Well, I've Had It With FSX. Opinions on FSX vs. Alternatives?

[pvarn]

^^^

 

As SBK and others have already stated (just agreeing) 99.9% of problems people have are with add-ons, and for nearly everyone running on stable hardware and OS, FS works fine right out the box.

 

As stated earlier:

"I don't think you can blame FSX for problems resulting from the installation of "75% of what is on this site."

 

Agreed.

FSX was tested and released to run stable *as installed* on WinXP 32 bit and Vista32 bit over eight years ago.

 

When you take it upon yourself to modify FSX files, you assume ALL the risk associated with this including:

-mods to default files including FSX.CFG etc.

-Aircraft, AI and scenery add-ons.

-External programs which modify FSX behavior such as accufeel, navigation and weather to name a few.

 

It always amazes me the number of people who just assume because you CAN change FSX, that you SHOULD and that ALL add-ons regardless of author, skill, purpose, age, version, current support or not, bugs, un-tested add-on interactions just simply ALWAYS work and that somehow, FSX is SO smart, that eight years ago when the software was released, the Microsoft engineers fully anticipated every add-on and feature modification anyone would ever create and made the software bulletproof that nothing could possibly ever go wrong including running on hardware, DirectX and OS versions which did not exist at the time of the 2nd service pack. If you are running FSX on later OS versions, you are running it on UNSUPPORTED computers.

 

Bottom line:

You take total responsibility for FSX failures when you modify the base program in any way. Modifying FSX even at the most basic level requires a level of computer skill which goes beyond the typical gamer. Some modifications require a daunting level of expertise even for people with advanced computer skills.

 

Everyone who throws every add-on and tweak at the sim which catches their eye without testing each mod at great length one at a time before adding another simply ASKS for failure. Unwrapping the layers of modification failures after using the kitchen sink method is very difficult and for many, impossible. Re-installing on new hardware then repeating the same mistakes, produces the (to me) obvious same dead end.

 

On a fresh install, if the sim works (does what the sim claims, not what YOU think it should do) and after modification the sim fails, it's YOUR FAULT.

 

Just to mention:

I read posts earlier that some don't like the crash animations (or lack thereof) in FSX. You need to understand these animations are built in the 3D model so are the responsibility of the model creator, not a fault of FSX. These things require an additional skill level and time on the part of the modeler to create them and are often neglected entirely on freeware so the modeler can release something pretty and flyable without the modeler having to mortgage his house to complete the project.

 

-Pv-

[Captain Vodka]

to the original poster,, RodTod how about posting your specs and a list of the add ons you've installed ? might be a starting point.

 

lets put it this way many thousands run fsx and after a little tweak to the cfg file run with no problems at all or at least any glitch that can be overcome.

 

So, list your rig spec first and then a run down of your add ons

 

have you tweaked the CFG file at all?

[RodTod]

I went to P3D v2.5 and have never been happier. 99% of my addons are working fine. I downloaded them again and many of them came with an updated installer for Ver 2.5. Nice to see that developers are updating the products so quickly. So far, no bugs, no error messages. No tweaks needed. Running sliders all the way to the right, locked at 30 fps and it is running very smooth, and stays between 20 to 30 fps depending on complexity of the scenery below. I havent tried it with the FPS unlocked. But , no need to. The eye can only detect things under 20 anyway. So, I am very happy and this was a good investment.

[Captain Vodka]

good to hear you've had a happy outcome Rod. .

 

just to note regarding screen fps. The human eye can pick up higher frame rates. Standard resolution film is set to 24fps (its actually 24.5) but with high resolution digital format, 4k and super 4k they have been trialling with higher fps for film. I believe the last Hobbit film was shot with the higher film fps. It has a lot to do with both resolution , whether back lite screen rather than reflected light (cinema screen etc) and the flicker rate of a back lite screen. At present the fps should be set to half your screen refresh rate. If you screen is 60hz, set to 30fps. 100hz set to 50fps. Peeps who state they are getting 100fps plus etc . unless they have a screen refresh rate twice whatever fps they are saying, these high so called fps will never be achieved. no matter what their fps counter is stating. the fps will never be faster than their screen refresh rate.

 

the max a 60hz screen fps can utilise is 60 fps but that causes all sort of sync and flicker issues so always set you screen fps to half your screen to get THE smoothest running fsx / p3d experience. Plus anything else is simply wasting valuable processor speeds on both the CPU and GFX cpu.

[RodTod]

Thanks for the info. I read somewhere that setting fps to 30 was the best for smoothness, now we know why! I have to say, 2.5 P3D, with Orbx is spectacular. Even the standard scenery is excellent. The smoothness is really a welcome change!

[Guest SageCreekKid]

Unlike FSX SE X-Plane has yet to give me an "out of memory" message. That was the "good" about X-Plane. Now for the "not so good:". X Plane 11 (the edition I own) does not offer a Garmin GPS navigation map. Also--there is no feature offering the ability to speed-up the simulation rate. The absence of this latter feature makes long haul flights, such as trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific, an I'm possibility.