Are the FSX framerates acceptable now?

[Shyzar]

I'm planning to buy FSX and I was wondering how good the framerates are with the service packs and everything like that. I just got a new system (E6750 2.66 GHZ dual core, 2 GB RAM, and a 8800 GTS 320 MB), would the frame rates be acceptable on the highest settings, and if not would it play well on any setting other than low?

And just a quick off topic question. Has there been any new developments about Storm of War?

[Chock]

About the only thing that would make it struggle with that set-up, would be the autogen scenery on full tilt. You'd probably get away with it up on about half before it would start to complain, is my guess.

A lot will depend on what screen resolution you can live with too, of course.

Although I still mainly use FSX on my desktop, which is a single-core 3.2 GHz P4 running XP with a pci graphics card, it does definitely run better on my (Vista OS) laptop with a dual core processor and no flashy graphics card at all. Both these machines have 2 gigs of RAM and I did notice a significant improvement on BOTH rigs with the patch. There was a lot of stuff optimised in it, and it seems the FSX doubters were somewhat premature in dismissing the notion that it wouldn't run any better on Vista or dual core, because it does, simple as that, it did before the patch too.

I can confirm that load times were significantly cut after the patch, it was initially somewhat ludicrous, you could go away and make a coffee and when you came back to your PC it would still be loading the flight, but that is no longer true since the patch, it does load a lot quicker these days.

There is still much to be said for FS9 however, and whenever I'm reviewing anything that is suitable for both (for AVSIM), I'll do a lot of the testing in the older sim, purely because it does still load quicker than FSX, and you have to load a lot of different flights to do a decent review.

Nevertheless, when it comes to reviewing what the thing actually flies like, there is no comparison, FSX is markedly better at conveying flight than FS9, owing to its superior air mass modeling, and that alone makes it worth having, but it will be a while before FS9 disappears off my drive for things such as airliners, where the need to feel affected by every single bump in the air is not so great as it is when tootling around in a Piper Cub, or a glider.

Chock

[Shyzar]

Thanks for the quick reply Chock.

The highest my moniter will go resolution wise is 1280 by 1024, but I would like to upgrade, but until games come that don't still look great at that resolution start coming, I might not upgrade.

I'm also planning on upgrading to Vista before the end of the year. I wish I did it with my new computer. But when I bought it I thought that there was still serious issues with it, and then 1 week after my computer came. I got an issue of PC Gamer that said that Vista's problems are mostly gone and that it would be smart to upgrade to it

I'm also downloading the demo to see how well that plays.

[Chock]

Despite me not being a huge fan of Vista (I bought it 'free' with a new laptop, because I had to have it, as I train people on software, so needed to at least have experience of it, but didn't want to pay for it!), there is one advantage to Vista, beyond some software running faster, which is definitely cool, and that's 'power boost' or whatever MS calls it, whereby you can plug a USB flash drive into your computer and it configures as temporary RAM. I've not actually tried it out on mine yet, but have on someone else's PC and it was quite handy for speeding up some filter work on a very large image file (a 48-sheet billboard poster) in Photoshop. Oh, and it seems to be easier to set up a network with Vista too, I did notice that.

I would hope MS have also optimised the demo of FSX too, I'm sure they will have done, but they may have been lazy!

Chock

[Shyzar]

I just played the demo and even on the highest settings, it plays great.

But I have one question, With mods to improve scenery, will the scenery at least look better than IL-2? The ground in the demo just looks so pixelated and unrealistic, same with the water.

[Chock]

One of the issues FSX has is what most people term 'the blurries' i.e. terrain can look rather low-res despite having your settings on full throttle. The reason for that is that something has to give, and unfortunately, it is often the resolution of the terrain which drops out. There are two solutions to it, the first is drop your settings a bit so that you free up some RAM to enable the terrain to load its high resolution images, the other is to fly around a bit in the same are to give the RAM time to catch up in loading terrain. Short of that, you could always get some more RAM, but that's where the limit kicks in, as any OS will have a limit on how much RAM it can support, and there is also the problem of how much you could physically fit on your motherboard anyway. 4 Gigs would probably solve it, although with Vista, you could also try doing the temp RAM thing with a flash drive, although I haven't got around to giving it a shot yet.

Personally, I usually drop the water effects to minimal, as I'm not exactly in love with the effect in FSX, so I don't mind losing it. In any case you could replace the textures with the modded ones kicking about, which optimise things a bit, likewise there is an autogen scenery mod which uses far less RAM kicking about too, you can find them on AVSIM. You might want to also try stuff like RealSky Pro if you want to improve matters in a more subtle way, there is a review of this on Avsim (written by me, incidentally) which details what it does.

Chock

[Shyzar]

I actually might want to get FS9 because of my machine handling it better, but I have one question. Compared to FSX with scenery mods, how does FS9 look with some scenery mods?

And does most of the major mods and aircraft add-ons work with both FS9 and FSX?

[Chock]

If you're prepared to forego the better air mass modeling in FSX, which does make gliding much more feasible and makes turbulence appear in the sim based on weather downloads, as opposed to being pre-rendered in certain places, and you are not bothered about the mission features of FSX, which incidentally are very good and add a lot of 'things you can do', then FS9 is certainly a viable alternative. Although you will also miss out out on the ability to use the new FSX add-on from Microsoft - FSX Acceleration - which adds a few new default aircraft (such as the F/A-18 and the P-51 Mustang), and gives you an online racing capability. Similarly, if you like flying online, FSX allows two people to be in the same aeroplane, so you can have your buddy as a co-pilot in FSX if you like, and you can create a control tower server in FSX too, where you can act as the tower controller with VOIP ATC.

There is a great deal more scenery available for FS9 than for FSX, and with it being the older version of FS, many of the add-ons are considerably cheaper.

By default, FSX has higher terrain modeling resolution than FS9, but in practice there are many add-on terrain meshes available for FS9 which use the same data employed in FSX (i.e. terrain elevation data that was taken on a Space Shuttle mission a few years ago). So it is definitely possible to make FS9 look as good, and in some cases better than FSX, although there are fewer graphics options in FS9 for all the new fancy stuff graphics cards can do.

The aircraft are capable of looking better in FSX, because it has the ability to put things such as better shading and reflections on the models, however, because that's largely only of any use for fancy screenshots and doesn't make any difference whatsoever to the prime purpose of the software, which is to simulate flight, then it's debatable how much of a big deal that is, since in real life you don't very often get to check the exterior of your aircraft in flight, unless you happen to be a wing walker or a sky diver. and in any case, I think the aircraft look okay in FS9 anyway, and I've no wish to slow things down graphically by having antialising on every rivet, so I never swittch all that on in FSX anyway.

Up until fairly recently, the major add-on manufacturers had not really got into full swing where add-ons for FSX was concerned, however, now they are getting their heads around things, more FSX add-ons are starting to come out. But, there seems to be a general concensus by add-on companies that it would be wise to continue to support FS9 as well as getting into FSX, and so the vast majority of them seem to be making their stuff work in both sims.

Some of the best flight simulator stuff only works in FS9, such as the aeroworx Beechcraft B200, and the legendary PMDG Boeing 747, although they will doubtless turn up in FSX at some point, but right now, there are literally thousands of aircraft for FS9 that simply are not about for FSX, both freeware and payware. For example, on that silly film of mine on the subsim forums front page 'The Hunt For Red Hot Coders', both the SeaKing Helicopter and the USS Enterprise were free from Avsim, and they are only available for FS9, which is why that footage is not done in FSX. Which ought to give you some idea that FS9 is currently more flexible than FSX in many respects, despite the fewer whistles and bells it has by default.

On the subject of defaults, I personally think there is a better selection of aircraft by default in FS9 than in FSX, such as the Ford Tri-Motor and the Curtiss Jenny. Of course you don't get an Airbus by default in FS9, and you do in FSX, although that's no great loss, as its flight model and avionics bear about as much resemblance to a real Airbus, as the pope has in common with Osama Bin Laden. also note that they 'dumbed down' the helicopter flight model in FSX, it's much more realistic (and consequently harder to master) in FS9. But if you like flying choppers, you might prefer the fact that it is somewhat easier in FSX than in FS9, which is ironic, because everything else in FSX flies more realistically, owing to the addition of thermal activity. About the only instance where the default aircraft are better in FSX, is the addition of a nice Grumman flying boat and a better glider, FSX has a Glaser Dirks DG200 which is considerably nicer than the Schweizer 2-32 of FS9. But I'm fairly certain that you can get a freeware version of the Grumman amphibian that appears in FSX, which will work in FS9, so the glider's about the only thing you'd really miss.

If you can afford both sims, get both, if you want to get into all the latest stuff, get FSX, but if you envisage adding masses of terrain and flirting around the world in an airliner, then FS9 is much the better bet in terms of price, and available add-ons, although you will have to seek out an up-to-date database for recent real world aviation additions. For example, Manchester Airport in the UK had a second main runway added a few years ago, and this is modelled much better in FSX (although it actually is there in FS9), also the runway designations were changed to 25 left and 25 right, as opposed to 24 left and 24 right as they used to be (because of the shifting magnetic pole), so FSX has its nav aids and stuff closer to what they are currently like in the real world. Additionally, the world in FSX is actually modeled as a round object, so it makes navigation slightly more realistic and also allows you to go right up out into space seamlessly, and in theory it should also make runways more like they are in real life, although I can't say I've noticed that to be honest.


If after all that, you still cannot decide which would be best, then consider the frame rates; every add-on chips away at frame rates and load times, so with the older FS9, there is much more breathing room to do this, as it was designed to push computers that are now four years old.

In short FS9 is a long way from being dead yet, expect it to be supported with new add-ons for at least two years or more.

Chock