FSX SP2 and the expansion pack details....

[TSR2]

Hi Colin,

DX10 will not work on XP, its a Vista only thing.

If your contimplaiting about upgrading to Vista, somethings to think about...

Never ever do an in place upgrade (i.e upgrading from XP with the upgrade DVD.) Always do a fresh install... you can still do this with the upgrade DVD, it will just ask for your old XP license key.

Vist uses resource... lots of it, and in particular memory. I would suggest that when you try SP2, do it on your current system first. I have DX10, but from the screen shots I've seen, I don't know that the additional benefits of the DX10 enhancements justify upgrading to vista. Also... and something i forgot, I don't know if your graphics card is DX10 capable, in which case, you won't see the enhancements anyway.

Hope that helps.

[basys]

Hi Folks

Generally agree with many of the points raised.
Just a few issues to clarify.

I understand that Horizon are to recompile the GenX mesh to eliminate this problem
(if it's the problem that was introduced with SP1).
So will that not be necessary with SP2?

James -
The problem was introduced before RTM.
Most people only noticed it after SP1.
You'll need both SP2 and any recompilations which the 3rd parties provide.

ACES assumed (incorrectly unfortunately) that the PhotoScenery addon producers were compiling the photoscenery and underlying mesh exactly to the SDK.
Unfortunately, they weren't and as such,
the problem arose when they tried to port from FS9 to FSX instead of creating a completely new mesh using the SDK method.

Chris -
AFAIK the meshes were compiled with the FSX SDK.

Remember, originally there wasn't going to be ANY DX9 implimentation of FSX. It was going to be DX10 only.

Can you give some citations for this ?

FSX required 2 service packs to bring about acceptable performance for the majority of users

Lets not jump our guns.

For what I wanted to do
I had reasonably acceptable performance in RTM.
SP1 totally screwed that.
SP2 restored it.

YMMV

NB - Each of the SPs are essential for other reasons.

Until SP2 is available & widely installed,
we won't have a suitable baseline to fully assess the impact.



Aside from the variations in individuals
hardware, os, running processes & applications, fragmentation state, etc.
and thats before even starting FSX,
there's all the variations in config settings, tweaks applied, addons being used, a/c models & areas being flown.
so the definition of acceptable performance is also extremely subjective.

Works great on Windows XP. Works even better on the upcoming Windows Vista.

Yes there are outstanding bugs & even a couple of regressions,
but whatever everyone's expectations are,
the statement is still entirely valid,
as are the onbox hardware specifications.



On that note,
rename your fsx.CFG,
allow FS to rebuild a new fsx.CFG,
adjust your sliders from there.
Some of the tweaks out there may be doing more damage than good.



HTH
ATB
Paul

[Sl4yer]

Yes there are outstanding bugs & even a couple of regressions,
but whatever everyone's expectations are,
the statement is still entirely valid,
as are the onbox hardware specifications.

Sorry Paul, but I fail to see how this product is better in Vista than XP. It will be marginal at best, WITH the latest DX10 hardware.

By the way, the spec on the box is as follows:

OS:Windows XP SP2 256MB, or Vista 512MB
Processor: 1GHz
Hard drive: 15GB
Other: DirectX9 hardware compatibility and audio card with speakers and/or headphones
Video card: DirectX 9.0c compliant video card with 32MB of RAM and support for hardware transformation and lighting

Note: The above are the specifications a computer must have to run the game. Increased performance will be noticed on more powerful systems.

OK then. Deep breath...

Are you seriously suggesting that the above spec is in any way acceptable to run FSX?

XP will boot to more than 256MB, and Vista to more than 512MB.
A DirectX9 video card MUST support T&L, or it isn't compliant!

My system with a P4 3GHz falls into PerfBucket6 (out of 7 as I recall). Yet on the first run after installation, it returns between 13 and 20 FPS! I can't imagine what a 1GHz system would do. But how many gullible customers will have purchased based on the specs on the box? Would my system do better under Vista? (PLEASE don't say yes - I've been there, believe me! )

Your experience might be fairly rosy now. I assume you're part of the beta team, and already have the benefit of SP2. But it will be some time away for the rest of us, while MS cash in on the expansion pack. As if it's a 6 week 'problem' for Microsoft to package and release some fixes which have already been sent for pressing in another product! Sorry, but I don't believe it.

James

[basys]

Hi Folks

Sorry Paul, but I fail to see how this product is better in Vista than XP.
It will be marginal at best, WITH the latest DX10 hardware.

Features like bloom and water perform substantially better under the DX10 codepath.

By the way, the spec on the box is as follows:

OS:Windows XP SP2 256MB, or Vista 512MB
Processor: 1GHz
Hard drive: 15GB
Other: DirectX9 hardware compatibility and audio card with speakers and/or headphones
Video card: DirectX 9.0c compliant video card with 32MB of RAM and support for hardware transformation and lighting

Note: The above are the specifications a computer must have to run the game. Increased performance will be noticed on more powerful systems.

OK then. Deep breath...
Are you seriously suggesting that the above spec is in any way acceptable to run FSX?

Yes.
Note the bit now in bold.

I beta'd the FSX base product on that processor & ram spec,
and it performed more than adequately.

Just doesn't have the bells & whistles.

You need to set your expectations to match your hardware.
A model T Ford is not going to win a Formula 1 race.

XP will boot to more than 256MB, and Vista to more than 512MB.

Only if they're badly configured.

You can configure XP to use less than 128Mb at boot.

A DirectX9 video card MUST support T&L, or it isn't compliant!

Hw TnL has been around at least since Windows 2000, (definitely pre 2002)
In fact Hw TnL is that old,
that in Acceleration & SP2 it's no longer even supported.

My system with a P4 3GHz falls into PerfBucket6 (out of 7 as I recall).
Yet on the first run after installation, it returns between 13 and 20 FPS!

First run OOTB is not a suitable base for comparison of any product.

Your PerfBucket will set the config sliders as to your machine's capabilities.
If you overstep them,
your FPS will suffer accordingly.

I got better FPS on the previously quoted machine.
Just doesn't look pretty.

Your machine is obviously a far higher spec than my primary, (perfbucket3),
so you should get better FPS.

As I said previously -

Aside from the variations in individuals
hardware, os, running processes & applications, fragmentation state, etc.
and thats before even starting FSX,
there's all the variations in config settings, tweaks applied, addons being used, a/c models & areas being flown.
so the definition of acceptable performance is also extremely subjective.

I can't imagine what a 1GHz system would do.

I'd refer you to some old threads, but PAI unfortunately lost their entire archive. :-(

But how many gullible customers will have purchased based on the specs on the box?
Would my system do better under Vista? (PLEASE don't say yes - I've been there, believe me! )

You haven't posted your specs,
but given your current boot mem useage
I would definitely say no,
unless you get round to removing the cr*p.

Your experience might be fairly rosy now.
I assume you're part of the beta team, and already have the benefit of SP2.
But it will be some time away for the rest of us, while MS cash in on the expansion pack.
As if it's a 6 week 'problem' for Microsoft to package and release some fixes which have already been sent for pressing in another product!
Sorry, but I don't believe it.

It hasn't even been tested yet.

Yes, there is a reason for the delay, even if bits are done.

Acceleration and SP2 are separate products.

By putting SP2 into Acceleration we get additional test coverage on SP2. So not having SP2 in Acceleration would actually delay SP2.

Then there is test, setup, and International.

We ship in 8 languages, English+7 more. So we have to get thru those for Acceleration before we can even get onto SP2. We have 1 test and release team, these are not parallelizable activities.

And then there is setup for SP2 and its associated SDK. So with Acceleration that is 4 setups our single setup developer has had to create for this fall. So that activity is not parallelizable.

And then we have international for SP2.

So there is a reason for the delay. It is not as easy as it appears from the outside.

HTH
ATB
Paul

[DaveB]

I think.. we're almost at the point where we're losing the plot with this one. I've seen a LOT of valid points come from both sides of the fence (although the fence is rather one-sided).. and as many of you have guessed, Paul is a beta tester hence his stance on the subject.
Tonks summed this very scenario up on another thread when asked 'what is the maximum range of an airliner' (there or thereabouts) and it has been reinforced to some degree in the posts made above. To ask a single question is totally academic as there are too many factors to take into consideration. What Paul may consider 'acceptible' as far as performance is concerned may have most of us in total revolt (and much as it pains me to say it.. this does seem to be the case given what we've learned of SP1/SP2). One mans fast is another mans slow (or worse) or to put it another way, one mans acceptible is another mans unacceptible. I read the forum every day (and all posts therein I might add) and quite often, I'll read a post that says 'I'm getting a steady 10fps at LHR' and that particular user is happy with 10fps. I'm not.. not in any shape or fashion. If, to see LHR as it really looks gives a frame rate of 10fps on a high-end system, then I'll back it off to get a more 'fluid' result. Yeh.. 10fps is great and I love it doesn't work for me and I guess, the majority of our readers but put it into context. This makes the minimum spec totally irrelevant and quite literally.. useless (as we all know).

I don't know if I missed the plot and believed the 'prophets' as they were so quaintly described but I expected an overall increase in performance with SP1 (not the shock that has been described above) as it was supposed to address many of the issues with poor framerates (my understanding and not 'insider knowledge'). It did sort out many issues with a great many users as far as I can see and NOT cause a degradation in performance as has been indicated and once more.. the promise of SP2 will bring it up to what we expect. To sit idly by and say that the problems occur with 3rd-party software (malwritten) is a tad high-horse me thinks as if it were NOT for 3rd-party developers, Flightsim would not be the force that it is today. The basic program IS and always has been nothing more than a platform for 3rd-party developers to improve and I see nothing different about FSX. Here.. flying over the UK.. is absoutely NOTHING like what the UK actually looks like.. nothing at all. OK.. the roads (grey lines) might be in the right place and the terrain might be better (which it is) but if Microsoft expect us to accept what we are given as ground textures as accurate.. then they've lost the plot.

I think the underlying problem with FSX is that Microsoft went to the time and trouble of having a poll.. a regional poll on what we, the users outside the US would like to see in future releases and this seems to have been completely ignored. There are reasons I'm sure for certain things being missed out but who here who's bought FSX can say that ONE SINGLE thing they asked for has been implemented in this latest incarnation??? How many of you asked for worldwide American-accented ATC??? How many of you asked for the SDK to be changed so that improvements over the previous SDK were now obsolete?? How many of you asked for south of France ground textures here in the UK?? How many asked for the inclusion of ANY Autogen to immediately wipe off 15fps (as was the case prior to SP1)?? The list is as long as the poll itself and is why many FS9 users have tried it (yes.. M$ have had their dosh so 1-0 to M$) and moved back to FS9. The Accelaration Pack brings the promise of SP2 (which should fix anything if we're to believe what we're told) as well as the ability to 'Race Online' and two new aircraft! :o WHAT BLX!! Add to this the promise of DX10 (which will only work with Vista but Vista is cr@p so the proper version will work ok with Vista's successor) and the 'Dual Core' improvements which MAY work in WinXP but only with FSX and MAY work better in Vista.. but hang on, Vista doesn't work particularly well so yeh.. it'll all work great in Vista's successor..

There are a lot of people out there hacked off with their lot and for various reasons. The only people who are truely happy are M$ who have, once more, turned most of us over. FSX is not without it's good points (though I'm pushed to think of any at present.. oh yes, MP) but it is not what was promised.. or should that be expected?? All I see is a more modern version of that old favourite.. FS2000.

There.. food for thought ;-)

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[TSR2]

I'd just like to quickly add to some of the points above.

I have recently had access to the first aircraft I've had which is a pure FSX aircraft, complete with DTX5 textures, and I can say hand on heart the frame rates are very good indeed... my limiter (set to 25) has kicked in for the first time ever, and the GenX stuff is the smoothest its ever been.

While frame rates are important, its very much worth stating some facts about the human eye....

if you can tell the difference between 40 and 80 fps, your a cyborg the human eye can't. To be honnest, the difference between 20 and 40 fps is bloody hard to spot in a game like FS. The framerate chasers will see it in the likes of Quake and so on, but its much less critical in FS. granted, when your down to 10 FPS, its a bit of a slide show and not much fun for most of us.

FS9 aircraft may work in FSX, and many do well, but as they are not properly optimised for the new sim, many actually use more resources than a true FSX model.

In many respects think of FSX as the start of the next generation... a bit like FS2002 was to FS9.

On my system, it usually runs well. My AI kills it, but thats because... a: i don't use AI models, they are all the full models and b: all my AI are FS9 models.

Re the SP1 stuff, the multi core fix made a huge improvement for me. For non multi core users, the bugs may have been fixed, but performance was still below par. This is just "one of those things." Every new PC on the market is now Multi core, so to spend time trying to squeeze more performance out of obsolete hardware would be a waste.

I doubt very much SP2 will improve this, and I've read nothing (from official sources) to make me believe it will.

Finally, RE the spec on the box.... Windows XP would run on 64MB of ram..... have any of you ever tried it? it Does run.... just! Have any of you run FS9 on the minimum spec... rather you than me... it does work though, but with everything at minimum detail etc. this isn't the exclusive of MS. All software vendors use these same measures and all have the same statements on the box, especialy PC games.

The big issue is models being made which have been labled as FSX, but to be honest aren't any more than repackaged FS9... there IS a HUGE difference.
There are many sound reasons as to why this has happened, but hopefully we now have a stable sim that we all know the good and bad points of, the hardware we need to run it and FSDS 3.5 so our modelers can start in ernest.

[DaveB]

As a 'post natal' to Bens post on framerates.. I would be the first to agree that these are for the most part irrelevant and don't tell the whole story.. not by a long shot. However, it is one of the few benchmarks (for want of a better word) that we physically have to go on and is what all games are judged by. As my current FSX is locked at 30fps (I found this slightly better than 25).. the difference between 25 and 40 isn't worth a lot as few of us are seeing anywhere close to this anyway (Rick excepted)

Talking of Rick, in a roundabout way.. his little microlight is one of the heaviest models (performance wise) on my system and this is to all intents a pure FSX model (as pure as I understand it anyway as it was only made for FSX). This said.. I don't really know what a 'true' FSX model is. The Maule runs ok.. better than Ricks microlight so I guess that's either more lean on poly's or is a better representation of a 'true' FSX model. I get good frames (less stutter and smoother movement) of a good many of the few FS9 models I've ported over so I guess I've been lucky there.

In the end.. it all boils down to what you are prepared to accept as acceptible. Those of us with archaic systems will do what we can with it and be done.. preferring (in the most part) the superior performance of the older sim that is better suited to being steam driven. Those with all singing, all dancing dual core (or in the slightly rarer case.. quad core) will see little benefit with FS9/XP so will opt for FSX/Vista (or FSX/XP due to Vista's thirst for resources) and possibly see better performance. At the moment.. it hardly seems worth the effort of upgrading to a dual/quad core CPU that is optimised to work on an operating system that looks like it will have a very short life and somewhere in between lies FSX.. Billy Nomates!! The confidence just isn't there I'm afraid :roll:

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[Sl4yer]

DaveB has said most of what needs saying about FSX. Just a few points though:

1. Microsoft has taken the decision to release the SP2 to purchasers of the expansion pack BEFORE it is available to the rest of us (who maybe just want a working product and not an expansion pack). I find this incredible and very poor customer service. Or are ACES not too confident about SP2? I find this quote from Phil Taylor a little odd:

Acceleration and SP2 are separate products.

By putting SP2 into Acceleration we get additional test coverage on SP2. So not having SP2 in Acceleration would actually delay SP2.

2. The packaging doesn not refer to DX10 hardware, so I believe that claim that FSX will work better under Vista to be untrue. Anybody (especially with DX9 hardware) who upgrades to Vista is likely to see a small performance decrease.

3. Talk of configuring an OS installation in order to free up memory (and hence improve FSX performance on low memory systems) goes straight over the heads of most of the general public. I have 2GB of RAM, and FSX doesn't come close to filling it. I also know the general performance boost that comes from doubling the RAM in a 256MB XP system.

4. The ProcSpeed and Perfbucket are indications of how FSX views the capabilities of my machine. As Paul says, it then sets the sliders appropriately. So the first run with these settings should be an EXTREMELY good base for comparison. With my setup, FSX seems to get it very, very wrong.

I await two things. Longer term, when I win the lottery, a quad core system with a DX10.1 graphics card. Shorter term, a SP2 download for FSX. As Tesco say, every little helps!

James

[Trev Clark]

If Amazon UK are to be believed, we have a long wait...................

Flight Simulator X - Acceleration Expansion Pack (PC)
by Microsoft

Platform: Windows XP
No customer reviews yet. Be the first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RRP: £24.99
Price: £19.99 & this item Delivered FREE in the UK with Super Saver Delivery. See details and conditions
You Save: £5.00 (20%)


Availability: This item will be released on August 2, 2008. Pre-order now! Dispatched from and sold by Amazon.co.uk.

This is from the site, today. As for that DX10 demo, I assume it is optional as I only have DX9 and want to keep it!

[nigelb]

I just checked and could not even find it on the US Amazon site.