[jhb_airlines] Re: Defrag needs

  • From: franklyn fisher <ff006c5886@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:39:43 +0000

My sentiments exactly,

Having started from FS5.0 and worked my way up, each time having to regrade my system, just to get decent FRs, I too am getting fed up. My system is still not running FS9 flat out (AMD 3200/64+1gb RAM+ATI X1650 Pro video)

And what puzzles me, is that after spending £70:00 for FSX, it is hardly out of the box, and they are spending even more, to make it better(not to mention time). For goodness sake! this was supposed to be the bees knees. Built from the ground up from comments by us, the users. Nobody asked me.

And we will have to spend even more, just to get it to run on a new operating system, and hardware, where is it all going to end.

I estimate, that I will need to spend at least £2,000 next year, for a new system+FSX+operating system, and that is just a guesstimate. And for what, to run FSX at full steam. And that does not include all the addons to fill the gaps that dear old MS missed out.

FS2000 was a dogs bone, FS2002 Pro buried it. and FS2004 was only a tuneup.

My guess is, a lot of those who bought FSX, are regretting it, (excepting the diehards), and will be dumping it on Ebay and Amazon.

Might be more cost effective, to continue with my present system, dump MS for Linux and purchase XPlane. Except I will lose your goodwill and companionship, not to mention the banter that goes on.

Enough of this rubbish.

Frank F

Bones wrote:
It may surprise you but my own feeling are similar to Peter's because I am getting fed up with chasing the mythical beast of FS perfection. It's becoming a fantasy - and a goal that sees users spending endless barrels of cash trying to achieve. I'm still struggling with poor frame rates in FS9. They've always been poor because my kit hasn't been up to running it - but then I see the insidious pattern that has dogged my whole FS experience. It goes something like this: 1. Buy FS and install. Turn all the options right down because your system can't cope with every feature turned on and set to max (only future computers will have the power to do this). 2. Wait for future computing power to become available. 3. During this wait goodies come along that really are worth having. Buy these, and see FS performance begin to drop a tiny notch or two. 4. Finally you upgrade but find that it only allows you to run FS full tilt in its basic form and that switching add-ons on still requires a sacrifice in turning down some features. 5. Further exciting add-ons arrive which take FS to an unprecedented level of realism but you now accept the inevitable loss in performance. 6. Consider a second upgrade to run FS in its full glory for once in your life with every slider maxed and every button ticked. Just as you are seriously thinking about this and looking at hardware along comes a new version of FS. 7. Go back to square one. With FS4 there was a huge amount of third party support and the sim became extremely popular. As mentioned in a thread the other day I still have a lot of the add-on disks around because I spent a huge amount of money on this sim. I upgraded to FS5 but many users fought this as the add-ons were (mostly) not compatible with the new sim and its round world modelling. The FS4 forum on CompuServe kept running for quite a long time. FS5 was good but it suffered too many updates. FS5 - FS5.1 - FSFW95, all with tweaks to the system that required rebuilding any scenery you had made. FS98 was the next really big evolution and it was probably the most popular version created. Two reasons for this - first that it was a damn good sim and had a HUGE amount of third party support. The second was that it lasted four years because FS2000 was a dog and very few users migrated to it - I bought it but I only recorded a handful of flights in it. This four year life of FS98 gave us a huge advantage because hardware allowed most of us to eventually run the sim with lots of add-ons and still get pleasing frame rates. It was probably the sim with the highest user satisfaction rating. Of course FS2002 came along and, after 4 years, the change was striking. Terrain modelling, GMax aircraft and ambient lighting effects were far too good to ignore and everyone was eager for change anyway. In truth FS2002 has had a four year run because FS2004 was basically a tuned up version. This has given designers yet another 4 year period to develop superb add-ons for aircraft, scenery and utilities. It has probably ended up as our most expensive FS package yet when we look at the investment we have poured into it. In my case it isn't just scenery and aircraft but hardware like GoFlight units (with three USB hubs to run them), Track IR and endless minor items. Trouble is that all these upgrades have zapped the life out of the sim and balance out any hardware upgrades almost equally. I started FS2004 with about 20fps and that is what I still get if I am lucky. The trouble now is that having got almost a perfect simulation setup it drives me in a different direction. I'd like to get it running at an optimum level and experience the full beauty of ASv6's clouds, flying the PMDG 747 over the VFGM scenery stutterless rather than think about dumping the lot in favour of a new version that will run like a mammoth in a tar pool. To do this I require yet another computer upgrade - the latest hardware will probably let FS2004 run as it has never been seen before and it might even let FSX run reasonably decently in it's basic (no add-on) state. My desire for FSX is minimal. My desire to overcome the frustration of running FS2004 at a snails pace is far greater - it is really THAT frustrating. I know what ASv6 can do but I can't let it run free. I know what the PMDG 747 is like but I can't use it without seeing the sim drop down to single figures and very sluggish operation. I'd like to go into FS2004's options and tick things like Ground Scenery casts Shadows because everyone says turn this off and I always have done. That isn't fun, it's a crippled system and I'm fed up with it. FSx won't run in its true glory until Vista and DX10 (DXX?) is out. My guess is that the system to run that lot at a decent level is still on the drawing board (or CAD package). I can wait for FSX. bones
    -----Original Message-----
    *From:* jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    [mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Kev Townsend
    *Sent:* 17 November 2006 12:31
    *To:* jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    *Subject:* [jhb_airlines] Re: Defrag needs

    I am disheartened to read this here Peter.

    For someone who purports to have been a "pioneer" himself, with
    Gemini and the "first" online multiplayer session I question your
    comments associated with the latest offering in the FS evolution.
    As you once famously posted "I only have mental energy for one
    on-line service" I realise that you remain content with your
    current _Cix VFR Club_ / Vatsim setup, and that you may be happy
    to wait to embrace FSX until all the programs you currently enjoy
    are proven in the new version. At this time the technology will
    have reduced in price to make the changeover practical and affordable.

    "It would have to be a major improvement over FS2004 and be
    backwards compatible for me to part with my money" well it is a
    major improvement, but I question the "backwards compatibility you
    crave". Microsoft don't make any "Add-ons" so there is little or
    no need for them to make FSX "backwards compatible" with FS9. They
    continue to push the envelope! I believe that they are restricted
    at the lower end of that envelope, by current users expectation,
    or desire to have a "soft" upgrade experience. I fully believe
    they have of necessity limited the upper envelope due to
    constraints related to this expectation.

    The net is full of Naysayers, but there are a sizeable hard core
    of FS users who's enjoyment of the latest, greatest sim is in the
    conquering of these challenges, above actually flying in it. Let's
    not forget the Add-on designers who are facing challenges to
    maximise the opportunities to their craft from the advances within
    FSX that are available to them now. New product lines and profits
    keep the hobby alive.

    As a ppl holder myself, I strive to achieve as close to visual
    reality as possible. Yes, for some time now we have had "reality"
    in terms of cockpit visuals and operation, particularly in VFR
    craft, however for those users who have never enjoyed the
    experience of flying GA the simulation still has a long way to go !

    I am engrossed. I have both FS9 and FSX on my system and am able
    to directly compare. I (like Gerry) am not "bonkers"!

    Best wishes

    Kev T

    On 11/17/2006 10:12:00, pdodds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
    > Gerry,
    > I think you are "one of the few" who is continuing to battle
    with FSX.  I
    > really admire your
    > tenacity.  It doesn't work with TrackIR, Vatsim, IVAO, Lots of
    scenery and aircraft, FSNet, FSNav
    > etc. etc. etc. There is no-one in the Cix VFR Club using it.
    > You are truly one of those pioneers that everyone thinks is
    bonkers until history proves they were
    > actually heros!
    > <Bows respectfully>
    > Peter

Other related posts: