...experiences with FSX...

[Saitek]

Paul! You are a shocker! You did exactly the same thing a few years back when FS9 came out. Bought FS9 and then went back to FS2002.
So when do you predict it will resurface from the box and onto your monitor screen next? 9 months time?

[Fozzer]

I tell you what...
I can't make out why the frame rates are so slow in FSX for a worse-looking ground scenery and Autogen scenery, (trees and buildings), than in my FS 2004 with or without add-on scenery mesh....  :o...!

In FSX I reduced all the effects, traffic, weather, water, etc, to zero, except for ground scenery and Autogen, which was set half-way, and the frame rates were atrocious compared to my FS 2004...!

Very strange, I thought... ...!

Paul... ...!

[Fozzer]

Paul! You are a shocker! You did exactly the same thing a few years back when FS9 came out. Bought FS9 and then went back to FS2002.
So when do you predict it will resurface from the box and onto your monitor screen next? 9 months time?

...wake me up next July... ...!

Paul... ...!

[RollerBall]

I know it's very early days, but like I said down in the screenie forum.......

....the more I see of this the more I think I won't hand over my hard-earned cash just yet to Mr G. I think I need it much more than he does - and there are just too, too many issues for this to be a serious piece of software....... as it stands IMO

Has anybody yet managed to produce a PROPER high quality screenie (you know, like the ones we are used to seeing every day coming out of FS9)? If they have I haven't seen it.

Has anybody managed to get flyable frame rates with all of the new features turned up to 'proper' levels ie so you can SEE them? If they have I haven't seen a posting from them.

Have any of the good ole Aces team shown their faces back here now that proverbial is beginning to hit the fan? If they have, I haven't seen any of their postings.

Am I being totally unreasonable in expecting a new piece of software that's been in development for years and trumpeted like crazy for weeks and weeks to run when people install it on machines that are well above the official minimum recommended spec? I don't think so.

Will I now get my head blasted off by the usual crew for making these comments here on the forum? Sure I will  ;)

Do I care? Not much...

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]I know it's very early days, but like I said down in the screenie forum.......

....the more I see of this the more I think I won't hand over my hard-earned cash just yet to Mr G. I think I need it much more than he does - and there are just too, too many issues for this to be a serious piece of software....... as it stands IMO

Has anybody yet managed to produce a PROPER high quality screenie (you know, like the ones we are used to seeing every day coming out of FS9)? If they have I haven't seen it.

Has anybody managed to get flyable frame rates with all of the new features turned up to 'proper' levels ie so you can SEE them? If they have I haven't seen a posting from them.

Have any of the good ole Aces team shown their faces back here now that proverbial is beginning to hit the fan? If they have, I haven't seen any of their postings.

Am I being totally unreasonable in expecting a new piece of software that's been in development for years and trumpeted like crazy for weeks and weeks to run when people install it on machines that are well above the official minimum recommended spec? I don't think so.

Will I now get my head blasted off by the usual crew for making these comments here on the forum? Sure I will

[RollerBall]

Do you answer all of your own questions? It would appear so.

Well so do you on the face of it.....

Actually Woody, if you look again I only answered the last 2.....

[mtnbkr41]

Hello all,
Heres my experience with FSX. Well about a week ago I picked up FSX and installed it. The first thing I did was turn everything to max. Big mistake! I was crushed . I expected FSX to work as well as FS2004 did. The demo ran great on my machine with everything turned all the way up; why shouldn't the original release? Out of anger with Microsoft, I uninstalled FSX and vowed not to re-install it until a few years from now when I would probably, against my happier judgment, upgrade to Vista and DX10.
I struggled for hours messing with the scenery settings; just making myself more frustrated. I went through my machine deleting stuff I didn't think I needed and defragging my drive. Sadly, no change. This forced the un-install and the thought of Microsoft and Video card manufactuers to be in a coup just to drain us all of our hard earned money.
After reading more posts and seeing that some people were having better luck, I decided to give another go. I re-installed it and changed my LCD from a widescreen to a standard screen. The only resolution my widescreen LCD would work in was 1680X1050, because all other resolutions for wide screen didn't look right. I then was able to change my resolution to 1280X1024. What a difference that made. I was amazed. My FPS went from 5FPS to a smooth 20FPS . I found that autogen scenery really sucks up the resources. It is set to sparse. This is the only setting other than the scenery complexity set to dense that really affects FPS. Everything else is set to this

Detail radius:medium, Mesh complexity:51, Mesh res:76m, Texture res:2m, Water effects:1.x
Play with these numbers and settings. It really makes a difference.
This seems to work for me and the scenery looks great. My machine is pretty powerful so obviously this will only work for those machines on the same level.
Specs are:
IP dual core processor=3.2Ghz
512Mb ATI X1900XT video card
2Gb of ram
Dual SATA drives 150Gb

Note that my FPS do drop drastically to 9FPS in large cities, and airports like LAX. Get rid of the autogen stuff and the program works great.

Maybe these settings will help some people, and maybe not. Just wanted to share my experience with FSX. Good luck all!

[Woodlouse2002]

Well so do you on the face of it.....

Actually Woody, if you look again I only answered the last 2.....

You answered them all to various degree's of decisiveness.

Jus avin a dig.

[supernova45849850l]

Thanks for the advice Foz.

I was in GAME yesterday (Friday) and had FSX in my hand, but something told me to wait for some performance reports from people first and I am glad I did.

I am certainly gonna buy a new graphics card now though so I can run FS9 with Autogen higher than "normal". I notice that you have geforce 6600GT, what is your autogen slider at and how many FPS do you get with that setting??

[Fozzer]

Thanks for the advice Foz.

I was in GAME yesterday (Friday) and had FSX in my hand, but something told me to wait for some performance reports from people first and I am glad I did.

I am certainly gonna buy a new graphics card now though so I can run FS9 with Autogen higher than "normal". I notice that you have geforce 6600GT, what is your autogen slider at and how many FPS do you get with that setting??

..at a quick guess now...

When I first started it up with a few things turned down, the frame rates were between 1 and 2 FPS..impossible to move...!!
....Then, with most everything was turned down to zero, (no clouds, no water, no traffic, etc), except the scenery and autogen, (to get a nice scene), which was set half way, the frame rates juddered around 5-7 FPS in open countryside.
...I still can't make it out, compared with the smooth FS 2004 scenery and autogen, and EVERYTHING set at maximum settings, and all the blocks ticked....30 FPS locked at 30 FPS.... ...!

Looking at my set-up listed below, It's not going to run FSX at all, and a major hardware up-grade would be necessary...Motherboard, processor, graphics card, memory, etc, etc...everything...
...trust me... ...!

I keep looking at my lovely screen shots of all my FS 2004 smoothy-smoothy scenes, and compare them with what I see in FSX and I am extremely disappointed.... ...!

It's going to be a major, very expensive, hardware up-grade to run FSX and show it at its best....!!

Paul... ...!

P.S. My BFG nVidia 6600GT O/C 525 MHz, 128Mb, card is fine for FS 2004, but definitely not for FSX...!!

[Mr.Mugel]

Had the demo on my system, did a flight around a nice small island, got 18 fps, reinstalled due to virus, tried it at St. Maarten intl., got 1-2 fps with the same settings, 3-5 with medium settings and 5-10 with low settings, looked like poor old FS2000.....

... Lennart, better staying with a nice good running FS9 than joining the crowds and get a horrible looking FS with bad performance....

[commoner]

...one thing I do find handy......after bug***ng about for hours to get reasonable settings you can save them.......then  if after another 12 hours trying to get things better and making a big cockup you can reload the ones you saved.........handy that.........commoner;)

[Fozzer]

...one thing I do find handy......after bug***ng about for hours to get reasonable settings you can save them.......then  if after another 12 hours trying to get things better and making a big cockup you can reload the ones you saved.................

........and it automatically switches over, and loads FS 2004.....

.....Cool or what............!

LOL...!

Paul.... ...!

[Hai Perso Coyone?]

Does this mean you got SP2 as well Paul

[commoner]

Does this mean you got SP2 as well Paul

...Nah!....Paul would NEVER stoop so low...........ridiculous to even think it.....commoner