Stuck in Sim-Limbo

[deaneb]

QUOTE (s0cks @ Sep 29 2008, 08:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The same old excuse of "oh, but every MSFS has always run slow on current hardware" is just not good enough anymore!

MSFS is marketed to a very wide audience, and has been a solid contender for what seems like EVER! But I don't think we should all just sit back and be happy with what we've got.

Well I can't argue with that, but if MS can't achieve it then I don't know what the answer is. Your first person shooter games and others such as car racing games are slightly different in that they are not trying to pack so much of the world into one package.
My suggestion is buy a plane ticket to Seattle - go knock on MS head office door - introduce yourself as the spokeperson for the worlds frustrated FSX users and that you here to help them put it right !

[s0cks]

QUOTE (deaneb @ Sep 29 2008, 08:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I can't argue with that, but if MS can't achieve it then I don't know what the answer is. Your first person shooter games and others such as car racing games are slightly different in that they are not trying to pack so much of the world into one package.
My suggestion is buy a plane ticket to Seattle - go knock on MS head office door - introduce yourself as the spokeperson for the worlds frustrated FSX users and that you here to help them put it right !

LOL! Perhaps I should!

[jastheace]

well i have spent $1200 on a brand new computer, this runs FSX with all sliders all the way up, but i choose to have some set down to improve my experience, i have never run x-plane, and to be honest it is tempting, but the support aftermarket is just not there, an i hate to say it but properly never will be, as microsoft is a better marketer for the masses. if there were certain add-ons made for x-plane, i would have switched years ago. funny thing is i started flying seriously with terminal reality's Fly! i guess this is always going to be the case,

different horses for different courses, personally i have ditched FS9 and all my add-ons, anyone want them???? i am only buying for fsx now

[s0cks]

QUOTE (jastheace @ Sep 29 2008, 09:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well i have spent $1200 on a brand new computer, this runs FSX with all sliders all the way up, but i choose to have some set down to improve my experience, i have never run x-plane, and to be honest it is tempting, but the support aftermarket is just not there, an i hate to say it but properly never will be, as microsoft is a better marketer for the masses. if there were certain add-ons made for x-plane, i would have switched years ago. funny thing is i started flying seriously with terminal reality's Fly! i guess this is always going to be the case,

different horses for different courses, personally i have ditched FS9 and all my add-ons, anyone want them???? i am only buying for fsx now

I started out on Fly! too! Well, I guess my first flight sim was FU2, but I treated that more as a game.

What PC do you have?

[jastheace]

i have an AMD Phenom 9850 quad core 2.5ghz, 4gig ram, 500 gig hd, and a 1gig 9600gt video card, i remember the graphics of fly, it blew your mind as to what was acheived compared to what Flight sim was offering at the time, you still needed a good comp

[s0cks]

QUOTE (jastheace @ Sep 29 2008, 09:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i have an AMD Phenom 9850 quad core 2.5ghz, 4gig ram, 500 gig hd, and a 1gig 9600gt video card, i remember the graphics of fly, it blew your mind as to what was acheived compared to what Flight sim was offering at the time, you still needed a good comp

Yes, I seem to remember that the sky had a horrible grey horizon that made you feel trapped... Your PC is similiar spec to mine. I can't run maxxed over busy areas. It depends where you are. FTX, while it looks great is killer over Sydney and Melbourne for example. But default Auckland is very smooth even at v.high settings.

[jastheace]

QUOTE (s0cks @ Oct 4 2008, 09:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I seem to remember that the sky had a horrible grey horizon that made you feel trapped... Your PC is similiar spec to mine. I can't run maxxed over busy areas. It depends where you are. FTX, while it looks great is killer over Sydney and Melbourne for example. But default Auckland is very smooth even at v.high settings.

what sort of motherboard do you have, as i got very poor performance over citys, i found out that the motherboard was the issue, i changed it to an expensive one ($255 over $ 155) and the performance difference was amazing. i am getting 25 fps over brisbane with the orbix scenery (no decent fsx brisbane or archerfield yet)

[s0cks]

I have a good mobo. Gigabyte N680SLI-DQ6. Cost over $300 when I got it. Have you got FTX AU Blue? I'd be interested to see wha tyou get over Brisbane with Extremely Dense scenery and Dense autogen.

[jastheace]

QUOTE (s0cks @ Oct 4 2008, 09:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have a good mobo. Gigabyte N680SLI-DQ6. Cost over $300 when I got it. Have you got FTX AU Blue? I'd be interested to see wha tyou get over Brisbane with Extremely Dense scenery and Dense autogen.

i have just done a review of FTX AU Gold (which covers SE Queensland) and that was giving me 15-30 fps with the above settings, depending on where i was looking, that includes AI and airport traffic, and road traffic too, i was surprised to get performance that good over a dense area with traffic. i think i would get better performance if i had FSX developed AI ( i am using World of AI traffic)

[SteelBlades]

QUOTE (deaneb @ Sep 29 2008, 08:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I can't argue with that, but if MS can't achieve it then I don't know what the answer is. Your first person shooter games and others such as car racing games are slightly different in that they are not trying to pack so much of the world into one package.
My suggestion is buy a plane ticket to Seattle - go knock on MS head office door - introduce yourself as the spokeperson for the worlds frustrated FSX users and that you here to help them put it right !

Deaneb, here you've fallen into the trap of assuming that if MS can't achieve it, no-one can. MS is not the last word on software or computing. They can't do web browsers better than the others; they can't do portable music players better than the others (well Apple); they can't do a games console better than the others; they can't do an OS better the Apple; they can't do Internet search better than Google; and they can't do a smooth playing flight sim like Laminar Research (X-Plane) - pretty sad when Laminar Research is a three person team!

MS is increasingly 'solving' computing problems by throwing more engineers at them. All this does is slightly reduce the world's unemployment level. It certainly doesn't always make a product better - for exhibit a) I offer Vista, for exhibit b) I offer FSX. If X-Plane can challenge FSX (and I believe it does), then just maybe, MS has a few dozen too many engineers on the job. Very often a small, highly motivated team produces a better result than a bigger team can. Please don't think I consider X-Plane the ultimate solution - it has its own weaknesses, but right here we see how another company is doing what MS can't with its sim - smooth flight with affordable computers.

[SteelBlades]

QUOTE (jastheace @ Sep 29 2008, 09:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well i have spent $1200 on a brand new computer, this runs FSX with all sliders all the way up, but i choose to have some set down to improve my experience, i have never run x-plane, and to be honest it is tempting, but the support aftermarket is just not there, an i hate to say it but properly never will be, as microsoft is a better marketer for the masses.

jastheace - you've made a few statements there that beg to be replied to. You say a $1200 computer, "runs FSX with all sliders all the way up" but you, "choose to have some set down to improve my experience". For many folk, that's a bit of a contradiction. One one hand you say it works with all sliders up, then you say it doesn't work well enough (at least for you). How many frames per second are an acceptable minimum? For many simmers, that is 30, but others (certainly in the X-Plane community) it's 60fps.

I wonder if you've ever considered downloading the free X-Plane demo (http://www.x-plane.com/)? You suggest that the aftermarket is not there. I ask - how you would know if you're not an X-Plane customer? I believe you are mistaken - and as an X-Plane user of over five years, and a developer in said aftermarket, I think I have an insight or two on this matter. There is a massive difference between MSFS and X-Plane though. Most X-Plane aftermarket ware is free, and most of it is aircraft (that is after all what flight simming is about).

Please follow the following link to get a taste of the very substantial scope of the X-Plane aftermarket: http://www.x-plane.org/ then go to http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?autocom=downloads and explore the downloads. Then consider that this is just one X-Plane site. There's loads of others (this is just the equivalent of http://www.avsim.com/ ).

If it's specifically scenery you're after, look no further than: http://www.xplanefreeware.net/tom/Final_Fr...20Frontier.html and http://www.xplanefreeware.net/tom/InsidePassage/Home.html - there's more when you look further. I've personally converted about 40 NZ airports to X-Plane, with that many still to do (when I get the time). Now, for sure X-Plane is not a direct replacement for MSFS. It has a very different background and future. However, based on the rate of improvement in X-Plane vs MSFS, I'm picking X-Plane will be a more sophisticated sim in the next few years (the actual 'flying' has long been better) - I'm talking specifically about the graphics.

One thing to consider is that there's no rule that says you, as a Windows user, can't have both FSX and X-Plane.

[toprob]

QUOTE (SteelBlades @ Sep 29 2008, 11:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Deaneb, here you've fallen into the trap of assuming that if MS can't achieve it, no-one can. MS is not the last word on software or computing. They can't do web browsers better than the others; they can't do portable music players better than the others (well Apple); they can't do a games console better than the others; they can't do an OS better the Apple; they can't do Internet search better than Google; and they can't do a smooth playing flight sim like Laminar Research (X-Plane) - pretty sad when Laminar Research is a three person team!

MS is increasingly 'solving' computing problems by throwing more engineers at them. All this does is slightly reduce the world's unemployment level. It certainly doesn't always make a product better - for exhibit a) I offer Vista, for exhibit b) I offer FSX. If X-Plane can challenge FSX (and I believe it does), then just maybe, MS has a few dozen too many engineers on the job. Very often a small, highly motivated team produces a better result than a bigger team can. Please don't think I consider X-Plane the ultimate solution - it has its own weaknesses, but right here we see how another company is doing what MS can't with its sim - smooth flight with affordable computers.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that MS are the best, but I do think that for every one person who makes claims that FSX (or Vista, for that matter) is somehow flawed, as opposed to all other unflawed software, there are hundreds of people who use their stuff without any problems.

If I find a piece of software which doesn't work as I expected, I'd probably delete it and use something else. It would not cross my mind to go online and comment negatively on the developers. It would be presumptuous of me, at the least.

I admit that I probably see things a bit differently, when I was a teenager I think there was one computer in my home town:) I've used a few flight simulators over the years, and it amazes me what we can do with FSX. Sure, it ain't perfect, but it does things which I wouldn't have dreamed of even 10 years ago. Maybe if there was something better, then I'd use it, but there isn't. The general opinion is that X-plane is good for what it is (i.e. a creditable small-team effort) but many don't consider it as good as FSX. But saying X-plane is somehow flawed because it can't do what FSX can, is as pointless as saying that FSX should be 'smoother' because X-plane is. If you want a smooth ride, use X-plane. If you want a great sim, use FSX. But using one to illustrate the flaws of the other doesn't serve any purpose.

[s0cks]

QUOTE (toprob @ Sep 29 2008, 10:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that MS are the best, but I do think that for every one person who makes claims that FSX (or Vista, for that matter) is somehow flawed, as opposed to all other unflawed software, there are hundreds of people who use their stuff without any problems.

If I find a piece of software which doesn't work as I expected, I'd probably delete it and use something else. It would not cross my mind to go online and comment negatively on the developers. It would be presumptuous of me, at the least.

I admit that I probably see things a bit differently, when I was a teenager I think there was one computer in my home town:) I've used a few flight simulators over the years, and it amazes me what we can do with FSX. Sure, it ain't perfect, but it does things which I wouldn't have dreamed of even 10 years ago. Maybe if there was something better, then I'd use it, but there isn't. The general opinion is that X-plane is good for what it is (i.e. a creditable small-team effort) but many don't consider it as good as FSX. But saying X-plane is somehow flawed because it can't do what FSX can, is as pointless as saying that FSX should be 'smoother' because X-plane is. If you want a smooth ride, use X-plane. If you want a great sim, use FSX. But using one to illustrate the flaws of the other doesn't serve any purpose.

Haha. FSX doesn't work "the way I expect it". Come on man, now you're clutching at straws. Thats like saying a car with no engine "doesn't work the way that i expected it to", so its not flawed, just different. FSX is flawed because its is very badly optimized. You have to give me that. It SHOULD be able to run better because as XP shows it is POSSIBLE to do the same but smoother!

But don't get me wrong, FSX is a nice, and pretty simulator.

I'm going to backup what SteelBlades said here though. From what I have seen XP is getting better at a phenomonal rate and I wouldn't be surprised if it easily surpasses FSX over the next year. I flew a final yesterday into LOWI in bad weather and it was one of the most realistic stormy landings I have ever experienced. And on a demo! Its got me pretty hooked.

[toprob]

QUOTE (s0cks @ Sep 30 2008, 09:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm going to backup what SteelBlades said here though. From what I have seen XP is getting better at a phenomonal rate and I wouldn't be surprised if it easily surpasses FSX over the next year. I flew a final yesterday into LOWI in bad weather and it was one of the most realistic stormy landings I have ever experienced. And on a demo! Its got me pretty hooked.

I'd be very impressed if it did surpass FSX, and I'd be more than happy to upgrade my old X-plane if it did. I think, though, that my initial impression -- based on the demo, and online screenshots -- is:

Great water! It would make a very good ship simulator;
It uses FPS tricks to reduce the visible world, presumably to help performance;
The same texture in every valley gets a bit monotonous;
I can't get used to the views... (ok, maybe that's a bias.)

EDIT: oops, forgot to make my point...
My point is, there is a lot I don't like about X-plane, and I do expect it to get better, whether or not it does is uncertain. However, I don't go calling it a poor job, or rubbishing the developer just because I don't like it. It doesn't suit me, I have something that does, so I'm happy.

[deaneb]

QUOTE (SteelBlades @ Sep 29 2008, 11:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Deaneb, here you've fallen into the trap of assuming that if MS can't achieve it, no-one can.

No I haven't - I stated if they can't do it then I don't know what the answer is, not that nobody can. The fact is nobody is doing anything better and that includes XPlane. So like it or loathe it for the wider FS community the MS product has been the standard simulator for years. Unless you are prepared to do something about it or achieve better than all this criticism is futile.

[SteelBlades]

QUOTE (deaneb @ Sep 30 2008, 11:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I haven't - I stated if they can't do it then I don't know what the answer is, not that nobody can. The fact is nobody is doing anything better and that includes XPlane. So like it or loathe it for the wider FS community the MS product has been the standard simulator for years. Unless you are prepared to do something about it or achieve better than all this criticism is futile.

So here you begin by saying, "if they can't do it then I don't know what the answer is", then immediately go on to saying, "The fact is nobody is doing anything better". I knew full well that you meant the latter and here you've just confirmed it. As a user of X-Plane I can confirm that X-Plane does achieve something FSX doesn't - smooth flight on much cheaper computers. I'm not claiming anything else here, so please refrain from putting words into my mouth.

[toprob]

QUOTE (SteelBlades @ Sep 30 2008, 01:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not claiming anything else here, so please refrain from putting words into my mouth.

I must have missed that bit. I think that Deane, like me, is just continuing the conversation in general, rather than responding directly to you. I do think that your points are very valid, even though they don't suit me.

My main point of concern here is the implication that FSX is inherently flawed, and that anyone who can't see that is either suffering from mass delusion, or is a sycophantic MS fanboy. (I love that word. Along with 'squab'. I like to use them in a sentence -- "I love the TV show Two and a half men -- does that make me a squab fanboy?")

[creator2003]

I suppose if you have to convert fs9 scenery into X plane that tells me something right there ,have you been able to convert FSX scenery into X plane yet ? and im not meaning old rwy12 objects i mean full on scenery photo real spec maps etc ....
ive never played X plane never heard really of it until you came on the board here and some posting with screenshots of 150 mesh or something ...i guess some are just never happy with the big boy sims like FSX because like big boy toys you are always pouring money into them if you want the best of the best ..something 3/4 of simmers dont do because they are always wanting something for free ..
i have a low end system as ive said and im getting better performance than you guys or i dont have bottle necks that it seems you have with those super machines quad this and that ...
i have loads of games all top of the range high end and they all still run sweet on my low end system ,i even have Orbx /kai tak/and many more addons packs and they run sweet where you say they dont ?"


FSX and all microsoft sims before this one have always been improved by addons payware freeware ,it makes people want to improve things be it scenery landclass mesh lighting and so on it never ends it can always be built onto and improved ,it just doesnt stop and instead of waiting for ACEs to do something about we can do it without them and make a little cash outta of it if we please ,i like the idea of a raw platform that needs the wider community input ..

I dont know why people think FSX should run like mine or many other systems around here right outta the box ,i put cash into my system and flightsim and it has cost me more then my BMW or motorcycle per year or in some case in the past more than my house does each week in payments ..
this week ive got another 100$ to spend on my PC or addons ..the addons that make my sim run sweet as pie ..

i wish this hadent turned into a which sim bla bla like the fs9 -fsx thing ,,each time i read these topics it just makes the FSX sim more solid and a over all diversable simulator in my opinion and i see manly guys who have super PCs complaining that there so called super PC cant handle the jandle ..
to me its like the rich guy on the Harley Davidson who cant ride it and blames it on the bike instead of his lack of experience...

i hope your limbo mode comes to a end soon and you decided on what you want running in your system ,we will still be around designing for FSX and the next sim so you know you will always be able to add something KIWI to your sim if you decided X

[deaneb]

QUOTE (SteelBlades @ Sep 30 2008, 01:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So here you begin by saying, "if they can't do it then I don't know what the answer is", then immediately go on to saying, "The fact is nobody is doing anything better". I knew full well that you meant the latter and here you've just confirmed it. As a user of X-Plane I can confirm that X-Plane does achieve something FSX doesn't - smooth flight on much cheaper computers. I'm not claiming anything else here, so please refrain from putting words into my mouth.

I think you are missing the point here. Totally. I'm clarifying my comments, not trying to put words in yours.

If Xplane works for you, that is fine and I've never said is wasn't, it just does not suit mine or a lot of others requirements, nor have I ever found it visually as appealing. The fact is, it has not yet, and probably will never achieve the same level of useage and following as MS Flight Sim. I think 25 years of history shows this. That is the main reason why I stick with the MS product and as a designer I am used to the methods and tools, support and user base.

At the end of the day, you will believe in your ideaology, just as happy X plane users, , Mac users, Firefox, Linux, holden drivers..... the list goes on, will always back what works for them.
Thats what makes the FS community so diverse.

This is not an argument about what is better, its about personal choice, what works for whom and why. I'm not damming Xplane because I know many people enjoy it, nor is this a place to damn FSX, just because it does not perform to ones expectations on a particular machine.

Deane

[Alex]

On my rig, FSX runs pretty well. I don't sim often but when I want to have a relaxed buzz around Rotorua or Tauranga, I use FSX. I'm quite happy with the way it performs (I get about 20 fps with most sliders medium-right), and there are some great FSX add-ons for my area (Robins Real NZ Rotorua, Timmo's Okataina/Tarawera Photoreal), and the aircraft are right up there...

Even if your frames on FSX are lower the 'gameplay' is smoother, compared to the same frame rate on FS9. I can't comment on X-Plane as I haven't ever used it.

My system is by no means high-end, 2.5Gb RAM, a Pentium P4 3.4GHz chip, a Nvidia 7950GT card etc, but FSX is still very playable.

I don't really think there's much reason to get worked up here over who said what, or trying to pick at little trivialities in posts, always better to have a friendly chat than to point fingers...

Alex