NZFF

I haven't posted in a while. Truth is I haven't been simming much at all. I made a major mistake when I bought FSX. My computer could easily run FS9 maxxed out. Not such is the case with FSX. The problem is though, once you see it you don't wanna go back! The very detailed 3D cockpits, the great water, high-res textures, dense autogen. So I thought I'd try out X-Plane again, now that its properly released.

Well, X-Plane 9 has great scenery visuals, great water, fantastic autogen, but it also lacks very detailed aircraft, simple and easy flight-planner and the MSFS GPS.

So now I'm stuck. Go back to FS9 and loose the next-gen visuals and dense autogen, go to FSX and start turning down all the sliders, or buy X-Plane and start fresh?

WHY!?! So many decisions. Or shall I just quit!?

Sorry, this is more of a rant than a question. LOL.

FS9..

That might be the way I go to be honest.

s0cks wrote:

QUOTE (s0cks @ Sep 28 2008, 09:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...WHY!?! So many decisions. Or shall I just quit!?
Sorry, this is more of a rant than a question. LOL.

Rant away, don't be ashamed!
Many share your pain!
Rant your solution too!
Many wait to share it!

I have a C130 , Captain Sim hanging over the most brilliant scenery WANAKA FSX at the moment ... I dont want to rant , just share , we all had to start somewhere - FS9 is still on the pc and still used , dont think i'd ever by Xplane only due to FS addons i still use ... now im ranting

I have X-plane, FS2004 and FSX installed. In the last month I've used them at about this ratio -- 0-0-100.

Well, actually that's probably a bit skewed, because I've been flat-out on FSX scenery design for the last three months, and my X-plane is an old version I bought to see if I could build scenery for it.
I own dozens of addons for FS2004, hardly any for FSX, but I still prefer FSX. My system runs FS2004 at full settings, but doesn't cope well with FSX. I still prefer FSX at 10 fps over FS2004 at 30 fps.

Other people have other needs, so you really need to figure this out yourself.

What about a computer upgrade? Better performance doesn't just come from the ether

When i started out i had the crappy PC 16bit card and a 4 gb harddrive Fsim was shocking ,but i put up with it because i loved flying in my lounge ,from there i brought parts and then got to fs9 where my PC still sux big time ,i slowly built on it with a new pc to start with then ive slowly added parts like new graphic cards more ram better cooling and so on ,these changes were all made for flightsim "main goal " to improve my flightsim ive always hated sliders down but ive had to all the way through my fsim life time never reaching a top line platform where ive said thats it thats the install i want ..
kinda what im getting at is there is always a reason in flightsim to be better at ,
i had fs9 installed and i could have water /trees maxed anything my system was that good ,now ive moved on to FSX ive found that i have to lower my scenery sliders again but in doing so im losing trees water effects AI etc but im not really, im gaining from fs9 in fsx ,i have more trees than fs9 i have better water than in my fs9 install , my res photo landclass is looking better ,alot of things are better from a flightsimming point of view i still have more than i did with FS9 with all my setting lower than i would of had them in 9 at max ,
The game engine is different and handles things different and it will only make things better for the user into its lifetime ,ill of course be upgrading again to try chase the FLP fsim dragon because i want to put my slider up alittle but im still running happy on the 3.0 single core ht P4 intel with a 8600gts 256mb 3gig ram ,this is a Low end computer around hear but i still run FSX sweet and are very happy with what i have now to what i had then ...
the worst thing Fsim ever did and ive heard this alot is put a Flp counter in

I think that FS9 can be tuned by addons/tricks to an almost-FSX-quality. Yes I know, nothing will give you that FSX water, but the cockpit and sceneries are still there to compense. I have a laptop and run fs9 since 2005. I had more tweaking than actual flying but I enjoyed that because I'm an IT-freak.
My next step will be a new proper PC tower in 2009 (my wife will be happy with the laptop) and the next release of FS.

Timmo wrote:

QUOTE (Timmo @ Sep 29 2008, 11:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about a computer upgrade? Better performance doesn't just come from the ether

You're right, I think that a few of the people who were upset by the requirements of FSX just haven't been around long enough to figure out that computers are disposable. My brother is like that -- he bought a very expensive computer years ago, (probably not much change out of $10,000) but then expected it to last as long as his $10,000 sound system. It just isn't going to happen.

I guess that a lot of younger folk have worked hard to talk their parents into getting them a computer for FS, and these parents haven't considered that it may need to be upgraded every two or three years. Trying to talk your parents into spending another couple of grand when they've only just gotten over the last purchase may be a bit futile.

We all need to figure out our own upgrade path, and tying it to the FS release cycle makes sense for staunch FS fans, but many of us don't have that luxury. I like to upgrade every three years, but the FS upgrade cycle in the past has been two years. The current cycle is three years, fortunately, so I might be able to catch up:)

toprob wrote:You're right, I think that a few of the people who were upset by the requirements of FSX just haven't been around long enough to figure out that computers are disposable.

You can't get a computer then runs FSX maxxed for reasonable money. I have a Quad Core @ 3GHz, with 4GB RAM, and a 8800GT. Its not a slow system. I'm just sick and tired of the steep requirements. How old is this game now? 2years, coming on 3? And still high-end systems crumble. It really gets to me that I should go out of my way to spend thousands to help support a product that is just so awfully optimized. Especially when its Microsoft. They screwed me over with this and Vista.

creator2003 wrote:kinda what im getting at is there is always a reason in flightsim to be better at ,
i had fs9 installed and i could have water /trees maxed anything my system was that good ,now ive moved on to FSX ive found that i have to lower my scenery sliders again but in doing so im losing trees water effects AI etc but im not really, im gaining from fs9 in fsx ,i have more trees than fs9 i have better water than in my fs9 install , my res photo landclass is looking better ,alot of things are better from a flightsimming point of view i still have more than i did with FS9 with all my setting lower than i would of had them in 9 at max

I get what you are saying here but its still just an excuse to hide the fact that FSX is badly optimized. If you have played X-Plane you will know that it is very possible to render many more thousands of trees and buildings than is possible in FSX on the same system. So why couldn't MS do that? And also remember FSX before SP1? It very much was a downgrade from FS9, it was that slow, why did they even release it?

Its a shame, because if you forget about performance issues FSX is a very nice game to play. And I understand the whole backward compatability stuff, but I think they'd of had MUCH happier simmers by now if it had been a complete overhaul.

s0cks wrote:

QUOTE (s0cks @ Sep 29 2008, 03:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can't get a computer then runs FSX maxxed for reasonable money.

...

If you have played X-Plane you will know that it is very possible to render many more thousands of trees and buildings than is possible in FSX on the same system. So why couldn't MS do that? And also remember FSX before SP1? It very much was a downgrade from FS9, it was that slow, why did they even release it?

I don't think FSX was ever intended to run with everything maxxed -- it was meant to offer us the choice of what to turn up and what to turn down. Getting stuck in a mindset of having to turn everything up doesn't serve any purpose except to frustrate.

I tried something last week, having to test the racing missions which were created for Southern Lakes Adventure. (normally I can't race because this is one area where FPS makes all the difference.) I turned all the settings right down, turned the autogen right up, and had the time of my life. Ok, I wouldn't want to fly that way all the time, which is why I have about 6 different settings saved for different jobs. I now have a new setting for fast-and-low-racing.

I know I haven't spent the same amount of time and effort on X-plane, but I can't run it with ANY autogen on my system. I'm glad it works better on a high end machine, but I'm also glad that FSX is so scalable, otherwise I'd miss out on a modern sim.

I use both FS9 and FSX depending on the type of flying. The reason why I'm still using FS9 is because like most simmers I have invested a lot of money into it through the years with add ons. In my eyes FS9 still does actually look pretty good not to mention that it runs full tilt and smooth with everything maxed out. FSX on the other hand wins hands down as far as eyecandy is concerned. The sim has the ability to look phenomenal but unfortunately at a cost to performance which is such a shame. I run PMDG's airliners on FS9 and mainly GA's at the moment with some payware scenery on FSX.

toprob wrote:

QUOTE (toprob @ Sep 29 2008, 03:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think FSX was ever intended to run with everything maxxed -- it was meant to offer us the choice of what to turn up and what to turn down. Getting stuck in a mindset of having to turn everything up doesn't serve any purpose except to frustrate.

I tried something last week, having to test the racing missions which were created for Southern Lakes Adventure. (normally I can't race because this is one area where FPS makes all the difference.) I turned all the settings right down, turned the autogen right up, and had the time of my life. Ok, I wouldn't want to fly that way all the time, which is why I have about 6 different settings saved for different jobs. I now have a new setting for fast-and-low-racing.

I know I haven't spent the same amount of time and effort on X-plane, but I can't run it with ANY autogen on my system. I'm glad it works better on a high end machine, but I'm also glad that FSX is so scalable, otherwise I'd miss out on a modern sim.

You probably enjoyed it so much because it was a smooth flight! I simply cannot enjoy stuttering due to low fps. It ruins the immersion. I don't think changing settings continually is a good solution. Out in the bush the sim flys! But approach a city and wham bam! And this is without much AI! Then factor in that bad weather (read lots of clouds!) eats my fps too and it gets tiring quickly. Perhaps you have more patience then me

Like you said, I guess its about what people can tolerate. I'm not an fps . If the game ran at 25-30fps constant I'd be a happy man. And tbh, out of the box I can get close to that, but start adding beautiful scenery and addons and it all goes to hell. I just want a sim that looks modern and runs well without me having to spend half my time tweaking!

At the end of it, it just bugs me that so many people (myself included) are supporting such an unreasonable "system hog" of a game, and then make excuses for it! We should be demanding more from our sims!

I just built a new computer, and installed FSX on it, I was hooked on it, then one day I decided to reinstall Fs2004, after playing that I've only touched FSX once or twice, but I have to admit, when you have the ability to run it well, its far better than Fs9. On my old computer, it had trouble with RealNZ just in FS9 so I think im settling in with Fs2004 till I continue upgrading this computer. Anyway good luck on choosing a Sim that your gonna enjoy the most

Blabzillaweasel

s0cks wrote:

QUOTE (s0cks @ Sep 29 2008, 05:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think changing settings continually is a good solution.

The thing is, I KNOW that changing settings to match the job is the ONLY way it works for me, so by definition it is a good solution.

A "good solution" and "the only solution" are not synonymous. Is having to choose between to bad options automatically good as well? No. Having to regularly fiddle to make something work makes the experience less enjoyable for many, if not most users. Sure, some like tinkering, but most don't.

SOcks above rightly points out that it is possible to get great flight-sim performance scaling sensibly across different hardware. Specifically, X-Plane delivers a totally smooth experience on the sort of hardware that SOcks owns, and performs very adequately on what I own (5yrs old), and that's with awesome third party scenery. I'm not making an argument for you all to switch to X-Plane, just making the point that SOocks is quite right when he says that FSX appears to be poorly optimised when (compared to X-Plane).

MS seems to think it can fling out good looking but poor performing software, and hope that no-one notices.

I still can't work out why FSX has come in for so much criticism. Whats changed?

Every release of FS has taxed higher end PC's. I'm onto my third PC since 1996 and I've never owned a PC which has run the latest FS version full tilt, sliders to the max. This is the reality I've found over the years.

So - as most of the replies in the thread have alluded to, its a matter of tweaking your settings to match your requirements. But of course we never hear the praises for MS offereing plenty of sliders to do just that - choose which settings are most or least important to get the best performance. At least you are not stuck with low, med or High !!
I'm sticking to FSX because I know it will only get better, my guess is the next release (following the pattern of previous versions) will probably be an enhanced FSX rather than another big leap forward.
I run FXS on an Athlon 3500, 2MB Ram and a GT6800 graphic card, Frame rates range from 8 to 25, so I am happy with what I can do.

As a designer I also need to stay up with the play - Trying to design for FSX and FS2004 is a pain in the perverbial, but again thats the price to pay for moving forward.

At the end of the day I'd love MS to bring out a version that ran full noise on the average machine, but you can hear the moaning now - "but I've got a octa core 9800, with 1TB of RAM and a 8 GB video card running FS15 at 120 frames per second - geeze MS could have packed in more trees, higher res textures and all the whistles, but no, they had to forgo that for the damn lower end users"

You will never satisfy everybody

Deane

SteelBlades wrote:

QUOTE (SteelBlades @ Sep 29 2008, 07:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A "good solution" and "the only solution" are not synonymous. Is having to choose between to bad options automatically good as well? No. Having to regularly fiddle to make something work makes the experience less enjoyable for many, if not most users. Sure, some like tinkering, but most don't.

Actually, I no longer tinker with FS -- I went through all that with FS2004, it took me about two years of tweaking to get it performing well. With FSX, I don't need to tinker -- if I want to take a realistic 1900D flight NZCH-NZWN, then I load a saved mid-range setup. If I want to fly low and slow, and look at the scenery, I load a saved setting with a lot of stuff maxxed. If I want to race, I load my new special 'race' settings.

deaneb wrote:

QUOTE (deaneb @ Sep 29 2008, 06:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I still can't work out why FSX has come in for so much criticism. Whats changed?

Every release of FS has taxed higher end PC's. I'm onto my third PC since 1996 and I've never owned a PC which has run the latest FS version full tilt, sliders to the max. This is the reality I've found over the years.

So - as most of the replies in the thread have alluded to, its a matter of tweaking your settings to match your requirements. But of course we never hear the praises for MS offereing plenty of sliders to do just that - choose which settings are most or least important to get the best performance. At least you are not stuck with low, med or High !!
I'm sticking to FSX because I know it will only get better, my guess is the next release (following the pattern of previous versions) will probably be an enhanced FSX rather than another big leap forward.
I run FXS on an Athlon 3500, 2MB Ram and a GT6800 graphic card, Frame rates range from 8 to 25, so I am happy with what I can do.

As a designer I also need to stay up with the play - Trying to design for FSX and FS2004 is a pain in the perverbial, but again thats the price to pay for moving forward.

At the end of the day I'd love MS to bring out a version that ran full noise on the average machine, but you can hear the moaning now - "but I've got a octa core 9800, with 1TB of RAM and a 8 GB video card running FS15 at 120 frames per second - geeze MS could have packed in more trees, higher res textures and all the whistles, but no, they had to forgo that for the damn lower end users"

You will never satisfy everybody

Deane

Deane, I understand where you are coming from but you've fallen into the MS trap like most people. I wouldn't mind if I had to turn down the sliders knowing that, with todays hardware, its impossible to render the insane amounts of autogen and textures that FSX has.

I don't know how to explain it clearly. But take for example the first-person shooter game, Crysis. When released the graphics blew you away (even now it is probably the best looking game ever made). On max "sliders" it was a slideshow BUT that was OK because it was fairly obvious that such immense graphics would need some serious hardware. There was no other game that came close to looking as good. With FSX its different because we KNOW that other products (such as X-Plane) can render just as good scenery with MUCH smoother framerates. I.E. It is far better optimized.

The same old excuse of "oh, but every MSFS has always run slow on current hardware" is just not good enough anymore!

MSFS is marketed to a very wide audience, and has been a solid contender for what seems like EVER! But I don't think we should all just sit back and be happy with what we've got.

toprob wrote:

QUOTE (toprob @ Sep 29 2008, 06:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I no longer tinker with FS -- I went through all that with FS2004, it took me about two years of tweaking to get it performing well. With FSX, I don't need to tinker -- if I want to take a realistic 1900D flight NZCH-NZWN, then I load a saved mid-range setup. If I want to fly low and slow, and look at the scenery, I load a saved setting with a lot of stuff maxxed. If I want to race, I load my new special 'race' settings.

It seems like a good workaround when it is your only option. I'm just dissapointed that for FSX users, it is our only option.