Bofredrik From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8333 times:
It would be interesting to know what Microsoft thinks about FSX so far.
It has been out for a while know...
Is FSX a sucess or a failure from Microsoft:s point of view?
What could be, it any, a mistake done by the company?
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7598 posts, RR: 40 Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8327 times:
Just my opinion, but I don't think that FSX is doing as well as MS may have hoped. Mainly because it's just putting too much of a strain on computer systems today. I know of many people who have bought it, tried it and uninstalled it because the framerates they are getting are very unenjoyable.
Basically, I think it is selling well, but it's not being used as much as MS had hoped.
Nighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4990 posts, RR: 38 Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8265 times:
Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 1): I know of many people who have bought it, tried it and uninstalled it because the framerates they are getting are very unenjoyable.
.. the part in bold is the only part MS give a damn about.....
No they aren't - theres many different flight sim products out there.
However, once you have purchased MS FS, Microsoft has its pound of flesh, its not getting much more from you whether you use its product or not, whether you switch to another product or not.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8228 times:
Quoting Bofredrik (Reply 2): FSX need DirectX 10 and that is not out yet i think...
whoever gave you that fairytale story? FSX is a DirectX 9 application. An update to offer optimisation for systems running Vista and DX10 is planned for after DX10 is released, but it works perfectly well on XP and DX9.
Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 1): Mainly because it's just putting too much of a strain on computer systems today
All FS versions have always done that. Problem is kids get ever more selfish and ever more liable to scream they've been cheated when in fact they've not been.
The vast majority of people with serious performance problems have only themselves to blame, thinking they can run FSX on 5 year old hardware that was marginal for FS2004 and get performance matching or exceeding FS2004.
Some people with newer (2-3 years old) hardware also got a nasty surprise as FSX is no longer purely CPU bound but GPU bound and for years FS players have somewhat forgotten about videocards in favour of CPU power as that would give them a higher performance boost per dollar.
With FSX the game has changed as it is now both CPU bound AND GPU bound, probably even more the latter than the former if you're running at high resolution (1600x1200 or better).
As many FS users have machines with relatively (to the rest of the hardware) underpowered videocards, they're taking a more serious hit than they'd expected.
Also, the service pack offered recently for FSX has had a quite marked influence on performance, especially on multi-core and multi-CPU systems. Some people report 50-100% better performance.
Personally I don't see that much but I do see roughly 25% higher performance combined with smoother graphics displaying higher detail, a tradeoff I'm more than willing to make.
With the service pack FSX now outperforms FS2004 on my hardware, while having far better graphics and flight dynamics, just as FS2004 did with FS2002 on my previous computer.
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7598 posts, RR: 40 Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8219 times:
Quoting Moo (Reply 5): No they aren't - theres many different flight sim products out there
Such as? I can think of many add ons that require MSFS, but I can't think of too many other non MSFS that are stand alone programs.
Quoting Jwenting (Reply 6): All FS versions have always done that. Problem is kids get ever more selfish and ever more liable to scream they've been cheated when in fact they've not been.
The vast majority of people with serious performance problems have only themselves to blame, thinking they can run FSX on 5 year old hardware that was marginal for FS2004 and get performance matching or exceeding FS2004.
Not true. In the past, it's been very easy to run the new versions of MS on the same computer you've been running the previous version on with no problems what so ever.
The performance requirements (in order to get FSX to run as well as FS2004) on your computer has never seen such a wide gap with previous FS generations.
Moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8213 times:
Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 7): Such as? I can think of many add ons that require MSFS, but I can't think of too many other non MSFS that are stand alone programs.
Flight Gear
X-Plane
YS Flight
Fly!
... to name but a few.
Just because Microsoft FS is the predominant simulator in a subsection of a market, it doesn't make it a monopoly - X-Plane has numerous add ons and extensions, but if you weren't using X-Plane then you wouldn't know about them.
Moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8207 times:
Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 9): But does the add ons available for X-Plane (or any other FS) even come close to that of MSFS?
X-Plane is used by certain companies in both non-motion and full-motion simulators certified for flight instruction by the FAA.
X-Plane is also used by various companies in flight testing designs (Scaled Composites for one).
X-Plane doesn't use lookup tables for the bulk of its simulation, its actually calculated on the fly based on simulated airflow over airfoils and body sections.
The quality of its 'add ons' in comparison to MSFS entirely depend on which end of the 'Flight Sim'/'Game' spectrum you personally reside - there are better games out there than MSFS and there are better simulators out there than MSFS.
If you are interested in actual simulation, X-Plane is certainly worth the $50
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7598 posts, RR: 40 Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8198 times:
Quoting Moo (Reply 10): The quality of its 'add ons' in comparison to MSFS entirely depend on which end of the 'Flight Sim'/'Game' spectrum you personally reside - there are better games out there than MSFS and there are better simulators out there than MSFS.
That may be, but do the amount (not quality) of add ons for X-Plane or any other FS, come close to matching the amount of add ons for MSFS?
Quoting Moo (Reply 10): If you are interested in actual simulation, X-Plane is certainly worth the $50
To be honest, I don't use FS as much as I used to. But if I do, I want to have an experience as real as possible, but that doesn't just mean the flight model. I like to have the scenery as real as possible, the airlines as real as possible and the flight procedures as real as possible. And with the amount of add on's available for MSFS, I believe they do have the market on flight simulation.
Moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8196 times:
Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 11): That may be, but do the amount (not quality) of add ons for X-Plane or any other FS, come close to matching the amount of add ons for MSFS?
I don't know as to the amount, as while I do use FS I don't use it to the extent that I use X-Plane, and I prefer quality to overloading myself with quantity.
Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 11):
To be honest, I don't use FS as much as I used to. But if I do, I want to have an experience as real as possible, but that doesn't just mean the flight model. I like to have the scenery as real as possible, the airlines as real as possible and the flight procedures as real as possible.
X-Plane comes with 60GB of scenery included in the $50 list price, and its as good as any Ive seen for FS.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12561 posts, RR: 64 Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8152 times:
Quoting Jwenting (Reply 6): With the service pack FSX now outperforms FS2004 on my hardware, while having far better graphics and flight dynamics, just as FS2004 did with FS2002 on my previous computer.
So just to have a frame of reference, what sort of hardware ARE you using currently?
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7598 posts, RR: 40 Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8142 times:
Quoting Bofredrik (Reply 16): I still think that it has never been so little difference between two FS
versions like FS9 and FS10 if you compare what you see on the screen.
That most of us needs to buy new computer for FS10 is just crazy...
Summary:
You get almost nothing new with FSX.
Sorry.
You get a new computer.
But for what?
I disagree completely on that. The differences between FS9 and FSX are overwhelming, however, not many of us (myself included) can see the differences because we simply don't have the hardware to run FSX hard enough to see the differences.
Jamesbaldwyn From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8110 times:
Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 17): I disagree completely on that. The differences between FS9 and FSX are overwhelming, however, not many of us (myself included) can see the differences because we simply don't have the hardware to run FSX hard enough to see the differences.
Exactly. They say that FSX's sliders set at half way is pretty much FS9 on ultra high. Give it a year or two and the hardware will be out and people will have better systems to play the power hungry beast.
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4248 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8068 times:
The difference between in FSX and FS9 is extremely large, in contents and grafics. But if you load FSX with FS9 addons, you cannt see anything of it - all add ons have to be remade from scratch, with much harder to use tools, with lot more details, to take advantage of FSX. In my experience, I have created about 20 FSX aircrafts now, the time you need for FSX design is 10 times the time needed for FS9 - that is why most of the addons for FSX will remain FS9 or even FS8 based, and people will complain they do not see anything more than before ....
But to the original question: Microsoft has cared for FSX a lot, there would not be a service pack so fats with so many improvements.
SaturnVRocket From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 88 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8044 times:
Quoting Jwenting (Reply 6): With the service pack FSX now outperforms FS2004 on my hardware, while having far better graphics and flight dynamics, just as FS2004 did with FS2002 on my previous computer.
I know some have had enormous success with FSX Sp1, me being one of them. I won't go so far as to say FSX runs better than FS9 now, but I am getting very nice frames (20-30 at SFO airport). With FS9 I can get 50-60FPS. But some say they had a 1-2 FPS increase in performance and the sim still ran like crap even after they installed SP1. To those people you HAVE to do a FULL uninstall of FSX, then reinstall it, then run FSX to build the scenery databases and indexes, THEN install SP1. I followed these instructions exactly and I went from 7-8 FPS to 14-15 FPS at SFO airport. Whoopdedoo. Then I changed my screen resolution from 1024x768X16 to 1200X1024X32 and my FPS jumped to 35 FPS! So when I hear people saying they are still getting bad FPS in FSX I have to wonder if they have a setting wrong somewhere. The other thing to consider is maybe you have a bad RAM module or other failed hardware component that FS9 didn't need so much but FSX does. But FS9 is out the window for me now. I am using FSX exclusively now and LevelD just released their 767 today for FSX.
Tavong From Colombia, joined Jul 2001, 833 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7950 times:
Quoting Jamesbaldwyn (Reply 18):
Exactly. They say that FSX's sliders set at half way is pretty much FS9 on ultra high. Give it a year or two and the hardware will be out and people will have better systems to play the power hungry beast.
And when we get the fast computer to run FSX then Microsoft will lauch FSX+1. Usually happens
Gus
SKBO
Colombian coffee, the best...take a cup and you will see how delicious it is.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 22, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7926 times:
Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 7): The performance requirements (in order to get FSX to run as well as FS2004) on your computer has never seen such a wide gap with previous FS generations.
I have... Try FS2000 to FS98.
And for me FSX performs hardly worse (pre-SP1) than did FS2004. That's pretty similar to what happened when upgrading from FS2002 to FS2004.
The only time I've seen performance increase with a new version was when going from FS2000 to FS2002, and FS2000 was well understood by everyone (including Microsoft) to have been clunky. Lots of new technology pushed into service before it was quite ready.
FSX is a bit of the same, but not AS bad by far. And it's done because the customers ask/scream for it. When Microsoft released FS2004 there was a lot of badmouthing them for it being "just a patch to make FS2002 look better" (not true of course) because there were no major differences in the visuals.
Flight Gear is garbish, X-Plane is no serious competitor, Fly! no longer exists, and I never heard of YS Flight.
Quoting Moo (Reply 12): X-Plane comes with 60GB of scenery included in the $50 list price, and its as good as any Ive seen for FS.
you've not seen a lot of FS then... And that includes a lot of the default scenery. Looked at X-Plane a few years ago (and so will compare it with the FS version of the time).
Panels were complete rubbish, scenery practically non-existent, performance extremely poor. External models were blocky.
Essentially it looked about 6-8 years behind MSFS. From what I've seen in screenshots of current versions it's gotten better but that gap is still there.
So X-Plane today is roughly equivalent to FS2000 or at best FS2002.
Quoting SaturnVRocket (Reply 20): I won't go so far as to say FSX runs better than FS9 now,
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7598 posts, RR: 40 Reply 24, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7903 times:
Quoting Jwenting (Reply 22): Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 7):
The performance requirements (in order to get FSX to run as well as FS2004) on your computer has never seen such a wide gap with previous FS generations.
I have... Try FS2000 to FS98.
When FS2000 came out, most computers on the market were able to handle the performance requirements of FS2000 with out any difficulty's. The hardware was available and many of us were already using it or just needed to do a few modifications such as extra RAM, etc.
However, this is not the case with FSX.
A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
25 Moo: Ive seen a lot of FS - I have many versions of it on my software shelf, including the current one. MS FS does not include anywhere near the amount of
26 Pilotdude09: Anyone got any cockpit shots and virtual cockpit shots from X Plane? Cheers
27 ACDC8: Just a small sample .. http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?...4e9cc290de25afbd781001&showforum=4
28 ACDC8: You could also type in x-plane on youtube. Quiet a few impressive videos on there.
30 Jwenting: Pentium Core Duo 3.2, 2GB RAM, GF7600GT with 256MB, 19" TFT, and a bank of GoFlight controls. So definitely not a highend system. The videocard is by
31 Jamesbaldwyn: Well something is wrong as I have a 2.2Ghz Dual Core, the 7600GT and 1GB RAM and I get the same as you
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7598 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4990 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12561 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4248 posts, 
From Colombia, joined Jul 2001, 833 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
