Trying FSX

[Anuj]

Hey Guys,

This is aimed at all those FSX users. I downloaded and tried the demo of FSX and I get about 60 FPS over open ocean and about 30 FPS at TNCM with Traffic cranked up to 100%. Aircraft was the default Baron 58. My FSX settings are as follows :

GRAPHICS :
Screen Res. : 1680x1050x32
Filtering : trilinear
Global Texture Resolution : Very High
Lens Flare : Checked
Light Bloom : Unchecked
Advanced Animations : Checked

AIRCRAFT :
Global Settings : Medium High

SCENERY :
Global Settings : Ultra High

WEATHER :
Global Settings : Medium High

So, Considering my system specs (in signature), with these results, is it time for me to move on to FSX ?

Thanks.

[Anuj]

Correction

Scenery is high
Traffic is high

[sanins192]

Funnily enough I tried the FSX demo on Saturday to see how it would compare. I have a very similar system to you (E8400 @ 4GHz, 4GB PC2-8500 RAM, MSI 512MB 4870, Win 7 64-bit) but was not overly impressed by the performance. I did not take note of the FPS, but it was adequate enough to fly a whole flight under those conditions. I know that once I add REX, GEPro, PMDG, WOAI, Aerosoft LHR etc. it would have reduced the performance considerably.

I was not overly impressed by the visuals, as ground scenery was slightly blurry and not nice and sharp as the textures are in FS9. The only positives are that the water is a lot more realistic, and the plane reflections / shadows are a little better. However, I have FS9 set up nicely at the moment, locked to 38FPS (where it stays, even at LHR with full traffic, PMDG, REX etc.). I know that FSX could never compare with that, and I have far too many addons that would be wasted if I was to switch to FSX.

[NWADC9]

Default FSX runs like a dream. Then add your crap, and that dream becomes a nightmare.

[RatherBFlyin]

I have not had any trouble with FSX, and it runs with the FPS in a very adequate range to stay smooth. If you decide to start using it, take the time to fiddle with your settings to get both them and the performance where you want them. My system is somewhat similar to yours, and I have been using FSX for over a year now with good results.

[G-BOAD]

In my experience the demo ran a lot faster than the actual product does. I had high hopes after trying the demo only to be let down upon installing the real thing.

[Anuj]

My main concern as Alex said..... Impact on FSX with REX, ActiveSky, PMDG, Level-D, Captain Sim, Fsdreamteam, FlyTampa etc.....

If I won't be able to fly smoothly with all these... I see no point in moving on to FSX

But... I'm considering the switch because of the migration of good developers to FSX.

Thanks.

[sanins192]

It would be interesting to know what the split is between FS9 / FSX owners in the flightsim world. If there is going to be no further release of FS, then manufacturers have the choice of making FSX or FS9 addons. The people at REX still see enough interest in FS9 to develop addons for it, but PMDG seem to be heading more towards FSX-only releases. I am hoping that they release FS9 versions later on, after they find out that there is enough interest to develop / modify the FSX version to run on the older sim.

[a.trailblazer7]

I have not had any trouble with FSX, and it runs with the FPS in a very adequate range to stay smooth. If you decide to start using it, take the time to fiddle with your settings to get both them and the performance where you want them. My system is somewhat similar to yours, and I have been using FSX for over a year now with good results.

Tim, do you have all the addon's (i.e. REX, FsPassengers, extra scenery) all the toys someone that FS9 would have?

[RatherBFlyin]

The only addons I have purchased for FSX are FSpax, ISG, and ASA. Everything else I have is freeware, including my scenery (I have even created a few AFCAD files for myself when I couldn't find any good ones online). I have my graphics settings at moderate levels, and no AI traffic since all of my flying is done online. I see 25-30FPS about 90% of the time, and I have it locked at 30 since I can't really tell a difference if it is higher than that.

I think the highest it has peaked for me was around 90FPS on a test flight with the FPS unlocked, but I don't see any point running it higher than 30.

[flybywire22]

I've been saving up for the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens from Canon, but once I saw that PMDG is making a 777 for FSX, maybe I'll build myself an FSX ready computer. I have about $1200 right now, only $400 away from the lens. But for $1200 I could build myself a damn good computer... I just wish PMDG would build the 777 for FS9 too.

[sanins192]

I've been saving up for the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens from Canon, but once I saw that PMDG is making a 777 for FSX, maybe I'll build myself an FSX ready computer. I have about $1200 right now, only $400 away from the lens. But for $1200 I could build myself a damn good computer... I just wish PMDG would build the 777 for FS9 too.

Although you could build yourself a great PC for that, and it'll run FS9 flawlessly, FSX will be a disappointment for the amount of money you spend on the system. I am running a 4GHz dual core processor, a quick video card (aging a little now) and 4GB RAM and I found FSX to be disappointing. You're better off going for the lens or building a PC for FS9.

[Anuj]

Thanks for the tips guys. I'll have to do some serious thinking about FSX.

[Carlo]

Hey Guys,

This is aimed at all those FSX users. I downloaded and tried the demo of FSX and I get about 60 FPS over open ocean and about 30 FPS at TNCM with Traffic cranked up to 100%. Aircraft was the default Baron 58. My FSX settings are as follows :

GRAPHICS :
Screen Res. : 1680x1050x32
Filtering : trilinear
Global Texture Resolution : Very High
Lens Flare : Checked
Light Bloom : Unchecked
Advanced Animations : Checked

AIRCRAFT :
Global Settings : Medium High

SCENERY :
Global Settings : Ultra High

WEATHER :
Global Settings : Medium High

So, Considering my system specs (in signature), with these results, is it time for me to move on to FSX ?

Thanks.

This is what drives me mad:
My system is similar to yours, except I have an E8600 overclocked to 4Ghz, faster RAM and a 4870X2, yet I was not satisfied with how FSX used to run on my system. FPS were generally poor, averaging around 20, which is on the very low end of the scale for me, and for what I was expecting to get with this rig.

I switched back to FS9 a few months ago in despair, but now that I'm here, I quite like it. The only reason I would consider switching back to FSX, is because addon developers appear to be ditching FS9 altogether, unfortunately.

I'm considering making the switch back to nVidia though, as it's quite obvious from the myriad of youtube videos that MS prefer nVidia.

[alma343]

I've been saving up for the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens from Canon, but once I saw that PMDG is making a 777 for FSX, maybe I'll build myself an FSX ready computer. I have about $1200 right now, only $400 away from the lens. But for $1200 I could build myself a damn good computer... I just wish PMDG would build the 777 for FS9 too.

Shall we try an online petition?

[Anuj]

I've been saving up for the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens from Canon, but once I saw that PMDG is making a 777 for FSX, maybe I'll build myself an FSX ready computer. I have about $1200 right now, only $400 away from the lens. But for $1200 I could build myself a damn good computer... I just wish PMDG would build the 777 for FS9 too.

Shall we try an online petition?

Believe me, it won't work !