have no idea what its like being in Phil Taylor's shoes but one can hope they have these goals in mind.

[Guest Nick_N]

Thats one of the reasons I posted this to Philhttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...d=438846&page=2Although I have a great respect for what was accomplished and fixed from RTM, the development in MSFS needs to look at a baseline design to ensure minimum will always provide a certain outcomeI also know how to deal with a system and MSFS however JohnQ public does not and many simply do not use it, say nothing, and that does not do the franchise any good.I do think the FS11 direction has a leg up on the past with the new management and the community involvement that has taken place in the last year. I would think things are going to change, at least i hope they do. I don