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

[Mithrin 0]

Hehe that gave me a good chuckle.

[WEA-JHD 1]

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).

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.

FSX is not at fault? FSX is the only reason why it's still not possible to use it at it's max potential, still to this day there is not hardware that can run FSX with all sliders and setting to the max and that's simply because FSX is a badly coded and optimized piece of software, they still use the same graphics engine from FS9, which has it's roots from FS2000. FSX should be better optimized to take advantage of the hardware that's available.

It seems like it's only in FSX we have to compromise between graphics and performance because i can run most other games on full settings, including FS9, where i don't compromise anything and get very acceptable frames.

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:

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

Yes, because running a game at 10-15 fps is not really enjoyable, that's why FPS is important to be able to enjoy a game.

I think my demand for 30 fps should be realistic, it's not a high demand at all, but still there is no hardware that can run FSX, not even the hardware from really powerful machines by today's standard can run it at 30 FPS over KJFK with the PMDG 747 in bad weather, so no, it can't easily be defeated with high-end hardware.

And that makes FSX a complete rubbish that should never have been released since it brought much, much worse things to the FS community than good things.

[Agade 0]

FSX is not at fault? FSX is the only reason why it's still not possible to use it at it's max potential, still to this day there is not hardware that can run FSX with all sliders and setting to the max and that's simply because FSX is a badly coded and optimized piece of software, they still use the same graphics engine from FS9, which has it's roots from FS2000. FSX should be better optimized to take advantage of the hardware that's available.

The hardware to do this may be expensive, but it does exist - for you to claim that it doesn't is just not so! . Hell, JayKaye at orbx has built himself a dual processor machine that gives him a solid 80fps over the ORBX YMML Scenery - which is up there with Aerosoft London X as the most demanding bit of scenery yet produced for the sim with all sliders full right.

Yes, FSX is very demanding, yes, if you insist on running it with all sliders right neither you nor I have the hardware (I'm compromising on autogen and weather range) but that certainly doesn't mean nobody does - you make a decent point then take it too far for sake of dramatics.

[WEA-JHD 1]

The hardware to do this may be expensive, but it does exist - for you to claim that it doesn't is just not so! . Hell, JayKaye at orbx has built himself a dual processor machine that gives him a solid 80fps over the ORBX YMML Scenery - which is up there with Aerosoft London X as the most demanding bit of scenery yet produced for the sim with all sliders full right.

Yes, FSX is very demanding, yes, if you insist on running it with all sliders right neither you nor I have the hardware (I'm compromising on autogen and weather range) but that certainly doesn't mean nobody does - you make a decent point then take it too far for sake of dramatics.

so the hardware does exist? Can you please tell me what will run FSX with all settings and options maxed? I mean with complex airliners like the PMDG 747 and MD-11 at KJFK or any similar airports in bad weather with full AI traffic at 30+ FPS

If there really is any hardware that can run it i really want to know, cause the day that kind of hardware is available then i may try to upgrade, but i see no point in doing so until there is hardware that can do the job

[minglis 0]

FSX is not at fault? FSX is the only reason why it's still not possible to use it at it's max potential, still to this day there is not hardware that can run FSX with all sliders and setting to the max and that's simply because FSX is a badly coded and optimized piece of software, they still use the same graphics engine from FS9, which has it's roots from FS2000. FSX should be better optimized to take advantage of the hardware that's available.

It seems like it's only in FSX we have to compromise between graphics and performance because i can run most other games on full settings, including FS9, where i don't compromise anything and get very acceptable frames.

I would really like to know where you get your information from, because FSX does not use the same graphics engine as FS9. It uses something called Microsoft ESP. Ive included some links to some documents from Microsoft, about the terrain engine used in FSX just to demostrate that FSX uses a completely different graphics engine.

FSX Global Terrain Technology (Word Document)

FSX Global Terrain Technology (Powerpoint Presentation)

If the above links fail, I got the documents from this website http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/esp/cc789357.aspx

In the documents, it does state that FSX is scalable to run on a wide range of systems. That to me means the user has to adjust the sliders to optimize FSX to get the best from it on their system. In fact by setting the sliders to full you are telling FSX that you have a very high-end PC and therefore it cant cope with what hardware you have got at present.

Its not just FSX that we have to compromise, a good example is Crysis, which is very demanding on hardware.

[WEA-JHD 1]

I would really like to know where you get your information from, because FSX does not use the same graphics engine as FS9. It uses something called Microsoft ESP. Ive included some links to some documents from Microsoft, about the terrain engine used in FSX just to demostrate that FSX uses a completely different graphics engine.

FSX Global Terrain Technology (Word Document)

FSX Global Terrain Technology (Powerpoint Presentation)

If the above links fail, I got the documents from this website http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/esp/cc789357.aspx

In the documents, it does state that FSX is scalable to run on a wide range of systems. That to me means the user has to adjust the sliders to optimize FSX to get the best from it on their system. In fact by setting the sliders to full you are telling FSX that you have a very high-end PC and therefore it cant cope with what hardware you have got at present.

Its not just FSX that we have to compromise, a good example is Crysis, which is very demanding on hardware.

I have to admit, i got that info from various sites and not micosoft themselves, but the thing is that Phil Taylor didn't even say anything about a brand new graphics engine in FSX the time he was in ACES, he talked about an iupgraded Graphics engine, but not a brand new one.

That being said it's pretty obvious that the FSX graphics engine, whether it's brand new or old is simply not good enough.. ACES is completely rewriting that engine in order to make it run the upcoming Train simulator 2 more smoothly. The graphics engine is a joke.

and adjusting the sliders to optimize it for performance means you're not using the flightsims features, you're not using the sim at it's max potential. and therefore i don't compromise anything.

Also for your information i can run Crysis on alpl the options and settings maxed and have great FPS, so yes, the Crytek engine is fat much better than what FSX's engine will ever dream to be. At least the crytek engine takes full advantage of SLI and multi-core CPU's

[johnny_15b 0]

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

Very true. I'm 100% with you on that.

[johnny_15b 0]

To all of you guys, You have to be realistic about things. how many of us have upgraded their pc to dual or quad core and find out they cant run fsx at it should be.....all of this costed money. And once you've done it , there comes the payware addons to supplement.

Even though fsx offers better graphic resolutions i find it pointless to switch to it when you've got fs9 with addons already paid for and developers still making new ones.... such as Mega airport Munich. 2 years down the line people are still struggling with fsx. The addons coming out for fsx are revised versions of fs9 with better visual quality.And guess what now we've got Intel Core i7 coming out soon... more money to throw away.

So the conclusion is how many of us will again spend money on upgrading to try to make fsx run or would you prefer to reinvest in fsx with addons you already have for fs9 such active sky, gepro, flight enviroment, airport sceneries or use the same money to expand fs9..............more airports, sceneries, utilities, etc...... or else use the money to fly the real thing.

For me personally, if fs11 or fsxi doesnt have any major updates then again i'll stick to my trusty fully loaded fs9. :-)

All replies welcome

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Closing this topic here because it is all a bit of a repeat of what is already said many times.

There is a group of people who will not be convinced that FSX can run fine on up to date hardware for several reasons. Some simply don;t have the money to update as often as others. Some other have been burned badly by crummy addons. Others are simply so comfortable with FS2004 and have invested so much in that it simply makes no sense to update. But they all got one thing in common, they feel the need to defend their decision. In my opinion without any reason because their arguments are probably 100% valid for their person. There are just a few people willing to go through the arguments time and time again why they choose FSX, mostly because they do not feel the need to defend their choice. This is all very expected behavior and we seen it with every new version (though it is understandably tougher this time).

We got, bless them, tens of thousands of customers who feel happy with FSX and buy the addons. We also got tens of thousands of FS2004 customers, bless them, lol. And where possible we will make products for them as well. As long as they do not expect the FS2004 to look the same as FSX addons (and up to a point be as complex in systems) they should be happy customers, exactly the kind we like. Recently we have released some of FS2004 scenery with good success, though aircraft development for FS2004 seem to be very very slow at this moment.

If you like to continu this discussion, let's do so where it is already being discussed; http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=19472