Mach 1

You have certainly put your finger on the right spot. I have to admit that I am pushing FSX to its limits, setting all options to full and back up only if I must. To me realistic simulation is the most important thing. Obviously this means different things for different folks, but to me the criteria is whether I can fool myself into thinking that I am actually sitting and flying a plane. Since I know what as a passenger on an airplane I see, I have a clear idea what it should look like. I will be the first to admit that of course there are limitations by both hardware and software so we have to compromise. But by all accounts FSX has more potentials than its previous versions and I want to use as much of them as I can. It is really not that unreasonable to expect this. It is no accident that ALL of the Microsoft demos I've ever seen are displays of screenshots with maximum effects. They also know how it should look like! Being a novice to Flight Simulators in general, I was using the information for FSX configuration from the http://ops.precisionmanuals.com/wiki/FSX_FPS_Guide site For Autogen tweaking of FSX they recommend: Add the following lines to end of the [TERRAIN] section of the .cfg TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=4500 TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=3000 but other sources recommend that the values for these properties set to minimum (5-10, since apparently zero or null could cause some problems as well?!) They also mention though that Autogen has an large effect of FPS. default.xml This is the other important autogen tweak and many will probably remember this one from FS9’s early days: Go to FSX/Autogen and rename the file default.xml to default.bak This turns off the “custom” autogen buildings such as gas stations, fast food restaurants with big chickens out in front etc. MS supposedly fixed the FPS loss from this in the FS2004 9.1 patch, but it appears that the problem may be back in FSX. Disabling this file makes the world look a little less realistic in high density city areas, but I think the tradeoff for increased FPS is well worth it. Still in their recommendations they set the Autogen to DENSE (about 60%). But your diagnosis was very accurate. Yes my FPS rates are truly as bad as I am complaining about. (You can trust me on this, I know exactly how hard to get reliable information and feedback from users, so I try to be good about it.) Reducing the Autogen settings from DENSE to nothing result in a 3-4 fold increase of my FSP. That is from 3.4 I move up to 12-14 range. The whole experience is different, the visual feedback as you fly the plane is much improved. Of course I do not know what I lose, since I find no specific information in FSX concerning what particular object are "autogenerated". One pick up clues here and there (trees, "Kentucky Fried Chicken" restaurant signs, (why would have to be that autogenerated!?), but I find no unambiguous list of the objects that I will not see. My gut feeling is that I am still a lot more concerned about the basic functionality of the program, than some bells and whistles. I do not hope for a photo quality land background, but the fact the the largest river in Europe the Danube is a set of disconnected lakes at times I find inexcusable. I use only your FSUIPC4 add-on and no custom AI modules at all. While I was looking into it, according to most accounts it also may result in further FPS loss. Are there any native settings to FSX you suggested for configuring within the simulator? Does FSX has any AI features? Thanks you very much for pointing me in the right direction. As you suggested, now I sit back and wait for SP1 that hopefully will have fixes instead of a new set of bugs.

Thank you for your detailed reply. I've spent a considerable amount of time investigating the FSX simulator behavior in more depth. Because I do not have enough information, and it would take a lifetime to set up testbeds and really troubleshot this nightmare, my conclusion, whatever its worth, is that the basic flaw is in the FSX hardware requirements. As you well know the published system requirement are woefully inadequate: XP SP2 - 256MB RAM, CPU 1Ghz, video card: DirectX 9 compliant 32MB Ram. While my system is not a gamer's dream, it is certainly better than that: XP SP2 - 2GB RAM, AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (2.2Ghz), nVidia 7600 512MB Ram. I believe that the reason MS does not publish true requirements because the simple fact is that for most buyers FSX is not usable. In my overview of the reviews: 75% of the customers are whining, and quite a few are swearing. I am in the latter camp, and working for 25 years in software development I do not appreciate the "misrepresentations" by MS. I agree that the simulator has potentials and as you've said it sells well, but that is only because the slick salesmanship and not on its merits. To finish my tirade, I just want to say that I got this FSX as a present, but since then I purchased FS9 for comparison purposes for $19, and I really believe that may be the last money MS will get from me! My problems are not related to "joystick noise". The reason one can not fly half the planes is because of the ridiculously low FPS rates. When one pilots a Cessna in the back country, (preferably a desert with no other objects but plain sand), one can achieve with my hardware about 20 FPS. But when you get to any airport with buildings, vehicles, etc. it shall be reduced to the range of 2-3FPS and below! (The "below" can not be quantified because FSX does not even have enough the time to compute and display the FPS. But one can see that at times the screen changes only in 2-3 seconds. This happens even when you just sit on the ground, and use the external spot view to pan around the airport. A slide projector would work better than this "pinnacle of 25 years of development"! Of course one can always blame the hardware, but if you lied about what the requirements are then as far as I am concerned, one has no credibility. So what in fact happens, the visual feedback, (that is the only source of information, since we do not have any gravity, or G force feedbacks), is so far from reality that one is managing the controls totally out of sync. To make it more frustrating, since as I said the FPS is constantly changing, one starts to acquire all kind of bad habits. React to soon here, wait at other scenes, etc. MS simply chew off too much, they can not deliver the goods. I think this happens to all cats, when they get fat and lazy. The FS9 version works out of the box, without too much fooling around with the controls. Of course it has none of the new features: improved land classes, textures, running airport vehicles, etc. One can dumb down FSX also to the level when it start to work, but most likely at that point it will be even less feature rich than FS9 was. That is my story and I am sticking to it! On the other hand your FSUIPC4 does solve some of the problems and I had successfully calibrate some of the control (particularly the elevator) that is simply impossible to do in FSX. Still if you consider it that the only reason I had to purchase it to fix FSX's inadequate calibrations, it is somewhat pricey. Not from you, I realize you do not sell millions of your software, but as a patch for FSX! So when you write that you do not think FS is still under development, that is what I mean. Yes, I see that hundreds of developers offer add-ons for FS and they are working on fixes. But I still read problems concerning FS9 and I do not believe that MS will ever go back and fix those bugs! Obviously you are using FSX since you have released the new version of your FSUIPC for it. Could I ask you what hardware are you using? I have read from people who use nVidia 8800GTX in SLi configuration and still can not sustain 30FPS with full FSX settings! Another question: you have mentioned that you are using Project Magenta. The FSX virtual cockpit gauges at times are simply not readable. I have a 22in flat panel, and certainly do not want to buy anything bigger. But I have a smaller (19") LCD that I possibly could use. Is a networked configuration improves somewhat this terrible execution times of FSX? (Or does it make it even worse?)

I agree that it is very difficult to give support or solutions without accurate user information. Still, I find myself in a position where I can sympathize with the comment in the original message: "... this is not even fun any more". I am a newcomer to the world of flight simulators, but have some practical flying experience (gliders) and a fair understanding of computers from which I made my living for the last 25 years. The problem I see it is that us newcomers have the audacity to expect that Microsoft programs to work. The less we had used Ms programs the more we think that should be so. After some exposure to programming in general and MS attitude in particular, one learns to be a little more pessimistic. I do not want to start a complaint list but the fact is that FSX is full with bugs. It was always a basic assumption that there is no software without some bugs, but this game division is certainly can't claim to be on the leading edge. So, for the average user to understand and accept this fact may be frustrating. It does not help much that many "expert" in Flight Simulators accepts the failure of these programs as something unavoidable. That is part of the reason why FS after 20 some years of development is still under works. (I have the feeling that the SP development start before the product is sold. According to Mr. Murphy: "There is never time to do it right, but there is always time to rework!") I am sure that you are not only happy to learn if any problem is found with you FUSIPC but probably even appreciate it. I know I always did. It is a form of final verification, a "must" that nobody likes to do, much less seems to find the time for it. With all this preamble I would like to place the blame at MS's door. (They have a backlog of blame there, and appear to shoulder it all with no feelings of guilt at all.) I will mention only one bug, to illustrate my point. In the case of the Saitek (X52) controller, the elevator movement of the Cessna does not match the travel of the physical joystick's X axis range. At about 66% of travel of the joystick the elevator surface is fully in its UP or DOWN position. For the remaining 33% (or so, I did not read out the USB values for it) it is simply a Deadzone. So you may try to pull up and nothing happens, then when you hit the "live"-zone thing do happen. And in a hurry, since as you say in your FSUPIC documentation: ".. since FS2000, FS applied to a time-change formula to the axis..". Unfortunately this behavior is the same even if the STICK_SENSITIVITY_MODE = 0. I personally find it even more erratic, I never know when I leave the active section and enter the Deadzone. Saitek actually has a Deadzone setting not only at the centerpoint but also at the ends of the travel, but again this won't help anything. They also plan to add full sensitivity, range, and "response slope" curves to their controller. But, all this can always be ignored by the application itself. Unfortunately there are no "lemon laws" for software. Until they have some we shall not hope for improvements. I have purchased your FSUIPC (v. 4.08) together with the (WideFS). I do agree with some comments that this is too much. (I.e. too much to learn, we all seem to have a zeal for instant gratification.) On the other hand I think most user does not plan to be a beta tester and.or guinea pig for MS. (I use to work for a company that paid you if you found a bug in their software. You should have seen the thorough testing everyone was giving to the other guys' code!) Prior to activating it I was very pleased to see that it appeared to be the answer for most of my problems. In particular the capability to set calibration for individual planes (or maybe types, propeller, jet, etc.). I am still studying the manual but there are a few basic points I would like you to clarify. 1) Is it mandatory that any time an axis is brought under FSUIPC control that that axis assignment is deactivated (deleted) in FSX? 2) At what point is it recommended to bring ALL axis control under FSUIPC control? This appears to be a simpler approach. One click to uncheck the Use Joystick option in FSX? 3) Sorry that I can not remember the actual forum posting, but it was mentioned somewhere the "the FSUIPC methods can not correct flawed hardware". I think this would mean "fatally flawed". I.e. if a control has no output there is nothing it could do. But in general, the whole purpose (of the calibratrion features in FSUIPC) is indeed to correct some unsatisfactory, or mis-behavior. 4) Some of the Rotary controls on my Saitek X52 has a "noisy" USB output, and at this time Saitek has no "sensitivity" adjustments. I am still hoping that the FSUIPC "deglitch" option may be able to fix or at least minimize that flaw. Of course within reason, but still I should be worth a try!? 5) And finally as far as the FSX software handling of the (raw, FSUIPC adjusted, etc.) as related to the Cessna elevator behavior described above. If MS decides that they will handle only values 0 - 34000 Of a 64k value range, are there any remedies? Or possibly disabling ALL Joystick controls in FSX would solve that problem? You obviously spent a good amount of time (probably more than you originally envisioned) with this subject. If I could make use of your experience I could find more time to fly, and enjoy the game. Are professional plane modules solve most of these problems? Is it worth to look into buying a custom 737 rather than using the built-in FSX one? (In some of the "virtual cockpits" some control work, others not. Sometimes you can lower a flap, but you cannot raise it with mouse control. The original user is right, it is at times frustrating.) Thank you for your time!