Aerodynamic

But in essence, you are comparing performance of the two when you have an obvious performance issue in X-Plane. You yourself stated that the application crashes after a few moments. So of course you like the performance in FSX better! :( I believe whatever hardware you and tf51d are using just does not get along with X-Plane for whatever reason. (Probably drivers.) Poor tf51d has to turn everything all the way down and still has issues. This is not how the sim is meant to run, I assure you!There are numerous posts in the hardware forums here that contain commentary of FSX's aged programming and poor use of modern hardware. Whether these posters are technically credible is unknown to me, but the reading material is there and it at least sounds logical. When a platform is patched to "add" multicore support, that alone sounds more like a band-aid to me. DirectX 10 ended up being a total FSX joke . I regret even buying the Acceleration pack! The MSFS series needed a total makeover to refine things to work with the more powerful hardware that we have today, but sadly it seems this will not be happening anytime soon. Maybe FSX was a product that just had timing working against it, as tremendous leaps were made near its release in multicore architecture, combined with the additional drop in hardware prices.I'm not going to tell anyone FSX is dead, because at the end of it all I just want people to enjoy the hobby. FSX has, quite honestly, been the most disappointing Microsoft sim release in my view. There are some definite improvements in some areas over FS9, but I still think FS9 was and is a better overall product that is also not dead. If I go back to MSFS, it would be to FS9.To each, his own,Scott

With no autogen and a frame rate that low, I assure you that you are encountering a big issue on your rig. That is in no way normal. You also mentioned that X-Plane crashes on you, so there is something up. I will be posting pics for tf51d later this week that you should also take a look at. I will not reinstall FSX for the simple purpose of comparison, but the shots should show a lot better performance on hardware that is older than what you have.Scott

I still have a lot of family here for the holidays this week, but I will try to post some screen shots for you when I get the chance. I will also post a shot of my rendering options and include a basic listing of my hardware. I am working off a fresh install/upgrade to X-Plane 9.41, so I may not post pics with airport scenery yet. I need to download and convert some scenery and I'm not sure I will have the time for that this week with family and work.Scott

It is not ideal to compare setting per setting because both sims render different things....well....differently. If you crank everything ALL the way up in X-Plane, it is as demanding as any application you can find. My point is that you don't need to crank everything up to encounter what FSX displays at high/ultra high settings. X-Plane's building and tree placement is overkill and can eat up your resources faster than Homer pounds Duff. I prefer setting my X-Plane rendering options to give me what I was used to in FSX and I am always between 40-60 fps - even at downloaded airports. (I have it set to not exceed the refresh of my monitor, thus I never get over 60 fps to avoid tearing. I never understood those bragging about over 100 fps since they really can't notice anything above 35! I digress. :( ) So yeah, my hardware is still a bottleneck in both sims if I crank things all the way up. I'm not here to bash FSX or praise X-Plane, make no mistake. Both will depress you about the money you spent on a new system. I've had to compromise in both!That said, I still prefer "compromising" in X-Plane . I don't have any complex addons yet - but I have read that X-Plane can really shine in handling these and that developers report not having too many problems keeping the eye candy up with great performance. I know you don't care for the upcoming CRJ project, but this will be a big test to see how successful X-Plane can become. I really love the CRJ series and am very much eager to fly that baby. If I can fly that thing around and still have 40-60 fps, I will be 100% convinced that X-Plane has a tremendous future and I will expect quite a bit of people to give it a try. More people = more development. :( Scott

Geofa, for the record, it's ATI equipment/drivers that seem to not get along well with X-Plane. Nvidia is what you want to have. It has been mentioned in numerous places, plus I also had some issues with my 4870 and X-Plane. I jumped ship to a GTX260 (latest Win 7 64 bit driver) and no issues whatsoever with X-Plane 9.41. I firmly believe your driver is the problem. With a good processor and a decent Nvidia card, you should not be experiencing frame rates that low. Also, I notice in your shot that you have a large number of buildings (objects). Turn those down a bit and your frame rate will increase! As I said earlier, X-Plane renders a ridiculous amount of buildings - to the point where I find it visually silly. Put it on default or low and keep the trees/forests at populated. I think you'll be satisfied with the results. I run comparable settings in FSX with no AI and X-Plane is way smoother.As for blurry scenery, let's face it - there is no perfect solution now in any platform. I would prefer a "blotted paintbrush" look every so often as opposed to LOD rings and obvious tiling. Default to default, I feel X-Plane has the edge in ground scenery. I do wish X-Plane contained seasonal ground scenery, but the night textures look pretty darn good and make up for it in my view.Scott

Geofa, you should not be seeing any messages about reducing rendering options with the processor you have. I assume you use a decent Nvidia card? I run the highest res textures, complete water level, and mid-level selections for the rest of the options and I am between 40-60 fps. Maybe try to tone down the objects and roads a bit? X-Plane renders far more autogen than FSX does, so lower settings will provide more bang for your buck. Cranking sliders to the limit are not the best true comparison within each sim. I prefer a balance of what runs well while still looking good, and I can get that in X-Plane without cranking things up. Perhaps your issues are driver-related or something. As I have said before, I own both sims and fluidity is not even a close contest on my Q9550/GTX260. X-Plane easily wins without blurries, hiccups, and no frame drop around downloaded/installed scenery. Plus, there are some wonderful addons that should be out in the next couple months that might encourage you to split time with your simulators!I sure hope this does not present me as an X-Plane a really excited user or anything. I am new to the sim, honestly. I'm still way more comfortable with the MSFS series, but I am learning to really love X-Plane.Thanks,Scott

No one can reasonably argue that FSX utilizes multi-core CPUs adequately. I don't know if this was just bad timing for their developers or just poor quality control before release. They even had to patch the sim to get it where it is now! I have a Q9550 and I am less than pleased at how FSX performs on my rig. I am a stickler for details, and I hate each random hiccup that I notice. X-Plane never hiccups. As for Larry's comment on X-Plane's limited visibility, I actually prefer X-Plane for my region. I have spent many logless hours with my dad in a Cessna and I've taken a couple intro flights recently and I never remember visibility being better than what X-Plane shows. I love the blend at the horizon that X-Plane generates. Perhaps that helps with frame rates? I appreciate it, nonetheless. It's always warm and humid here in Florida, and I get that feel when I fly in X-Plane. It may be clearer and dryer in mountanous areas, so I see his point.The bottom line is, FSX is what it is. It will never be anything more. It is NOT dead as long as 3rd party folks develop for it. I'm sure that will keep many happy and I'm sure the hardware is catching up to help the cause. That does not change the fact that X-Plane is slowly evolving into a wonderful simulator, with the help of the core devlopers and growing mass of supporters. I still prefer FS2004 to FSX as far as polish goes. For FSX - I think Microsoft broke some eggs to make the omelet and forgot to clean up the counter afterwards.Scott

I have used FSX for quite some time (w/Acceleration) and I have to say that the OP has a point. I feel even with FSX "dumbed" down that X-Plane still offers a more fluid flight experience all around. The default ground textures and water are better in X-Plane, IMO. When airport scenery is downloaded and used in X-Plane, there is no notable frame rate dip like there is in FSX. FSX definitely could use some tweaking to help in some areas. One thing that has always bothered me in FSX was the jerky instant replay camera in spot view. You have to choose locked spot to cure the problem. All this said, X-Plane is still a constant work in progress and it does fall short in complex add-ons. I am very much looking forward to Javier Rollon's CRJ and XP Jet's future offerings. Regards,Scott

My sentiments exactly. I keep up with their development since they appear to have a great deal of talent, but I would rather them exhaust effort on cockpit functionality than nose gear brake indicators. Are they still even developing their 757? I hope so! They preview a 757...., now a Cessna...., now a new 777 with fancy wheels and struts....,now an A320.... Too many eggs in one basket! A preview is not a product! I wish they would finish one of them before starting something else and posting pictures! :( Scott

I must say that L. Adamson's boldness is impressive - calling out an aircraft that has a banner ad on ever single thread in the forum. Maybe I need to go read that conversation! But if it's wrong to constructively criticize on that site, I probably won't visit there long. I give myself 3 weeks before I am "semi-banned" as well. :( Sorry to bring up an older thread, but I am catching up in here since I am thinking about reinstalling X-Plane.Scott

I am a somewhat new user to X-Plane and I feel that there is a bright future for the platform. There are many things that it does better than Microsoft's offerings. (I own X-Plane 9 and all Microsoft Flight Simulators from 98 to FSX.) The main drawback to me for X-Plane is the lack of detailed aircraft. Most aircraft for X-Plane border on FS2000-level quality. There are finally some works in progress that seem to indicate that X-Plane has is "catching up" to the other choices. X-Plane won't notice significant growth unless that happens - but there is a great opportunity now with the flight sim community "below minimums."As for the original question, I view xplane.org as an "Avsim" for X-Plane. I find the site easy to use and quite resourceful, but I don't think it has established itself as the place to go for things that MSFS converts will flock to. Perhaps that will change if the freeware quality improves and if the user base grows.As for payware, I think that developers should just sell the products on their own web site. At this point, the word will spread quickly if someone develops anything in X-Plane that rivals payware offerings for Flight Simulator. Ever since I bought X-plane, I have paid for one aircraft (Jason Chandler's Cirrus) and have been following the development of the XPJets 777 and 757 and a CRJ-200 by J. Rollon. These aircraft all have promise and show that X-Plane is a contender. That said, the development of the XPJets 757 and 777 have literally taken forever (757 previews go back to June of 2007) and are not even close to being done from what I can tell.X-Plane needs more payware aircraft developers so that the development is faster than the current pace! As long as there is a nice product available, I don't really care what site I have to go to pay for it. The point is, it has to be there first! :( My .02,Scott

I like it all! I try to keep a certain degree of variety. Airliners do seem to be a problem with my system and FSX. I probably enjoy flying those the most. Part of my FSX problem is the poor way in which ATI cards render clouds. The frame loss is way too exaggerated. I would likely get improved results with my older 8800gts 320mb. However, I would take a loss in performance in other games that I enjoy. All this said, at the moment FSX would probably only work for me as a GA sim. So this probably moves FSX to being my last option unless there are really good driver updates from ATI or unless I can get some input from someone else using FSX on a similar setup. I should also add that I own and have been using GEX and REX. (REX clouds at their lowest resolutions.)Scott

I am sort of looking for some direction lately with regard to flight simming. I have found myself spending more time and money trying to get things to "work" than I do actually enjoying the hobby itself. I own all the latest flight simulators and have tried each extensively, yet I cannot fully settle on one at the moment. I need to narrow it down to one version because I do buy payware and I cannot afford to buy things that I don't use. I was thinking if I could get fellow Avsimmers to list the advantages and disadvantages of FS2004, FSX, and X-Plane, it might help me figure out what direction to take going forward.First I will list system specs: Q9550 @ 3.4ghz, 8gb memory, Vista 64, ATI 4870 512mb. I should note that I just got the Q9550 on sale + free shipping from Newegg. (I upgraded from an E6420.) I thought it would be a smart move going forward since I am not financially able to jump to the i7s just yet. The cache on the Q9550 was a big draw and it is a really easy overclocker, so I chose to go that route.Here are my current impressions of each sim:FS2004 pros:1) It is well-established and has numerous add-ons2) It runs well on modest systems3) I can keep using the payware I have (I own more payware for FS2004 than any other version)FS2004 cons:1) Low resolution ground textures2) Default terrain mesh not as detailed as more current sims3) Future add-on development now a big question mark with Aces' closure4) Won't fully utilize the new processor I just bought due to no dual-core support________________________________________________________________FSX pros:1) High resolution textures2) More add-on developers are going this direction3) Dual core supportFSX cons:1) Tough to tweak and run, even on great systems2) Does not seem to like ATI cards in heavy weather much at the moment3) Annoying stutters in instant replay and occasionally spot view (unless you choose "locked" spot)4) DirectX 10 preview will not ever be fixed (flashing runway textures and missing aircraft lighting)5) Microstutters, even at high frame rates________________________________________________________________X-Plane pros:1) Very fluid - high frame rates2) High resolution textures3) Better default atmospherics + weather4) Water looks great5) Dual core support6) Doesn't seem to mind ATI cards or Nvidia cards7) Some MSFS sceneries can be converted and used in X-PlaneX-Plane cons:1) Add-on development is very sporadic and slow2) Most 2D panels don't stretch to fit widescreen monitors (annoying gaps on the sides)3) Virtual cockpits have very limited functionality (buttons, etc.)4) All airports have no buildings/terminals5) Most aircraft models are not detailed at the moment________________________________________________________________I would like to hear other input from you, good people. I am seriously starting to consider fully using X-Plane since that may be the best option going forward. Some of the upcoming models are looking very nice. There is a LONG wait for things to develop, though. I thought the Q9550 would help make a stronger case for FSX, but it didn't really help much aside from faster texture loading. I still get microstutters and low frame rates around places such as New York. I also considered putting my old 8800gts back in the case since that should help FSX run a little better, but I also enjoy other games that really shine with the ATI 4870. The 4870 is just a better card all-around, except for FSX. (I should note that I have submitted numerous times at the AMD site for them to consider some driver updates for FSX. Seems like as each driver comes out, FSX improvements are never included. :()If anyone has any suggestions/fixes for me, please reply in a mature manner. (No replies like "FSX s*cks, use FS9.) We're all grown up here. (Some of us grown-ups are a little frustrated and confused at times. <cough>)Thanks for the help,Scott

I just reinstalled FS2004 fresh again yesterday for testing and tried the JFK demo first thing without any addons and flying the default Learjet. It is definitely something with the scenery, or it's something with my hardware. But my hardware seems great when I go to other airports. I also tried the Cloud 9 LAX scenery demo and it works just wonderfully. The only thing I have altered in the fs9.cfg is the default radius, extended radius, and I set the texture bandwidth to 400. I get great performance and texture clarity with my hardware. I am reading those linked threads now....Thanks,Scott

I would really like to purchase FSDreamTeam's JFK scenery, however something is holding me back. When I tried the demo, I used real world weather and selected to start at the active runway. It would put me on the holding short area of 4R. As I turned onto 4R to takeoff, I got a couple of really bad stutters. Bad enough that it was almost like the sim froze for a split second. After that, it was back to normal and frame rates were in the 25-35 range. When I flew around checking out the airport all was very fluid and then I'd get a couple more stutters in spot view in certain areas. It's really odd and I don't want to buy the airport if it's going to essentially pause the sim very briefly when I am on final.Has anyone else experienced this? I have not registered in their forum yet, but I have read in there that FSDT sceneries are designed for FSX and are made backwards compatible for FS2004. Not sure if this is isolated to just me or if it is their FS2004 JFK scenery in general.Thanks for any info on this.Scott

Another thing I would try is running a different resolution in-game for FS2004. You are pushing a very nice resolution, but perhaps try 1680 X 1050 and see if there is any difference in the texture appearance. I kind of agree with the other poster above who noted that FS2004 was designed before all the multi-core, extreme resolution luxuries we have today. It seems that a real pimpin' system like yours can even run FS2004 only so well. Your system would probably benefit FSX greater than FS2004 since you have the hardware for it and since FSX has higher resolutions and will use more than one processor core. Also bump up your TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT= to 400. I think that is a common one that simmers use and I have had very good results with it in 1680 X 1050 on my C2D E6420 + ATI 4870 512. Good luck!Scott

Negative. There are no lights whatsoever on the tail of the 767-200 and 767-300. So Level-D has it right on their 767 and there is no problem with your software. However, I'm pretty sure the 767-400 has a position light and/or strobe light on the tail. Perhaps this is what you are thinking of?Scott

You're a quick learner. Looks great. Well done!Scott

Welcome to the forums. At least you can run FSX! That's a plus. Your scenery looks good....you should try the Project Opensky 757 and "upgrade" what you've got there. There are a number of nice Delta 757 repaints for the Project Opensky model in the library. It would be a nice improvement for you. Search around and you will find some great freeware files available here at Avsim.Enjoy,Scott

Thanks for the information. I will probably have to get creative with how I mount this. I may have to use my keyboard drawer since I have no "ledge" on my desk. The glass on top is almost flush with the wood. Doesn't look like any of the user pics I see where people have the yoke and throttle secured in place at the edge of their desktop. Are there any screw holes on the bottom of the yoke where I could perhaps install some suction cups? Sounds silly, but that would really be ideal with the glass top I have....Also, I recently read some remarks about the Saitek yoke having some "click" feeling returning to center. A few people noted that the CH yoke was more fluid in this aspect. I would also like to hear some from folks that use the CH devices. I think the Saitek looks better, but I am not going to purchase on looks alone.Thanks,Scott

Greetings, all. I am finally considering purchasing a yoke, throttle, and pedal package and would like some of your thoughts. I have been reading a bit here and there, and CH and Saitek both seem to have quite a few positive remarks about their products. I am leaning towards the Saitek, only because it seems to have a less "plastic" appearance in pics. The Saitek throttle also looks nice, however I don't like the way the Saitek pedals look. If the Star Trek Enterprise had rudders, those pedals would command them. :( And you might think this is silly, but my main concern is how these mount on a desk. I have not been able to see any clear pics about how these are secured. I have a rather nice computer desk that has a glass top. The bottom of the glass is painted black and has a really nice look to go with the wood. If there is a screw or something that needs to clasp the bottom of the desk, I believe it would likely chip the paint and create a noticeable flaw. Surely some folks out there are in this situation. I am wondering if the yoke and throttle clasps are padded or if there is something else that can be used to protect the desk?Thanks for your time reading and I am all ears as to what you folks recommend for me.Scott

I hope not, as the vanilla FSX install uses well over 14 gigs. :( Scott

It's a problem with Vista and FS9. I've got all the Vista updates and latest ATI drivers and I've tested using the Aero theme, Vista Basic theme, and Windows Classic theme. If you try to alt+tab (or in your case minimize) while at the aircraft selection menu, you will not be able to get back without killing the FS9 exe in task manager. It's the only defect I've found with Vista and FS9. Crappy advice here, but just don't minimize or alt+tab when you are at the aircraft selection screen. :( Scott

I would say yes.Enjoy,Scott

Wow. IF this is indeed caused by something related to PMDG, I certainly disagree with their newfound anti-piracy tactic. I am not going to jump to conclusions yet until I read more on this. I do not own any PMDG products, but I have read an abundance of good things about their projects and their support. I would think that with all the positive vibes circulating around their name that they would not want something like this tied to them. If this ends up being true, I cannot see myself purchasing any of their offerings. Two wrongs don't make a right.-Scott