FSX is such a beautiful simulator...

[Guest Zelensta]

I'm just dissapointed with the programming. On my computer I can run Crysis with everything on high except antialiasing, and it still runs smoothly (20+ frames constant, and I must say, it looks a lot better than FSX. My computer can handle FSX okay in most places, but when i go to cities with a lot of autogen, the frames drop under 10. (LA, San Francisco etc.) When I turn on clouds ( i love clods :() the frame rate is also bad. I heard ATI cards ( i have one) dont seem to run them well, but they work just fine with nvidias. I'd like FS11 to look like FSX with all the expansions (FEX, GEX, FTX, UTX), and run a lot better.Do you think they can program FS11 to run better?

[yellowjack 28]

If history is any indicator, the answer is "Yes, provided you have the latest and greatest computer equipment". The Crysis comparison has been brought up before and there is no valid comparison that can be made. It's like saying "Oranges taste better than Apples, why can't they make apples taste like oranges". Yes, they are both fruit and that is where the comparison should end. ;-)

[McCrash 3]

FSX is churning an heck of a lot more numbers.

[Guest JIMJAM]

Oh boy expect the "apples and oranges"comparions to begin.Comparing FPS to sims has been stomped into the ground.One level cannot compare to an entire world but the idea of a small but highly detailed area like the guys did up in Alaska is a great idea.Or a city just for helicopter. Aerosofts Manhatten is a hightly detailed but dense area.Here is my take.I once owned and played the Half Life series on PC.Cutting edge HW needed and people are STILL tweeking to get it to run as they are with Far Cry and Crysis.I bought a PS3 a month ago because I want be able to actually ENJOY the PC games I pay $50 for. I should not need a computer degree and to be able to rewire the space shuttle to get a game to run.Anyways, I bought The Orange Box, Valves Complete Half Life Collection for the PS3.Been playing now for 3 days and ZERO,NADA, NONE, NO lock ups!Of course the graphics are not bleeding edge burn your eyes with detail but they aint BAD either.The secret is of course is that the developers have a unified hardware/software structure. And besides, idiots like me cannot get under the hood and screw it up.Until a proven,tried and true engine is developed and optimized, I am giving up on a trouble free great performance flight sim.We do not need a moving target,FSX to try and either setup a rig or developters to constantly adapt to. Heck, bring back FS9 and let the addon makers go at it.I am one of the few who is actually more concerned about stability,fluidity and gameplay. Or in sims immersion.I could care less about all the eye candy.If FS11 came out and was FS9 but with multi core support,bug fixes and some new planes,missions, it would SALE BIG.If FS11 comes out being even more bloated,some fixes but still a systems resource hog, I expect few will bother with it.And BTW- Any mention from MS stating FS11 is programmed with the future hardware in mind, should be tarred and feathered.

[Guest Bonkey]

>FSX is churning an heck of a lot more numbers. It sure is, But only because FSX's engine is 10 years old.

[n4gix 4,947]

Oh boy ACES, BOHICA! :-outta

[Guest firehawk44]

I totally agree with John Yellowjack's response to your question but have a couple of additions:"I heard ATI cards ( i have one) dont seem to run them well, but they work just fine with nvidias."Where did you hear that about ATI? I heard just the opposite over in the hardware forum. I believe some of the earlier versions of ATI cards may have problems as AMD/ATI were slow in making compatible drivers for Vista/FSX. They are on board now and I heard just as good as Nvidia's."I'd like FS11 to look like FSX with all the expansions (FEX, GEX, FTX, UTX), and run a lot better."Confusing statement that seems to contradict your comments about bad programming but I think I understand what you're saying. Believe me, FSX works well with the latest and greatest computer systems. The same will apply when FS11 is released 2-3 years from now. You will have to upgrade to the latest and greatest computer system for you to enjoy it to the fullest. It has been that way with every version of MSFS. I think the major problem with FSX is proper memory usage and that's not a fault of the ACES Team/Contractors. It's a known fault of the XP/Vista operating systems which Microsoft has been trying to patch via hotfixes, etc., not FSX programming. Nvidia and AMD/ATI haven't been too good either consistently releasing buggy display drivers...If you have a recent computer system, try going back to FS9. It's amazing what the FPS you can get in comparison to an older system two years ago. I easily got over 100 FPS consistently whereas I had problems running FS9 on many occasions with an older system (a 'measly' P4 system). I fully expect to have to upgrade to the latest and greatest system when FS11 comes out and, since my current system is less than one year old, I hope I won't have to upgrade for at least 2-3 years from now. Best regards,Jim

[FalconAF 213]

> I should not need a computer degree and to be able to rewire the space shuttle to get a game to run.You don't need one. If your current computer can't run FSX, OR you don't have the knowledge (or desire to get it) on how to make a computer you have NOW that IS capable of running it if you configure it and maintain it correctly, then just load up FS 2004 and quit complaining.>Anyways, I bought The Orange Box, Valves Complete Half Life Collection for the PS3. Been playing now for 3 days and ZERO,NADA, NONE, NO lock ups! Of course the graphics are not bleeding edge burn your eyes with detail but they aint BAD either.Congratulations.>And besides, idiots like me cannot get under the hood and screw it up.Well said. If your really are an idiot, you shouldn't be going "under the hood" in the first place.>Until a proven,tried and true engine is developed and optimized, I am giving up on a trouble free great performance flight sim.Sounds like a good idea...in your case.>We do not need a moving target, FSX to try and either setup a rig or developters to constantly adapt to.Granted, all the "changes" made to FSX caused developers to experience headaches and heartaches. But that's the hazards of going into "business". Things change. Your business either adapts or it fails. Most will survive...some won't. >Heck, bring back FS9 and let the addon makers go at it.Uh...where you been? FS9 doesn't need to be "brought back". It never left. Check out all the addons STILL being developed for it...freeware and payware.>I am one of the few who is actually more concerned about stability,fluidity and gameplay. Or in sims immersion.One of the few? Many of us ARE achieving all the things you say WITH FSX. Must be a knowledge level thing, I guess.>I could care less about all the eye candy.Your choice again. Not everyone else's. Load up FS2002 then and go for it.>If FS11 came out and was FS9 but with multi core support,bug fixes and some new planes,missions, it would SALE BIG.I assume that is based on your non-existant Marketing Degree?>If FS11 comes out being even more bloated, some fixes but still a systems resource hog, I expect few will bother with it.Don't bet on it. People said the same things about FS2002, FS2004, etc, etc.>And BTW- Any mention from MS stating FS11 is programmed with the future hardware in mind, should be tarred and feathered.Yeah...let's get all developers to produce software that will be obsolete on any state of the art computer in less than 6 months. That's the time frame nowadays in how long it takes the hardware side of the computer industry to DOUBLE a home computer's capabilities. Just what I want...a program I buy today that won't have added capabilities I could run in it if I buy a new computer a year from now.Your are a "disgruntled" FSX user, and it is based on one or both of the following reasons, many of which you stated about yourself above:1. You don't have a computer capable of running it, even if the computer was configured and maintained correctly (it's "old").2. You HAVE a computer capable of running it, but lack the knowledge (and desire to learn) on how to configure or maintain it correctly to do so.Neither of the two reasons above are the fault of FSX or addon developers for it. Get over it.Respectfully submitted, from a 20-year Flight Sim home computer user with a college degree (which, by the way, is nothing more than an EDUCATION, which involves information ANYBODY can "learn" by using the Internet today. You don't need a diploma to hang on your wall to be "educated" or run FSX).

[Guest Seadog]

I enjoyed learning a new (and very appropriate) acronym, and from such an, errrr, ummmm, unlikely source. :-roll -Doug

[N2056 33]

I had the good fortune of being able to attend the Avsim conference held in San Diego a few years ago. I attended the lecture put on by the Microsoft group. It was a really good presentation, and featured many pics of the then upcoming FSX, although at the time they could not 'confirm or deny' they were from FSX. The biggest thing I took away from it was the fact that FS in any form could easily bring pretty much any system out there to it's knees when maxed out.I've known that for a long time. I read endless posts by people trying to achieve FS 'Nirvana'. My feeling is that you will not. You might get close, but the program is capable of humbling any hardware out there. It always has, and probably always will. Like it or not, that's how it is.Personally, having followed the program from day one, I am thrilled that I am able to reasonably run FSX, and even better is the fact that I have been able to recreate planes that have been (and are) a part of my life. I rarely see a post that expresses a basic appreciation for the fact that we can do this at all. As such, I say thanks to the people at Microsoft that have given me so much satisfaction for many years!

[Guest Zelensta]

>I totally agree with John Yellowjack's response to your>question but have a couple of additions:>>"I heard ATI cards ( i have one) dont seem to run them well,>but they work just fine with nvidias.">>Where did you hear that about ATI? I heard just the opposite>over in the hardware forum. I believe some of the earlier>versions of ATI cards may have problems as AMD/ATI were slow>in making compatible drivers for Vista/FSX. They are on board>now and I heard just as good as Nvidia's.>>"I'd like FS11 to look like FSX with all the expansions (FEX,>GEX, FTX, UTX), and run a lot better.">>Confusing statement that seems to contradict your comments>about bad programming but I think I understand what you're>saying. Believe me, FSX works well with the latest and>greatest computer systems. The same will apply when FS11 is>released 2-3 years from now. You will have to upgrade to the>latest and greatest computer system for you to enjoy it to the>fullest. It has been that way with every version of MSFS. I>think the major problem with FSX is proper memory usage and>that's not a fault of the ACES Team/Contractors. It's a known>fault of the XP/Vista operating systems which Microsoft has>been trying to patch via hotfixes, etc., not FSX programming.>Nvidia and AMD/ATI haven't been too good either consistently>releasing buggy display drivers...>>If you have a recent computer system, try going back to FS9. >It's amazing what the FPS you can get in comparison to an>older system two years ago. I easily got over 100 FPS>consistently whereas I had problems running FS9 on many>occasions with an older system (a 'measly' P4 system). I>fully expect to have to upgrade to the latest and greatest>system when FS11 comes out and, since my current system is>less than one year old, I hope I won't have to upgrade for at>least 2-3 years from now. >>Best regards,>Jim>>>>> >For The ATI issue [i have a recent ATI card), i was talking about how ATI cards have problems with the clouds (mine runs everything else just fine, but when i turn clouds on the fps drop), I have heard other people say things like that on this forum.I was also talking about game engine. They really should start from scratch and build a new one, because the old one trying to handle all this data requires more power than a new one would. The CRYTEK 2 engine worked beautifully for Crysis, good performance and beautiful graphics.If they made a brand new FS engine, then I'm sure performance requirements could be lessened.OK i dont know why this is italic....

[Murmur 3,941]

>Do you think they can program FS11 to run better?With only 62 posts, you really couldn't tell all the responses to such a post would be of the kind "All is good - FSX engine is very well programmed" :(Marco

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

Tom Allensworth should be paying attention.The surest way to goose page views for the advertisers is to post this:"I can run Crysis at ..."Nobody reads past that before hitting reply.Or needs to.Heh.

[N2056 33]

Uhhh...not sure what I'm missing here. Apples & Oranges maybe?

[n4gix 4,947]

>I enjoyed learning a new (and very appropriate) acronym, and>from such an, errrr, ummmm, unlikely source. :-roll >>-DougThat's just something I picked up while in Korea serving in the Army... :-beerchug