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

Quote:


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.

Quote:



I have a brain as well. I used it to get where I am today and I learned a long time ago that the more I resist something, the harder it makes my day go by.

All I can say is I remember the days of going from Windows95 to 98… and everyone said the same thing, NO WAY AM I BUYING THAT MUCH MEMORY

Then came WindowsME and 2000… and everyone said the same thing, NO WAY AM I BUYING THAT MUCH MEMORY OR SPENDING THAT MUCH ON A PROCESSOR TO RUN IT

Then came WindowsXP…. And that is when the chit really hit the fan

But you know what? You’re running WindowsXP right now and from your post above, it sounds exactly like the same things that were said about every innovation in operating system that has come from M$ since day one so unfortunately, you WILL be running VISTA unless you intend to live in a cave.

I seriously doubt WindowsXP will be on your machine this time next year and I also seriously doubt the complaints about FSX will continue either once the next round of hardware hits the market and people start to realize, its no different than it was in 2001 when they had to meet the WindowsXP requirements or exceed them to get what they wanted out of the OS.

Allot of people made the same mistake back then in buying 256mb of memory (minimum hardware requirements) instead of running 512 (double the hardware requirements) or 768 (triple the hardware requirements) for full performance, not including another 512mb for games or any damading software making the minimum hardware requirements to run most demanding applications smoothly 5x the recommended amount.

And that was in 2001-2003.... what is different between then and now?

Nothing. And if I expected any differenct, I am lacking in technical knowledge and experience.

There comes a time when we all have to let go of the past and move forward. Unless you intend to switch to Linux which will not run MSFS products correctly, you will have to move forward as well.

That can be an easy move, or a hard move. I prefer the easy way and without making myself and everyone around me nuts by listening to me groaning about it.

I don’t have any love for Microsoft or Bill Gates, but I love the innovations I have had fun with over the last 15 years (edit: make that 25 years as I had MSFS on a Apple 2c in 1982). The market he created has provided quite a world to play/work in and I will continue to do so as long as they keep delivering the goods.

If they keep pumping it out, I will keep enjoying it.

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


This is my all time favorite



   
     And... It's a waste of positive energy

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 <product> 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.

Quote:


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.

Quote:


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

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  resolution contrast between the  ground textures and trees become even more aparent.

They seem to have traded the blurry ground textures  in the inmediate area of the aircraft for blurry textures in the near distance.
Then, to try and cover this up, they eliminated CAVU conditions in the fair weather theme.
This not a problem at 30k ft but, flying VFR at lower altitudes presents a real problem as oposed to FS9.

I honestly hope someone can prove me wrong.
However, this appears to be part of the new FSX engine
that can't be overcome by a faster computer, etc.
I just hope that a yet unknown configuration can rectify this problem.

BTW, did anyone ever try the spot view, with light bloom enabled and any navigational/strobe lights on?
If not, there is another serious bug that awaits you.

Curretly running an X2-4400+ with an X1800XT........both OCed.

Please, no one say that these issues wiil be fixed via future hardware and VISTA.
FSX was released as a DX9/XP title.

Finally, we are assuming a great deal that all issues will be solved with VISTA and DX10.
We all know realisticly that will never happen with MS!

Quote:



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


.....going from Windows95 to 98… and everyone said the same thing, NO WAY AM I BUYING THAT MUCH MEMORY

Then came WindowsME and 2000… and everyone said the same thing, NO WAY AM I BUYING THAT MUCH MEMORY OR SPENDING THAT MUCH ON A PROCESSOR TO RUN IT

Then came WindowsXP…. And that is when the chit really hit the fan

But you know what? You’re running WindowsXP right now and from your post above, it sounds exactly like the same things that were said about every innovation in operating system that has come from Microsoft since day one so unfortunately, you WILL be running VISTA unless you intend to live in a cave.

Analogy:
Your ticked off right now because you bought 256mb of memory to run WindowsXP when you should have bought 768 (min)



Its the same song, just a different tune


see you on the dark side when you have no choice but to install Vista with all the trimmings... but be sure to buy 2-3 gigs of properly matched memory sticks because you ain't movin without that.