Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Ah, the attitude...

 

First of all, mentions of FSX being unstable seem funny to me. I never had a single crash with it. As for running vanilla - why not? Depends entirely on what you want from the product, doesn't it? There was no issues just leisurely logging a DC3 around the world on clock an compass, so why spend money on extras that won't improve that experience?

 

Copen, it ran very nicely on about medium settings on my old C2D 2GHz laptop with a 256MB GeForce 8600. It definitely should "scream" on your PC.

 

What are you people doing to your PC's to make them run things so damn slow and crashy? :P

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
Copen, it ran very nicely on about medium settings on my old C2D 2GHz laptop with a 256MB GeForce 8600. It definitely should "scream" on your PC.

 

What are you people doing to your PC's to make them run things so damn slow and crashy? :P

 

Well my system runs the much more taxing DCS Warthog at an average of 30fps, so I blame FSX for the performance issues, not my system. Maybe it was slow due to me taking off from a particular airport?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

2006 Mac Pro (boot camp) | 2 x 2.66Ghz Core2 Xeon | 5GB 667Mhz FB-DIMM RAM | nVidia GTX260 Core216 768MB | Windows 7 Pro x64 | TM Warthog HOTAS | TrackIR 5 | Saitek Pro rudder pedals | Dell 24" LCD @ 1920x1200

Posted
the much more taxing DCS Warthog

 

How do you know it is much more taxing? Feeling? Do you have any technical backing to this?

 

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but still there are crap opinions :P

 

Look at the ATC, visibility range, weather system, map size/airport database, aircraft variety on VANILLA FSX and see if there are any simulator currently in the market rivalling it. Closest seems X-Plane, which given its still under development, sooner or later will catch up/surpass.

 

DCS is military-focused, period. On top of that, it is airframe-focused. Slowly some features are being added that improve the environment, but still is a long-way to go, which also I believe given enough time they will arrive fully.

 

And BTW, FSX and ARMA2 are some of the current heavy-CPU titles in the market that better make use of multi-core processors, given how HARD it is to program for it.

Posted

I've uninstalled FSX for good, along with all the addons I purchased. When I finally realised I actually didn't enjoy loading it and waiting 5 minutes for it to load (takes ages with terrain/weather etc) and then finding the planes are flying strangely.

 

I also realised that my time with FSX was spent tweaking, researching addons, testing addons, categorising planes etc much more than actual flying.

 

I know the out of the box game is just a platform, but I think probably because of the fact that they dumped it and stopped giving regular updates it is an incomplete platform.

 

Directx 10 is just a preview, and many addons don't work with it.

The flight model available is not very good for addon makers. After flying Su-25t, Ka-50, A-10C, Rise of Flight etc, flying FSX feels like there is no gravity.

 

It was a hard thing to do removing it, with all the commitment I had put in building up addons and tweaking it, but I'm happier for it and I can focus on a specific sim for each era. Rise of flight, Battle of Britain, Jet Thunder (soon), and DCS series.

 

The ability to fly combat missions in a sim makes it more enjoyable too.

 

In the future I will look towards X-Plane 10 due in Feb/March I believe, as this could satisfy my civ sim fix if I need it.

Pimax Crystal VR & Simpit User | Ryzen CPU & Nvidia RTX GPU | Some of my mods

Posted

one of the best addon for FSX is VRS Superbug, With the TacPac going to be released around Feb 2011 will be great as you can have combat mode and fire a missile in FSX

Hope they will release it earlier

Posted
I've uninstalled FSX for good, along with all the addons I purchased. When I finally realised I actually didn't enjoy loading it and waiting 5 minutes for it to load (takes ages with terrain/weather etc) and then finding the planes are flying strangely.

 

I also realised that my time with FSX was spent tweaking, researching addons, testing addons, categorising planes etc much more than actual flying.

 

I know the out of the box game is just a platform, but I think probably because of the fact that they dumped it and stopped giving regular updates it is an incomplete platform.

 

Directx 10 is just a preview, and many addons don't work with it.

The flight model available is not very good for addon makers. After flying Su-25t, Ka-50, A-10C, Rise of Flight etc, flying FSX feels like there is no gravity.

 

It was a hard thing to do removing it, with all the commitment I had put in building up addons and tweaking it, but I'm happier for it and I can focus on a specific sim for each era. Rise of flight, Battle of Britain, Jet Thunder (soon), and DCS series.

 

The ability to fly combat missions in a sim makes it more enjoyable too.

 

In the future I will look towards X-Plane 10 due in Feb/March I believe, as this could satisfy my civ sim fix if I need it.

 

 

I actually did the same thing, deleted FSX and all my virtual hanger of...well at least 15 amazing planes, L-39, VRS and P47 A2A with accusim. I never bothered with the ORBX terrain or sky enhacements because my machine struggled to keep up with my high standard of frame rates. I did have a LOAD of fun, but I was always chasing the next plane and spending way too much on higher than FSX priced ad-ons. Some are amazing, others are terrible.

 

I'm sure when I get the new computer it very well could go back on, but I'm curious to see how X-plane 10 turns out...not enough time to sim these days and too many other quality sims to play (Rise of Flight, DCS series and upcoming SOW).

Posted (edited)

So I decided to try out Flight Simulator X and X-Plane 9, to see how those compared to DCS. Wow, in comparison, it's amazing how terrible they are. The DCS cockpit is just so lifelike compared to the others. The engine sounds, the realistic flight dynamics, the ability to see all around you during takeoff (way better track IR integration). And the performance! FSX, even on lowest settings, gets barely 20fps on my system. DCS could improve by taking the FSX training system, but that's it.

 

There could be several reasons you get such low fps:

-no SP2 installed. FSX 1.0 was barely usable, almost like Lock On 1.00 :P It didn't use multicore pocessors.

-ingame FPS limiter engaged.

-something totally wrong with your system

-you are exaggerating ;)

 

FSX requires a few tweaks to get best performance, but with all the knowledge already there on FSX forums and even automated service that analyzes your FSX config file, this this is not harder than reading several pages of DCS manual. With your system and stock FSX without addons you should get three digit fps on low settings, and 20-30 on high (not very high). At least that's what I got with similar setup.

 

The best thing in FS(X) is that you can fly any type of aircraft (prop, turboprop, jet, civil, military, WWI, WWII, vintage, modern, general aviation, heavy metal) anywhere in the world in a realistic environment. Yes, you need many, usually payware addons to get most out of this sim, but you can focus on what interests you the most. Compared to that, DCS with one flyable aircraft and the same world region since Flanker feels very.... limited, even though it's a great study sim.

 

Graphics are apples to oranges, DCS:A10 finally cathes and surpasses stock FSX in most areas, but still looks worse than FSX pumped up with addons.

Edited by some1

Hardware: VPForce Rhino, FSSB R3 Ultra, Virpil WarBRD, Hotas Warthog, Winwing F15EX, Slaw Rudder, GVL224 Trio Throttle, Thrustmaster MFDs, Saitek Trim wheel, Trackir 5, Quest Pro

Posted
Nobody who knows anything.

 

FSX is a platform for quality payware add-ons, like REX, RC4, PMDG.

 

Unfortunately, FSX itself, is unstable single-core bound JUNK.

 

And even then i would say: use FS9 instead of FSX. Looking at the setup above, the frames will be very poor in FSX, regardless the system you use.

Ik think that PMDG has done a great job with their 747-400 with full FMC and all electronic systems. But the main factor for FS9 & FSX are the add ons from Aerosoft (sceneries + great tools like good flightplanners ect), PMDG (planes). Without those add ons both are nude.

Without sollutions there aren't any problems

 

CASE: CM 690 II / PSU: CM 750 Realpower / MB: MSI P55 GD65 / CPU: I7-860 @ 3,8 GHZ / MEM: 4x2GB OCZ 1866 Platinum / SB: Creative X-FI Extreme gamer / GPU: ASUS GTX 275 / HD: 2 x Samsung F1 1 GB / OS: WIN 7 64 Bit H.E. / MON: 1 x Samsung Syncmaster P2770HD & 1 x Samsung syncmaster 940bf / Logitech G27 / logitech G110 / Logitech M705 / Logitech Extreme 3D pro / Saitek Proflight Yoke, 2 USB Throttle controllers & rudders / TrackIR 4.0 /

Posted
I'm sorry but that comparison is apples and oranges....

 

I do agree DCS is fantastic, but are you using high quality add ons in FSX/FS9? Anyone can tell you the default aircraft are crap.

 

I'm sorry but payware add-ons simply bring FSX FPS down to single digits.

 

FSX is a broken unstable mess.

 

As for XP9/10, there are no payware add-ons of high quality commecial jets like LDS or PMDG.

 

So you cannot win.

"You see, IronHand is my thing"

My specs:  W10 Pro, I5/11600K o/c to 4800 @1.32v, 64 GB 3200 XML RAM, Red Dragon 7800XT/16GB, monitor: GIGABYTE M32QC 32" (31.5" Viewable) QHD 2560 x 1440 (2K) 165Hz.

Posted (edited)
Graphics are apples to oranges, DCS:A10 finally cathes and surpasses stock FSX in most areas, but still looks worse than FSX pumped up with addons.

 

Yes, but too bad those add-ons utterly trash FPS, no matter the pc rig.

 

And the worse thing by far is that the FSX community is in complete DENIAL about this fundamental FACT.

 

Dont believe me? Head over to fecking UTAR AVSIM and see.

Edited by Mower
  • Like 1

"You see, IronHand is my thing"

My specs:  W10 Pro, I5/11600K o/c to 4800 @1.32v, 64 GB 3200 XML RAM, Red Dragon 7800XT/16GB, monitor: GIGABYTE M32QC 32" (31.5" Viewable) QHD 2560 x 1440 (2K) 165Hz.

Posted

Mower makes a valid point. SOME of the more complex larger planes in FSX completely KILLED my FPS, even with everything turned down low. The Large 747's and in particular one Turboprop (i forget the name of the plane now) commercial plane. So much so that they were un-unsable. Reading some reviews people had mentioned a hit in FPS, but never thought my system would completely trash it like that.

 

It's obvious there are people who like FSX and people who don't. It's alright for different things. When comparisons to combat sims like FALCON or DCS series start coming up (FSX has amazing textures rez compared to DCS A-10C blah blah blah) that's when the line gets drawn...for me at least.

 

It's funny with "GAMES" how attached and defensive players get. COD fanboy will hate on ARMA, Falcon fanboy will hate on DCS, DCS fanboy will hate on Falcon. I'm somewhat guilty of it as well, I just find that funny :)

Posted
That sucks mate..., it's a really good plane.. I hope the soon-to-be-released 737ngx will be playable for ya! (if your getting it obviously :) )

 

I've removed FSX from my HD actually, long story (short of it is I'm on a mac, didn't partition enough space for all my sims). I'm getting a new computer in the new year and will open up that can of worms again...hopefully it should run a BIT better...but I won't have to worry about drive space. :)

 

Who worries about drive space today when 500gigs is like $25 ;).

Posted (edited)
Yes, but too bad those add-ons utterly trash FPS, no matter the pc rig.

 

And the worse thing by far is that the FSX community is in complete DENIAL about this fundamental FACT.

 

Dont believe me? Head over to fecking UTAR AVSIM and see.

 

Well, maybe those people don't need to fly on highest settings to be happy. Or maybe they can set up their simulator, while you can't :P Flight Simulator has by far the biggest online community, and these people seem to enjoy the thing. Do you think they're stupid, blind or what? ;)

 

Anyway, I can live with that sort of FPS "trashing" as shown on the screenshots below.

 

2010-12-13_20-17-40-178_1.jpg

 

Steady FPS above 20 is enough to fly this thing. That's with the mentioned here JS4100, UT2, real word ASE weather, 4096 REX clouds, HD resolution with supersampling AA and 16x anizo and FTX on highest autogen settings. Sure, I can't fly this plane with that autogen settings over Seattle, or in very bad weather, but I can bring autogen to normal/high level in less than 10 seconds on the fly, and still enjoy smooth flight.

 

This on the other hand, is over FTX Portland, with one notch below maximum, still, looks fine :) I can achieve these results with Core i5@4GHz, 8GB DDR3@1500MHz and GTX 275 896MB. Can't say it's high-end computer.

 

2010-12-13_20-29-16-971.jpg

Edited by some1

Hardware: VPForce Rhino, FSSB R3 Ultra, Virpil WarBRD, Hotas Warthog, Winwing F15EX, Slaw Rudder, GVL224 Trio Throttle, Thrustmaster MFDs, Saitek Trim wheel, Trackir 5, Quest Pro

Posted
Well, maybe those people don't need to fly on highest settings to be happy. Or maybe they can set up their simulator, while you can't :P Flight Simulator has by far the biggest online community, and these people seem to enjoy the thing. Do you think they're stupid, blind or what? ;)

 

Of course they are. Everyone knows FSX is utter trash :music_whistling:

Posted

FSC also has a NASTY tendency to CTD, moreso as add-ons are piled on.

 

I use...

 

REX2

RC4

PMDG

GEX2/LDS

FSDreamTeam airports

AES

 

and I am constantly concerned about CTDs after spending so much time getting theflight planning and airport setup, getting int he air, enroute...CTD !!!

 

Happened again now.

"You see, IronHand is my thing"

My specs:  W10 Pro, I5/11600K o/c to 4800 @1.32v, 64 GB 3200 XML RAM, Red Dragon 7800XT/16GB, monitor: GIGABYTE M32QC 32" (31.5" Viewable) QHD 2560 x 1440 (2K) 165Hz.

Posted

Honestly, I've had more CTDs with FC2 than I have FSX. FSX is just extremely slow to load for me because of the addons. Opening the program takes about 2 minutes. The select aircraft menu takes about a minute to load, and my settings keep getting reset.

 

I blame all my problems on the fact that I'm running Vista.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...