Thinking FSX? A story of caution.

LonelyplanetXO

Charter Member
Thinking of dabbling with the X? If you're not building a brand new rocketship - DON'T GO THERE!

Instead, relax and read this tragic tale....

One fine day, when other people who had lives were out enjoying the sunshine; that old curmudgeon Lonelyplanet was once again surfing the SOH forums,drooling over virtual aeroplane porn (dare I say it? "Lotus' L-39"....hehehe) and getting all excited over all the HU's for amazing cool new stuff coming up in the FSX forum. "Damn those KBT guys", he thought "that FS-EXX-only Electra looks hot!"
As though to prove that wisdom and age aren't necessarily related, LPXO decided that it couldn't hurt to give the Ex one more go. Armed with the teachings of Jesus and a copy of nhancer, he donned his mad scientist outfit & TrackIR hat and proceeded into the FS-EX config to do or die (virtually, of course).
Tweak this, disable that, add a line here, delete this bit cos it looks funny.....and soon enough he fired up EXX.... Out there in the middle of Canada in the "Beaver Liquor" ElectraII, things looked promising. 25frames a second, locked and stable...wooo never got that before! he marvelled, prematurely congratulating himself of his amazing cleverness and extroadinary ability to follow simple instructions. Then he loaded all of the FS9 addon models he'd invested in which came with FSX installers, providing some cool toys to start.
Fire up the Carenado Moone, showed a locked solid and stable 25FPS. Trying again with a the default CRJ provided the same and proved that default aircraft dont have to suck. Lionheart's Epic sat squarely on 19 and even the evilly-frame hungry tiltrotor managed a flyable 13. Encouraging signs indeed, albeit in the middle of nowhere.
So he thought to try a slightly more challenging scenario, Rwx + circuits at LaGuardia with middish settings.That saw around 20 for the Mooney, 15-19 for the Electra and CRJ, a flyable 8-14 for the Epic but the T/R sunk faster than an airbus in the Hudson, at sub-5fps. Lesson so far was EXX does work if you screw around with it enough, but only with simple or well coded toys.
Soooo with all that cool new stuff around and buoyed by success our intrepid mug ventured forth to the payware sites with credit card in hand to buy - Australia. Well, why not; it's a fine place to visit, even if everything that crawls, hops, runs, slithers, swims or flys wants to kill you. And some real weather while we're there, REX2.
Four evenings of downloads later - and a notice from his friendly ISP to remind him he'd blown his bandwidth budget for the next four years, he fired up Ex in Oz and proceeded on a flight from Archerfield (which is in Brisbane, for those Aussies from Canberra) to Gold Coast (which is a bit South of Brisbane but not as far as New Zealand, for those Kiwis who thought it was part of New Zealand - & all moved there). The Epic managed a staggering 4.8FPS over YBBN, improving to about 6 towards the Gold Coast. Default aircraft were little better and it's fair to assume the Australians won't be buying tiltrotors because downunder, they move about as fast as Ayers rock.
"Strewth! a Dingo got me game" he shouted.... and it might have been true, because it barked like a dog. But being a Kiwi and thus having a natural inclination to fight lost causes - even in the overwhelming presence of common sense; he started to wind back the settings on everything and kept winding back until eventually he got to the same FPS as Laguardia... flyable in simpler models but not much good for anything complex.
Finally, EX was running at 10-18FPS at low altitude and our hero gazed out of the cockpit of the
Epic (having abandoned the Caranedo Mooney, which gave better frames but turned out the windscreen went opaque when it rains) at the vista below... which looked a lot like Voz in FS9, but with worse clouds than FS9. And less autogen. And far less ai traffic....
Sooo he thought, mildly pleased with what he'd achieved. He'd managed to get Australia in FSX to look almost as good as it does in FS9 for only $NZ230.00. And of course he mulled over the idea of a fast new I7 processor, which would need a new motherboard, more RAM and a new Vid card for an SLI setup. Why, that's only about $NZ2200 he mused. And with that, he shut down FSX and hit "uninstall". And lived happily ever after, with his Intel Quad core 2.4 3Ghz of RAM, 260GTX 1gb card. And FS9.

:) LPXO
 
Amazing how FS9 runs like pure glass.... Smoooooooooooooooth...

I 'soooo' hate choppy, jumpy, glitchy frames.....




Bill
 
It does take a lot of computer to run FSX at full settings, far more computer than what I have. I do enjoy FSX as it's scenery out of the box appears closer to FS9 with lots of payware scenery. If you have FS9 and lots of payware already installed, FSX offers little other than moving airport vehicles (frame rate killer), moving road vehicles (frame rate killer) and moving ships (frame rate killer).
 
Well, that finally removed any lingering doubts I may have had! The new PC should be built within the next 3-4 weeks, and it's going to be FS9 all the way........ several installs maybe (Goldenwings, Silverwings....), but still FS9!!
 
Quick!

Put a gag on that man!
Shutter the shutters!
Pull up the drawbridge!
Roll out the cannons!
Light the fires!

He's let the cat out of the bag!

Brace yourselves - this could be a long night...
 
Put a gag on that man!
Shutter the shutters!
Pull up the drawbridge!
Roll out the cannons!
Light the fires!

He's let the cat out of the bag!

Brace yourselves - this could be a long night...

I just don't get it guys. I just a built an i7 860 on a Gigabyte 1156 board with at MSI 260GTX OC video card, 4GB of high speed Corsair Dominator memory with Win7 64 bit Home premium for less than $800 and it runs FSX on very high settings smooth as glass 45fps solid flying FTX PNW, even La Guardia and Kennedy post 25-30fps. Harleyman has a unit that cost less than $600 that run FSX smooth as glass and so does Mathias Kok at Aerosoft for that same money. Check out Nick N's forum at Simviation. There are tons of folks running FSX on "sub sonic" systems. The problem has to be with your computer setup.
Ted

I was just asked if FSX is so "damn" smooth why am I still flying FS9-the answer is simple I have over a $700 worth of software for FS9 why chuck it all away? There are many FS9 planes that I love that don't convert well to Acceleration without a complete overhaul of the textures.
 
yeah i'm still looking at a new rig but FS9 running and looking nice, well at the moment i'm happy saving all my funds to go spend some time with my mrs and her family, i agree fully Ted it can be done, it's about what is paired with what at the end of the day... even lover cost parts will balance out combined with some higher performance parts... still FS9 stays on my old Dimension 5100 :icon_lol: FSX runs at a nice 25fps out in the wilds with some autogen but thats where i fly, i rarely go into anything bigger than a farm/municipal airstrip...
 
I just don't get it guys. I just a built an i7 860 on a Gigabyte 1156 board with at MSI 260GTX OC video card, 4GB of high speed Corsair Dominator memory with Win7 64 bit Home premium for less than $800 and it runs FSX on very high settings smooth as glass 45fps solid flying FTX PNW, even La Guardia and Kennedy post 25-30fps. Harleyman has a unit that cost less than $600 that run FSX smooth as glass and so does Mathias Kok at Aerosoft for that same money. Check out Nick N's forum at Simviation. There are tons of folks running FSX on "sub sonic" systems. The problem has to be with your computer setup.

^^^ What he said.


My overclocked Q9550 continues to chug along at VSYNC in FSX...
 
I'm pretty much a bush flyer too! But it is nice to have the power to go into the big cities and look around without stutters.
Ted
 
I just don't get it guys. I just a built an i7 860 on a Gigabyte 1156 board with at MSI 260GTX OC video card, 4GB of high speed Corsair Dominator memory with Win7 64 bit Home premium for less than $800 and it runs FSX on very high settings smooth as glass 45fps solid flying FTX PNW, even La Guardia and Kennedy post 25-30fps. Harleyman has a unit that cost less than $600 that run FSX smooth as glass and so does Mathias Kok at Aerosoft for that same money. Check out Nick N's forum at Simviation. There are tons of folks running FSX on "sub sonic" systems. The problem has to be with your computer setup.
Ted

My budget is about £250 (roughly $360), so the I7 is too rich for my blood - so FS9 has to be the choice for me, even though that means I will be missing out on some lovely addons.
 
My budget is about £250 (roughly $360), so the I7 is too rich for my blood - so FS9 has to be the choice for me, even though that means I will be missing out on some lovely addons.

Yes FS9 is the perfect choice for you. If anyone wants help on setting up any of the Penryn or Nehalem CPU processors for FSX just ask. There are so many guys that are willing to render aid. No one wants you to have a miserable experience. FSX has been user friendly for a long time and it doesn't cost a fortune. However it still comes down to choice and that is an individual decision.
Ted
 
I just don't get it guys. I just a built an i7 860 on a Gigabyte 1156 board with at MSI 260GTX OC video card, 4GB of high speed Corsair Dominator memory with Win7 64 bit Home premium for less than $800 and it runs FSX on very high settings smooth as glass 45fps solid flying FTX PNW, even La Guardia and Kennedy post 25-30fps. Harleyman has a unit that cost less than $600 that run FSX smooth as glass and so does Mathias Kok at Aerosoft for that same money. Check out Nick N's forum at Simviation. There are tons of folks running FSX on "sub sonic" systems. The problem has to be with your computer setup.
Yep, same here Ted and my system isn't near as nice as yours. Mine is a dual core, 2.9ghz with 8gig of RAM (most of which is useless for what I do all day, lol), and NVidia 9600GT Vid card with 512ram and I run FSX all day in the low 20's (many places even higher than that), even around LaGuardia. There's no reason LPXO shouldn't be able to do the same with his rig.
 
A few months ago I bought a Laptop mostly for my work but I bought one strong enough to run FSX expecting the eye candy to be rather low.

Happily it is working far greater than I had ever imagined it would.

My scenery and terrain sliders are all full right except the autogen slider which is set to Dense.

My traffic sliders are all off with the exception of the GA traffic slider which is set to 100% (just for the fun of seeing how it affected the frame rates).

I am holding 38 - 40 frames per second with no trouble. If I set the autogen slider to very dense it drops to around 30 fps.

This is primarily a stock install with no add on scenery. I have just a few add on aircraft and most of them function with out an issue.

The specs of this laptop are

Intel Core 2 Duo P8700 @ 2.53 Ghz
6 GB ram
Nvidia GTX 260M CUDA 1 GB

FSX is a solid performer.

Still this laptop was never intended to replace my gaming computer. It has however supplemented it very well.

If you can build the system don't fear embracing both sims. They all still have a lot to offer and its only getting easier to run them.
 
Let's not revive the old FS9 versus FSX discussion? Both sims have their seperate forums and I cherish this forum because it lives up to the slogan 'Let being helpful be ........' Not that it's going the wrong way, because you're all being helpful here , but, well, you know........ Just being old cautious me.

:wavey:


Cees
 
NOT bashing FSX, but, it does seem to be a crapshoot as to whether it will run good or not. A friend of mine built 2 identical systems, one for him, and one for his brother, so they could both move up to FSX. Identical specs, he bought 2 of everything, and built both systems. His machine runs FSX butter smooth, while his brother's is a slideshow. David set up both installs, exactly the same, same settings, same tweaks. He still can't get his brother's machine to run FSX well, while his machine is purring like a kitten....
 
Thanks for your comments guys. As Cees says, my point wasn't to incite a FSX vs 9 debate, rather to vent my frustrations & point out as Astoroth says that FSX does have a strange propensity to be a bit random in the way it runs on individual machines. Lets face it - my machine isn't leading edge, but it should run FSX adequately. I'm sure txnetcop is right; there's something ailing with my setup, but given that other 3d apps run just fine it appears impossible to isolate the "why" for FSX.
For those who comment that it's easy to build a new machine for $800, if you want to price out building a PC in $NZ try www.pricespy.co.nz and see what you come up with (dont forget a new case and Windows7 to replace XP and get the use of more RAM). Just as a comparison, in earning terms a NZ$ buys about the same in NZ as a US$ buys in America; maybe just a little more. Fact is I could afford to build that I7 box, but it's the principle that holds me back. The current machine cost over $NZ3000 to build a year and a half ago, and it doesn't bloody work...garrrhhhh!!!!!


cheers!
LPXO
 
I love FSX and it runs fine on my system in the main, but I keep getting pulled back to FS2004. I have invested so much hard cash in many various add-ons and tweaks and fixes that it looks just as good as stock FSX, better in many instances.
 
Well, you can pity me! I hung in there with FS2002 until 2008 because I thought FS9 would be even harder on the framerates than FS2002. Then I happened to find a review of FS9 from years earlier that mentioned how framerates actually improved with FS9! I immediately went out and bought FS9 and found out that was true! If only I'd read the review earlier, but hearing all the horror stories about FSX, I assumed FS9 was slower, but not as slow as FSX.

So I'm sticking with FS9.
 
I'm still years behind trying out all the file I've downloaded for FS9. While FSX looks the beauty, it's still only an acedemic theory to me.

Do you realize how beautiful Lago's old CR-32 Fiat from FS2002 looks in FS9 with Banana Bob's evmap installed. Gahhds!!

What else can I throw in there..? (dissapears into three 1tb auxillery hardrives with a flashlight and a bottle of wine....)
 
LPXO, that story was just pure entertaining. I laughed out loud several times, and my wife was kinda goin' 'What's so funny over there?' Hehe, good stuff mate :ernae:

I honestly did really like all FSX had to offer during my trial run with it. However, I could not get used to the lower FPS (15-25 is not bad). I'm spoiled when it comes to FPS, and FS9 is the winner there, for me. I really miss the default Bell 206 in FSX; there was something about the way it hovered and hover taxied, it was so much more realistic from pilot accounts I've read.

I've also invested quite a bit in FS9, so I don't see it leaving my computer anytime soon, unless I completely quit simming. I do worry about that, as my simming has gone down quite dramatically in the last couple of years. I'm hoping I don't quit, because when FS is on, it's one of the best games/simulations out there.
 
Back
Top