David Bourne

This is SO true! Seen so much of this, this week.

Frame Rates reported here seem far too low, for the given scenarios. I mean for MS FSX and FSX:SE. Exactly. If people choose to use this one single user's exercise as a "conclusive performance benchmark" (bold claim!) then that's absolutely up to them, but I think far more compreshensive and empirical tests would be needed than these, to claim "conclusive performance benchmark" results. I've already done some unofficial ad-hoc personal tests of my own, that suggested FSX:SE was around 10% faster than MS FSX. That's on an i7 2600k system with Win 7 64bit and a ATI card.

I've continued to see a good benefit from using:- [bufferPools] UsePools=0 RejectThreshold=524288 .......in FSX:SE .....but it's depenent on your graphics card and your own configuration. I've also put:- [JOBSCHEDULER] AffinityMask=84 ....into my FSX_SE.CFG file. No other tweaks.

I'm inclined to agree here. FScene is a very very old product. I'm sure I first bought it for FS9 back in around 2004.

I think it flies nicer too Gregg. It has a heavier feel than most of Carenado's aircraft. Just feels 'real' where some of their offerings do feel a little like the 'flying textures' that some people talk of. If you go for the 340 Gregg, I'd highly recommend this too ;- http://www.flightsimstore.com/product_info.php?products_id=2094 It's the C340 that Carenado based their avionics fit etc on.

I own them both and feel the C340 has better overal VC texturing, immersion, and sounds.

That's strange. I wonder if it's because your FSX path is non-standard? .... Eg. not in the Program Files (x86) directory. Can't really see how that would cause an issue, but perhaps. Yes it will be good when Orbx offer a solution. I saw them talking about a possible "toggle" switch that will point the Orbx products between standard FSX and FSX:SE.

But you don't own/have it, right? So how can you opine on something that you haven't experienced. The "huge" improvement may not be quantitative, evidenced by a sexy long change log, but may be qualitative, as evidenced by the updated VS compilers being more efficient and providing smoother performance. Surely, skepticism is good if it's backed up by an empirical approach; ie.. trying out and experiencing the thing that you're trying to build a case/opinion on? Without trying it, your skepticism just has no logical base at all.

Some of you 'hurrumphy' blokes are hilarious. You've got someone like Pete Dowson in this thread saying he's been in to source code, as part of his FSUIPC work, and that he believes FSX:SE is faster. And yet you're still compelled to tell those people that have bought FSXSE for £3.99 / $5 that they're wrong, and in one case pretty immoral as the money should have been spent on a donation. :rolleyes: - have you any idea how arrogant that sounds? It's $5 ........ if you decide to pass that up, where you have someone who knows more about FSX's "insides" than pretty much anyone else in this community saying it is faster, then do it........... but please, don't tell those of us who've spent a coffee's worth of cash on it, that we're the fools here. :wink:

Thank you SO much Pete, for getting this out so quickly! You're a gent :smile: Hi Jim, ORBXLIBS (v141207) worked fine for me. Same parallel install as you (FSX:SE installed after FSX). Here's the automatically corrected path, shown on the installer:- ========================================================== UK2000 Xtreme Sceneries Gatwick, Manchester, Bristol, Newcastle, Doncaster, Stanstead, Edinburgh - all fine with regards installation and usage. :smile:

Yes, that's very true and valid. I've just been reading on the Orbx forum how apparantly people who have installed FSX:SE alongside (and after) the boxed FSX seem to be having the best time, where installations and file paths are concerned... (this is what I did. I was going to unistalled boxed FSX today, but I'm now scared to!! ). People who uninstalled FSX (or never had it installed in the first place), and just installed FSX:SE, seem to be having the problems where some installers are not automatically finding the FSX:SE file path.

You don't have to tweak FSX:SE's cfg file but you certainly can. I've personally added the following; [bufferPools] UsePools=0 RejectThreshold=524288 [JOBSCHEDULER] AffinityMask=84 ......because they've always gave me the best results available on my system. They're working great on FSX:SE too.

Thanks Rick! ================================== Aerosoft Stavanger, Trondheim, Tromso All install automatically to the correct new file path, on my system, and work find in FSX:SE Airports of Norway (Freeware) Installed manually / added to FSX:SEs scenery library manully - works in sim fine. Denmark X (Freeware), and Vidan Airfields (payware/freeware) All install automatically, and work fine. IRIS Simulations Jabiru J160 Installs and runs fine. Ants Airplanes P92 Eaglet Installs and runs fine,

\/ \/ \/ \/

$5 dollars is not wasted where there's an opportunity that it may run better for you than the boxed version. It does have some fixes and changes and no they're not all just FSX.CFG tweaks - for example, HIGHMEMFIX has been integrated, but it's not in the FSX_SE.CFG file, so it's integrated into one of FSX's DLLs I guess. Also, there is the possibility that Dovetail will make further improvements and changes. P3D is not the automatic replacement for FSX, otherwise every FSX user would by now have moved to P3D. For ATI card users, P3D2 really does not run well at all (same goes for XP10 64bit BTW). No Supersampling AA, and poor performance and frame rates. There's no right answer, we're all just offering opinions but I'd say $5 is too good an opportunity to miss, to buy into a version of FSX that is in the custodianship of a current developer / vendor.

As above post about Majestic Q400 working ok for me in FSX:SE but with no sounds ..... I installed an earlier version (v1.08) and it works perfectly in FSX:SE (with all sounds). I think the current version will work fine in FSX:SE for others too, as I believe the sound issue was local to my machine. So now my happy FSX:SE world is a perfect VFR playground, but also has a lovely Q400 to play with when I fancy something bigger! :smile:

Those who haven't gone the P3D2 route I'm sure have a good reason. Mine was owning a ATI graphics card. I bought a 1 month licence for P3D2 and it ran like an absolute dog on my system, even with very low settings. SuperSampling AA (which gives me super smooth AA in FSX) also did not work with P3D, so the performance was much worse, and the visuals a horrible jagged mess. Pretty clear reason for me not to go for P3D2 :smile: .... although I will when I can afford to upgrade my card to a nVidia, in about 20 years.

Here's an important one :- MAJESTIC Q400 Installs automatically and correctly (as long as you've installed FSX:SE last, it automatically locates the FSX:SE location from registry. Functions perfectly, EXCEPT, no sounds at all (no engine sounds, custom sounds, exterior sounds - nothing). Could do with someone else testing this, as I have had problems with sound with this aircraft before. I installed v1.10 installer then the v1.11 patch. UPDATE:- I uninstalled V1.11, and instead installed v1.08 (Majestic gave me an offline installer version of this a couple of weeks ago, due to having problems with v1.10). Majestic Q400 v1.08 working perfectly (with all sounds), in FSX:SE! :smile: I actually suspect v1.11 will probably work fine in FSX:SE for most people - as I believe the sound problems are at my end, and are not connected with FSX:SE.

Not yet. But it will - Pete Dowson has confirmed that he just needs to point the FSUIPC.DLL at FSX:SE's new Simconnect version. He's expecting to have a FSX:SE compatible FSUIPC ready by 9th January. :smile:

Confirmed here, too. C310R, B55, 732 - all installed and running fine in FSX:SE. :smile: Many reasons; to move to a Cloud-based provision for the sim (and addons), rather than depending on physical discs printed 9 years ago, some integrated fixes (a couple appearing to provide better performance, although there's nothing 'scientific' on that yet), as a Back-up to the DVD versions. At $5, there are many, many reasons to pick it up. I bought it purely as a backup to my DVD version, but after installing it, and some key addons, I am seeing better performance, and increased smoothness. I can't back it up with anything scientific at this point, but I think the Steam Edition version may perform far better for ATI card users, than boxed FSX (and certainly than P3D2 which is a dog with ATI cards),

This pretty much sums it up for me too. It seems the happiness and positivity of some in the community is highly irritating to some mean spirited people around here, but that's their problem Having installed FSX:SE, along with FTX Global, Vector, OpenLC EU, REX, OpusFSI, A2A Cherokee, A2A C182, 6 Ala/nado aircraft, Denmark X scenery, and 8 Vidan Danish Airfields, I am now in the process of uninstalling my Boxed FSX version. I won't be going back to it. For whatever reason (does the reason really matter?), FSX:SE is running fantasticly better and smoother on my average joe rig, than the boxed version has. In a like for like scenario, with identical settings, including Autogen and Complexity at Dense, with quite heavy Opus weather, a little AI, and in Vidan's Aarhus city and airport sceneries, I have an average 22 FPS with FSX boxed, and 33 with FSX:SE (Both locked at 35 FPS with External limiter; antilag). If that's a placebo or psychological effect, bring it on! :smile:

Hi Wedge, Unfortunately REX is nothing to do with UTX. REX is an external utility that simply places textures and sounds in to your FSX installation, and as such works straightforwardly with FSX Steam Edition. Flight 1 have a habit of making a big deal of new sim releases, taking a long time to consider whether they will support etc. When P3D was released they stated they would not support it - they're just now starting to warm to P3D. I honestly doubt very much whether they will change installers etc, solely to make their products work with FSX Steam Edition. I think it's more likely that if they are going to support FSX Steam Edition, that they'll sell separate versions for it, on STEAM. Anyway, one great thing about buying from Flight 1 is that they have a no quibble 30 day refund policy, so seeing as you're unable to use your UTX purchases with FSX Steam Edition at this time, you could certainly get a full refund for them. Just drop them an email if you decide to go that route, and they'll send you a form.

What I hope we can do, is not introduce a sense of 'Steamers' versus 'Boxers'. The community can be very divisive and competitive; sometimes that makes it fun, other times ugly. There are bound to be more Steam posts at this point, as FSX-SE was only just released yesterday but once the dust settles I'm sure it will be more balanced. In saying all that, I'm personally not against your suggestion. Swings and Roundabouts I guess.

I haven't tried a direct, new installation of a MSE region in to FSX-SE, but I did try just adding an existing region from my standard FSX installation, into FSX-SE's Scenery Library .......... got a Scenery.cfg error and the textures did not display in sim. It may work when installed directly/automatically but MSE is just too large to install and test this for me personally, as I just don't use it any more. Hopefully someone else will test properly soon. Hello! ... Sorry, I'm honestly not a forum fascist or wannabe moderator but could we please just keep this thread specific to Compatibility testing and results, rather than general discussion about FSX-SE, whether to buy etc. Just so the thread remains useful and easy(ish) to reference. Thanks for understanding buddy, and once again, sorry, not meaning to be gripey. :smile:

I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches (splitting or combining). If they are separated, then a 'core' FSX subject would potentially need to be duplicated across both sections. But then again, as you pointed out, there are a lot of "Steam Edition" specifics to consider too. I'll go with whatever the wise minds decide to do.