FSX SP1 Out Now..............

Chris Sykes · Post by **Chris Sykes** » 16 May 2007, 16:46

Well there is an improvement on FSX, but i was having good frame rates before anyway... At least the crappy water problems have gone away!!! :dance:

DanKH · Post by **DanKH** » 16 May 2007, 18:40

Same here...

I did an install over my current tweaked FSX, and now have to retweak (?) the cfg file, but from the first impression, compared to my previous use of FSX the promised 20-40% holds.

and that means for me around 10 FPS at EGLL, but that is very dependant of the various settings....I have a lot AI traffic and both IFR and VFR is set to 100%, so don't go counting on my figures

snave · Post by **snave** » 16 May 2007, 20:56

There is clear advice from Phil Taylor to start from a default setup for FSX, even if these means taking out all addons and replacing them one at a time.

Now this might be excessive, but starting with a tweaked system is really just asking for trouble - probably at some time in the future when it becomes something that isn't immediately attribute to the SP1 installation.

What I did was a Repair Installation of FSX, after renaming the `key` folders such as autogen, scenery, texture etc. This palces purely default folders in their place. Then installed SP1, defragged then deleted FSX.cfg and then finally started the sim. I still have all the folders in place and all those files in those folders, but I can replace them at my leisure, watching out for earlier file id's for any files that get copied over to make sure I'm not wiping out anything changed by SP1.

The ONLY tricky bit was remembering to copy all the gauge approvals from the old FSX.cfg before I deleted it.

Tomliner · Post by **Tomliner** » 16 May 2007, 21:13

So far this makes me think that perhaps we should wait for SP2 or....?
ATB EricT :think:

airboatr · Post by **airboatr** » 16 May 2007, 21:24

Tomliner wrote:So far this makes me think that perhaps we should wait for SP2 or....?
ATB EricT :think:

you mean for FS9?

that would be a better solution to simming (not Gaming)for the next few years ..
but I wouldn't even begin to beleve that will ever happen...
this update to FSUX may be all they'll do for a while,, if ever?
starting to look like charlie bravo :think:

which in FS9 looks pretty good :dance:

Tomliner · Post by **Tomliner** » 16 May 2007, 21:37

What I'm really trying to say is that why should I pay for something that doesn't appear to do 'what it says on the tin' (to qoute from a UK TV commercial).Whereas we all love to fly in our simulated world,we are not all hooked on poking and prodding around in files and folders to get something to work properly for which we have paid good money.I am quite happy to download aircraft etc and unzip files etc to install add-ons but I feel that the host sim should work OK out of the box.Well now that I have said my piece I'll just get back to FS9.ATB EricT.

Post by **TSR2** » 17 May 2007, 01:59

All of those who have only joined our virtual world do not know the poking and prodding that was done when fs2004 was released. I have only just tried sp1 tonight, but, all my processor cores ARE utilised. I'm fairly lucky that I have a decent spec pc, but this is how itâ€™s always been and itâ€™s called progress. There are some of us who spent a huge amount of cash last year upgrading our hardware, against the bulk of advice, and now find their systems pretty average. Thatâ€™s a shame, but itâ€™s time to take responsibility. On my fresh install of FSX without any add ons (at the moment) there is a very significant performance benefit thus far. We can live in the past (which I know I do, otherwise I wouldn't be into CLASSIC British Flightsim) or we can push forward, striving for more. All I would say is don't berate something unless you've tried it, and don't be chewing on sour grapes because you ignored advice last year and bought what was thought at the time to be good hardware when 10 months later things have moved on. FSX is not a bad sim, and when more developers come on board we will have lots to look forward to, but please don't pick on something that you don't understand. FS9 was a mature sim, the most mature, as it was in production for longer than any of its predecessors, but FSX is the future, get used to it, embrace it, and encourage our guys to produce models for it and it will be better than the past. A word to the wise, FS9 IS dead. Long live FSX. (Warts and all)

kit · Post by **kit** » 17 May 2007, 08:39

It's difficult to think of a response to an opinion so obviously strongly held, but.......

There ARE other opinions available of course.

I for one won't even be going anywhere near FSX, with or without SP2, for some time to come. That's because I just can't afford a new PC that's up to the requirements of the 'future', let alone upgrade to a new one every 18 months!

Post by **TSR2** » 17 May 2007, 11:27

Hi Kit.

I have no problem with FS9 or people continuing to fly it for whatever reason they choose. TBH if I hadn't bought a new PC at the beginning of the year, I'd still be flying FS9.

Its a bit like when the guys stopped making models that worked in FS2002... and that was in most cases 18 months into 2004!

I'm just trying to point out that the thing that makes the sim great isn't actuall the sim. I certainly wouldn't have bought any of the FS series if I could only fly the default aircraft, its all the addons (freeware and payware) that we use to customise our experience and make it what we want. The reason that I support FSX is not out of any loyalty to Microsoft or anything like that, but to encourage the developers to make models for FSX which will give me a better flight sim experience (selfish I know)

Hope that clarifies things.

(Also had just returned from the pub last night after several ales and was feling a little grumpy.

)

DanKH · Post by **DanKH** » 17 May 2007, 12:21

Hear. hear Ben ..!

Both the encouragement, AND the pub