Uninstalled FSX

[NicksFXHouse]

[quote]I guess with me, it's just that I am enjoying all the improvements of default FSX over default FS9, that I'm disappointed when people come along and have a fixable problem, but aren't willing to fix them so they can enjoy it as well.

[Mobius]

Precisely, I think he's got FSX running better than I do.

[ashaman]

I have to ask... if you have not bought it or you have not run it how can you comment on it at all and why would you comment on something you have no experience running?

To ask questions is a right. If more people would ask more questions... ah, how better would be this world.

The answer to your question is simple. If you read some of my older posts you'll see that one of my "duties" is to make payware reviews for an italian FS site. Now ask yourself, with FSX out, where will be pointed the attention of the various payware developers?

And yes, on one of my two PC I have a copy of FSX (a copy intended as a LEGAL copy, let me be clear) that was given to me free of charge by my "boss" and friend so I could try the soon to come add-ons on.

Boss and friend that refused to give me the hardware, though. And I'm stuck with a 128Mb videocard (a good one, but only 128Mb with the GREAT coding of FSX 'nuff said), a mildly overclocked Athlon Xp 2400 and only 1GB of ram.

I'm in deep sh*t, am I not?

I have it there, FSX, but don't use it. Too many problems and only the water is a REAL step forward. I wish there was a way to bring it under the less fubarred FS9... alas, that is not to be.

So, as you can see, I CAN talk with a modicum of experience.

Yes, I said I did not buy it (I didn't), that I would not fork money (I didn't) and so on. It was of course an attempt of protecting myself from a lynch mob that I hope will target you now. Because almost everyone had forgot my... unfortunate luck with the free getting of FSX.

To you all, gentlemen with the baseball bats, forks, stones, chains, submachine guns, shotguns, katanas, naginatas, nunchakus, anal probes... petrol and torches... a 120 feet stone obelisk? What do you want to do with that obelisk anyway? WHAT? ...now I understand the reason of the anal probes. Well, anyway, you can't touch me. I didn't want to do it. HE made me do it, lynch him, that enemy of the people.



May you rest in pieces.

[NicksFXHouse]

To ask questions is a right. If more people would ask more questions... ah, how better would be this world.

The answer to your question is simple. If you read some of my older posts you'll see that one of my "duties" is to make payware reviews for an italian FS site. Now ask yourself, with FSX out, where will be pointed the attention of the various payware developers?

And yes, on one of my two PC I have a copy of FSX (a copy intended as a LEGAL copy, let me be clear) that was given to me free of charge by my "boss" and friend so I could try the soon to come add-ons on.

Boss and friend that refused to give me the hardware, though. And I'm stuck with a 128Mb videocard (a good one, but only 128Mb with the GREAT coding of FSX 'nuff said), a mildly overclocked Athlon Xp 2400 and only 1GB of ram.

I'm in deep sh*t, am I not?

I have it there, FSX, but don't use it. Too many problems and only the water is a REAL step forward. I wish there was a way to bring it under the less fubarred FS9... alas, that is not to be.

So, as you can see, I CAN talk with a modicum of experience.

Yes, I said I did not buy it, that I would not fork money and so on. It was an attempt of protecting myself from a lynch mob that I hope will target you now. Because almost everyone had forgot my... unfortunate luck with the free getting of FSX.

To you all, gentlemen with the baseball bats, forks, stones, chains, submachine guns, shotguns, katanas, naginatas... petrol and torches... a 120 feet stone obelisk? What do you want to do with that obelisk anyway? WHAT? Isn't that a little too much? Well, anyway, I didn't want to do it. HE made me do it, lynch him, that enemy of the people.



May you rest in pieces.

Tooo funny

Thanks for answering

Im really sorry about the hardware issues. 128mb on an Athlon is going to be tough to get any candy+performance out of FSX.

I actually think they should have designed with a bit more thought into systems/components desgned 2 years ago or more but ya know, if they had done that it would have defeated allot of the purpose too.

I am in the same boat as everyone else when it comes to the software and although I may be able to see more eye candy with less stutters, I still wont be satisfied until I upgrade my hardware as well.

For the most part right now I just stay with good old FS9 for which I have allot of add-ons and switch to FSX from time to time. What I see when I do that are all the incredible differences that make FSX what FS9 is not and never will be.

I guess because I am running an FX61 processor with 2gigs of high performance memory on a 7900GTX 512 it allows me to experience FSX in a way other people dont get to see however I have run FSX on a A64 3700+ with a ATI x800xt 256mb as well and although the frames were not as smooth it did the job quite well. I had to give up allot of eye candy in the way of autogen but the sky, water, ground and mountains were awesome.

In the last year FS9 was finally overcome by the hardware barrier. I really can not put M$ down for making sure my hardware purchase next year will provide a flying experience I will never get in FS9.

Thanks again for answering.

[ashaman]

Tooo funny

I try.

Thanks for answering

Im really sorry about the hardware issues. 128mb on an Athlon is going to be tough to get any candy+performance out of FSX.

I actually think they should have designed with a bit more thought into systems/components desgned 2 years ago or more but ya know, if they had done that it would have defeated allot of the purpose too.

Answering was my pleasure, shame my ISP is giving me pains tonight and I could correct my post just while you were answering me. It was only a minor change though. Always on the funny side

As for the decisions of M

[NicksFXHouse]

[quote]


I try.



Answering was my pleasure, shame my ISP is giving me pains tonight and I could correct my post just while you were answering me. It was only a minor change though. Always on the funny side

As for the decisions of M

[Daube]

Nope.

Before my actual rig I had a AMD Athlon Xp1700 + 512Mb Sdr ram I used with FS2002. I only had to change the videocard from the old Radeon to a TI4400 to have an acceptable FS9.

An acceptable FS9 with a Ti4400 ? Are you joking ?
When FS9 went out, I realized that my poor MX400 video card would not be enough, so I had to spend a lot of money to buy a Ti4400, which was expensive at that time.

And did I get ? Crappy performance ! I still had to install the reduced autogen textures to be able to fly over cities, I had to install reduced clouds textures to fly with some serious meteo, and of course I had to choose a reflecting water texture with "not too small" waves, else flying above the ocean would have been a didsaster as well.

You are trying to flame FSX performance but you are also forgetting that FS9 was giving exactely the same problems.

Of course I upgraded further later (to the actual rig minus the videocard that was a FX5700le recently changed with the actual) but that's not the point. What difference there is between a Xp1700 and a Xp2400? Are they all that different in power?

Nope nope nope.

I could have brought the ole 1700 to 1Gb and used a little less AI traffic, maybe using the actual videocard. I would have had a good FS9 anyway.

I upgraded as well, bought a Gb of fast RAM, and a GeForce 6800 GT with 256 MB of memory, and I can finally push FS9 close to the max...but close only.

Try please to translate under FSX.

FSX = FS9 => does not run too fast on current medium end machines, runs nicely on current expensive top-hardware, and will run and look een better on future hardware, just like FS9 did.

There's no comparison. Default FSX, in exchange for a modest betterment of graphics (beside the water that IS great, I admit freely), is chock full loaded of textures WHICH ONLY DUTY IS TO SLOW DOWN NORMAL PC'S (tell me please to what end are needed all those different kind of trees, just to highlight one).

All the people that do not want to see the same trees everywhere in the world, for example not the same trees in Italy than in Australia, or Amazonia etc... but of course, better scenery detail is only good for gamers, real simmers only need a good 2D cockpit...  ::)

[krylite]

Well I guess it's my opinion... I've played FS since Artwick's FSII for 8-bit machines. MS dropped the ball on this one. I paid $70 and now it's dropped to $59.99 on Amazon already after a few weeks while FS9 only dropped to $18 recently , almost bargain bin,  but not after a couple of solid years at least $29.99 and still at the top 10 pc games selling at Amazon all this time.

I've tried all the tweaks on my 2.6ghz P4, 256MB nVidia Geforce4 6200, 1GB. Ok works ok on bush flying with default planes. Whevener I try any fs9, even fs2002 addons it drops from 12fps to 3.9 fps.

I installed Megascenery LA v2 which I love on FS9 using Megascenery's recent instructions on installing it for FSX it crawled even with default planes to 5 fps.

I've worked with Return Merchandise Authorization at my small reseller company and do production as well. I'm still the main tech support on the phones and deal with "my doesn't work as advertised" everyday. I know when sales is trying to shill something out with misleading
product advertising.

MS has exellent products and even product support for many of their other fine product lines. I've always admired MS office, works, VC++ 3.0 to today's .NET studio 2005. They even used to print big manuals on fine printed glossed paper in the 80's. But FSX I see hardly any tech support or acknowledgement of the slow frame rates; I believe our best hope is a patch which fixes this.


I have access to scsi drives, fibre channel , RAIDs etc, 64bit dual xeon processor servers, Windows 2003 server 32 and 64 bit editions.; I build 8 SATA drive RAID jbods daily. I was going to give FSX a try during my "after hours experimentation" but the 2 system limit "activation" clause has soured even that.

[Politically Incorrect]

Well my two cents.

First off I think that MS has once again made a fine piece of software. Sure there are some bugs and that is expected, it is obvious MS can not have thier product tested on every possible combination of hardware and every possible users environment

Here is a thought, reformat your hard drive, reinstall XP and properly setup your system then install FSX all alone and see what it does, you may be surprised at how well it does run. People don't seem to realize a hard drive full of stuff, improperly defragged, littered with trash etc.. itself will harm performance.

I just installed FSX on a Dell Dimension 4500 with some P3 and a FX5200 and 1gig RAM , obviously I can't get all the highest setting graphics etc but it runs great considering the computer.

Sure most take the minimum requirements the wrong way, no fault of MS at all. But it is what it says the minimum requirements and if you want to get legal about it that means it is all you need to launch the program, says nothing about actually using it

And yes there will be a patch, now this is what kills me, all those that complain about MS releasing uncompleted software. Tell me how many other PC games have you bought that haven't had to be patched to the hilt?

99% of the games I have needed multiple patches anywhere from 8mb to 300+mb. Every time I check online there is another patch ready. You know what bothers me is when a patch is released the same day as or a few days after the title went on sale.

IL2 (best combat sim ) has needed major mega patches what is it 7 of them? , LOMAC as well and you say that MS ships incomplete games??  FS9 needed 1 patch! And lets not forget many other software companies sell their patches calling them "expansion packs" charging you for their incomplete software.

I'm sorry but when MS may need one patch while other games by other companies require many I don't think MS is the ones shipping incomplete products.

I guess the bottom line is if you want a game that installs "perfect" stick to the consoles, becasue PC gaming is not for you and at least then you know you will meet the system requirements becasue the game was tested on the same rig you own

[ashaman]

Again, thanks for answering. I appreciate your perspective. I sincerely hope you appreciate mine too.

The day when we'll be unable to express freely our point of view, no matter how divergent to the one of the mass, will be the day I'll build a spaceship and go forth to find another world.

And in fact I never preached to no one. I always talk in first person. Of me and my decisions.

Is there some hidden reasons I HAVE AT ANY COST go to FSX?

Not where I live. I can go by PERFECTLY with FS9.

You WANT to go to FSX? By all means do.

I won't follow you though. Hope it's not a bother. I will wait perhaps FSXI (or whatever), if it will be worth my attention, always using FS9 and X-plane 8.50.

An acceptable FS9 with a Ti4400 ? Are you joking ?

No I'm not. I didn't say it was perfect, but acceptable. Way more acceptable than FSX is on a 6600GT 128Mb DDR3.

[Daube]

No I'm not. I didn't say it was perfect, but acceptable. Way more acceptable than FSX is on a 6600GT 128Mb DDR3.

So let me refresh your memory: with a Ti4400, you get blurry textures, you cannot flight full settings over the cities (in fact for that, even a 6800 GT 256 is not enough), and it's even difficult to get acceptable results over the forest areas.

With FSX, it's just the same. With medium low hardware, you get low graphics. I don't see any point of complaining about that.  ???

[Joe_D]

I have yet to see a pic that did not have blurry ground textures in the near distsnce.

This is not a FPS/CPU issue like in FS9.
Instead, it seems to be an inherent problem in the new way FSX handles the ground textures.
This looks even worse as you increae autogen trees as the

[ashaman]

So let me refresh your memory: with a Ti4400, you get blurry textures, you cannot flight full settings over the cities (in fact for that, even a 6800 GT 256 is not enough), and it's even difficult to get acceptable results over the forest areas.

I have the sneaking suspicion that you never used a TI4400 on FS9 and are talking only out of suppositions.

With the TI4400 (that I stupidly sold) I had even better graphics that I received with the supposedly more powerful Fx5700le (I should have never bought this videocard, not that it worked badly, but its performances were far from the ones expected)

A real step forward in FS9 I had only with the current 6600GT.

I'm not fancying an attempt of using FSX on a TI4400, seen that the 6600GT is not good enough for the bratty new son of M

[NicksFXHouse]

FSX is only the point of the iceberg. To keep people constantly buying new hardware, new HEAVY functions no one will ever need are added to software which could work way better without them (the aeroglass interface of vista, for one, is an example of unnecessary and heavy function to prod people to buy more powerful hardware fundamentally for no real reason).

Ok.. if you can repeat it again and again, so can I


.....going from Windows95 to 98

[Daube]

I have the sneaking suspicion that you never used a TI4400 on FS9 and are talking only out of suppositions.

Yes, you definitely seem to have a lot of sneaking ideas