Thinking about FSX Steam? Think again!

Like many of you, I was excited to hear about the release of FSX on Steam. Although the only actual change is a working multiplayer mode, it's just good to hear that FSX isn't dead after all, and the possibility of updates in the future gives one hope. Apparently I'm not the only one -- Steam has apparently had more than 200,000 sales since its release.

There are numerous reviews and opinions flying around the Internet. Most claim that because FSX Steam was recompiled using modern libraries, you will see a significant performance increase. So, I did some testing. On my system the original "boxed" FSX Acceleration gave me 25-30 fps overall. Not the greatest numbers I've ever seen, but certainly good enough for me. Multimillion dollar blockbuster movies are shot at 24fps, so anything above that is wasted anyway! On my same system, FSX Steam gave me 35-45 fps (with occasisonal short jumps into the 60s and 70s). So the claims appear to be true. FSX Steam Edition will produce a measurable increase in frame rate; in my case, a very respectable 33% increase. Fantastic, right?

But, now that I've lived with FSX:SE for a few weeks, I've noticed that the view out the window just isn't as good. Although my frame rate is higher, the scenery files don't completely load, resulting in blurries. If I pause the simulator, after 30-60 seconds, things suddenly improve dramatically. So, for some reason, the textures just aren't loading. I know that time compression can cause this. But with FSX Steam, it happens all the time, compression or no.

Then Steam provided an update. They said it would provide an "off-line" mode, so that I wouldn't have to be connected to the Internet to use Flight Simulator. I like that. I'm always connected to the Internet when I fly, but I like that I don't have to be. So I installed the update. What they didn't tell me was that this update would also hijack my start-up screen, forcing me to load the Home page (I normally start FSX in Free Flight). I hate that. It's my computer, and I want it to work the way I want. I paid for this software; I think it's morally wrong for Steam to insist that I use it they way they want.

The final nail in the coffin was Instant Scenery 3. I love this add-on, and use it now and then to make scenery tweaks. I know that there's the whole issue of add-ons not working correctly because Steam installs into a very different directory structure. But Instant Scenery worked just fine. Until the update. Now it reports that it's not compatible with version 10.0.62613; if I choose to run it anyway, it turns out that they were right -- it doesn't work.

So, although it will take me a few days, I'm going to uninstall FSX Steam Edition, and go back to my trusty FSX Acceleration. Then things will work the way I want them to work.

Or, maybe I should look at X-Plane?!

The fault with add-ons (such as Instant Scenery) is due to the add-on developers - not FSX-SE.

Some "clever" developers hacked into the code of FSX and linked into its the internal addresses. That worked with FSX because Microsoft never changed FSX. Now that FSX-SE is being developed those internal addresses change and so adds-on fail. Even running a later C++ complier with no changes to FSX can change the addresses - not to mention making improvements or enhancements.

Try running FSX Acceleration with the setting on DX10 preview, using Steve's DX10 fixer. DX10 runs way better than the standard DX9 FSX. But if for some reason you don't like it, you can very easily switch back to DX9.

In fact, you can simply click on the DX10 preview in the FSX settings, without Steve's Fixer, and you should notice how much smoother it runs than DX9 - but there will be anomalies at airports and other graphical problems. That's what Steve's Fixer is for, to fix these problems with DX10.

Try running FSX Acceleration with the setting on DX10 preview, using Steve's DX10 fixer. DX10 runs way better than the standard DX9 FSX. But if for some reason you don't like it, you can very easily switch back to DX9.

 

In fact, you can simply click on the DX10 preview in the FSX settings, without Steve's Fixer, and you should notice how much smoother it runs than DX9 - but there will be anomalies at airports and other graphical problems. That's what Steve's Fixer is for, to fix these problems with DX10.

I tried DX 10 preview a couple of days ago, and I actually saw lower frame rates under

DX10, than I did on DX9. And not any smoother either. But I'm not using the fixer..

Also with FSX-SE, I sure would like to know how many people are seeing increased

frame rates. I'm sure not seeing it here. FSX-Gold and FSX-SE run almost identical

frame rates here. It's so close it's hard to measure a real difference. And I'm using

the same fsx.cfg for both programs just to make sure all the settings are the same.

Also on my SE, I don't have any blur problems like the OP. If anything, most ground

textures tend to look possibly a bit sharper than with FSX-Gold. But that is pretty

close also. I also notice the colors are a slight bit bolder in SE vs FSX.

I run both, and have no plans to ditch one or the other. I bought SE mainly to tinker

with, and also for the claims that the VAS usage was a bit improved with SE.

I'm using the same fsx.cfg for both programs just to make sure all the settings are the same.

I'm getting anywhere from 10% to 50% frame rate improvement (when I run it Unlimited) plus ZERO OOMs with the Steam Edition compared with my previous FSX Deluxe SP1+SP2. I have since uninstalled my boxed FSX just because Steam is so much better for me. I do not run DX10 because I'm running several FS9 airplanes that don't do well under DX10 even with Steve's Fixer. Tellingly, I have no "tweaks" in the Steam Edition FSX.cfg.

I have read that there are several facets of FSX:SE that require different settings in FSX.cfg so the game can take advantage of its improvements, and when you first install FSX:SE those are the defaults. If you're using the same FSX.cfg for Steam and Boxed editions, you're probably missing out on some, if not all, of Steam Edition's improvements. You might want to try backing up and then deleting your Steam FSX.cfg (or FSX-SE.cfg) then launch the sim so that FSX-SE will recreate the cfg with default (enhanced) Steam settings.

Why I like Steam over Box? The time clicking the FS icon to the main menu is vastly faster on Steam.

With the Box, I can click the icon, walk away, make a sandwich, take out the trash, come back, and wait a minute or two more before the main menu appears. Though other times it is a minute or two, just not consistent or often enough.

But with Steam, a minute or two. Both sims are using the same simobjects\aircraft folder (I edited the fsx-se.cfg to use the box's planes) and activated scenery folders are the same.

I couldn't get FSInn to work but vPilot works so flying on VATSIM is an option too.

I'm getting anywhere from 10% to 50% frame rate improvement (when I run it Unlimited) plus ZERO OOMs with the Steam Edition compared with my previous FSX Deluxe SP1+SP2. I have since uninstalled my boxed FSX just because Steam is so much better for me. I do not run DX10 because I'm running several FS9 airplanes that don't do well under DX10 even with Steve's Fixer. Tellingly, I have no "tweaks" in the Steam Edition FSX.cfg.

 

I have read that there are several facets of FSX:SE that require different settings in FSX.cfg so the game can take advantage of its improvements, and when you first install FSX:SE those are the defaults. If you're using the same FSX.cfg for Steam and Boxed editions, you're probably missing out on some, if not all, of Steam Edition's improvements. You might want to try backing up and then deleting your Steam FSX.cfg (or FSX-SE.cfg) then launch the sim so that FSX-SE will recreate the cfg with default (enhanced) Steam settings.

Tried that too. Even if I let SE use it's own self built cfg, the performance seems about

the same. Sometimes it seems like I might see a slight increase in SE, but only a couple

of fps or so. But most of the time, about the same. The way the counter constantly

jumps around, it's hard to tell super accurately.. On the old box, sometimes SE had a

lower frame rate than FSX. But I've never seen the drastic difference some claim to see,

SE cfg or not. To me, they seem basically the same. The main reason I bought SE was

due to the reports of better VAS usage. But I found with the 32 bit XP, I could crater

SE about as fast as with FSX Gold.. So it didn't really pan out like I was expecting as far

as running the NGX and being able to run denser scenery. That's why I finally broke

down and went to Win 7 64.

And now with the 64 bit OS, I haven't had an OOM with either one so far. But I don't

run much of the fancy VAS hogging scenery. But even with the Orbx freeware I do

have, I haven't had an OOM yet. But.. I also don't fly the NGX there either though..

I'd probably need to run that plane around there to put it to the test.

All my other planes as low drain compared to that one.

I'm not yet.. The only orbx I have is the free stuff, and I was only able to get it

partially installed on SE without using a orbx installer. They may have SE installers

now. I haven't checked.

I do have the NGX and ASN running on SE.

I have never been a fan of having the computer with my flight simulator on the Internet. Too many viruses, hackers, BS, to risk my program that runs just fine with good frame rates and addons. I have been flight swimming since 1983, always got the new editions when they come out but NOT steam. See no reason to have to be connected the Internet when I don't fly in multiplayer mode.

Doesn't really bother me. I've always been online anyway for real weather.

And now SE can run offline if you want. I also have fairly good AV, and it gonna take

some feisty malware to break in. I feel perfectly safe running SE.. Or at least as

safe as I do with FSX Gold.

I have never been a fan of having the computer with my flight simulator on the Internet. Too many viruses, hackers, BS, to risk my program that runs just fine with good frame rates and addons. I have been flight swimming since 1983, always got the new editions when they come out but NOT steam. See no reason to have to be connected the Internet when I don't fly in multiplayer mode.

FSX:SE (Steam Edition) plays just fine in Steam's "offline mode" since the update last month. You must connect to Steam to purchase and download FSX, but you don't have to be connected to the Internet to fly in offline mode.

....So, although it will take me a few days, I'm going to uninstall FSX Steam Edition, and go back to my trusty FSX Acceleration. Then things will work the way I want them to work.

Or, maybe I should look at X-Plane?!

Forget X-Plane. I bought X-Plane 10 last year out of curiosity but was disappointed to see that its single-engine prop aircraft kept slowly developing a bank no matter how carefully I tried trimming them to keep the wings level.

It's as if they were balanced on a pin with no natural stability.

I checked their forum and discovered it's alway been a longstanding issue that they've never fixed. Here's what a Moderator over there posted-

"One of the longest and hottest debate subjects in X-Plane is its handling of directional stability, in particular, roll response to changes in engine power in prop airplanes. Many, including experienced pilots, have accused X-Plane aircraft models of being unrealistically unstable in roll.... X-Plane does not correctly model the yaw effects that in real life cover up the roll effect"

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=81200

PS- and in fairness, let me say FS9/FSX are not perfect either, notably because their rudder effect can be weird, and runways and grass fields are slippery like ice.

In fact I've been flight simming for 30 years and have never seen a perfect sim, so we just have to live with the glitches and stuff..:)

There's a small "fixit" file for the X-Plane 10's rolling tendency called "torquefix." It's available at xplane.org It seems to be more effective (at least in my case) on twins as opposed to singles, and while it doesn't completely remove the roll it does make it easier to trim it away. In the real world most of the singles I've flown have that left roll tendency to a small degree, but we pilots subconsciously correct for it while in flight, and unless we're concentrating on it, we don't notice it.

APUtech

There's a small "fixit" file for the X-Plane 10's rolling tendency called "torquefix." It's available at xplane.org It seems to be more effective (at least in my case) on twins as opposed to singles, and while it doesn't completely remove the roll it does make it easier to trim it away. In the real world most of the singles I've flown have that left roll tendency to a small degree, but we pilots subconsciously correct for it while in flight, and unless we're concentrating on it, we don't notice it.

 

APUtech

Yes. That's also why single main rotor choppers have tail rotors. To counteract torque.

I'd think single engine torque effects on fixed wing planes would make the sim more realistic. Think Mustangs and Spitfires. They'd often flip on the runway if too much throttle was applied during takeoff!

Helicopters do have tail rotors to counteract torque. Those Mustangs, etc. could easily roll over when it was high power settings quickly applied versus low airspeed.

X-Plane does have a torque problem. Some 3rd party airplanes such as Carenado, which are actually programmed flight dynamic wise, by someone very familiar with X-plane, have worked around the torque problem. These Carenado's fly differently than the FSX counterpart, even though it has little to do with Blade Element theory versus lookup tables.

In reality, for real flight, the lift of the wings, in addition to the spiral slip stream, and roll coupling counteract the roll tendency from torque, once your air speed builds. Even though you might feel the left wheel pressing against the surface on the takeoff roll, as with a high powered touch and go, this feel will greatly diminish by the time you rotate.

Very unlike a helicopter, which has to offset torque.

During these "torque" debates a few years back, I took and posted pictures of my real life plane's ailerons on high power climb outs. The ailerons were centered, and never offsetting torque. It was a Van's RV6 with a constant speed prop. I called it a little torque monster on the ground with a touch and go, because it really pushed down the left landing gear, and pulled left hard. It wasn't as noticeable on a normal takeoff. If you ever screwed up a landing and bounced, you would have to be ready to apply right rudder, not aileron..........as you hit the throttle forward.

X-Plane actually does simulate torque quite realistically. It just doesn't simulate all the forces to counteract it. Carenado uses some programming to eliminate some of the torque to start with.

Besides that, I do use X-Plane 10 & FSX. I enjoy mountainous areas, and X-Plane does a great job with those. I do use better 3rd party planes for both sims. I'd be missing a lot, to just stick with one sim. When I upgraded the computer after quitting simming for a few years, my intention was to use both sims, right off the bat.

I think the problem here is basically that:

1) The OP is seriously misinformed about Steam Edition (It's not just "a change in multiplayer" what has been improved/optimized)

2) He probably has/had remains of the boxed installation and conflicts in files between the two editions, which will confuse some addons and cause them to not work as they should...

I think the problem here is basically that:

 

1) The OP is seriously misinformed about Steam Edition (It's not just "a change in multiplayer" what has been improved/optimized)

 

2) He probably has/had remains of the boxed installation and conflicts in files between the two editions, which will confuse some addons and cause them to not work as they should...

Forgive me for my ignorance, but if I purchased and wanted to install FSX SE, is it best to perform a clean OS format in order to removed the last vestiges of FSX's previous installation? Also, can FSX SE be installed in an alternate HD like drive D: or E:? The reason I ask is that my my C: drive is an SSD and not large enough form much more than my OS.

For the record here's what Dovetail Games said early this year after they took over FSX and began marketing it through Steam-

“The main reason you would even consider picking up FSX: Steam Edition if you already have a significant FSX-O[riginal] setup is the implementation of Steam for multiplayer purposes.

That's the big single thing we've done is replaced GameSpy with Steam.

Yes, there have been a few tweaks made that may improve the performance of FSX for some users, but if you already have the simulator we're making no secret about the fact that at this point, what we're offering to you is limited.

The people we're hoping to attract first and foremost are those to whom FSX will be a brand new experience, rather than those who have already invested a great deal of time and energy into the hobby.

We know this will be a little disappointing to those who had hoped for a revolutionary rebirth of the simulator, but we've got a way to go before we can talk about our future plans.

At the moment we're focusing on introducing FSX to a new generation of flight simulation fans.”

http://www.winbeta.org/news/take-skies-once-more-flight-simulator-x-steam-edition-dovetail-games

Like many of you, I was excited to hear about the release of FSX on Steam. Although the only actual change is a working multiplayer mode, it's just good to hear that FSX isn't dead after all, and the possibility of updates in the future gives one hope. Apparently I'm not the only one -- Steam has apparently had more than 200,000 sales since its release.

 

There are numerous reviews and opinions flying around the Internet. Most claim that because FSX Steam was recompiled using modern libraries, you will see a significant performance increase. So, I did some testing. On my system the original "boxed" FSX Acceleration gave me 25-30 fps overall. Not the greatest numbers I've ever seen, but certainly good enough for me. Multimillion dollar blockbuster movies are shot at 24fps, so anything above that is wasted anyway! On my same system, FSX Steam gave me 35-45 fps (with occasisonal short jumps into the 60s and 70s). So the claims appear to be true. FSX Steam Edition will produce a measurable increase in frame rate; in my case, a very respectable 33% increase. Fantastic, right?

 

But, now that I've lived with FSX:SE for a few weeks, I've noticed that the view out the window just isn't as good. Although my frame rate is higher, the scenery files don't completely load, resulting in blurries. If I pause the simulator, after 30-60 seconds, things suddenly improve dramatically. So, for some reason, the textures just aren't loading. I know that time compression can cause this. But with FSX Steam, it happens all the time, compression or no.

 

Then Steam provided an update. They said it would provide an "off-line" mode, so that I wouldn't have to be connected to the Internet to use Flight Simulator. I like that. I'm always connected to the Internet when I fly, but I like that I don't have to be. So I installed the update. What they didn't tell me was that this update would also hijack my start-up screen, forcing me to load the Home page (I normally start FSX in Free Flight). I hate that. It's my computer, and I want it to work the way I want. I paid for this software; I think it's morally wrong for Steam to insist that I use it they way they want.

 

The final nail in the coffin was Instant Scenery 3. I love this add-on, and use it now and then to make scenery tweaks. I know that there's the whole issue of add-ons not working correctly because Steam installs into a very different directory structure. But Instant Scenery worked just fine. Until the update. Now it reports that it's not compatible with version 10.0.62613; if I choose to run it anyway, it turns out that they were right -- it doesn't work.

 

So, although it will take me a few days, I'm going to uninstall FSX Steam Edition, and go back to my trusty FSX Acceleration. Then things will work the way I want them to work.

 

Or, maybe I should look at X-Plane?!

I have FSX and FSX-SE on the same system, but separate drives. SE seems to run just as nicely as FSX. I don't have any issues with the blurries, and the textures load just fine. I have used a few of the tweaks that I used in FSX, and my performance in SE is a little bit better than FSX. I use the DX10 enhancement in FSX, but not in SE, yet SE does run a little better. I ran them this way for a few months before making any big changes between them. I set up FSX to run Megascenery, and have more than half of the US covered. And I installed UTX in it as well. In FSX-SE, I set it up with FTX addons such as global and vector addons. Yet SE still slightly out-performs FSX in most ways. FSX loads photoscenery better than SE because of how I set up the FSX.CFG. So I have two sims with two completely different looks, and both run almost the same. I feel the issues you are having with SE has to do with how you have it set up, not because of any updates you have installed to it. As for some of your addons not working, there are going to be issues with some, and none with others. But check with the developers to see if they have fixes for them. That will happen over and over again as we move forward with new and better sims. It would be nice to have some of my addons from FS4 and FS9 still working in FSX-SE, but I expect to give and take in order to get a better, more reliable sim. I'm not going to stay with FSX just because some of my addons, like RXP GNS's, don't work in SE. I know that sooner or later there will be fixes, or even better, replacements, for some, if not all, for these addons. You can use these forums to report issues you are having so others can look into them and perhaps come up with solutions that will give you the look and performance you desire. Please try to be positive about your experiences and work with us to come up with solutions instead of shooting the new sim down just because you aren't happy with how it is right now. Give it some time, and try it again later. They do work well side-by-side, so you can keep FSX and what you had with it, and add FSX-SE as well, so you can see and try the changes and upgrades it goes through. I fly FSX more than SE because I really love flying over the photo scenery. But with that comes low altitude flying with very little or no autogen. So when I want to fly with lots of 3D trees and buildings, I simply hop over to SE and fly that sim. I hardly notice the difference in performance, but the look out the window is sooo different. SE gives me the ability to go back and forth.

are you guys running steam also running add ons like orbx scenery etc?

yes, I am still getting somewhere around 30-35fps. Anyways, I have had great success with steam, I guess some people don't have as much luck. :confused: