One Thing You Dislike About FSX

jamesbaldwyn · Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:45 pm

One thing you dislike about FSX.

I would like to scrap the eye candy and work on what matters... the simulation!

NWADC9 · Tue Jun 26, 2007 4:20 am

The jetway and GSE. I like them there and the eye candy it provides, but it needs some serious improvement. For example, since when do jetbridges get stored in a position where it looks like a stick out of the building instead of the traditional "L"? It wastes time when I call it up! Also, the baggage loading crew needs some serious work. They only go on the right side, regardless what the aircraft.cfg says about door position (see "CRJ-700").

jamesjimlb · Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:16 am

the framerates!!!!! and that you can't put it onto ultra high settings.

btw, what is better, higher or lower framerates?

jamesbaldwyn · Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:38 am

Quoting JamesJimlb (Reply 2):
btw, what is better, higher or lower framerates?

Whatever your pc can handle.

I was amazed as I put my pc on medium low and got around 25.
I put everything on ultra high and got 5FPS Smile

Which is almost playable

gunsontheroof · Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:57 am

The whole thing. Can't believe that's what we were waiting for.

N231YE · Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:05 am

Framerates...FSX looks worse on the same framerates I got with FS9. In that regard, I can almost say FS9 provided better graphics.

gunsontheroof · Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:49 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 5):
In that regard, I can almost say FS9 provided better graphics.

Given the fact that FS9 is infinitely more developer friendly than FSX, that's pretty much true. My tricked-out FS9 setup (though currently out of order) looks way slicker than anything I've seen from FSX...and I can fly planes in it.

jamesjimlb · Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:13 am

Quoting Jamesbaldwyn (Reply 3):
Whatever your pc can handle.

I was amazed as I put my pc on medium low and got around 25.
I put everything on ultra high and got 5FPS Which is almost playable

well, i'm not sure what it can, is there a program i can install to help framerates?

QFA380 · Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:24 am

I hate that Microsoft has made the assumption that the world is a desert, everything is sand coloured.

san747 · Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:17 pm

I don't have FSX, but from every screenshot I've ever seen of it-

Where are the photoreal ground textures around the busiest and biggest airports like they've had since at least FS2002?

jamesbaldwyn · Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:00 pm

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 8):
I hate that Microsoft has made the assumption that the world is a desert, everything is sand coloured.

I'll drink to that. Its really annoying isn't it!

khelmDTW · Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:29 am

Graphic Memory Hog.

Plain and simple.

Arniepie · Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:06 am

If they hadn't tried to focus so much on eye-candy (as in autogen+ very dense landclass possibilities) but more on a leap in AI handling and ATC possibilities I would have switched to FSX in a heartbeat even knowing that I couldn't use many of my favorite addons for a while.
But they decided to invest all their developing time in eye-candy whit the current result being that in the points it should have evolved there is virtually no change with FS9 and the fields that have evolved (graphics) are with current hardware possibilities not usable.

RKDFlier · Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:20 pm

Fuel trucks never getting to my plane. Always stop enroute and sit there forever.

PMDGpilot · Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:52 pm

I don't like the textures as well. But I still hate the ATC system. I don't get QNH outside the US or Metric Altitudes over Russia and China. I think that the direction Microsoft went in was nice. I just wish they made the change more gradual instead of all at once. That way it wouldn't turn into a nightmare to transition for everyone. They also could've improved the realism (ATC, Weather system, flight dynamics). If you take my current setup and addons, it's really "As Real As It Gets". I thought FSX was supposed to come like that before the addons.

ebs757 · Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:50 pm

That I have to have the display settings half what I have in FS9 and still get the same frame rates...that really sucks and is the main reason im more FS9

InnocuousFox · Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:23 pm

Wow... guess I will be upgrading my 2002 to FS9, eh?

jamesbaldwyn · Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:42 am

Quoting Ebs757 (Reply 15):
That I have to have the display settings half what I have in FS9 and still get the same frame rates...that really sucks and is the main reason im more FS9

FS9 Ultra High is the near equivelent to FSX set on Medium Low/High

Evers · Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:27 am

the fact the i bought a new computer for it, 7950GT, 2gb RAM, E6400 and it still runs like crap.

with all the add-ons for FS9 i cant see myself making the change in a long time.

LTU932 · Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:48 am

Quoting PMDGpilot (Reply 14):
I don't get QNH outside the US or Metric Altitudes over Russia and China.

Not to mention that the transition altitudes are always the same ones (the US transition altitude of 18000 feet).

In retrospect, I may have bought FSX, messed around with it for a while, and then go back to FS9. I never found it here in Costa Rica, at least not in the major computer stores. What mostly pisses me off about FSX is this constant emphasis on DX10, when they don't even release a version with DX10 or even a version where you can switch from DX9 to DX10, etc. For now, I'm sticking with FS9. It's just the better sim.

Also, I'm pissed off at PMDG and Level-D. Just because FSX is out, doesn't mean everyone will start using it. Granted, Level-D at least was upfront about their intentions no to release the 757 for FS9 but for FSX, but the dirty tactics of PMDG, releasing the MD-11 for FSX only, after over 3 years of development, and along with that jacking up prices by swapping the dollar sign with a Euro sign, has definitely made me think twice about buying any PMDG product in the future.

Fact is: if I get FSX, I'll just mess around with it until there are enough addons to use it with and until I have a decent computer to run it.

jasond · Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:20 pm

1) Got it bundled with a recent joystick purchase
2) Installed it
3) Set it up just like my FS9 (everything literally as high as possible)
4) Watched it die horribly at about 6-8 FPS
5) Un-installed it
6) Fired up FS9 (back to 25-30 FPS again everywhere)

Even with the very low frame rate which you tend to expect with any new version (remember going from FS98 - FS2000), graphically FSX with equivalent settings is very poor, I wouldn't even describe this as an 'update' to FS9 nevermind a full blown new product. Moving from 98 to 2000 was forgivable because of the obvious improvements, 2002 to 2004 was also a logical step without too much impact. FSX is quite simply appalling in every respect. I did however locate the new runway and taxiway textures and port them into FS9 so I didn't waste my money too much. They were at least genuinely better. I am going to try and do the same with autogen soon as well as there are a lot more different types of things in FSX.

Bekol · Wed Aug 15, 2007 3:48 pm

The thing I dislike most in FSX is - I once planned to spend some money on buying a new pc for it but then later I realised that I might had to spend a HUGE amount (some USD1K) but still couldn't fly it as joyful (w/ good graphics, fps, etc..) as in FS9.

Then what I could do is just buying a new pc for FS9 (which can run smoothly and perfectly on the new pc) and wait sometime for some hardware/software upgrades.

ARNYEG · Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:14 pm

Well the list could be long but I would say the poor framerates and ATC. Did they even improve anything with the ATC in FSX or just went with the FS9 ATC?

Genius12 · Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:45 pm

A lack of emergency situations (eg. being able to declare an emergency/emergency landing with fire trucks etc.).

A lack of realistic damage (eg. bits breaking off!).

Only 1 airbridge per gate - some gates in real life have two, and as for A380 gates - they have three or more.

More aircraft are needed with realistic liveries - BA, Qantas, SIA etc. without the need for add-on textures.

wilco737 · Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:20 pm

ATC for sure... still the same old crap as in FS9... I mean, dudes, WORK on that for the next FS...

Btw: I am not using FSX anymore... My PC is too old and cant handle that! Max FPS I had was 10! And usually its as low as 3-5 or so... So back to good old FS9 Big grin

WILCO737 (MD11F)
airplane

B727-200 · Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:23 pm

The one thing i dislike it that it is unplayable with everything turned up on the latest machines. This just indicates sloppy programming in my mind.

I have a Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.47GHz), 8800GTS GFX card and 2GB ram running Windows Vista, and it still runs like a dog. In comparrison, I run Medal of Honor Pacific Assault max everything and get stunning results, including the Pearl Harbour scene, where I would say it does not drop below 15-20 fps (for those who are unfamiliar, this scene has hundreds of aircraft bombing and straifing, hundreds of crew on land and on ship decks running/falling/shooting, beautifully animated water, smoke, fire, explosions, motion bluring and everything is in extreme high detail and going that fast your head spins).

I seriously hope that when they eventually patch it for DX10 that it starts to deliver on some of its promises, because at the moment the only suggestion I have to improve it is for Micro$oft to sell the franchise to someone who can program and who listens to the wants of its core market.

B727-200.

malaysia · Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:32 pm

AFcAD dont work with it yet still...... I am tired of my traffic all mixing up gate assignments.

plus the more arid Earth in FSX (too many deserts)

jasond · Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:19 pm

Quoting B727-200 (Reply 25):
This just indicates sloppy programming in my mind.

I will take you to task on that one because you are quite clearly wrong. What happens in the other games you have described is usually over much smaller scales and closer quarters, believe it or not a lot less has to be drawn on screen in the vast majority of these games. FS is a completely different animal with the added impedement that it also has to calculate every aspect of the physically modelled environment in which you fly as well. Games like Medal of Honor Pacific Assault and their ilk only have to look good, sure there are lots of objects flying about but they don't have to be modelled or behave that accurately which means the render loop that creates each frame can spend more time on the graphics and a lot less time on the actual physics to ensure each object is where it needs at any particular point in time. These games also do not have to worry about running calculations through a weather engine either, so less overhead there. In fact calculating how the aircraft should behave while moving through a realistic dynamic weather environment is a huge part of FS's render loop. Medal Of Honor and others could not care less about this, they don't need it.

Comparing the two is apples and oranges, seriously dude they are not the same.

David L · Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:34 pm

Quoting Malaysia (Reply 26):
AFcAD dont work with it yet still

Do you mean the AFCAD editor by Lee Swordy? That's a third party product and the last I heard was that he's not doing an FSX version. I don't think you can expect MS to provide a fix for FSX to work with older third party products. Smile

Quoting Jasond (Reply 27):
Comparing the two is apples and oranges, seriously dude they are not the same.

N231YE · Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:40 am

Quoting B727-200 (Reply 25):
I have a Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.47GHz), 8800GTS GFX card and 2GB ram running Windows Vista, and it still runs like a dog.

Wow, and that's a fairly state-of-the-art computer...

I wonder if FSX will only do good on dual, top of the line graphics cards.

Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:05 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 29):
Quoting B727-200 (Reply 25):
I have a Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.47GHz), 8800GTS GFX card and 2GB ram running Windows Vista, and it still runs like a dog.

Wow, and that's a fairly state-of-the-art computer...

Well, yes, it is kind of state of the art, but can FSX use the full force of the quad? It only has support for 2 cores by default, not 4, meaning that a duo and the quad would perform about the same. But if you install SP1 for FSX they claim to distribute the workload over all cores. I would expect better core use in SP2 or SP21 or some fancy Add-On for $30... And running FS9 on a Duo/Quad will do you no good in comparison with a single core processor at higher freq as it has no support for multicore. What you have on the +side though is a larger cache.

I'm sticking to FS9 and my old computer for a while longer, but good thing is that the Quad has gone down in price lately Smile

ARNYEG · Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:33 am

Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 30):
Well, yes, it is kind of state of the art, but can FSX use the full force of the quad? It only has support for 2 cores by default, not 4, meaning that a duo and the quad would perform about the same.

I was under the impression that FSX didn't have support for more than one core before SP1 was released. Even with the quad core on the market, and support for it in FSX, I still think it will be some time before we can get some decent fps with settings at high or max.

n521na · Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:32 pm

I'm running an E6600, 2GB RAM, 8800GTS 320MB RAM, Win XP with all settings high except no AI traffic (I fly using VATSIM), and road/boat traffic set to 10% and autogen on normal. I'm getting frame rates in the high 20s to 40s and dropping to low 20s in big cities. This is running with the LVLD 767, UTX, ASX and X graphics so there might be something wrong with your setup or your settings are too high. Monitor is 19" LCD at 1280x1024 resolution, 4x AA and 16x AF. The upcoming "SP2" which should be out soon will include yet another performance upgrade as SP1 did.

There are replacement textures for the annoying default desert textures available on avsim.

[Edited 2007-08-18 07:37:58]

N231YE · Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:30 am

Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 30):

I admit that you are correct. But a near-the-top nVidia GeForce 8800GTS can't run FSX? I guess FSX was designed for computers still four years away.

B727-200 · Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:52 am

JasonD, I take your point re smaller environment and objects on set paths as opposed to being simulated in a physical environmnt embarrassed

, but still very frustrated with a couple of aspects of its performance.

The major issue I have is with the rendering of clouds and rain, which seems to add the most lag on the system. For those worried about FSX performance on a higher end computer, don't be, because the frame rate in good to fair weather is very. very good. I tried it in a few different scenarios (as you do) and one was trying to land in a thunderstorm, and this is when my frames dropped to < 5fps. It is the same issue I had with FS2002 and FS2004 until I upgraded my machine.

Maybe I should change my 'one thing I dislike' to how FSX continues to die when rendering heavy clouds and inclement weather? Still waiting for the DX10 upgrade to really test its performance though.

B727-200.

Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:04 pm

Quoting N231YE (Reply 33):
But a near-the-top nVidia GeForce 8800GTS can't run FSX?

I think the Graphics board is not the problem, just that FSX can't use the multicore processors. And running a single core at 2,47GHz ought to give less power than my Prescott clocked at approx 3,8GHz. If the 8800GTS aint enough then it sure is a bad example of rotten programming, that is a mighty fine board.

N231YE · Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:56 pm

Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 35):

I see what you're saying. Anyways, I am glad the original poster did describe his computer, since I was thinking of dropping 4 grand on a new PC with similar specs. I guess I'll have to wait.

B727-200 · Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:05 pm

Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 35):
just that FSX can't use the multicore processors

I thought SP1 was supposed to fix the multicore problem?

I reinstalled and did some more playing around with the sliders last night. I found that with everything on full I struggled to get FPS in double figures (even with clear weather). I played around until I got roughly 20 FPS, but this meant running the mesh at <70%, textures to >1 metre, AI aircraft at 75%, Water texture on Low2, Autogen on medium, and all other AI traffic on <30%.

So I suppose to consolidate my thoughts over this and previous posts, the one thing I dislike about FSX is that Microsoft rate my system as a 5.5, yet it struggles to run FSX which requires an "optimum" system rating of 5.0?

For those building a system out there for FSX that don't want to be disappointed, I would not go less than a Core 2 Quad Q6700, nVidia 8800 Ultra and 4GB of 800GHz ram.

B727-200.

jasond · Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:41 pm

Quoting B727-200 (Reply 34):
Maybe I should change my 'one thing I dislike' to how FSX continues to die when rendering heavy clouds and inclement weather? Still waiting for the DX10 upgrade to really test its performance though.

Which is odd when you consider the reverse is true with FS2004. The trick with setting up bad weather is to appreciate that visibilities should be much less thereby rendering higher frame rates due to less to draw. This is certainly true with FS2004 but not so with FSX so your point is well made Smile

B727-200 · Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:51 pm

Quoting Jasond (Reply 38):
The trick with setting up bad weather is to appreciate that visibilities should be much less thereby rendering higher frame rates due to less to draw.

Very true on both versions - eg. once you enter the "ground fog" layer things speed up considerably. It was the same with my old XP machine running FS9. I always hoped for low vis below 1000' AGL when there was a lot of clouds around as it would kick my frames up from 4 or 5 to >15 or 20 on landing Big grin

What it has trouble with is when you are flying through heavy clouds and rain and you are above the ground fog layer, so distance visibility is at max. A couple of the "missions" on FSX have you flying in these conditions and this is when things slow down too much for the game to be playable.

The only way I have found to get around it is to go low detail clouds yuck

, or reduce cloud density and draw distance vomit

.

B727-200.

dw747400 · Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:39 pm

Quoting B727-200 (Reply 37):
I thought SP1 was supposed to fix the multicore problem?

As I see it, it fixes it as much as it can be fixed... you have some limits inherent in the fact the program was never originally written for multi-core systems, and so its never going to perform like they had started working with a architecture to support multiple cores from day one. I think this was probably their single biggest mistake in development. SP1 is a very good effort to fix this, but if they had been multi-core from day one... who knows...

Quoting B727-200 (Reply 37):
For those building a system out there for FSX that don't want to be disappointed, I would not go less than a Core 2 Quad Q6700, nVidia 8800 Ultra and 4GB of 800GHz ram.

I'm running a system close to those specs (I designed it around FSX for the most part), and can get 80-89% settings on most graphics. I wouldn't worry about an 8800 Ultra... a GTX only looses like 1.5% performance and saves a bundle for cash.

zululima · Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:09 pm

There is really only one problem with FSX and that is what Micro$soft (to quote B727-200) did with the updated features. As others have mentioned, there is too much eye-candy and not enough flight realism. Microsoft seems to think that this is a GAME and not a SIMULATOR. They spent all of their energy creating elephants and ground service equipment so that it would look shiny and new and people would buy it as a cool game, which appeals to more consumers than a sim. But it is NOT a game, it IS a sim! 95% of the people I know who buy FS love aviation and buy it to simulate flying, which would be infinitely better served with upgrades to ATC, flight procedures, etc. Who really needs the "missions" where you ferry cargo into Africa and earn rewards? Sim-ers make up their own missions in their heads anyway, and would in any case need more than the 50 or so missions that are available. I find it interesting that Microsoft have thus put their efforts into making FSX a game, albeit one capable of tremendous graphics (that's why I bought it after all) only to have it be so good looking as to be completely useless to the masses (that they are targeting as consumers of this game) and at the same time alienating aviation enthusiasts/simulator users like us. That said, I'm hanging on to my copy because in 10 years my computer might be able to handle it, and I will then have a truly great-looking version of FS9 [sic] to fly.

p.s. Why only a handful of planes to choose from (I don't consider additional fake-airline repaints to be additional a/c) when they could easily add more? You only fly one at a time, and thus frame-rate would not be affected; you would just need slightly more hard drive space. 2 dozen doesn't cut it for me.

jasond · Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:42 pm

Quoting B727-200 (Reply 39):
I always hoped for low vis below 1000' AGL when there was a lot of clouds around as it would kick my frames up from 4 or 5 to >15 or 20 on landing Big grin

Its good purely for the challenge, not seeing the runway until 200 foot minimums and knowing you have nailed it Wink

InnocuousFox · Sat Aug 25, 2007 1:25 am

Quoting B727-200 (Reply 39):
Very true on both versions - eg. once you enter the "ground fog" layer things speed up considerably. It was the same with my old XP machine running FS9. I always hoped for low vis below 1000' AGL when there was a lot of clouds around as it would kick my frames up from 4 or 5 to >15 or 20 on landing

What it has trouble with is when you are flying through heavy clouds and rain and you are above the ground fog layer, so distance visibility is at max. A couple of the "missions" on FSX have you flying in these conditions and this is when things slow down too much for the game to be playable.

Coming from a game developer here... remember that the problem isn't necessarily doing the drawing, but itterating through the thousands of potentially visible objects to determine what to draw and what not to. When you are at altitude, even in a cloud, it needs to determine what you can see. That's what kills the processor. Also, because of the newer ways that MS renders dynamic clouds (volumetric), just because you are in one doesn't mean that you can't see anything (which would simply be a flag - "don't bother looking for objects"). It still needs to determine things - even if you can see the OTHER clouds (as funny as that sounds).

B727-200 · Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:24 am

Quoting Jasond (Reply 42):
Its good purely for the challenge, not seeing the runway until 200 foot minimums and knowing you have nailed it

LOL, or experiencing an unexpected thud because you were not concentrating through short final (usually because my wife or kids will walk in just as I am about to set it down - I am sure they have a cctv system set up that I don't know about Big grin

).

Quoting InnocuousFox (Reply 43):
Coming from a game developer here... remember that the problem isn't necessarily doing the drawing, but itterating through the thousands of potentially visible objects to determine what to draw and what not to. When you are at altitude, even in a cloud, it needs to determine what you can see. That's what kills the processor. Also, because of the newer ways that MS renders dynamic clouds (volumetric), just because you are in one doesn't mean that you can't see anything (which would simply be a flag - "don't bother looking for objects"). It still needs to determine things - even if you can see the OTHER clouds (as funny as that sounds).

Makes perfect sense InnocuousFox. What are your thoughts/expectations of how cloud rendering will perform under DX10?

B727-200.

jasond · Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:31 pm

Quoting B727-200 (Reply 44):
I am sure they have a cctv system set up that I don't know about

Yes, it's called eyes in the back of their heads Wink

AirPacific747 · Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:06 pm

Quoting N231YE (Reply 5):
Framerates...FSX looks worse on the same framerates I got with FS9. In that regard, I can almost say FS9 provided better graphics.

That's what I've concluded too! It's funny as FSX is a few years newer.. what have they been doing for the past many years???

The FPS have gotten quite a bit better after updating FSX but I still much prefer FS9.

I was really disappointed about the ATC which they didnt improve at all, and they didnt improve the 2d cockpits in certain planes either.. some of them still look like FS2000 2d cockpits...

InnocuousFox · Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:41 am

Quoting B727-200 (Reply 44):
What are your thoughts/expectations of how cloud rendering will perform under DX10?

Not sure. Haven't looked into it. I'm busy working on my own stuff!

LTU932 · Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:48 pm

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 46):
I was really disappointed about the ATC which they didnt improve at all, and they didnt improve the 2d cockpits in certain planes either.. some of them still look like FS2000 2d cockpits...

Most of the default models still have panels that were created originally for FS2000, so no surprise there.

KevinL1011 · Sun Sep 23, 2007 9:10 am

I can run FSX anywhere up to 30fps by eliminating or reducing certain graphic settings such as watercraft, ground vehicles and reducing mesh detail just a tad. I have a Dell Inspiron 9100 w/ a P4m, 1g ram and a Radeon 9700 BUT...I had to load it on a Lacie external HD due to lack of space. It runs it pretty good.

Dislikes:
I wish I could activate thrust reversers from my controller.
I can't complete the glider mission Arrrrg!!! The plane keeps see-sawing behind the tow. (help anyone?)
The landing lights white out your view of the runway.

Likes:
Flying the 737-800 is a dream !

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net