Gaming Microsoft Flight Megathread

[FADEC]

If you say X-plane 10 makes FSX look like a toy, the you clearly have not seen the NGX.

The NGX alone does not make FSX look good. And it does not make me switch to FSX because I would have to buy a lot of addons "again" while some addons are not available for FSX anyway. This is what made a lot of users stay with FS9. Plus it crashes really often. I've never had that many crashes with Orbiter than I had with FSX while FS9 does not crash at all. I've tested FSX in Windows XP, Vista and 7 on different machines. It always crahses from time to time. The updates did not make it better. It's just the most terrible FS version of all times. It was a real waste of money.

And why on Earth would I want to fly a Space Shuttle in an atmospheric flight simulator? And when there is SSMS available?

Well, there are a lot of people who are interested in landing a Space Shuttle. And this is most realistic in X-Plane, but certainly also in FSX, compared to Orbiter and SSMS. Because the atmospheric flight capabilities in Orbiter and SSMS are somehow plain in comparison. And SSMS does it worst because it almost feels like flying a retro flight sim from the early 90s (espcially the static or "magnetic" touchdown reveals the simplicity of its engine). On the other hand, SSMS still is the best Space Shuttle simulation around.

 

[Hielor]

The NGX alone does not make FSX look good. And it does not make me switch to FSX because I would have to buy a lot of addons "again" while some addons are not available for FSX anyway. This is what made a lot of users stay with FS9. Plus it crashes really often. I've never had that many crashes with Orbiter than I had with FSX while FS9 does not crash at all. I've tested FSX in Windows XP, Vista and 7 on different machines. It always crahses from time to time. The updates did not make it better. It's just the most terrible FS version of all times. It was a real waste of money.

Sorry, but I suspect that you're Doing Something Wrong, or you haven't fixed the UIAutomation/UIAutomationCore issue that the FSX service packs introduced.

FSX hardly ever crashes for me, both on an older XP machine (which has running FSX nearly 24/7 for almost two years now without a single crash that I can recall) and on a much newer Win7 machine.

 

[FADEC]

Sorry, but I suspect that you're Doing Something Wrong, or you haven't fixed the UIAutomation/UIAutomationCore issue that the FSX service packs introduced.

FSX hardly ever crashes for me, both on an older XP machine (which has running FSX nearly 24/7 for almost two years now without a single crash that I can recall) and on a much newer Win7 machine.

You are lucky.

There are still tons of FSX crash reports. I gave it up, also because the updates did not make it better. FS9 runs like a charm for many years.

 

[Cras]

FSX out of the box is a bloody mess yes.

But a few tweaks and it is as stable as you could ever hope.

1.) Do NOT install it in the default folder.
2.) Install SP2 or Acceleration to fix a memory issue
3.) HIGHMEMFIX=1 in the Graphics section of the fsx.cfg
4.) If running in Win7, drop the Vista 32bit UIAutomationcore.dll into the FSX directory

Sounds too good to be true I know. I suffered from massive headaches running FSX on Vista, constant texture corruption, disappearing airplanes, black screen hangups, but once you add HIGHMEMFIX=1, that all goes away.

There are other things to do to get it to run much faster, but that is for a different discussion.

And it doesnt hurt to run it on a 64 bit machine but that is not neccessary. You do these things and it may still crash if you stress the sim with crazy settings, or running a bad add-on (Wilco cough)

But I do understand the add-on issue. I never got invovled heavily in MSFS until X came out, so all my add-ons are for FSX, but I do suspect that I will hang onto FSX as long as I can and will be a late arrival to the MS Flight party because of the investment I have in FSX add-ons.

But I dare to say, the NGX alone makes FSX king. The plane is that good, that fully simulated, and does a heck of a job overcoming many of the famous FSX shortcomings (massive runway friction, trim)

I also take your point on SSM and landing the Shuttle. That is a weak part of that simulator, and I too would like to try a more realistic take on the atmospheric portion of Shuttle flight, with realistic winds, and a better feeling that I am sitting in the left seat of a flying brick. Did see someone make a FSX Shuttle, granted it did not look anything like the Xplane video posted earlier, which I have to say looks mighty good on the eye candy, but never bothered with it, because for myself I find myself more interested in the on orbit stuff, flipping the switches, opening the doors, using the arm, and SSMS is right up my alley in that regard.

But it sounds like you own a copy of FSX, and if that is the case, I suggest you give this website a shot, http://www.venetubo.com/fsx.html. FSX is still a mess, dont get me wrong, and that is most evident in all the things you need to do to get it to work as well as it can, but it still can be done.

 

[Apollon]

Don't forget that X-Plane is FAA Licensed :thumbup:

BTW i found this several days ago @Uncyclopedia

Flight Simulator X runs well on high-end NSA supercomputers. The minimum system requirements listed on the box were designed by Microsoft to maximize sales. The real requirements for running FSX smoothly are as follows:
Eight-core Intel Skunkworks processors
20 terabytes of DDR10 Quint-channel RAM
2Tb quad-core Nvidea 0u812 GT
A secret Microsoft patch for the Gamespy issue.

 

[Hielor]

Don't forget that X-Plane is FAA Licensed :thumbup:

False. The FAA doesn't license flight simulation software. They license entire flight sim setups, which include both hardware and software. A several-hundred-dollar version of X-Plane is available that can be used as the software in an FAA-approved sim. Fun fact, there's also a version of FSX (ESP) that can be used as the software in an FAA-approved sim.

The version of X-Plane you buy for your desktop is no more "FAA-Licensed" than my coffee mug.

BTW i found this several days ago @Uncyclopedia

Flight Simulator X runs well on high-end NSA supercomputers. The minimum system requirements listed on the box were designed by Microsoft to maximize sales. The real requirements for running FSX smoothly are as follows:
Eight-core Intel Skunkworks processors
20 terabytes of DDR10 Quint-channel RAM
2Tb quad-core Nvidea 0u812 GT
A secret Microsoft patch for the Gamespy issue.

Blantantly false and I'm not even going to bother pointing out how ridiculous that is in its entirety, but I will mention that (as I pointed out above) eight cores benefit FSX no more than three do.

---------- Post added at 15:14 ---------- Previous post was at 15:13 ----------

You are lucky.

There are still tons of FSX crash reports. I gave it up, also because the updates did not make it better. FS9 runs like a charm for many years.

I guess Lambo and all the others in the O-F IRC who regularly use FSX without many issues are "lucky" too...

 

[Apollon]

False. The FAA doesn't license flight simulation software. They license entire flight sim setups, which include both hardware and software. A several-hundred-dollar version of X-Plane is available that can be used as the software in an FAA-approved sim. Fun fact, there's also a version of FSX (ESP) that can be used as the software in an FAA-approved sim.

The version of X-Plane you buy for your desktop is no more "FAA-Licensed" than my coffee mug.


Blantantly false and I'm not even going to bother pointing out how ridiculous that is in its entirety, but I will mention that (as I pointed out above) eight cores benefit FSX no more than three do.

---------- Post added at 15:14 ---------- Previous post was at 15:13 ----------


I guess Lambo and all the others in the O-F IRC who regularly use FSX without many issues are "lucky" too...

X-Plane is licensed as a software that is being used on Full-Motion simulators, for example FNTPII.

P.S. Why you get offended by a game ?
We're just saying our opinions, this is not from my head, i met many many real-world pilot's that are flying/flown from A320 to DC10, and they say that MSFS flight dynamics are a joke compared to X-Plane.
MSFS was made by software developers, and X-Plane was made by Aeronautical Engineer.

 

[Cras]

Four cores on FSX works well because you can set it up in such a way to keep the tasks flowing better. But again, it requires more editing of the .cfg file which in all fairness a proper program should not require, but there it is.

It is no secret that if you want the most out of FSX, get the biggest baddest CPU you can find and clock it to its limit. GPUs do contribute, but the real bang for the buck is in the CPU, but you dont need a i2600k to run FSX. Plenty of people are running FSX on older equipment, and newer add-ons have gotten more "elegant" I guess is the way to put it, where they still can offer great visuals at far less the frame rate hit as some of the older ones, think PMDG 747x or the FSDreamTeam KORD. Compare those two visually and performance wise, both are very sub-par in both catagories compared to the PMDG NGX and FlyTampa's KTPA.

My machine was built to deal with HD video, and thus I can use it to have it pay for itself. I know it is a bit harder for those that have to build a machine specifically for FSX, or better said, those who think they HAVE to build a machine specifically for FSX.

But you don't need a Fermi GPU, don't need a Sandybridge, dont need 24 GB of RAM to fly FSX. But it certainly helps. And it certainly makes Orbiter run very well too.

But X-Plane is used in simulators the same way FSX is. Only when FSX is done so it is called by a different name, ESP, and that part has since been sold by Microsoft (to Lockheed Martin I believe), but it is still FSX, only with some added ability (like being able to go under water, yipee!). FSXs strength is the environment. The default planes and default modules are all crap and are designed to make flight inside FSX fairly easy. Default props, turbo props, turbines, turbulence, are all simulated very poorly. Which is to say that if you want to dive into FSX you have to be prepared to replace a lot of the default functions with addons. My FSX installation has add-on airfields, add-on weather, add-on textures for clouds sky and sun, add-on aircraft, add-on nav data, add on magdata, on and on it goes.
But dont think X-plane is any different. REX is available for X-Plane too you know. And so when it comes down to it, you cannt really use either to their fullest potential vanilla and out of the box, you need add-ons, and when it comes to add-ons, FSXs catalogue is far superior, as it has far more users, and thus FSX is king. Simple as that.

And I should ask how would a real world A320 pilot say the FSX flight dynamics are a joke? Flying a computer is flying a computer.

 

[FADEC]

False. The FAA doesn't license flight simulation software. They license entire flight sim setups, which include both hardware and software. A several-hundred-dollar version of X-Plane is available that can be used as the software in an FAA-approved sim. Fun fact, there's also a version of FSX (ESP) that can be used as the software in an FAA-approved sim.

The version of X-Plane you buy for your desktop is no more "FAA-Licensed" than my coffee mug.

The available desktop version of X-Plane already contains all FAA certified features. You just have to unlock them with a USB stick, in conjunction with hardware of course.

---------- Post added at 10:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 PM ----------

Flying a computer is flying a computer.

Not quite. Airlines don't train their pilots on desktop simulations. Full motion flight simulators are significantly different than desktop simulations while it's also just a computer.

 

[Hielor]

X-Plane is licensed as a software that is being used on Full-Motion simulators, for example FNTPII.

And so is ESP, which is based on FSX. So what? It doesn't make X-Plane special, even though X-Plane fans like to claim that it does. It certainly doesn't make the thing any better for the desktop simmer. The [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_Trainer"]link trainer [/ame]was probably "FAA approved," that doesn't mean I'd want one on my desk. The graphics and flight models in some of the older "FAA Approved" sims are miserable compared to modern desktop sims. The full-motion shuttle sim used by astronauts, for example, had graphics that looked like something out of the 80s.

We're just saying our opinions, this is not from my head, i met many many real-world pilot's that are flying/flown from A320 to DC10, and they say that MSFS flight dynamics are a joke compared to X-Plane.
MSFS was made by software developers, and X-Plane was made by Aeronautical Engineer.

Yes, that's why FSX is better software than X-Plane--more user-friendly, more features, etc.

The differences in the flight dynamics between FSX and X-Plane are completely irrelevant to a desktop flight simmer. If you're designing a real airplane and want aerodynamic data, sure, it matters to you. If you're flying on VATSIM or something...no, it doesn't matter to you.

---------- Post added at 16:06 ---------- Previous post was at 16:04 ----------

The available desktop version of X-Plane already contains all FAA certified features. You just have to unlock them with a USB stick, in conjunction with hardware of course.

Which, of course, the average user won't do, so why does it matter to Joe Flightsimmer that it's "FAA certified?" It doesn't affect him in the slightest.

I really hate how much the X-Plane folks hype the "FAA certified" thing. It's all marketing, nothing more.

 

[Apollon]

And so is ESP, which is based on FSX. So what? It doesn't make X-Plane special, even though X-Plane fans like to claim that it does. It certainly doesn't make the thing any better for the desktop simmer. The link trainer was probably "FAA approved," that doesn't mean I'd want one on my desk. The graphics and flight models in some of the older "FAA Approved" sims are miserable compared to modern desktop sims. The full-motion shuttle sim used by astronauts, for example, had graphics that looked like something out of the 80s.


Yes, that's why FSX is better software than X-Plane--more user-friendly, more features, etc.

The differences in the flight dynamics between FSX and X-Plane are completely irrelevant to a desktop flight simmer. If you're designing a real airplane and want aerodynamic data, sure, it matters to you. If you're flying on VATSIM or something...no, it doesn't matter to you.

---------- Post added at 16:06 ---------- Previous post was at 16:04 ----------


Which, of course, the average user won't do, so why does it matter to Joe Flightsimmer that it's "FAA certified?" It doesn't affect him in the slightest.

I really hate how much the X-Plane folks hype the "FAA certified" thing. It's all marketing, nothing more.

Hmm, i really don't want to get into further ''fight'', since you're not the first one that is taking flight simulation ''too serious'' i'll just let it go.
BTW i'm playing MSFS since i was a 6 year old kid, so you don't have to explain me lotta things about MSFS.

 

[Hielor]

Hmm, i really don't want to get into further ''fight'', since you're not the first one that is taking flight simulation ''too serious'' i'll just let it go.

I took flight simulation so seriously that I went and got a real pilot's license to go with it :lol:

 

[Cras]

Not quite. Airlines don't train their pilots on desktop simulations. Full motion flight simulators are significantly different than desktop simulations while it's also just a computer.

I understand that, I was just trying to inject some levity into the thread, since that is a common Boeing fan dig on Airbus, that a 'Bus driver is just flying a computer.

 

[PeriapsisPrograde]

:threadjacked:

Aren't we supposed to be talking about MS Flight? :yes:

 

[Slaintemaith]

While they have said that they are trying to expand the audience to include more casual simmers than before, I have no doubt that the people working on Flight are very aware of the history of the program and the nature of its existing user base. I doubt they'll throw all that out the window on a whim.

Microprose also had a brilliant sim in the works--the update to Gunship 2000 (in 1999) Was to have all the realism Microprose could muster. Then Hasbro Interactive bought us out. And they meddled with the development of the game. Wanted it "Scale-able" so that casual gamers could play it as well. Result: Gunship! Pretty graphics--even to this day they're still pretty. But the game was horrible. (read a review of it some time)

To me, the death knell of -any- would-be sim that even attempts to call itself 'realistic' is when they use phrases like "casual simmer" or "wider audience." This means that the marketing department has too much control.

 

[FADEC]

While they have said that they are trying to expand the audience to include more casual simmers than before, I have no doubt that the people working on Flight are very aware of the history of the program and the nature of its existing user base. I doubt they'll throw all that out the window on a whim.

This turns on my alarm bell. Because it did not work for World of Warcraft for example. Of course WoW is not a flight simulation. But the same philosophy took place there. They destroyed the game and they did not care about the original thing at all. It also was a new generation of developers, and it got worse by each new patch and addon until I signed off finally. But they got what they wanted: millions of customers, down to the last dumb Joe one can meet on the planet. The cash cow mentality spreading its wings these days. Very sad. If this takes place on MS Flight, then it will be nothing more than a game with nice eye candy stuff and some crap slalom missions or whatsoever.

Thank God that Orbiter is for free.

Which, of course, the average user won't do, so why does it matter to Joe Flightsimmer that it's "FAA certified?" It doesn't affect him in the slightest.

I really hate how much the X-Plane folks hype the "FAA certified" thing. It's all marketing, nothing more.

X-Plane simulates runway slope, changing runway conditions, ground effect, thermal, sub- and supersonic conditions, etc. This at least counts for users who don't only want eye candy content and to fly missions.

---------- Post added at 02:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 AM ----------

Microprose also had a brilliant sim in the works--the update to Gunship 2000 (in 1999) Was to have all the realism Microprose could muster. Then Hasbro Interactive bought us out. And they meddled with the development of the game. Wanted it "Scale-able" so that casual gamers could play it as well. Result: Gunship! Pretty graphics--even to this day they're still pretty. But the game was horrible. (read a review of it some time)

To me, the death knell of -any- would-be sim that even attempts to call itself 'realistic' is when they use phrases like "casual simmer" or "wider audience." This means that the marketing department has too much control.

Jep. "Casual" is not only the death knell for sims but also for games in general obviously. Crap for the masses.

Games for Windows Live already says everything actually.

 

[tl8]

Please keep on topic.

FSX vs X-Flight is not relevant in this thread

Please keep the topic to MS:Flight

 

[Hielor]

X-Plane simulates runway slope, changing runway conditions, ground effect, thermal, sub- and supersonic conditions, etc. This at least counts for users who don't only want eye candy content and to fly missions.

FSX already has ground effects, thermals, and sub/supersonic conditions, so Flight should continue to have those.

Games for Windows Live already says everything actually.

Why? Would you rather Flight continued to use Gamespy for multiplayer, with all its problems? Why shouldn't Microsoft use its own technology for multiplayer?

 

[FADEC]

FSX already has ground effects, thermals, and sub/supersonic conditions, so Flight should continue to have those.

Yes, it's there, but very poor. There is a ground effect parameter in the air file at least. And FSX is as poor in supersonic flight as FS9 is. I don't expect it to change especially if they want to reach more casual simmers.

Why? Would you rather Flight continued to use Gamespy for multiplayer, with all its problems? Why shouldn't Microsoft use its own technology for multiplayer?

A flight simulation is something I use to fly complex aircraft or to simulate different flight dynamics. Multiplayer is something I need for gaming actually. And windows live is not just multiplayer. It's like that World of Warcraft Real ID social network-like crap, in which you can be connected with "friends". Soon they all are going to connect all this with facebook also (to meet more people in order to milk the cow even more). I bet.

 

[Hielor]

A flight simulation is something I use to fly complex aircraft or to simulate different flight dynamics. Multiplayer is something I need for gaming actually. And windows live is not just multiplayer. It's like that World of Warcraft Real ID social network-like crap, in which you can be connected with "friends". Soon they all are going to connect all this with facebook also (to meet more people in order to milk the cow even more). I bet.

So don't use multiplayer if you don't want it. Even if they make it required (that is one unfortunate thing about a lot of GFWL games), you can always just make an account and lock down the privacy settings.

It wouldn't surprise me if one of the primary reasons they used GFWL was for the "free" multiplayer, and while I don't really like the "social" aspect of it, I'd certainly rather have flight sim devs spending more time focused on the flight sim aspects of the thing instead of working out the details of handling multiplayer. Using GFWL gives them a lot for free, and (fingers crossed!) hopefully gives them more time to work on stuff that "matters."