FSX SP1 Update:Beta
Good news and bad news.
The good news is, we are real close to putting a strong beta build of SP1 out on the beta forums.
The bad news is, it just isnt going to be this week.
We have had 2 team members sick for the last couple days and we need their changes checked in to have what we want the beta testers to exercise with their tests. SDK setup has some issues on uninstall that make the beta less clean than we would like. And there are a few less important odds-ends we'd like to clean up. So we need a few more days.
We will alert people when, hopefully next week, we have the bits ready to post.
I know some will be disappointed, but its better to have a single strong beta drop than having to drop bits multiple times. So stay tuned.
Comments
Anonymous
March 07, 2007
PingBack from http://jonpatch.wordpress.com/2007/03/07/no-fsx-sp1-yet/Anonymous
March 08, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 08, 2007
This is not a bug report page. Please use either the fsinsider.com feedback form or tell_fs@microsoft.comAnonymous
March 09, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 14, 2007
I already stated on avsim.com that our baseline goal was 20%.Anonymous
March 19, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 19, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 20, 2007
Spanman44, I have (I think) the same computer as yours, a Dell XPS 410 with 256GB video card, 1GB RAM and 2.4 Ghz Intel Core-2 duo E6600. I've got my min fps setting in FSX at 25fps and normally get 22-25fps while in flight. In dense airport scenery it will go down to 12-15fps. So I'm not quite sure why you would be getting such low frame-rates. Note that most of my sliders are set to mid-level, some lower, some higher.Anonymous
March 20, 2007
Correction the that video card, it's a 256MB card (Nvidia 7900 GS).Anonymous
March 20, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 20, 2007
Saito you have to see computer are advancing over the time. I don't want to play the "i-have-the-bigger-one"-game, but i payed 3400 Euros for my new computer. Intel 6800 CoreExtreme CPU, 2x 8800GTX 768mb, 4GB of DDR2-800 Ram, and so on... I can play with all settings to the maximum, but i paid a lot of money, 2 weeks ago. Your computer is perhaps 5 to 8 month old and isn't "that" state-of-the-art. With my old PC, AMD64 3800, 2GB DDR-400, 2x 7900GTX i had the same problems like you on maximum settings. Perhaps you remember with FS2004 there where nearly the same problems 3 years ago. And like the previous version FSX is designed to the the FS for the next 2 to 3 years. And lets say in 1 to 2 years my newest computer will cost 500 Euros, affordable for nearly everyone. To make a long story short, now you have to play FSX on mid-settings and in 1 or 2 years of have a new computer and you can play FSX on max settings for another 1 or 2 years till FS11 comes out. So see the positive things, look forward the play a nearly new FS when you get your next computer... CarstAnonymous
March 20, 2007
Carst says: "To make a long story short, now you have to play FSX on mid-settings and in 1 or 2 years of have a new computer and you can play FSX on max settings for another 1 or 2 years till FS11 comes out." Saito says: I got fed up, called up my buddy at his computer store, told him I was handing in my new computer that I just bought from him with the latest in technology as of this past November (4.5 months ago). Then, I told him what I now wanted for hardware (the exact same thing Carst has). He should be here in about 2 hours leaving him time to build the computer and that I better have another $1400.00 in my sock drawer. Now, having done that, isn't this about the wackiest way to go about it? So according to Carst (read exactly what he is saying): Microsoft Flight Simulator, upon every new release, and you want to get the max out of the sim, instead of it costing $70.00 for the software, it will cost you approximately $3400.00 euros or $3000.00 cdn for every new release as you will need a brand new computer, and don't forget, you have to wait 6-12 months AFTER the release date before you do this. How many folks have the luxury that they can can do this finacially. As Microsoft Simulator boasts, they have schools and labs all over the US that use this software to teach their flight students. Imagine the phenominal cost of schools and labs having to get new computers every release? So according to Saito: INSANE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! P.S Carst I am trusting you Carst with the hardware you say you have and that you can run everything to the max with more than decent framerates. I am hoping to see your results for myself in a couple of hours from now, actually now its an hour from now.Anonymous
March 20, 2007
Carst, Oh, and thanks for giving your specs, and including the frame rate results you got at MAX settings. It helped shorten the conversation with my buddy. And, trust me, after I get the hardware setup you have and the resluts aren't what I am now expecting, you got some hate mail coming your way, buddy :) This ends this debate for me.........FOR NOW......lol Take care everyone.Anonymous
March 20, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 20, 2007
First of all, Playing FSX at absolute max at 1280x1024 is simply not possible on any computer off the shelf. No matter what graphics card one have. FSX is simply too CPU dependent. A Core 2 Duo overclocked to 4.0Ghz will probably handle it will, but with aircooling, the best I managed is a mere 3.0Ghz. The fact that it doesn't utilize two cores FULLY isn't helping, either. My Spec: CPU: Core 2 Duo e6300 @ 3.0Ghz @ 1.30v Motherboard: Gigabyte S3 V1 856mhz system bus RAM: 2x1024mb DDR2-666 at 856mhz 5-5-5-15 2.1v VDimm Turbo Graphics: eVGA Geforce 7950GT PCI-E 256mb 256bit (550/1400mhz DDR) Storage: 250GB WDC SATA2 HDD 7200RPM 16MB I can run the game at no AA or 6X AA and get no performance decrease at 1680x1050. Yes FSX is just that cpu bound. I can't help but compare it to X-plane 8.6 with global scenery, which is running on the OpenGL API, with scenery turned up to max, it is A LOT more playable than FSX, in fact, I am pulling a constant 50fps even in urban areas. some FSX eye-candie: http://mpan3.homeip.net/page?fsxAnonymous
March 21, 2007
Believe me mpan3, you can... I never overclock my parts and i play with all settings on max: Vista Home Prem 64bit Intel CoreExtreme 6800 2,99Ghz 2Cores 2x Asus EN8800GTX 768mb graficcards in sli-mode Asus P5N32-E Sli Board 4GB Corsair DDR2-800 Ram 750W power-supply I get constantly FPS around my target-framerate @30fps, even in urban areas over 20fps with FSX (including FS Global 2008) and everything to max... You should read the previous posts again than you will understand why...Anonymous
March 21, 2007
Carst, you do realize fsx is a pure 32bit app and therefore vista 64bit will not benifit it at all? The only difference I see between your system and mine is the graphics card. You also have more ram but FSX simply doesn't use more than 1.6GB and thus i don't think adding more will help me. does the 8800s really make that much of a difference?Anonymous
March 21, 2007
I'm very much aware of the fact that FSX needs hardware upgrades. No doubt about it. That's just the way it has to be - you shouldn't be able to play everything maxed out and get a good FPS with a "normal" computer imo. However, the absurd situation with FSX is that everybody keep saying that we have wait for the better hardware that will come in a few years of time, BUT: this is NOT the problem for most FSX simmers - atleast not for me. The reason for many of them being fed up, is that although their computer is considered "just normal", FSX doesn't fully use the new processing techniques such as multiple cores etc their computer may have. And that is just absurd. For me, it feels like a joke when ACES says that one have wait two years for better hardware, when they cannot utilize the techniques used by computers today! And if we forget the current hardware situation - that on the other hand maybe will get better with SP1 and DX10 -: great job with FSX Phil. ACES deserves cred.Anonymous
March 21, 2007
@mpan3: There are much more differences, better CPU, okay you overclocked yours, but it still isn't a CoreExtreme with 4MB L2 Cache etc ... much differences. Perhaps FSX only need 1,6Gigs of Ram maximum, i don't know, but still there is Winsows and other programs needed Ram at the same time FSX is running. You use DDR2-666Mhz Ram, mine is DDR2-800. And the answer to your question is yes, google for 8800gtx benchmarks, the 8800gtx is sometimes 2 times faster than the 7900gtx. @mk-nilsson: I think your right, perhaps there are some failures in the technology development of FSX, the are dual-core systems for over 1 year now and Sli-graphic-cards for over 2 years, but you can not blame the dev-crew of FSX. Reasons:
- Sli isn't that important for FSX, because it is so CPU-bound.
- Development of FSX started long time ago (2 years or so) and at this time everyone thought clockrates of the CPUs will increase more and more, nearly no one in the computer industry thought that the future of CPUs would be multi-core-CPUs. That is the reason why there is nearly no game out there which uses multi-core-CPUs. FSX isn't alone. Our wich for the future should be a better "teamwork" of hardware-producers (like AMD, Intel, nvidia, Ati) and the software-devs. @saito48: How is your new system running? Love me or hate me now? ;-)
Anonymous
March 21, 2007
CARST: Yes, I'm very much aware of the fact that ACES couldn't predict the dual core-way of the computer industry, but the fact that ACES is talking about one needs for new complex hardware in order to run FSX at a reasonable level of detail, is still absurd.Anonymous
March 21, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 21, 2007
Benchmark will tell you that a 2MB cache conroe lags behind the 4MB version only by 2-5 percent. plus, I am using the D9 Micron 'Fatboy' chip, overclocked 1:1 to 858mhz running at 4-4-4-12, which gives the conroe an insane amount of memory bandwidth(memtest showing 6GB/s, 3dmark01: 50k). So memory isn't the problem here. I am using XP without any large background app, lets put it this way, the peak commit charge value never exceed 1.8GB. While I do realize 8800 sli is lots of processing power, i just can't see how it won't be bottlenecked by your C2D 6800. From my testing, the game is VERY CPU dependent(as you said so yourself), and cranking up AA/AF or resolution does not decrease the performance at all on my graphic card, which lead me to believe that the game isn't even using the full potential of a 7950GT. so what makes two 8800 make the game perform any better?! Sorry if I am beginning to sound like a broken record Carst, but I just can't figure out what to upgrade TODAY to see FSX in all it's glory. By that i mean all sliders to max, not the 'preset max', which is perfectly playable on my pc.Anonymous
March 21, 2007
CARST: I think you misunderstood me. The fact that one has to wait two or more years in order to achieve top performance is not absurd. However, the fact that FSX doesn't know how to take full advantage of the technology available today, and that we therefore should wait two more years for more complex hardware, is for me very absurd.Anonymous
March 22, 2007
Ok, but like i said in my previous posts, no one in the software-dev-industry expected the CPU-producers to come up with multi-core-CPUs. That's why there is nearly no game/software using multi-core. And you don't have to wait to years... buy newest and the most expensive parts and you can play on all max ... or you just accept that the game is made to look good for a long period and can not offer the possibility to be played on "all-max" on every PC. CarstAnonymous
March 24, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 26, 2007
I hadn't been scanning my blog for the last 2 weeks or so as we fought the last few bugs to beta. So I had to delete a comment today because it was a little more than mildly offensive. Thats the first time on my blog, and I'd like to not have to do that again because if it starts happening too often I will have to lock comments. Wouldn't you rather have an open dialog with me? Aren't I endeavouring to answer serious questions? Please can we have a fruitful and productive discussion without name calling and personal insults? I have acknowledged the performance issues with FSX RTM. That is the main purpose of SP1, to address the performance issues. Today, you do have to dial the sliders back to something appropriate for your hardware and maybe a little bit more. Even with SP1, while you are likely to get batter FPS and be able to advance the sliders a bit - its unlikely anyone will get to advance all sliders all the way. That is just the way we designed the product, as I said in my first post about FSX performance. I appreciate the passion the product generates, but lets operate with a little mature judgement.Anonymous
March 27, 2007
Phil, I appreciate your honesty and all the feedback you provide the FS community with. Don't let a few grumpy trolls change your way of dealing with issues and communication - you're great. Now as we all await for the SP1 I have a couple of Q:
- Will SP1 beta be public at some stages? if yes how can one join?
- Regarding the sliders, I beg to differ but I hardly see what hardware you had in mind when designing the product. I don't think any CPU will be able to run at full sliders - not with DX9 at least. Does this imply that full sliders means DX10? Regards, LGT
Anonymous
March 27, 2007
Unfortunately the beta wont be public. Lets see where SP1 lets the sliders go. And where the 45nm CPUs get us.Anonymous
March 27, 2007
Phil, I noticed that my comment had been deleted. I apologize if it was offensive to anyone, my only intent was to thank you for taking the time to comment to us about any news, and to list some specs of a laptop that I am running that seems to be running FSX just fine with just the Autogen slider to Normal, and light bloom off. I didn't think that would be offensive to anyone. Very respectfully Ronald WardAnonymous
March 27, 2007
Sorry, yours was accidentally deleted as I tried to figure out how to delete these.Anonymous
April 01, 2007
The comment has been removed