FSX/Acceleration/Vista bashers!

[Wingo]

I have seen a lot of tripe in these forums about FSX, Acceleration and Vista. How each on their own is useless, and how together they are the worst abomination created by man. I ask a lot of you, have you ever used these programs in combination? If yes, have you actually used them on a system to handle them? Again, if yes, have you ever bothered to spend the time settings up the system, Vista and FSX to run properly and with as little over head as possible? I bet that's where most of you say no.

Personally, I have no mean system.

Intel Core 2 Duo 1.83ghz
1 Gig RAM (Yes, only 1!)
GeForce Go7600 (Yes, a mobility card!)
Two 80gb hard drives

That's it, pretty lame isnt it? Guess what, I can run Vista and FSX Acceleration on this system with no problems! None at all! I have spent the time to tune my system to work well. I defrag every 3weeks, not just Windows Defrag, an O&O name defrag which orders the entire drive in alphabetical order. This is the way the drive looks for info, so reduces loading times. I've followed every guide by NickN possible to remove un-needed services, background programs and resource hogs. Vista still looks great, same as the screenshots everyone has seen just without the redundant crap running in the background. I've gone into the registry to streamline the boot process by changing keys (Again advice by NickN) and removing crap boot processes that I don't need, I went from 15 to 5. My RAM usage dropped by over half! Now Vista works like a treat, it is slick and smooth. I have none of the performance problems that people with higher end machines have. All that is just for Vista, now to FSX!

Firstly, when installing SP1 and acceleration, I ensured I had a perfectly clean and defragged FSX beforehand. This makes a huge difference as there are no add-ons or corrupt files to effect the installation and performance of the sim. I also take care when adding the addons into FSX. I always place everything into a temp directory and copy over by hand, making sure no default files are overwritten and that all files go where they need to go. I spent a total of two weeks editing and testing tweaks to find what is best for my machine. Now with Acceleration and SP2 only 3 tweaks are truly relevant to pure performance. TBM, BufferPools and SWTO. FFTF, SmallPartRadiusReject and others are no longer relevant under SP2. I played with those 3 values til I had a performance level I liked. I also make sure that programs such as MSN, antivirus, firewalls and other resource hungry processes are closed down before flying. I now have settings on medium to medium high with average frames in the mid to high twenties and high teens to low twenties under heavy cloud and rain. Again, I hear people complain with worse performance under similar settings on more robust machines.

Next is graphics card settings, these need to be tweaked just like FSX! Spend some time finding the settings that give you a balance of performance and quality. If you have an nVidia card, download nHancer and use it to control settings, and take advantage of the setting "Enhance in game AA". With this option you enable AA in FSX. It chooses which surfaces to apply AA to, but nHancer chooses the quality of AA. I've tried with and without and the same AA setting with no difference except 5-10 more FPS!

If you have done all of this, then you should be able to run FSX and Vista with my performance or greater. There are a lot of people with better machines than me, yet they always complain of performance problems. I challenge you to spend the time configuring your system, and following NickN's guides. You WILL notice a vast difference! If I can get solid and decent performance out of this middle ranged laptop with a mobility graphics card, then so should the majority of people on these forums! Quit bashing Vista/FSX/Acceleration until you actually put the effort in to make them run properly and work well together! You can't expect the rewards without putting in the effort!


EDIT: (by the way, this is topic number 3300 )

[Flying Mouse]

You ask the question of how many really has Vista+ Acceleration.

I can assure you many of the bashing/complaints come from those not even having the combo, and if they do have they prolly did not tweak here and there, I agree.

I can say since I have Acceleration my sim experience is a party. I have no massive system either and lemme tell you I now love it more then ever.

Biggest difference I experienced when I loaded acceleration on my system was the massive reduction in blurries and the increase in sound quality. I wont even mention the FPS.

Im not running DX10 as DX( looks better and perform better on my rig, but again it looks,fly,feel and smell like a dream  ;)

Mouse  ;)

[Wingo]

It is good to hear someone agree! I also agree that most people who bash it have never tried it!. Too many people are posting on how bad these programs are, so people who have never tried them get a preconceived idea that they are bad and don't work. Then these people spread the word and say "I heard from So and So that..." and it goes from there. I guess it kind of sticks true to the the saying "If you have a good meal at a restaurant, you'll tell a few people. One bad meal and you tell everyone." There are a few in this forum (I'm not going to pick on anyone, just mentioning the fact) that blame all problems on Vista/FSX/Acceleration and if another user receives an error they are told to uninstall everything and go back to XP/FS9 to fix the problem. This doesn't help, the problems are often easily solvable. If the sim takes ages to load/switch screens/pause/etc. then you either need to free up some RAM or defrag the hard drive so everything may load easier. If you have texture problems, update a driver or switch back to DX9. If something weird is happening, say lights or effects disappear, check the latest installed add-ons and review your installation procedures.

I think you also hit another problem, a lot of people are expecting DX10 to be the saviour! It couldn't be further from the truth. People hedge all of their bets on an API that is not even a year old, using first generation cards which were developed without the API to work with mixed with drivers that still need to mature and have the bugs worked out and having the game programmed based on buggy hardware and drivers. Now compare this with DX9, a stable mature API that has been around long enough for the hardware and drivers to become mature and firm. Between the two on FSX, the visual difference is none, you only get a few more FPS and may be able to turn Bloom on. Not worth it in my opinion. I think I'll wait till FS11 til I go DX10.

On a side note, people may call me hypocritical for downing DX10 like that. I'm am not bashing, or trashing it for no reason. I have read and researched on it for a while. I have made an informed decision on the fact that the hardware and driver support isn't mature enough to fully support the API. When FS11 comes out everything will be matured and able to support full DX10. Also, under FSX there is no visual difference between DX9 and 10, they basically ported it to the DX10 API but made it look identical to DX9, all major features and eye candy will be in FS11.

[alrot]

I'm begining to think,to take out from the folders the planes, the hornet ,the mustang, and the chooper and those two old planes b737 airbus with the light fixed and reinstall everything back without acceleration just sp1, I don't see to many people in multiplayer , I don't see the diference, I though I did ,but I think I was wrong,after all I wont have a DX10 card neither Vista ..I rather Xp

(I never ever play the missions,neither in fs9 ,it doesn't call my attention I rather to make my own plans of flights)

[Brett_Henderson]

This isn't a bash, or anything to do with performance...

[NickN]

[quote]This isn't a bash, or anything to do with performance...

[uncleyuk]

 Good for you and I agree.  I have a 3.2ghz Intel celeron, 2g ram, a 600w power supply with an ATI PCIe 512mb 1950 pro card and a 19" LCD widescreen.  All running on Vista Premium.  Like you I did a clean install of Acceleration (re-installed a clean copy of FSX Delux first) and have not even tweaked a thing (I don't know how) and am running medium high, dense autogen, very dense scenery complexity, 50% airline traffic and other sim objects from low to medium.  My FPS is in the high teens to low 20's dropping to 14 in KSEA area.  I can honestly say that I have not had one problem with anything.  I am thinking strongly about buying an ATI HD3850 (real strongly).  I suppose just because it's available.

[Gypsy_Baron]

Thats right

SO LETS BASH THE REAL CULPRIT

NVIDIA!!!!

but lets not forget... Vista sucks the life out of a cpu and memory bus so if you are trying to run Vista on a 1GB of memory (even 2 is low for FSX and Vista) you can expect dog performance.

The texture issues are 95% Nvidia and ATI related. Nvidia finally acknowledged a week or so ago their drivers are sub-par with FSX and DX10 and have stated they are working on fixes

THat doesn't account for the "SP2 induced" problems with the texture issues with imported FS9 aircraft that
worked perfectly in FSX SP1 but are PORKKED when SP2 is installed, running under XP Pro, with or
without a NVidia card....

I don't care to get into the backwards compatibility issue but my point is something that did work,
now doesn't.  And until there are sufficient FSX-COMPLIAT aircraft available, I will continue to use
my favorite FS( imports as long as they continue to work. Thank goodness we won't have any more
FSX "issues" beyond SP2 so what works now will continue to work....

I don't know where the original poster got his ideas from but I, for one, have certainly seen
enough problems with FSX RTM, SP1 and SP2 and I USE FSX. ( How can he claim that most
"bashers" don't even use FSX.... )

    Paul  ( a critic, not a basher....)

[NickN]

What accounts for that is DX10 and the all the fixes that went into SP1-SP2


Backwards compatibility was not possible for both time constraint in making FSX run like it does now and shader improvement technical reasons. The new shader code which was needed would not allow for that unfortunately and I do agree it is probably the one item that would have been best to make sure worked, however, I could care less about old airplanes. I want the developers to get a fire under them and learn the new code/methods so the title expands and goes forward instead of remaining in the FS8-9 world.

Oh well, some times we just have to suck it up and go forward

The same shader and texture chances borked weeks worth of work I had done on lights so I also know what it feels like to lose in that respect, but, as I said.. I got the fire lit underneath me to read, learn and improve what I had


I dont seem to have FSX problems other than a few minor annoyances here and there. RTM was a dog and no one can deny that but even so I had RTM running very well at the time after figuring out the engine and config. Since SP1 I have not had much more than visual quarks that all seem to be getting sorted out now that the add-on boys are getting product to the table, which is all the title needed to resolve most of the complaints I had. The rest I am fixing myself.

hmmmmm sounds like what I had to do with FS9 too

[Wingo]

Brett - I understand, and I don't consider you a basher. You have a perfectly logical and founded reason to not like FSX for the moment. Soon drivers will come out to fix the problem.

uncleyuk - Good to hear! Personally though, I would wait for a generation or two of DX10 cards to bo by before buying one, let them get used to the API and produce a true DX10 card.

Gypsy - To improve the shaders and code the way they did, they couldn't keep the compatibility with all FS9 models. Things are moving forward quickly, so something has to be left behind. Just think, now that there is a hole to fil and a reason for designers to learn new tricks there will be much better aircraft out than in FS9.
Also, in reply to the "Original poster" comment (I do have a name you know? Wingo or Scott, either works) I wasn't meaning to imply that all bashers hadn't used FSX. I was trying to make a point that most HAD used Vista/FSX/Acceleration but couldn't be bothered to fix the problems they were having, instead resorting to bashing a product as it was easier.

NickN - May I join in bashing nVidia?
I would love to take the chance to thankyou! All of your guides and tech support are the main reason I have such a well running machine! I've tracked down every tid-bit I can and applied most of it to Vista, even a lot of XP tweaks and settings work well!

[UU]

Well,
I remember the MS reset tool and my gray hair, three nights of pain. The thruth is you has to be a modder and hacker if you want a fine running sim. Or a busy reader in forums like a nerd.
If I you buy a car, it should be running without tweaking the fuel and a knive should cut well without sharpening before the first use.
Try to discuss such a behavior with scuba divers or or paratroopers

PS: I'm running FSX with most slider's right on a AMD 64 3800 + ATI 1300 with 19 fps SP1, XP



PPS: I'm sharpening every new knife i get before the first use

[Brett_Henderson]

Brett - I understand, and I don't consider you a basher. You have a perfectly logical and founded reason to not like FSX for the moment. Soon drivers will come out to fix the problem.

HU ?


I

[Brett_Henderson]

[quote]Well,
I remember the MS reset tool and my gray hair, three nights of pain. The thruth is you has to be a modder and hacker if you want a fine running sim. Or a busy reader in forums like a nerd.
If I you buy a car, it should be running without tweaking the fuel and a knive should cut well without sharpening before the first use.
Try to discuss such a behavior with scuba divers or or paratroopers

[krigl]

Alright guys, I've got a new analogy for you... FSX isn't a track....or a sea.... or a knife...  or a car.... or an octopus.... or a jelly....

...it's a piece of software. Yeah, I know, radical comparison isn't it.

Software advertised and pushed to the masses with new game-like content - not just to hard-core fans who scan forums for every tweak - after several years of development.

If it doesn't work out of the box without weeks of tweaking to get the best from it, and the SP fixes fix some stuff and 'break' others, and then the company shrugs and head off to work on a different product, well, I can see why some people are unhappy. Nothing wrong with it. Some like tweaking and are good at it, and enjoy challenges, others expect to pay their money and get a near-perfectly optimised product.

I'm happy enough with mine though... could be better, but it looks good and runs ok considering my rig's not very uber..... I'm not that demanding. I see a lot of beauty in FS9 still, and fly the two sims 50/50. As FSX seems to work OK I'm not planning to upgrade my rig any more till FSX1 comes out  :)

Cheers

Krigl

[NickN]

[quote]Alright guys, I've got a new analogy for you... FSX isn't a track....or a sea.... or a knife...