I was wondering if there are any flight simmers here on the forum.

I was using FS 2004 on my P4 3.2 w/HT machine no problem. Beautiful smooth graphics.

Then I got FS X yesterday, and was hoping for a realism breakthrough. UGH! Very slow jittery frame rate.

I messed with the realism sliders, and even when cut down to FS 2004 level, it still bogs my system.

I read on some flight sim forums, that even the new duo-core systems, with maximum video cards and RAM are getting bogged as well. Many (like myself), immediately removed it from their machines, with the resignation that it will require next generation hardware and operating systems (i.e. quad-core processor and MS Vista) to operate to its potential.

So the software goes on the shelf for now, and already I am thinking of building a new system just for this flight sim, sort of like many of you have built your own high performance gaming only systems.

Any one else have any comments on MS Flight Simulator X??

quote Originally posted by zardoz: I was wondering if there are any flight simmers here on the forum.

I used to have them all, from the very begining.
Now it's only X-Plane.
Building my own designs and flight testing.
Been awhile though, since I fired it up.

Yeah, I have FlightSimX on here...

Lags a bit on this system...

AthlonXP 3500+, 1 gig PC3200, and a 256 MB Radeon X850XT Platinum Edition PCI-E.. I like it though.

I used to be really into it. But then my joystick gave out...

From the commercials it didn't look very good. The frame rate was terribly slow.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Now it's only X-Plane.

Same here. X-Plane's flight model is waaaaaay more realistic than MS's. Plus it runs very smooth on even moderate hardware.

quote Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: Same here. X-Plane's flight model is waaaaaay more realistic than MS's. Plus it runs very smooth on even moderate hardware.

Years ago, when it first came out, I think I paid $200 bucks for it!
Now it's down to $69.00 bucks.
"This is X-Plane + NEW WORLD-WIDE global scenery (seven dual-layer DVD's covering all of Earth between +/- 60 degrees latitude) for Mac, Windows, and Linux."
The disk requirement to install the entire planet is 60 GIG!

http://www.x-plane.com/

Unless you opt to buy the new AvioApp - $500.00
"This is the new AvioApp for X-Plane. It is a standalone program that simulates the Avidyne PFD with flight-training-level accuracy. This program is run on it's own computer hooked to X-Plane through a LAN."

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 10-19-2006).]

I actually wrote a program for X-Plane once that can display photo-realistic indicators on a second monitor. Lemme see if I can find the program and show some screenshots...

Here they are:

quote Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:

Hey, those are NICE!
I've done some gage work in X-Plane, but nothing like that!
Nice work!

I am in awe...NICE work Cliff!

Cliff:

I am duly impressed with those instruments. A real artiste!

Boondawg:

I was hoping the gaming hardware man himself would chime in! I think X-Plane will be on my shopping list for sure.

I designed a real world plane my senior year in engineering school, to pass a design course. I still have all the data, drawings, and mathematics from that plane. I always wanted to transfer it to a sim, and see how it performed. It was an 80 passenger three-surface design, with turbo prop-fan propulsion. That program may be far better suited to what I want to do than MSFS. I even had special NASA super-critical flow airfoils for wings, tail, and canard.

The only plane built in the real world close to my design, is the Piaggo GP-180 Avanti. I have the plane for that in FS 2004, and it's a lot different than even a Rutan type canard, or standard tail configuration in it's flight characteristics. If X-plane has a better flight dynamic model, that's the ticket!!

Flight Simulator X is heavily CPU bound. Unfortunately, however, it does not seem make efficient use of dual core processors so in most cases a higher end single core processor ends up running the game better than their dual CPU counterparts. There are a number of tweaks you can do to improve you framerates. Doing these tweaks, I was able to get about a 6 FPS boost on my dual Xeon 3.4 / 6800GT / 2 gig system.

http://www.fs2004.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92583

I was going to buy it yesterday, but the store was out of stock. I think I'll wait until I build a new system, or read about tweaks that make it run better.

I'm hoping to start instrument training soon (in my own plane, if all goes well), and I plan to use MSFS to practice. I don't want performance issues, so I might wait until later just for that reason.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 10-19-2006).]

Well, anyway, back to FS 2004. Heres a couple of screen shots from this evenings flight from Cairo, Egypt.

Beech Baron (my favorite plane so far, balance of speed, power, controllability, etc....plus I can land it pretty good now!)

This was a dive at 210 KIAS at about 250 feet altitude. I wanted to see the face of the Sphinx!

I was honestly going to come home from work today and post about the same thing!!! I bought it on Tuesday. I had 2004, and I've been playing since version 5.0.

I played the demo when it was released and realized my system needed some serious upgradage! So I went balls out. AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 dual core processor, dual BFG 7900GTXOC 512 mb SLi video cards, 4 GB of ram. I was thinking I should be able to run it easily now. I threw it in, installed, ran, went straight to the options. Set all the detail straight to the top. Resolution at 1600x1200. Loaded up the game and started out at Sea-Tac airport in Seattle. It loaded up and BAM!!! 2-6 FPS!!!!!!!! WOWWWWWW!!!! What the hell kind of system does Microsoft think the average household have?!?!?!?!?!? I dropped the resolution down to 1024x768, and the FPS jumped to about 6-9 in the cities on the surface. Totally unbearable. Once I get in the air or in less inhabited areas, it's up to barable levels around 15-40 fps. I wonder if I should have upped to a pare of 7950's instead of the 7900's. I guess I could turn down all the graphics, but then I would just be playing 2004 again!!!

I'm a hardcare flight sim guy...check www.lo-mac.com

Screenshots of LOMAC.

http://www.lo-mac.com/ss/mustang02.jpg
http://www.lo-mac.com/ss/F-15-01.jpg

Even Hitler doesn't seem too impressed with Flight Sim X.

Warning: Some strong language but funny as heck if you play flight sims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcW3hbnR2EI

[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 10-20-2006).]

quote Originally posted by zardoz: Cliff: I am duly impressed with those instruments. A real artiste! Boondawg: I was hoping the gaming hardware man himself would chime in! I think X-Plane will be on my shopping list for sure. I designed a real world plane my senior year in engineering school, to pass a design course. I still have all the data, drawings, and mathematics from that plane. I always wanted to transfer it to a sim, and see how it performed. It was an 80 passenger three-surface design, with turbo prop-fan propulsion. That program may be far better suited to what I want to do than MSFS. I even had special NASA super-critical flow airfoils for wings, tail, and canard. The only plane built in the real world close to my design, is the Piaggo GP-180 Avanti. I have the plane for that in FS 2004, and it's a lot different than even a Rutan type canard, or standard tail configuration in it's flight characteristics. If X-plane has a better flight dynamic model, that's the ticket!!

X-Plane is exactly what you need!
The Plane Builder takes it down to it's mi-nutest detail!
It took me forever to figure out how to use all it functions.
Once you get it, here's a building tip:

Take an exsisting included plane, and start tweaking it.
It will be REALLY helpfull when sculpting the airframe.
It gives you a "visual" of what changes what, where, and how much.

Hint 2:
Before you start "tweaking" an exsisting aircraft, copy or write down all the peramiters of the stock aircraft you are tweaking. It gives you an idea of which paramiters change how much (+/-), where.
ALWAYS save EVERY change to the new (expieimental) aircraft under a different file name then the original. Believe me, you don't want to be reinstalling the game becouse you screwed up the "stock" aircraft, or the last change you made!

When you get ready to "skin" (texturing for realism) your craft, I got some hints for that, too.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 10-20-2006).]

quote Originally posted by zardoz: I was wondering if there are any flight simmers here on the forum. I was using FS 2004 on my P4 3.2 w/HT machine no problem. Beautiful smooth graphics. Then I got FS X yesterday, and was hoping for a realism breakthrough. UGH! Very slow jittery frame rate. I messed with the realism sliders, and even when cut down to FS 2004 level, it still bogs my system. I read on some flight sim forums, that even the new duo-core systems, with maximum video cards and RAM are getting bogged as well. Many (like myself), immediately removed it from their machines, with the resignation that it will require next generation hardware and operating systems (i.e. quad-core processor and MS Vista) to operate to its potential. So the software goes on the shelf for now, and already I am thinking of building a new system just for this flight sim, sort of like many of you have built your own high performance gaming only systems. Any one else have any comments on MS Flight Simulator X??

They are writing for the next generation of PC, to get you to upgrade. You dont know the routine yet?

You think tahts bad, just wait until vista hits the street.

I have been using MSFS 2004 and only paid $69 for it and love it.

I was going to upgrade to FS X, but I swear I read that it only runs on Vista. Have I misunderstood something, or are y'all running Vista RC's? Or, it is that you have to have Vista to use FS X with Directx10 support, as Directx10 is going to be Vista only, but you don't need Vista to simply play the game?

Also, I thought that nearly ALL games ran better on a higher-end single core CPU than a dual-core CPU?

I ran the FS X demo on my Gateway 838GM (no mods at all) and it ran perfectly fine for me, but I am not sure how watered-down the demo is compared to the full version.

I saw the TV comercial for Flightsim X the other day. Watching very carefully I noticed video lag. That sucker is going to require a serious video card in order to run it properly.

I will attempt to link the image of the Piaggio P180 Avanti here, so you can see what it looks like. Note the super high aspect ratio wing. The thing is incredibly efficient aerodynamically. Got it! I downloaded this plane for FS2004 from http://flyawaysimulation.com website. Try to fly it, if you want a really different experience with stalls, landing, turns, etc.



edit: massaged link a bit

[This message has been edited by zardoz (edited 10-20-2006).]

quote Originally posted by zardoz: I will attempt to link the image of the Piaggio P180 Avanti here, so you can see what it looks like. Note the super high aspect ratio wing. The thing is incredibly efficient aerodynamically. Got it! I downloaded this plane for FS2004 from http://flyawaysimulation.com website. Try to fly it, if you want a really different experience with stalls, landing, turns, etc. edit: massaged link a bit

My plane shopping too me to Durango, CO last weekend. One of those just arrived, and I had a chance to talk to the pilots and peek inside. It's a BEAUTIFUL airplane inside and out. It does just over 300kts.

I honestly don't think there's a home PC out there that you can currently build that would be able to run FSX with all sliders right.

I would like to see what it would do if all the sliders were maxed out, and and running a smooth, clear frame rate.

I imagine a system that will exist two or three years from now, will have that capability.

[Puts on speculation hat]

octal-core running at 10 GHz. 1 terabyte of RAM. 50 terabyte hard drive. 5 GB video memory. Windows Vista service pack 6, with all 8903 security patches.

Equipped with the latest liquid nitrogen cooling system. 1 kilowatt power supply. So on and so forth.

[speculation hat removed]

Sigh..........what..........everrrr..........

quote Originally posted by zardoz: I would like to see what it would do if all the sliders were maxed out, and and running a smooth, clear frame rate. I imagine a system that will exist two or three years from now, will have that capability. [Puts on speculation hat] octal-core running at 10 GHz. 1 terabyte of RAM. 50 terabyte hard drive. 5 GB video memory. Windows Vista service pack 6, with all 8903 security patches. Equipped with the latest liquid nitrogen cooling system. 1 kilowatt power supply. So on and so forth. [speculation hat removed] Sigh..........what..........everrrr..........

Now that wouldn't do any good, because FSX still only uses one processor core!!! If only there were magical computers.

[This message has been edited by Zewerr (edited 10-21-2006).]

hmmmm.

I remember overhearing a conversation between two computer science guys in a college cafeteria in 1980.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy 1: You know these guys are running 16 bit processors at 80 megahertz. I mean, theres a limit, and we are at it!

Guy2: Yea, I agree. They've got hard disks that hold 100 megabytes, and it's really overkill if you ask me.

Guy 1: I just don't see it going any further, after all, what on earth requires that much speed and power?

Guy 2: They're just showing off now. No need for it to go any further, if it's even possible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the time, I had a TI-59 calculator I think. I was thinking these guys are in the stratosphere, and they probably knew what they were talking about.
I read this last bit somewhere a few years ago in one of my books.
_________________________________________________--

Tow men on ground observing Orville Wright flying the Wright Flyer B at about 100 foot alitude:

Man 1: What is that thing going on up there?

Man 2: Oh, it's one of those Wright brothers. They think they are going to build a flying machine.......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Edited by Cliff Pennock: "Fixed text so people don't have to scroll horizontally"]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I was going to buy it yesterday, but the store was out of stock. I think I'll wait until I build a new system, or read about tweaks that make it run better. I'm hoping to start instrument training soon (in my own plane, if all goes well), and I plan to use MSFS to practice. I don't want performance issues, so I might wait until later just for that reason.

Frankly, for doing your instrument training, MSFS will be overkill. You really don't need anything that detailed. All you need to see in the instrument panel on your screen. ASA's IP Trainer is a halfway decent program that will greatly help you with your instrument rating, but won't require a really nice computer. Another program is called "On Top" I believe, but I don't recall who made it. Good luck with your rating, its a very reward rating to have.

Isaac
King Air 200/100/90 pilot

------------------
86 Fiero 2.5L, 5spd.
00 Ford Focus 2.0L 5spd
66 Chevrolet C10 250 cid, Powerglide

quote Originally posted by WrenchingPilot: Frankly, for doing your instrument training, MSFS will be overkill. You really don't need anything that detailed. All you need to see in the instrument panel on your screen. ASA's IP Trainer is a halfway decent program that will greatly help you with your instrument rating, but won't require a really nice computer. Another program is called "On Top" I believe, but I don't recall who made it. Good luck with your rating, its a very reward rating to have. Isaac King Air 200/100/90 pilot

I'm concerned about performance even when I'm not looking out the window much. I suppose I could turn all the sliders down to nothing, but I usually use the 737 and fly segments of 30 minutes to about 1.5 hours. On the longer segments, I *do* look around outside. "Flying" a sim for an hour can get boring if you're only staring at instruments. I like to combine instrument procedures with a sense of "going somewhere". I typically will fly a simulated airline-type schedule. For example, I'll start at my "home base" of KSJC and fly something like SJC-LAS-SAN-PHX-ABQ and so on, doing the next flight where the last one ended. It's a combination of practicing instrument flight and enjoying the illusion of actually going somewhere. It still *is* a game, and it's something I do for enjoyment.

I just got my hands on the full edition of X-Plane, all 7 DVDs...

WOW is all I can say. As nice as FSX is, I like the X-Plane, even though it has a steeper learning curve than learning how to fly at the beginning of FSX...

quote Originally posted by Synthesis: I just got my hands on the full edition of X-Plane, all 7 DVDs... WOW is all I can say. As nice as FSX is, I like the X-Plane, even though it has a steeper learning curve than learning how to fly at the beginning of FSX...

The newest ( 8.0 ) build?
All I got is the 6.0 build.

I think I'm gonnna get the newest build & do somemore design work.
It's a great way to wile away the hours and exersize your mind.

Some stuff I have designed in the past:
A pratical, real-world, STOL (short takeoff & landing) Alaska bushplane
A car. (out of an aircraft design program!) It was tough becouse getting the weight right so it DIDN'T want to fly!
A speed boat
A hovercraft
A mars surface craft (way harder then it sounds!)
I also designed a fueltank, engines (even manuvering "puffers"!), & launchpad for the spaceshuttle (included in the simulator) that allowed me to take it to space. Someone HAS even built a space station you can dock to!

The last design that I COULD NOT BUILD was a "Groundeffect" craft. If it would fly 2 foot off the ground, it would fly 2000 foot off the ground!
I could not figure out how to keep it in ground effect!

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: The newest ( 8.0 ) build? All I got is the 6.0 build.

8.21

Working on getting the latest and greatest...

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I'm concerned about performance even when I'm not looking out the window much. I suppose I could turn all the sliders down to nothing, but I usually use the 737 and fly segments of 30 minutes to about 1.5 hours. On the longer segments, I *do* look around outside. "Flying" a sim for an hour can get boring if you're only staring at instruments. I like to combine instrument procedures with a sense of "going somewhere". I typically will fly a simulated airline-type schedule. For example, I'll start at my "home base" of KSJC and fly something like SJC-LAS-SAN-PHX-ABQ and so on, doing the next flight where the last one ended. It's a combination of practicing instrument flight and enjoying the illusion of actually going somewhere. It still *is* a game, and it's something I do for enjoyment.

I'll agree with you...flying a sim on instruments only for an hour is pretty boring. If you enjoy the cross-country trips like you've described above, its [MSFS] is great. IP Trainer, etc, is really only designed IMO to be "flown" in hour to 1.5 hour blocks. They have preplanned lessons that build on each other. First, straight and level, turns-various bank angles/standard rate, etc, climbs, descents, climbing and descending turns, etc. Then holding, procedure turns, tracking VOR's, NDB's (why?), and then approaches. It gives you pass fail at the end of lessons, etc.

The lessons on a program like that (which you could duplicate on MSFS very easily) are a great tool to help you get comfortable flying on instruments before you start spending the big bucks when the engine's running. Flying cross countrys like you described sound like fun, and may be realistic for how you intend to use your Instrument Rating once you obtain it, but as far as the flying you will be doing in order to obtain that rating, it will be a little less "fun" and little more "work." (IMHO)

IMHO a flight sim just ain't a flight sim without a Merlin and six 0.50 cal's

I just realized, that a user named "D. B. Cooper", would have a very interesting concept for a flight sim. I mean, could you model a guy parachuting from a passenger plane at altitude, with some suitcases of stolen cash and what-not, and then successfully get on the ground and escape?

This evenings simulation, was a 737 taking off from Zurich, Switzerland, and a short 45 minute flight to Amsterdam. The landing at Amsterdam was textbook perfect. I use the autopilot, auto-approach, GPS functions on those types of flights.

Then after getting my aircraft reconfigured, I flew from Amsterdam to Dublin, Ireland. Well that landing was not so good. I barely made the runway, landed long, and bounced a few times. Airspeed way too high on touchdown, and I choked a bit. I just shut it down on the runway, and called it a day.

My plane is the closest one to you in this screen dump. This is the Amsterdam airport, and I had it pulled up to the jetway at the gate just right. Of course, in FS2004 the jetway doesn't sim out to meet the plane door, but I can imagine. I was hoping in FSX, that details like this would happen.

Actually FSX does have the jetways pull up to the doors. Baggage carts run to the back of the plane when you open the hatches too. I love FSX way more than FS9. There's so many new features that just add to the detail of the game and make it way more enjoyable to me. The 3D cockpit view is no longer fixed, so there's G-Force simulation with it. The wing flex is something that should have been implimented several versions ago, but it finally arrived.

yeah... bummer they don't let ya hijack on most flight sims

I have not posted here in years, but this topic has caught my attention. I truly enjoy MSFS2004. Lots of hours. I have been seriously considering going to X. I run a P4 3 gig 512 ram ATI Radeon x300SE HP media center. Thoughts about performance? Am I going to get ass upset as Adolf in that you tube video????? Thanks for the topic guys!

Scott In Colorado

You processor should work good. I'd seriously look into more RAM before you get it. I'd recommend a minimum of 1.5 GB. 2 GB would be even better! I'm totally clueless about ATi cards though.

[This message has been edited by Zewerr (edited 10-24-2006).]

quote Originally posted by LawAir: Am I going to get ass upset as Adolf in that you tube video?????

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 10-25-2006).]

Boonie, which one did I send you? (in the tin)

I played a flight sim once that was in an 18 wheeler. It was hooked up to a cray computer. They were trying to get my school to buy 'em for theiur research dept.

It was awesome! (for its day)

I flew under the Brooklyn Bridge, that was FUN.