FSX "versions" v.s. compatibility

[jhefner]

Hi;

I too have decided to try installing FSX on one of my machines. I installed the demo last week, and was able to tweak it to the point where it works reasonably well on my stock Windows Vista PC.

If I understand correctly, there are roughly three or four different "versions" of FSX:

* Stock, OEM FSX; which is what I think I picked up last night at Best Buy (Edit: FSX-RTM, not FSX Gold)
* FSX SP1
* FSX SP2
* FSX w/Acceleration installed (same as SP2?), aka FSX Gold.

I want to retain compatibility with FS9 as much as possible; in fact, I am installing it in part to test my creations in FSX along with FS9/FS8/CFS2.

So, the question I wanted to lay on the table for discussion is what "version" of FSX offers best combination of stability/features v.s. backwards compatilbility?

I guess another way to put it is what version of FSX should I strive to test against along with the older sims; I realize that it still won't be a "native FSX" model, nor will it likely work in Acceleration. But at what level should it work?

-Thanks in advance;
James

[Craig]

Hi James,

Yes those are the correct order of versions you can choose, as I recall FSX (RTM) and maybe SP1 have the best FS9 compatibility.

The Acceleration pack has some more aircraft in it (P-51 Racer, F-18 and EH-101 Helicopter) where SP2 doesn't, also the Acceleration SDK has a few extras.

Still you can change the alpha channel on the props and windows and the FS9 aircraft will work in FSX Acceleration. The best person to speak to would be Roger.

Craig

[Deleted]

Definitely SP1 ONLY James. That way most (all?) late model FS9 aircraft will work and all you'll maybe need to do is tweek the prop texture because it stays the 'wrong' side of clouds but hardly noticeable if you lighten it. You will find though that some esp earlier ones will have glass proiblems - either it will be totally transparent or in the case of eg Ted Cook's stuff unfortunately, it'll be black with as far as I know no cure.

On the other hand, the original FSX had a lot of glaring landclass problems which were fixed in SP1 but because some idiot in Aces used the original files when FSX was updated, they were reintroduced in SP2 and Acceleration.

You will find though that native FSX SP2/Acceleration aircrfat are not compatible with SP1 - and all this from a supposedly reputable software company. It it any wonder that FSX has so little credibility

[jhefner]

Thanks, Rollerball. That is what I expected, appreciate the info.

You will find though that native FSX SP2/Acceleration aircrfat are not compatible with SP1 - and all this from a supposedly reputable software company.

I feel bad for the ACEs team, but watching the train wreck that was FSX and seeing MSFS return as Microsoft Flight helps me understand why the studio was let go.

-James

[Roger]

Well I suppose it falls to me to defend the FsX deluxe/Acceleration point of view as that is where I've lived sim-wise for the last 4 years.
Even with the default texture and landclass sets FsX looked so good when I built my FsX machine back in December 2007 that returning to Fs9 was such a disappointment visually that I didn't go back any more after a few months. With terrain texture enhancements; especially from FTX and UTX FsX shines...but you need time to tweak and a reasonable pc.
I have had some frustrations with FsX as has any user but once you have it performing to the best of your rig's ability then there's not much out there to beat it.
With regards to port-overs from Fs9 then some will and some won't and often some alpha channel tweaking is required especially where props and glass are concerned.
I am very heartened to read in the Old Hangar forum that some members are going to attempt a Golden Wings version of FsX and I look forward to the fruits of their labours.

[CG-1976]

Roger knock it off lolol, your killing me with that first shot lol. All bloody fantastic shots Roger.

[Deleted]

You're absolutely right Rog but James asked about how to retain as much compatibility as possible with FS9 and Acceleration won't do that for him.

Lovely shots BTW. Obviously I gave up on it too early but it's too much effort and life in the real world is too short to bother going back now. As I type I've got my FSX and my Acceleration DVDs sitting next to me but I just can't seem to summon up the effort right now. Maybe sometime when I'm OLDER and have more time.....

Roger

[jhefner]

In my case, I have a computer that will not run FSx, and sons that enjoy CFS2. So, I try to create planes that we can fly together in Multiplayer in either FS2004 or CFS2.

I got the FSx Demo running reasonbly well on the newer computer, but when I installed FSX last night and applied the same settings, it couldn't even reach 20 FPS, must less maintain it. There are some features I can turn down to bring the frame rates up, but my newer system is marginal at best.

Your screen shots and my brief flight with the current settings convince me of what a difference it makes (the Microsoft Flight screen shots being leaked and cheap shelf price for FSX is what motivated me to try in the first place.) I just don't have the hardware to enjoy it fully right now.

Didn't mean to diss FSX Acceleration; just the chaos that was the various versions of FSX.

[jhefner]

I installed Service Pack 1, along with MegaScenery X for Dallas over the weekend.

My computer can barely run it (I have it limited to 10 FPS to keep from locking up), but I can see why folks like FSX compared to FS9. The level of detail is amazing.



Closer view still:



My favorite kind of flying is low and slow with photo scenery, and this is jaw dropping nice to me.
-James