Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Marc W.

10 Reasons Why Fsx Sucks And I'll Stick With Ms Fs Ii For Dos.

Recommended Posts

(i) As you can see in the following screenshot, there's no noticeable difference to FSX texture resolution, at least I cannot see it.

MSFS2.14_color_composite_Champaign.png

(ii) I want to run FS on grandpa's machine for flying only, not for eye candy, I need my 450 fps. Hey, it's a FLIGHT simulator. Who needs graphics at all? In fact I prefer flying on instruments only. At night. Overcast. Fog. Over the ocean.

(iii) I cannot afford a $ 500 computer which runs FSX fast since I am saving the money for my new LCD-TV, car, the holidays on the Maldives and the wife.

(iv) I have spent millions of dollars worth of add-ons for FS II and will not throw it all away.

(v) As everybody in the world except Aerosoft knows, the vast majority of simmers still uses FS II and will NEVER EVER switch.

(vi) FSX is not compatible with DOS-Box.

(vii) Who cares how the ground looks from 100.000 feet?

(viii) Who cares how the instrument panel looks if you fly VFR?

(ix) Who cares how the plane looks if you do not use outside view?

(x) I will never ever switch to FSX because it sucks. It's a stupid buggy 3D console shooter for kiddies.

:P

Share this post


Link to post
(i) As you can see in the following screenshot, there's no noticeable difference to FSX texture resolution, at least I cannot see it.

(ii) I want to run FS on grandpa's machine for flying only, not for eye candy, I need my 450 fps. Hey, it's a FLIGHT simulator. Who needs graphics at all? In fact I prefer flying on instruments only. At night. Overcast. Fog. Over the ocean.

(iii) I cannot afford a $ 500 computer which runs FSX fast since I am saving the money for my new LCD-TV, car, the holidays on the Maldives and the wife.

(iv) I have spent millions of dollars worth of add-ons for FS II and will not throw it all away.

(v) As everybody in the world except Aerosoft knows, the vast majority of simmers still uses FS II and will NEVER EVER switch.

(vi) FSX is not compatible with DOS-Box.

(vii) Who cares how the ground looks from 100.000 feet?

(viii) Who cares how the instrument panel looks if you fly VFR?

(ix) Who cares how the plane looks if you do not use outside view?

(x) I will never ever switch to FSX because it sucks. It's a stupid buggy 3D console shooter for kiddies.

:P

Wow, you're a quite a comedian, aren't you?

I'm sorry, but i have to laugh at your futile attempts to make fun of the people still using FS9, but the funny part is that you're amongst the first people to get insulted/ angry when someone starts to complain about FSX.

Now, i don't know how many times i have to repeat myself, but i'll do it this time anyway.

There is absolutely no computers in the world today that can run FSX as it's max potential with complex airliners like the PMDG MD-11, 747, level D 767 at trafficated airports around the wold like JFK, the hardware required to run it properly simply does not exist yet, how hard is that to understand? Seriously, get a clue.

That's the reason why most virtual airliner pilots still use FS9.

But by all means, please continue with your pointless propaganda, i'm sure you know it all so much better :)

EDIT: also point 1 is true, if you want smooth frames in FSX, the graphics will look just like this anyway, the only difference is that you're barely getting 30 FPS in FSX, so enjoy the excellent ground resolution textures for what they're worth - Absolutely nothing :P

Share this post


Link to post

This gave me a bit of a laugh. The sad thing is, many people HAVE used those points to bash FSX.

Sorry to burst your bubble WEA, but I had a 5 hour flight last night on my PMDG MD-11 and never dropped below 30 fps, even at the airports. ;)

I'll just leave it at that... enjoy your "slider high". I'll continue to enjoy the best sim yet (and the new F-16 in a couple days ;)).

Share this post


Link to post
This gave me a bit of a laugh. The sad thing is, many people HAVE used those points to bash FSX.

Sorry to burst your bubble WEA, but I had a 5 hour flight last night on my PMDG MD-11 and never dropped below 30 fps, even at the airports. ;)

I'll just leave it at that... enjoy your "slider high". I'll continue to enjoy the best sim yet (and the new F-16 in a couple days ;)).

i have to admit, it gave me a chuckle as well.

Don't worry, my bubble isn't burst at all :)

You probably had a 5 hour MD-11 flight with ultra-low settings.

When i tried to start up the MD-11 at KJFK in FSX i had an OOM message pop up quicker than i could say "cookie", so i beg to differ that FSX is the best sim yet, but to each his own i guess, enjoy your slideshow and i'll enjoy my smooth performing airliners :)

I'll continue to enjoy the best airliner sim as well and that vcertainly isn't FSX, at least you can run Fs9 with all it's max potential and still have 50 fps, can't say the same about FSX really, such a shame.

Share this post


Link to post

I can understand why some have chosen to stay with FS9, absolutely I can. However, I'm in complete agreement with Kiwikat; addons such as the PMDG MD-11 and imminent Aerosoft F-16 take things to another level completely. Each to their own, but I'd never go back to FS9 for all the tea in China.

Edit to say: Yes the OOM is frustrating, but can be fixed (I think), at least that has been my experience. I used to get it with the PMDG 747 after about 40 mins, but a quick google search found a forum offering a remedy. It worked for me.

Share this post


Link to post
I can understand why some have chosen to stay with FS9, absolutely I can. However, I'm in complete agreement with Kiwikat; addons such as the PMDG MD-11 and imminent Aerosoft F-16 take things to another level completely. Each to their own, but I'd never go back to FS9 for all the tea in China.

Edit to say: Yes the OOM is frustrating, but can be fixed (I think), at least that has been my experience. I used to get it with the PMDG 747 after about 40 mins, but a quick google search found a forum offering a remedy. It worked for me.

I'm glad that you understand Colin, cause (at least) I really want to be able to use FSX, but the bitter reality is that i can't and even if i bought a brand new top-of-the-range computer today i still wouldn't be able to run it the way it should run.

And when the PMDG's MD-11 is arriving for FS9 soon (?) then that's one more reason to stick with FS9. And i can guarantee you that i get an OOM message much sooner than 40 minutes, i'm talking about 2 minutes here with about 5-10 FPS at KJFK. And that's unplayable for me.

And for me the F-16 is not even remotely interesting and i really doubt it will perform that good with all it's advanced systems, but we'll see i guess.. i certainly won't be buying it. They unfortunately made it for the wrong flightsim, too bad because the plane looks awesome, but so much effort to make this plane for a horrible flightsim that will be replaced in a few years anyway, which will mean they have to redo the entire thing for the next flightsim.. such a waste, but i'm glad that's not my problem.

FS9 works fine for me, i have smooth frames where ever i go and whatever i do, the day i can do the same in FSX that's the day i'll switch, but by then FS11 will probably be out.

Share this post


Link to post

I enjoyed reading Marc's "FS9 fundamentalist rant" spoof. As all good spoof's, it is just good tongue-in-cheek humour.

I am still using FS9 (on my old computer) and enjoy it very much but I have recently switched to a top-end Dell XPS 720 and I must confirm that FSX works very smoothly (with both service packs installed), especially (but not exclusively) with sceneries and aircraft conceived specifically for FSX (i.e. not hybrid's or mere upgrades).

For my part, I will keep using FS9 in the meantime for FS software that is not compatible with FSX. However, as time goes by my focus will inevitably shift towards FSX as I now have the hardware to take advantage of it, perhaps not fully, but in a totally convincing way nevertheless. :)

Share this post


Link to post
I enjoyed reading Marc's "FS9 fundamentalist rant" spoof. As all good spoof's, it is just good tongue-in-cheek humour.

I am still using FS9 (on my old computer) and enjoy it very much but I have recently switched to a top-end Dell XPS 720 and I must confirm that FSX works very smoothly (with both service packs installed), especially (but not exclusively) with sceneries and aircraft conceived specifically for FSX (i.e. not hybrid's or mere upgrades).

For my part, I will keep using FS9 in the meantime for FS software that is not compatible with FSX. However, as time goes by my focus will inevitably shift towards FSX as I now have the hardware to take advantage of it, perhaps not fully, but in a totally convincing way nevertheless. :)

I have no problem with his spoof, but he's not very tolerant when other people start to criticize FSX for it's major bugs and flaws so i think it would be better off not posting this.

I'll continue to use FS9 until FS11 arrives, i can't wait to get FSX replaced and get it into the history books as the worst and most flawed Flightsimulator ever developed.

I can't believe people actually fly this horrible sim.. i truly can't

Ah, well some people will be happy with low to mediocre quality products, but i'm definitely not.

Share this post


Link to post

:lol: very funny!! I remember playing FS2 when I was a young un!! Thought it was fantastic @ the time!! Suppose i will av to put up with FSX @ the moment!!

Joking of course, ive been flying FSX for about a year now and i have not had any problems with it. Not encountered any bugs or flaws. Got it running smoothly at 30fps, which is more than anybody needs. Never going back to FS9, been spoilt with FSX lush graphics!!

Just downloaded the F-16 from aerosoft and that works fine, no problems at all. :D Incredible add on for FSX, well worth the wait!!

Share this post


Link to post
Got it running smoothly at 30fps

So do i, if i turn off all the graphics settings and making it look worse than FS9, so the point is really gone..

Share this post


Link to post
:lol: very funny!! I remember playing FS2 when I was a young un!! Thought it was fantastic @ the time!! Suppose i will av to put up with FSX @ the moment!!

Joking of course, ive been flying FSX for about a year now and i have not had any problems with it. Not encountered any bugs or flaws. Got it running smoothly at 30fps, which is more than anybody needs. Never going back to FS9, been spoilt with FSX lush graphics!!

Just downloaded the F-16 from aerosoft and that works fine, no problems at all. :D Incredible add on for FSX, well worth the wait!!

I started with flight simulation on my commodore 64 computer back in 1984 with the ancestor of MSFS made by a company called Sublogic. It was good fun and imagination had to compensate for the lack of graphics back in those days. :lol:

I have limited the frames to 30 FPS in FSX as apparently the human eye can't really notice much difference above 24-25 fps (hence the international movie standard). I have all my sliders maxed-out except one or two which I prefer not to use such as ground shadows which does use up resources and that I don't find very attractive anyway. The result is a very smooth and reliable virtual flight environment with crisp, (indeed) "lush" graphics especially when using add ons such as the Ultimate Terrain and Ground / Flight Environment series.

This being said, I might go and get that F-16! :P

Share this post


Link to post

If I still had my TRS-80, I'd post a screen shot of the flight simulator I had for it. That screen shot of FSII looks pretty good by comparison. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

The funny thing is, in those days, I really considered those FS II graphics state of the art ... (compared to monochrome stuff for example ... or even adventures / rpgs using ASCII only ...) ... but then, show that to someone not familiar with computers, he says "ugly" ... ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, well.. find me a $500 PC that runs FSX with good frames (30+) with all sliders and options checked over urban areas with full weather, AI, traffic with the most complex airliner addons.

In fact no one i have given this challenge to have ever replied and/or have not been able to find such hardware, and that after 2 whole years of FSX's life-span is just ridiculous, but i guess i'm the only one who sees that.

Enjoy your slideshow folks and i'll enjoy my smooth, bad weather approaches into KJFK with 40+ frames :)

Share this post


Link to post
I started with flight simulation on my commodore 64 computer back in 1984 with the ancestor of MSFS made by a company called Sublogic. It was good fun and imagination had to compensate for the lack of graphics back in those days. :lol:

Anyone remembers "ATP - Airline Transport Pilot" ? ... great one!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Anyone remembers "ATP - Airline Transport Pilot" ? ... great one!!!

Yes I do. Wasn't that the one that came in a brown fliptop box and large maps of the US? Also, the game had a special feature if I remember: "Roger" the co-pilot! :D

Share this post


Link to post

I remember, I had a Boing 727 sim on my C64, which was written in about 200 lines of Basic. It had 1 runway and 1 VFR which you could use to get back to the 1 runway after takeoff. The flight instruments consisited of text symbols.

Compared to that FSII was really amazing. The first sim that really blew my mind was Interceptor when I had advanced to a Commodore Amiga. For the first time the airplanes were solid (not just a grid of lines) - and it was running very smoothly compared to the Microsoft flight sims of that time.

Share this post


Link to post
I started with flight simulation on my commodore 64 computer back in 1984 with the ancestor of MSFS made by a company called Sublogic. It was good fun and imagination had to compensate for the lack of graphics back in those days. :lol:

I started with the ZX Spectrum on Digital Integrations Fighter Pilot, graphics were about same, definitely had to use my imagination :lol:

I have limited the frames to 30 FPS in FSX as apparently the human eye can't really notice much difference above 24-25 fps (hence the international movie standard). I have all my sliders maxed-out except one or two which I prefer not to use such as ground shadows which does use up resources and that I don't find very attractive anyway. The result is a very smooth and reliable virtual flight environment with crisp, (indeed) "lush" graphics especially when using add ons such as the Ultimate Terrain and Ground / Flight Environment series.

I totally agree, decided to limit the frames on FSX to 24fps and to be honest, I cant really tell the difference except that the graphics have improved slighty which is a bonus. Still appears smooth even when using add ons like Ground Environment X and Horizons VFR Scenery.

Share this post


Link to post
The first sim that really blew my mind was Interceptor when I had advanced to a Commodore Amiga. For the first time the airplanes were solid (not just a grid of lines) - and it was running very smoothly compared to the Microsoft flight sims of that time.

Interceptor for the Amiga was fantastic! I spent many hours flying around San Francisco. Even tried to land on the Golden Gate Bridge a few times :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

How about good old “Bomb Run” for the TRS 64. :)

Came on two cassettes and took about 45 min. to load and about 20 min. to finish the game! :blink:

But the fps were high! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Ah, well.. find me a $500 PC that runs FSX with good frames (30+) with all sliders and options checked over urban areas with full weather, AI, traffic with the most complex airliner addons.

In fact no one i have given this challenge to have ever replied and/or have not been able to find such hardware, and that after 2 whole years of FSX's life-span is just ridiculous, but i guess i'm the only one who sees that.

Enjoy your slideshow folks and i'll enjoy my smooth, bad weather approaches into KJFK with 40+ frames :)

I presume people are getting bored of this FS9 v FSX topic, i know i am!! But I think ill add my bit to it.

I think your asking a bit much for a $500 PC. I agree you do need a fairly hefty PC with a decent multi-core CPU and decent multi-GPUs to run FSX with all of the sliders set to max. But, as many other people on this forum have tried to explain to you that you HAVE to tailor the sliders to the bounds of what your PC is capable of and also what you want do with FSX, whether that be high or low altitude flying. If you put all of the sliders to full, you are effectively telling FSX to do a lot more work. If your PC can't handle this extra work, it will crash, simple as that.

Ive attached some images with the frame rates in top left corner, just to prove that FSX for me is not a slideshow.

post-19699-1224898326_thumb.jpgpost-19699-1224898202_thumb.jpgpost-19699-1224897967_thumb.jpgpost-19699-1224897841_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
I presume people are getting bored of this FS9 v FSX topic, i know i am!! But I think ill add my bit to it.

I think your asking a bit much for a $500 PC. I agree you do need a fairly hefty PC with a decent multi-core CPU and decent multi-GPUs to run FSX with all of the sliders set to max. But, as many other people on this forum have tried to explain to you that you HAVE to tailor the sliders to the bounds of what your PC is capable of and also what you want do with FSX, whether that be high or low altitude flying. If you put all of the sliders to full, you are effectively telling FSX to do a lot more work. If your PC can't handle this extra work, it will crash, simple as that.

Ive attached some images with the frame rates in top left corner, just to prove that FSX for me is not a slideshow.

post-19699-1224898326_thumb.jpgpost-19699-1224898202_thumb.jpgpost-19699-1224897967_thumb.jpgpost-19699-1224897841_thumb.jpg

Thank you very much for at least trying to explain and even posting screenshots with the FPS counter.

Yes, the FSX vs FS9 is an exhausted debate, no doubt about it, but it still exists.

The $500 PC thing was a reply to the thread starter, i know that a PC at that price would never be able to run FSX and even that awesome PC you describe here would have problems running it flawlessly as well.

The thing is i don't want to compromise graphics vs FPS, i want to be able to run FSX at it's max potential and seeing everything the sim can offer at 30+ frames, no matter what i fly and where i fly, when you have to start compromising graphics vs performance you're not taking full advantage of the flightsim's capabilities.

Yes people have tried to explain many times that i need to "tailor the settings" after what i fly, where i fly and what i want out of the sim and i have just as many times answered the same as i have answered to you, i want to take full advantage of all the features and offerings the sim can do, which simply isn't possible at this time. Some people just can't understand that.

it would also be nice to know your PC specs.

Have a nice day

Share this post


Link to post
it would also be nice to know your PC specs.

Sure, Im running FSX Acceleration on Windows XP professional service pack 3, with Intel Quad Core Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz CPU, 2GB DDR3 RAM, 1 GPU which is a Nvidia 8800GT 512MB and 2 SATA-300 Hard drives (1 for windows which is 150GB and the other for games such as FSX which is 750GB).

The thing is i don't want to compromise graphics vs FPS, i want to be able to run FSX at it's max potential and seeing everything the sim can offer at 30+ frames, no matter what i fly and where i fly, when you have to start compromising graphics vs performance you're not taking full advantage of the flightsim's capabilities.

I think everybody would love to run FSX at its maximum graphical potential, i know i would. FSX is definitely not at fault here, it all depends on your hardware. We have to compromise in order to get it running the way we want it. This applies to all games and simulations, not just FSX. It just means turning down some of the graphical settings which I've accepted and its not at all ruined my experience with FSX. There has always been a battle between graphics and performance. If you want incredible graphics, then you have to sacrifice performance. That has always been a fact with computer games.

Share this post


Link to post

OK, I promised myself not to post in FS9-FSX threads anymore. But I feel I desperately need to make an exception here ;)

WEA-JHD, although I'm generally on your side, being an FS9 fan and user, I must say you have somehow shot yourself in the foot.

You seem to concentrate on frames which are too low to make FSX more attractive than FS9. But this argument is lost by definition.

Some guys have really powerful machines and others do not really need high frames to enjoy. This is a bit a matter of individual perception.

I personally do believe those who write they have acceptable FPS in FSX. And that's very fine.

The reason I am not going to drop FS9 for FSX is not about frames (though of course I do appreciate my FS9 high counter).

Let me quote myself from another thread then:

Additionally, if you read my list, you may understand why I don't care about FSX (which I call 'the Better Look Simulator')

It just didn't introduce anything important to me. Almost nothing of what I need and expected from it.

Higher resolution ground and water textures do look nice. But that is not enough for me to invest next hundreds of Euro in hardware and addons.

Yes. I've spent a fortune for FS9 and its addons and I'm now very happy with them.

And I see no reason for spending hundreds/thousands of euro to enhance another FS just for its better visuals.

Although I do appreciate the visual aspect of the MFS, I mainly love and practice it as a FLIGHT simulator.

I wrote the above words since I believe arguing around frames is useless.

That's not the key problem with FSX, as it may easily be defeated with high-end hardware. But things I mentioned are an indisputable FACT.

Well, maybe some guys don't care about them - I respect that and it's OK. But take it into consideration before you send FS9 users to a litter bin.

Best regards,

Rafal

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...