The A2A Simulations Community

I can confirm CAPFlyers arguments. As I have been lucky enough to be one of the FSX betatesters I had the opportunity to look a bit more "behind the curtain". I don't think that we should emphasize on that fatal "designed for future hardware" advertisement. I have never seen an advertisement - whatever subject it might have covered - to be true... One of the main facts that appeared "between the lines" during the beta was that ACES were - contradictory to previous development stages - pretty much forced by MS to do things they didn't want to do and to omit things that they wanted to do - generally speaking. Blaming P.T. and ACES for poor performance seems to be simple but is not really decent. FSX was just unlucky to fall into a period of major changes in hard- and software. As already pointed out the upcoming of multi-core processors which were a constant topic during beta-test and the unlucky DX10 "standard" of which FSX should have become a demonstation platform - which definitley went bananas to say the least.

_________________
Oskar

i7-2600k OC 4.4 GHz, ASUS P8Z68-V PRO, WIN7-64Bit, 8GB DDR3 1600MHz, 1x OCZ Vertex 120 GB, 1 x OCZ Ibis 480 GB, 1 x GeForce GTX 580, 1200 W Power Supply, 2 monitors, ASE, EFB on remote PC

I'm not slamming PT or ACES, but equally they were the ones making these frankly bizarre comments about FSX.

Best regards,
Robin.

_________________
A2A/AccuSim. 'nuff said!

I run FSX on "future hardware" and it runs well. And I'm just on the step to order even more "futuristic hardware" where it will run even better. So - still some truth in it BTW - have you ever tried to run highly praised X-Plane maxed out ?
My personal conclusion is: the egg-laying wool-milk-pig is not invented yet ! Will it ever be ?

_________________
Oskar

i7-2600k OC 4.4 GHz, ASUS P8Z68-V PRO, WIN7-64Bit, 8GB DDR3 1600MHz, 1x OCZ Vertex 120 GB, 1 x OCZ Ibis 480 GB, 1 x GeForce GTX 580, 1200 W Power Supply, 2 monitors, ASE, EFB on remote PC

I think FSX has absolutely ridiculous requirements. I have a very overclocked i7 980, super duper fast RAM, 2 GTX 470s, Solid State hard drives, FSX is tweaked and optimized to the maximum, and the Weather runs on a second machine. I run 3 monitors to provide a wide screen experience, I have my IQ settings pretty high, and I run UTX and GE and all the rest, so I'm asking a lot, but Jeez...Something like the Stratocruiser or the MD-11 perform pretty admirably, but older addons like the 747 are absolute dogs. I do not have the resources to run things like MegaAirport LHR; I haven't even considered getting OrbX or the highly acclaimed Leonardo Maddog, because I just don't believe I have the horsepower to provide a fluid simming experience. With some addon airplanes, I'm still dropping into the low teen digit frame rates when flying through thunderstorms. FSX is absurd

Sadly my gaming machine has evolved into something that is so customized to the insatiable needs of FSX, that I don't even know what else to run on it. I'm sure there are other games/sims out there that would kick ass, but I'm so locked into the FSX system of doing things, that I haven't been up to the challenge of setting something else up.

_________________
1)i7 980x 4.35 ghz, gtx 470s SLI, Matrox th2go, Creative x-fi
2)i7 2600k, Gigabyte z68x, gtx 285s sli

Phil has always maintained that ACES's philosophy was that because games had to last several years, the idea was to push the envelope just enough so that most computers could run them, but that it'd still be able to take advantage of "future hardware" as it became available down the road, keeping it relevant throughout its lifespan. This is something that has been going on since FS2000, and never changed. This wasn't being used as an "excuse" for FSX's performance, it was being restated as the reason why FSX was so resource intensive when they had to roll back to DX9 to be able to run the new graphics they had promised during the entire development.

_________________

Well, this is one of the funny parts. You see my config below. Nothing overclocked, everything standard. Win7-64 bit. Running AES on the same machine. I can even run the Concorde at London Heathrow MegaAirport with 25 FPS (locked). It is an open secret that it does not just need the most powerful components to run FSX but it needs the componentes that match each other. My supplier has a quite good hand for that

_________________
Oskar

i7-2600k OC 4.4 GHz, ASUS P8Z68-V PRO, WIN7-64Bit, 8GB DDR3 1600MHz, 1x OCZ Vertex 120 GB, 1 x OCZ Ibis 480 GB, 1 x GeForce GTX 580, 1200 W Power Supply, 2 monitors, ASE, EFB on remote PC

The amount of "needs" of FSX are directly proportional to what the user's preferences are and what amount of hardware or optimization needed to achieve that. Your machine could easily be humbled, its just a matter of adding in "stuff" or perhaps moving your sliders until it saturates your processor and graphics card. You choose to have MegaAirport Heathrow, I have chosen other things.

There is nothing wrong with my machine or my ability to optimize it for FSX. I built it after extensive online consultations with somebody known as an FSX guru. What do you think of this processor? What will my bottlenecks be? What is the fastest RAM to match my processor? How do I configure my AHCI ports? What drivers should I use, how do I optimize this, and that, and the other thing...All these questions were worked out beforehand. I'm reasonably sure my machine and its optimizations, both hardware and software are as good as anybody's out there.

I don't know what other addons you are running, but I insist on some heavy 3rd party Airline Traffic, Heavy Autogen, large radius LOD, UTX, REX, GEX, FEX, FS Global Mesh, Track IR, etc...My sim is loaded to the gills, and my sliders are pretty far to the right. In fact, my settings are Optimized around the Concorde. I am running the maximum amount of addons and sliders that I can that allows me to depart default LHR in the Concorde during a thunderstorm, and at dusk which will allow me to get 18 FPS. I suppose if I insisted on running Mega Airport, I could adjust accordingly, but certain other things would have to suffer. I have an absolute insistence to run the same IQ settings for the Airliners as I do for flying VFR in a Cessna. I want the visuals on my takeoffs, landings, and low altitude flying to be absolutely consistent no matter what I'm flying, so I don't make any sacrifices to Autogen or Scenery complexity just because I'm going to be flying at 50,000 feet. For the record, I consider Concorde X to be a lot more frame friendly than the PMDG 747, but a little less frame friendly than the MD-11. My only A2A product, the Stratocruiser, is somewhat less resource intensive than any of the aforementioned.

Or let me guess, you are one of those guys that has all sliders maxxed, 100 % Cars, and 100% Third party Airline Traffic, and run twice as Mesh, Landclass, and Scenery addons as me (I'm just being a wiseass, but I've been a part of many discussions like these )

Whenever I hear somebody tell me they are getting X amount of FPS at MegaAirport Heathrow in the Concorde (and you aren't the first), all I can say is that it is a matter of deciding what one's priorities are in terms of image quality settings. The machine to conquer FSX hasn't been built yet, and I guarantee if you add more scenery addons or other things in, move your sliders farther, etc, you will be able to bring your rig to its knees, and no amount of skillful optimization will do. I know that you know that already.

P>S For the sake of full disclosure I have never tried to run Megaairport Heathrow on my rig in its current configuration. I recently re-built my machine with a new processor, ssds, and new graphics cards, and Uber fast RAM. Previously I was running a I920 overclocked to 3.9 ghz, with GTX 285s, and an older hard drive, and I didn't have the Concorde X then, although I was still running at a resolution of 4320 x 900 off of a Matrox just like I am now. I can tell you that the PMDG 747 was not satisfactory at Megaairport. Only the Aerosoft Cheyenne had decent framerates there. I doubt it would be much better with the i980 or the GTX 470s, so I never reinstalled it.

I recently bought Aerosoft Tahiti, and I'm eager to fly the Stratocruiser there from Hawaii. An initial check out of my frame rates at Tahiti X were very positive, but I doubt that can be used as a benchmark for how Heathrow would compare.

_________________
1)i7 980x 4.35 ghz, gtx 470s SLI, Matrox th2go, Creative x-fi
2)i7 2600k, Gigabyte z68x, gtx 285s sli

Well, there's no reason to continue this discussion as it is useless. It is of course your right to (admittently) completely overload your computer with any possible add-ons and at the same time complain about FSX not being able to handle it. I use the add-ons that seem to be suitable to me and do not complain about FSX because it is able to handle it. It's so simple. I wonder whether Ferrari would be pleased if you complain that your Testarossa does not perform according the specs just because you decided to have your 26' trailer always attached because of your lifestyle

_________________
Oskar

i7-2600k OC 4.4 GHz, ASUS P8Z68-V PRO, WIN7-64Bit, 8GB DDR3 1600MHz, 1x OCZ Vertex 120 GB, 1 x OCZ Ibis 480 GB, 1 x GeForce GTX 580, 1200 W Power Supply, 2 monitors, ASE, EFB on remote PC

Happy now?

I think you have it backwards. The "Trailer" in this story is FSX itself. The Ferrari is the hardware that I run it on. I can't even imagine running Vanilla FSX. It only lives into 2011 because of the multitude of Addons available to it, and the dedication of developers to work around its limitations.

Nice to know that your choice of addons and standards for image quality are Enhancements, whereas mine are Encumbrances. I only wish I were able to "completely overload [my] computer with any possible add-ons" as you put it, several generations of Hardware and many years after FSX was first released. But no, obviously that isn't what I'm doing: I am making choices about what will run well, and what won't. UTX stays, Heathrow is out. Do I want to keep a TripleHeadToGo configuration, or run the Maddog at passable frame rates? Yes, I think that after all this time has passed, thousands of dollars worth of computer upgrades, the hardware of today OUGHT to be able to handle ALL OF IT; But it doesn't because of the design decisions made by Microsoft. Isn't that what this discussion is all about??? If that makes me a malcontent, then so be it.

I wonder how many Apollo Programs could be run off of just one Core i7.

Sorry I entered this discussion. I should have known better.

_________________
1)i7 980x 4.35 ghz, gtx 470s SLI, Matrox th2go, Creative x-fi
2)i7 2600k, Gigabyte z68x, gtx 285s sli

Ok, ok, I don't get half of what you say but that's ok as I'm a bit a simple mind As far as I have understood this thread was started to ask for some tweaking to get better FPS and it ended up by beefing MS, ACES and whoever comes across with any relationship to FSX. So in that context: NO, it is NOT what this discussion should have been about. It was just directed towards what it ended up now. That's a small but remarkable difference
To sum up: you are the expert that knows exactly why FSX is the biggest piece of crap and I'm a simple user that is delighted by the way I can use FSX and its enhancements - also a remarkable difference and I'm sure we both can live happily with our point of view

_________________
Oskar

i7-2600k OC 4.4 GHz, ASUS P8Z68-V PRO, WIN7-64Bit, 8GB DDR3 1600MHz, 1x OCZ Vertex 120 GB, 1 x OCZ Ibis 480 GB, 1 x GeForce GTX 580, 1200 W Power Supply, 2 monitors, ASE, EFB on remote PC

Wait a minute: I thought -I- was the Country Bumpkin in this discussion because I couldn't run FSX well on a state of the art machine, ostensibly because I didn't have the smarts to properly match my components?

Allright then, Cease fire. I didn't want to get in an argument with A2A's Master Beta tester. It is just that some of us in the always-assumed-to-be-wrong, not-real-pilots, worthless customer community have spent lots of money over the years on flight sim hardware, yet had dissapointing results that didn't live up to the hype. I guess it hit a raw nerve of mine because I've been involved in numerous online discussions where somebody says "Aw, you don't need a Super Duper King Kamehahameha machine to run FSX, all sliders maxxed, I'm running it on my 5 year old Laptop" And then, when some must-have addon comes out that is the coolest thing in the world, we stupid users end up kicking ourselves for not spending the extra 50 bucks it would have required to have a more capable motherboard, or that processor that we could have overclocked just a weee bit more. Or we are pissed at ourselves for spending 400 dollars on the Latency 8 memory, when we could have had the Latency 7 memory for just a little bit more, and now we are putting up with Micro Stutters that ruin the illusion. Who in the user community hasn't had this experience, and been frustrated by it? I have learned to never underestimate the raw horsepower required by FSX, either now, or in the future, in conjunction with whatever gotta-have-it addons come along. What sliders am I going to have to move to the left when the NGX comes and kicks my machine in the butt?

Hopefully there will be no lasting Enmity and you will still entertain the millions of questions that I will no doubt ask in the future regarding the Stratocruiser....You might not like me, but I am serious about Flight Sim, and I think we are all trying to get the most out of our sims. I KNOW that I piss developers and Beta testers off a lot because I make a lot of bug reports, but you should know that I spend a considerable amount of time and do my homework before I post, or if I'm not sure about something I try to make that clear. It is all in good faith.

_________________
1)i7 980x 4.35 ghz, gtx 470s SLI, Matrox th2go, Creative x-fi
2)i7 2600k, Gigabyte z68x, gtx 285s sli

Now that's a bit unfair and you know it, don't you ? Btw, would the equivalent of approx. 20'000 $ spent over the last 5 years be enough to convince you that you're not the only guy on earth that spends some money on flight simming?
Oh boy, what shall I say to that? it only remains to me to express my hope that you at least consider the fact that we might do exactly the same - unbelieveable, isn't it? So at least you're not left alone in your endless fight against Cervante's windmills...

_________________
Oskar

i7-2600k OC 4.4 GHz, ASUS P8Z68-V PRO, WIN7-64Bit, 8GB DDR3 1600MHz, 1x OCZ Vertex 120 GB, 1 x OCZ Ibis 480 GB, 1 x GeForce GTX 580, 1200 W Power Supply, 2 monitors, ASE, EFB on remote PC

Well, that's encouraging to know....How many frames per second did you say you get at Heathrow again?

Allright, peace,
--Big Juicy "Stickin' with the Default EGLL" Spider

_________________
1)i7 980x 4.35 ghz, gtx 470s SLI, Matrox th2go, Creative x-fi
2)i7 2600k, Gigabyte z68x, gtx 285s sli

Guys remember that future hardware isnt what we are running now. The Hardware took a twist shortly before FSX was released, the clock speed race stopped and the multi-core began. This is the sole reason why the designed for future hardware issue crops up specifical with FSX or any game from that era. The machines it was coded for never saw the light of day bue to a massive brick wall and change of direction for hardware.

_________________
A2A Facebook for news live to your social media newsfeed
A2A Youtube because a video can say a thousand screenshots,..
My twitter for my own twitter and random A2A insights

Yes, but I think some of us non-insiders remain a little surprised that either ACES or their management didn't anticipate the shift to Multi Core, or the predominance of SLI, or the ubiquity of their own 64 bit operating systems. I mean they are Microsoft for crying out loud; They didn't have a heads up on what Intel or Nvidia were doing? I guess its a moot point, and FSX simply Is what it Is.

If it weren't for that Bojote person on Avsim revealing the HIGHMEM config file tweak about a week after Concorde X was released, I probably would have quit flight sim right then and there. Even the Stratocruiser was turning to set of flying Landing Gear with Wings when the sim would transition to Dusk. Remember ?

_________________
1)i7 980x 4.35 ghz, gtx 470s SLI, Matrox th2go, Creative x-fi
2)i7 2600k, Gigabyte z68x, gtx 285s sli