FSX on Windows 7

[codeseven]

Anybody running FSX on Windows 7 yet? Is it better, faster or smoother perhaps than XP or Vista?

[Kiwikat]

From a friend I heard FSX shows at least a noticeable if not significant difference on the win 7 beta. He was obsessing more about the Crysis performance increase...

[DaveKDEN]

Anybody running FSX on Windows 7 yet? Is it better, faster or smoother perhaps than XP or Vista?

A great question! Wondering about SP2 beta for VISTA as well? MS' timeline for SP2 is sometime in the first 1/2 of 2009. I'm reluctant to install a beta copy of anything on my new machine so I'm OK with waiting, however, it'd be nice to know what kind of results others (who are more adventurous than me) are having with either WIN7beta or VISTA+SP2beta.

[DennyA]

There's really nothing exciting in Vista SP2 from what I've read. A lot of under-the-hood networking stuff and other minor fixes.

[Warrant]

There's really nothing exciting in Vista SP2 from what I've read. A lot of under-the-hood networking stuff and other minor fixes.


Including Vista 64 (ultimate)?

[limjack]

Windows 7 with touch screen capabilities. This could be interesting if it would be intergrated into FSX. Only problem that I would not like is all the fingerprints that would be all over the screen.

[heywooood]

agreed - I dunno what the fervor is all about when it comes to 'touch screen' capability.

maybe if you are running an app and have no access to a keyboard.

but for gaming? I like a clean screen

[SkippyBing]

I can understand touch screens for media centres etc. i.e touch the tune you want to play etc. and for graphics/video editing but then Wacom already do the Cineteq tablet thing for that anyway.
Planning on putting Win7 on a second drive so I can dual boot on my main machine so I should have an idea what FSX is like on it by Wednesday, should be the first time I see DX10 as well!

[RCAF_Gunner]

Windows 7 with touch screen capabilities. This could be interesting if it would be intergrated into FSX. Only problem that I would not like is all the fingerprints that would be all over the screen.

Indeed; if you had TrackIR then perhaps you could look around the cockpit and touch the virtual buttons and move the virtual levers ~ no more mouse ~ which I think would really help in the immersion department. Flatscreens might not be that bad for fingerprints.

Since I just rebuilt my rig to dual boot XP and Vista (with FSX on XP) I'm going to hold off on trying 7 but I'm looking forward to hearing how others make out. If possible can some list the approximate number of processes running in 7 out of the box. The difference between XP Pro and Vista Ultimate is staggering so I'm really hoping they've trimmed the default "fat" in 7.

Thanks. :typing:

[chinookmark]

Simming with a touch screen: (DCS Blackshark)

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v1627326198keXc3X

[codeseven]

Simming with a touch screen: (DCS Blackshark)

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v1627326198keXc3X


Wow! That's fantastic!

[kilo delta]

Touch screen is so...90's

This is what you need... http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/ocz_peripherals/nia-neural_impulse_actuator . :amen:

[Daube]

Simming with a touch screen: (DCS Blackshark)

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v1627326198keXc3X

Now THIS is immersion. :applause:

[chinookmark]

Touch screen is so...90's

This is what you need... http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/ocz_peripherals/nia-neural_impulse_actuator . :amen:


I want to use that in an RPG, so I can cast spells the way they are supposed to be cast ... with my mind! :typing:

[chinookmark]

Now THIS is immersion. :applause:


Check out that guy's website:
http://leftside-limited.com

[codeseven]

I remember messing around with extending joystick's to get them to be more like a real aircrafts control stick. It's much more realistic than just flicking your wrist around (unless it's a modern fighter your flying). I just couln't get the control forces accurate (realistic) enough for my taste. Hope this guys solution is better, I would be interested.

[SolarEagle]

John Venema at Orbx has some good things to say about FSX in windows 7. He seems to indicate a massive leap in performance.

http://orbxsystems.com/forums/index.php?topic=8247.0

[some1]

Ummm, but what was he comparing 7 against? Did he tested the same configuration with Vista? Or is he just happy with new quad core system with two Raptors in RAID 0?

I created a dual boot system, with Vista x64 (which I use daily) on one partition and last Windows 7 x64 beta on second one. On both systems had mostly the same drivers, on 7 I tested both nVidia pre-release WDDM drivers from Windows Update and the latest certified 181.20. On both systems I tested the same FSX installation, with REX, UTX and some other addons I have, with the same config files, using FSXMark07 that can be found on Avsim.

The Difference in average FPS on both systems was less than 1%.

7 may be better than Vista in terms of user experience, but please don't get over hyped. Remember that name "7" is marketing bull****, internally the system is numbered 6.1, while Vista is 6.0. It is evolution, not revolution.

Tested on Q6600@3,5GHz, 4GB DDR2@970MHz, 8800GT 512MB, 2x Seagate 500GB 7200.11 (no RAID)

[txnetcop]

Ummm, but what was he comparing 7 against? Did he tested the same configuration with Vista? Or is he just happy with new quad core system with two Raptors in RAID 0?

I created a dual boot system, with Vista x64 (which I use daily) on one partition and last Windows 7 x64 beta on second one. On both systems had mostly the same drivers, on 7 I tested both nVidia pre-release WDDM drivers from Windows Update and the latest certified 181.20. On both systems I tested the same FSX installation, with REX, UTX and some other addons I have, with the same config files, using FSXMark07 that can be found on Avsim.

The Difference in average FPS on both systems was less than 1%.

7 may be better than Vista in terms of user experience, but please don't get over hyped. Remember that name "7" is marketing bull****, internally the system is numbered 6.1, while Vista is 6.0. It is evolution, not revolution.

Tested on Q6600@3,5GHz, 4GB DDR2@970MHz, 8800GT 512MB, 2x Seagate 500GB 7200.11 (no RAID)

You do not have a full install of Windows 7 it is a beta. It was not put out there to ooh and aahh over in speed but instead look and feel. Microsoft opened up the gates to get feedback after the Vista debacle.
Ted

[some1]

Sure, you're right, it's not the final beta and features will be addded or modified. But I don't expect FSX will run 30% faster on final 7. Even 10% is not likely. But I see many people think that "7" is the cure for Vista (imaginary) 'evil', works smooth on low end hardware while Vista don't, is much faster and so on. Just like in the thread that SolarEagle linked, titled: "Windows 7 - bloody brilliant for FSX!". To me it is now just as 'bloody brilliant' as Vista, in terms of gaming performance of course.

[Dangerous Beans]

I do like the general look and feel of 7 but in FSX I have exactly the same problem as I did in Vista.
In DX10 preview I get only the crappy default 2X AA and no VSync even if I try to force higher AA or VSync with NHancer.

I cant live with huge jaggies or screen tearing every time I move my head (TrackIR) so its a bit of a bust for me.

FSX looks and runs great in XP SP3 for me so unless they finally fix this problem I cant see me jumping on the band wagon when Windows 7 is released.
My copy of Vista was uninstalled months ago and just sits in its case reminding me what a waste of money it was for me.

[CodyValkyrie]

Stop running that crap DX10 then. I'm sorry, but MS isn't even supporting it's implementation in FSX other than a preview mode, so why should you rely on it? I don't even bother filming in it, and no client of mine has asked me to do so. Even Phil Taylor admitted to me some time back that it was not what it lived up to be.

If you don't have a choice, then so be it, but the problem itself is not Vista or Windows 7, the problem is the trash speed injected code to make a DX10 hack for FSX. There are MANY known bugs with DX10 in FSX, none of which will be fixed, probably ever.

So, sorry for my rather silly rant, but I simply don't understand why everyone is stuck trying to make a mallard a swan. It simply won't ever get any better.

DX10 is not available in XP, which is why nobody running it has these problems.

[SolarEagle]

Ummm, but what was he comparing 7 against? Did he tested the same configuration with Vista? Or is he just happy with new quad core system with two Raptors in RAID 0?


Why not ask him these questions? I only posted a link with information on this thread's topic, and I think people are here are smart enough to obsorb what's presented there. I don't believe John visits this forum so you may have to ask over at Orbx.

[some1]

These were rhetorical questions, nobody has to answer them ;)

[SkippyBing]

They're only theoretical questions if you're scared of the answers.

[JT8D-9A]

Hm why is my SATA HD only getting a score of 2.9 under Windows 7?
All drivers are installed correctly and under Vista i get a much higher score :help:

[SkippyBing]

Hm why is my SATA HD only getting a score of 2.9 under Windows 7?
All drivers are installed correctly and under Vista i get a much higher score

I had that as well, not figured out a solution yet so I'm currently ignoring the problem until it goes away!

[Butcherbird17]

Hm why is my SATA HD only getting a score of 2.9 under Windows 7?
All drivers are installed correctly and under Vista i get a much higher score :help:

Go into Device Manager, open Disk Drives, right click your drive, click properties, click on Policies tab, "Uncheck" Enable Write Caching on this device, click OK and close, reboot. Then rerun WEI (Windows Experience Index), and watch your score go up.:woot:

Joe

[Bjoern]

Hm why is my SATA HD only getting a score of 2.9 under Windows 7?
All drivers are installed correctly and under Vista i get a much higher score :help:

AHCI or IDE mode?

Switching from IDE to AHCI gives you a small boost under XP & Vista. Maybe more in 7?

[crashaz]

Well when I was running the first beta of Vista... it was a whole dog slower than this beta.

Maybe the same scaling will happen with Windows 7 when it reaches final. LOL!

It's technology people... it has to walk before it runs. :wavey:

[JT8D-9A]

Thanks, i will ignore it lol
I'm not sure if i want to disable Write Caching..:running:

AHCI, Bjoern.

[Bjoern]

AHCI, Bjoern.

I can vaguely remember that I had the same problem under Vista 64. I think I solved it with the Intel Matrix Storage Manager, which includes AHCI drivers for Intel chipsets.

[Dangerous Beans]

What are the advantages/disadvantages of having Write Caching enabled/disabled ?

[JT8D-9A]

I can vaguely remember that I had the same problem under Vista 64. I think I solved it with the Intel Matrix Storage Manager, which includes AHCI drivers for Intel chipsets.
I did install the latest drivers for everything.
But i don't care anymore. I made a HD benchmark under XP and Win7 and both had nearly the same results, so i guess that WEI is the problem.


Write Caching is improving the performance but the cache memory is volatile. So without Write Caching it's slower but safer and with Write Caching it's faster but with a risk if you lose power.

[some1]

I wouldn't disable it.

Windows 7 calculates disk performance differently than Vista, so the scores are lower. The total score can't be compared wth previous system:
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/01/19/engineering-the-windows-7-windows-experience-index.aspx