honanhal

This! You very much did not need to be some kind of genius (or lucky) visionary to see the writing on the wall early. A lot of folks on these forums managed to talk themselves out of the obvious — and correct — conclusion that MSFS was going to absolutely devour the market, but in their defense, at least their business wasn’t on the line… Some developers immediately bet everything on MSFS, some were more conservative. But (with respect to FSLabs) it takes a special kind of talent to pivot so slowly you end up not-quite-ready to preview a product *as the four-year lifecycle of MSFS comes to an end*.

All, After reaching what appears to be the end of the road with my own little pre-built system nightmare, wanted to share with you all so that you can hopefully avoid the same. I bought a computer from CyberPowerPC in April 2023. (I’d always built my own before this, but, being in a busy stage of life, was hoping to make it easy. Ha!) It showed problems from the beginning — Sethos helped me with some of these — and failed completely in November 2023. Windows wouldn’t load. CPP told me repeatedly in writing they'd cover shipping for repairs after the first repair attempt. Relying on that, I sent it for repair in Nov 2023. It came back broken (not a LITTLE broken, “turned on for 10 minutes, bluescreened and then will not boot” broken) in December. CPP went back on its promise to pay shipping. Without other options, I sent it back. Again, it came back broken. I sent it again. It came back broken. And again...bottom line, it came back broken FOUR TIMES, most recently in July 2024; I spent nearly $1000 in shipping for this. It’s never been in my possession and functional (to the point of being usable) since November 2023. After being unable to get the computer to boot when it came back most recently in July, I took it to a local computer shop. They quickly diagnosed that three of the four RAM slots on the motherboard were broken; it would boot with either stick of RAM in the single working slot. CPP’s response? Send it back to us again, at your expense. From the beginning, all I asked CPP for was a simple refund. Instead, I was left with broken promises, failed repairs, and no engagement from CPP in a no-win-situation where CPP simply hasn’t upheld its warranty. Not only has CPP not been apologetic, they’ve been downright rude throughout this insane process. After months of fruitless attempts to get CPP to respond with something other than “send it to us again, at your expense” (oh, except for earlier this year when they had the chutzpah to claim the system was no longer under warranty!) I finally submitted a Better Business Bureau complaint. Their final response was “We already provided the customer with a rebuilt computer. If the customer claim that one has issues too, he needs to send it in for service.” Did I mention CPP also left a large metal tool inside the computer the FIRST time they sent it to me? Buyer beware. (Welcome advice on what to do now, btw. It seems I could replace the motherboard and have my local shop put it together? I’m also pretty sure CPP picked the wrong RAM for the system, so…) James

That's the thing, though -- business success often hinges on being able to predict (or simply guess!) correctly where the market is going, even when it's not crystal clear. FSL seemingly missed obvious signs that MSFS was the overwhelming future of the hardcore flight-sim market a long time (seriously, years) after that already seemed to be all but crystal clear... They're right they need to set themselves apart from their competition, but they're now so far behind the curve it sounds like they may be deep in development for a four-year-old platform that's about to be superseded. Good luck to them. I wish their proven ability to develop a quality product was more closely matched by their business acumen. Without the latter, the former doesn't do too much good, unfortunately.

Um, yes? All the time! I first switched from FSX to P3D in 2017. At that point P3D was already 7 years old, on its fourth version -- clearly, you could expect this to be a mature sim. (This is leaving aside that it was effectively building on an even older sim.) P3D still had plenty of annoying bugs, many of which had existed since FSX came out in 2006. To take just one: floating houses. As far as I know, this remains a problem in P3D v5, 15 years after FSX came out. Actually quite a similar cause/effect to the sunken boats we're talking about here, with the difference being that I expect Asobo will probably fix the sunken boats in the next few months. As for floating houses in P3D, I kind of doubt that will ever be fixed; it still hasn't been, after all this time. Totally fair to complain about things in MSFS that aren't working right, like this bug. That's how the sim gets better! But I really do have to scratch my head at comparisons like this to FSX and P3D that are somehow supposed to be to MSFS's disadvantage.🙂 James

Jim, so getting to a normal (e.g. under 5.0 GHz) overclock shouldn't be an issue without it? James

Thanks again for the suggestions! So one thing on this build I'm not sure of. Evidently the Asrock Z170 OC Formula has not just the usual 8-pin ATX power connector, it also has a sort of supplemental 4-pin power connector right next to it--which my 5-year old PSU doesn't have. I haven't been able to get a fully clear answer on whether this is strictly "optional" or not--the manual is not helpful in that regard, and here are the answers I've gotten on Newegg to that question: So while I'm of course tempted to stick with my current PSU, both to save money and (more importantly) to avoid the hassle of having to reinstall a PSU, I'm concerned that I'll be holding back my system...I initially thought that extra plug was really only for the "super extreme" overclockers who are using crazy techniques, but now I'm not sure. Anyone know anything more on that? And if the recommendation IS that I just buy a new PSU, can anyonerecommend one (modular would be great)? I think 750w is plenty. Thanks, James

Thanks, guys! Looking like this is a solid set of choices. Which is always nice. :smile: Yes, cooler attached (I realize in hindsight this was incredibly stupid, but if you can believe it I had already shipped it twice with it attached and no apparent damage or ill effects). Very likely that the pins got bent, which might explain why the link width is limited to x1, but even if I fixed that I'd still have a first PCIE slot that only works intermittently--it's visibly bent and at least one pin on the slot interior is sticking out into the slot. I haven't checked the MB pins since I'm concerned one I open it up there may be no putting in back together again (computer works, just not for graphics intensive work). So bottom line: lots of problems, motherboard is probably toast one way or another. Rather than try to find a motherboard replacement for Sandy Bridge (esp. when CPU might also be damaged), I'm just starting over with a new generation. You're exactly right on the cables, but this is my existing unit--and luckily this case also has a compartment behind MB tray to hide cables. Since I'm keeping the same case and PSU, I guess I don't even actually need to rearrange them. :smile: James

Hi all, So turns out that shipping my Sandy Bridge system (had to do a transoceanic move) damaged the motherboard and GPU, at a minimum, and no video cards will run in the still-working PCIE slots at higher than x1. Bummer. I built the system in 2011, so I guess it was about time for a ground-up rebuild anyway! At least that's what I'm telling myself... I'd love comments on my proposed (re)build here. I'm mostly starting from scratch, but I'm reusing the asterisked components below that don't seem to have any problems. The video card is new (was hoping it would work in the old system...it did, but only at x1) but the other asterisked components are from 2011. None of them have given me any trouble and it's nice to be able to reuse them. System is mostly for FSX-SE (although I might dip my toe into P3D at some point), although I will play other new games. If some things here seem like overkill for FSX, that's part of why. I'm looking to overclock to somewhere in the 4.6-4.7 GHz range. CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor Mobo: ASRock Z170 OC Formula ATX LGA1151 Motherboard RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory *GPU: EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 SC *Case: Corsair Carbide 400R ATX Mid-Tower Cooler: Noctua NH-D15S 82.5 CFM CPU Cooler *PSU: CORSAIR Enthusiast Series TX750 V2 750W ATX12V SSD: Sandisk SD8SN8U-1T00-1122 X400 1TB M.2 2280 Solid State Drive (I'll plan to use this drive for Windows plus FSX, plus maybe one other game at a time) *Other HDD: Western Digital Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive Bare Drive; Seagate Barracuda 7200 3 TB 7200RPM SATA 6 Gb/s NCQ 64MB Cache 3.5-Inch Internal Bare (may drop the Western Digital from the new build) *Optical: ASUS Black Blu-ray Drive SATA Model BC-12B1ST/BLK/B/AS - OEM *Monitor: ASUS VH236H Black 23" Full HD Widescreen LCD Monitor w/ Speakers OS: Microsoft Windows 10 Home - 64-bit - OEM (all things being equal, would love to stick with Windows 7, but sounds like Microsoft made it all but impossible to do that with these new motherboards; not worth the hassle to me and I'll live with W10) Am I missing anything? Will that cooler be enough to maintain a 4.6-4.7 GHz overclock? Is that RAM a good choice for FSX? As I said, any and all thoughts very welcome! Thanks! James

OceanHeight20FieldHigh.dds: 292kb OceanHeight20FieldLayer.dds: 5.33 MB OceanHeight20FieldLayer1.dds: 5.33 MB OceanHeight20FieldLayer2.dds: 5.33 MB OceanHeight20FieldLayer3.dds: 170 kb OceanHeight20FieldLayer4.dds: 170 kb OceanHeight20FieldLayer5.dds: 5.33 MB Hmm...guessing that's not a good sign these are DXT1 (except maybe High, 3, and 4). I will make backups and try converting them in DXTBMP to DXT1 and report back. Ok, so looks like converting them all to DXT1 did not give me a performance improvement. Not exactly a solution, but if I keep water at Low.2x performance is fine. There are white flashes, of course, but that may be ultimately a small price to pay.

Steve, I'm not seeing an option for wave animation as DXT1 vs. 32 bit in my REX (I did make sure it was dx10 optimized). I'm using Rex Xtreme 2.5--looks like from 2010? Sorry, I guess antiquated but I'd never had any problems with it... Does that mean the wave animation (I'm using "Use this!") is DXT1? James Just tested with the water shader set to Low 1.x and suddenly my DX10 performance is roughly on par with DX9. So you may well be onto something here.

Thanks, Steve. Headed out of town for a few days but when I'm back early next week I'll run the DX9 tests and report back. And just to be clear: the reason I keep coming back to the PMDG test is that something about it--whether it's the PMDG cockpit or the type of clouds present in that scenario--seems to be hammering performance in DX10 (but not DX9) in a way that even Word Not Allowed's stress test doesn't (and in a scenario that's much more typical of my flying). But happy to start with the results on Word Not Allowed's test if that helps illuminate what might be going on. Thanks again, James

OK, here's the results of the tests using your exact settings (DSR off, no vsync, 90 mi cloud distance): Word Not Allowed AA Dx10 with fixer, discard fogged and cloud clip set, 22-26 Dx10 with fixer no cloud settings, 18-24 Dx10 no fixer ? (wasn't sure how to turn off the fixer?) Dx9. 4xAA and sssgaa (I used 4x4 supersampling and 4x SGSS, not sure that was right?), 24-26 PMDG Dx10 with fixer, discard fogged and cloud clip set, 17-24 fps Dx10 with fixer no cloud settings, 24-28 Dx10 no fixer ? Dx9. 4xAA and sssgaa, 31-36

Steve, something is very strange because we appear to be getting flipped results! Anyway, my testing results below. Basic settings: 1920 x 1200 monitor Frame limiter set to 30 fps inside FSX VSync on Cloud density at max Cloud draw distance 110 mi Rex 4 clouds at 1024 In addition to Word Not Allowed's clouds test, I'm using my own "test" that is a saved flight PMDG 777 cockpit view over the Caspian Sea with broken overcast (wanted to attach a screenshot, but not possible with Avsim's forum-- it's significant overcast but by no means a full blanket cover) which is what I noticed triggering unexpectedly poor performance in DX10. Happy to provide the situation files for that if you have the PMDG 777 and it would be helpful. Anyway, here are the results of the two tests: Word Not Allowed's Clouds Test DX9, no DSR, no AA, no SGSS: 27 DX9, DSR, no SGSS, 8x MSAA: 26 DX9, DSR, 2x SGSS, 8x MSAA: 15-24 (HUGE stuttering) DX10 with Fixer, cloud clip set, DSR no SGSS, 8x MSAA: 22 PMDG Test DX9, no DSR, no AA, no SGSS: 28 DX9, DSR, no SGSS, 8x MSAA: 23 DX9, DSR, 2x SGSS, 8x MSAA: 23 DX10 with Fixer, cloud clip set, DSR, no SGSS, 8x MSAA: 13 (Preliminary) conclusions: with the possible exception of the DX9 SGSS Word Not Allowed test, I'm seeing much better DX9 results across the board, even with much higher antialiasing settings. This is especially pronounced in the PMDG scenario, where there's a 75% increase in performance by going from DX10 without SGSS to DX with SGSS. That seems crazy! Something can't be right... Again, what struck me when I was playing with DX10 yesterday was that changing the Inspector image quality settings had virtually NO impact on FPS--the difference between 2x SGSS and DSR and native resolution no AA at all was only 3 FPS or so. Mostly uninformed speculation on my part: maybe that makes sense if we assume that the GPU is barely taxing itself in all those DX10 scenarios -- which would be great! -- but if that's the case why is the performance so terrible across the board? Some kind of CPU bottleneck that's not happening in DX9? Or something about how FSX DX10 works is somehow not pulling full performance from the GPU? Really scratching my head. Again, I desperately want to make DX10 work because OOMs were becoming such a headache, but with this kind of performance gap it ain't happening. Hope you have some ideas! James

Steve, Thanks. I can try DX9 tonight--since I haven't switched back from DX10 yet after getting the Fixer, can you let me know exactly what I should do so as not to either mess anything up permanently? Switch the fixer to DX9 mode, is that it? Anything with the effects? Occurs to me that AI air traffic was on for me--I'll disable that too just in case to make this more apples to apples. Thanks, James

22 FPS in the cloud test scenario. Effects are selected as light effects only and Shockwave lights excluded. I do have the Precipitfx package installed, in case that makes a difference. But contrails being in the field of view do NOT seem to make a difference (unlike clouds).