So is FSW Really FSX?

[Rodster360]

I read a few of the reviews from those that purchased the early release game and they noted that FSW is basically a repackaged version of Microsoft Flight Simulator X.

Is this true? I ask because I already have the FSX Steam Edition. No need to rebuy FSX when I can put the money towards maybe X11.

[Cascades]

It uses the same engine as FSX but it's not FSX if that makes any sense. Think of it as an updated version of FSX

[Rodster360]

So does FSW still suffer from the same problems that the Microsoft Flight Simulator series had where it's very CPU intensive so as a result its always a problem getting high frame rates no matter the CPU or the latest graphics card?

[golfman73]

updated with problems

[Rodster360]

Originally posted by golfman73:

updated with problems

What problems?

[golfman73]

limited aircraft available, no lights that will light the runway when landing, building on RW17/35 KMSP, KSEZ airport unable to land and finish Pilot Training, for starters......

[Rodster360]

Originally posted by golfman73:

limited aircraft available, no lights that will light the runway when landing, building on RW17/35 KMSP, KSEZ airport unable to land and finish Pilot Training, for starters......

Okay thanks !

[srstever]

I think you're all missing the point of FSW vs FSX and just exactly what DTG is hoping to do here. Sure FSW is based on FSX, but the differences are night and day even at this early stage of "early access". The potential here is enormous and the foundation has been laid and is significantly better than FSX.

More importantly DTG is promising to listen to "Us", the community and together we can help shape FSW to be the best simulator available. But that won't happen if we keep up the rhetoric and inadvertantly push new comers away.

FSW isn't my go to simulator at the moment... it's X-Plane 11 (yes I purchased P3Dv4 and after a week of testing it out and purchasing addon's I'm shelving it) but I also purchased FSW with the hope that "we" the community can help DTG shape FSW into the simulator that will meet all our needs.

So, keeping in mind that FSW is a work in progress and DTG has asked us to provide feedback as to what we would like to see... FSW has the potential to be the very best, but we must be willing to support DTG, give them our feedback, ideas, wants and wishes.

To Rodster360, my advice is to purchase FSW while it's still in early access and become an active member of the community.

[Kosmozuikis]

Yes it is FSX rebranded. Almost everything is exactly the same in FSW. What they changed is they made lighting much worse and remade the planes. And took out many features for some reason. So it is worse than vanilla FSX.

Just save your money. If you want to buy it just wait until it gets cheaper and it will be not long until it's 10€ or so.
There was no any major fixes and updates since release, only some minor fixes that you barely notice. Game still looks and runs horrible, almost no graphic options, flight school is broken, you can't fly at night. lighting is broken, no jets, gps doesn't work(you can't click most of the buttons). Wait until they fix this.

[Kosmozuikis]

Originally posted by Rodster360:

So does FSW still suffer from the same problems that the Microsoft Flight Simulator series had where it's very CPU intensive so as a result its always a problem getting high frame rates no matter the CPU or the latest graphics card?

Yes. It is FSX so you could assuem it has same problems, but it has more problems, it runs much worse than FSX for some reason. I have 7700k and gtx1070 and it's barely playable.

[Ortzinator]

Does it run at 60fps? I'd be okay with this being a rebranded FSX if it did.

[Rodster360]

Originally posted by srstever:

I think you're all missing the point of FSW vs FSX and just exactly what DTG is hoping to do here. Sure FSW is based on FSX, but the differences are night and day even at this early stage of "early access". The potential here is enormous and the foundation has been laid and is significantly better than FSX.

More importantly DTG is promising to listen to "Us", the community and together we can help shape FSW to be the best simulator available. But that won't happen if we keep up the rhetoric and inadvertantly push new comers away.

FSW isn't my go to simulator at the moment... it's X-Plane 11 (yes I purchased P3Dv4 and after a week of testing it out and purchasing addon's I'm shelving it) but I also purchased FSW with the hope that "we" the community can help DTG shape FSW into the simulator that will meet all our needs.

So, keeping in mind that FSW is a work in progress and DTG has asked us to provide feedback as to what we would like to see... FSW has the potential to be the very best, but we must be willing to support DTG, give them our feedback, ideas, wants and wishes.

To Rodster360, my advice is to purchase FSW while it's still in early access and become an active member of the community.

What is P3Dv4 you are referring to?

[Carbon]

Originally posted by Rodster360:

What is P3Dv4 you are referring to?

It's another offshoot of FSX, but it's not supposed to be used by gamers. It's not going to be on Steam. It has had a head start on FSW but still has the same benefits and disadvantages of FSW.

There is no awesome flight sim at this time. None of them are as up-to-date or polished as a AAA game. You have to make a compromise somewhere.

[gspectre]

Originally posted by Kosmozuikis:

Originally posted by Rodster360:

So does FSW still suffer from the same problems that the Microsoft Flight Simulator series had where it's very CPU intensive so as a result its always a problem getting high frame rates no matter the CPU or the latest graphics card?

Yes. It is FSX so you could assuem it has same problems, but it has more problems, it runs much worse than FSX for some reason. I have 7700k and gtx1070 and it's barely playable.

There must be a problem with your settings if you find it "barely playable".

I'm using a GTX 760TI with 2GB VRAM and it's fine on my 3.2GHz PC.

[fs4fun]

I get vastly different results on 2 different computers:

On a laptop with i7 4700k 2.4GHz, 16GB and GTX860M, FSW performance is good (typically over 30FPS), though not as good as FSX (50+ FPS)

On a desktop with i7 2600K 4.5GHz, 16GB and GTX970, FSW is a slide show, while FSX runs at 50+ FPS.

This is with matched up FSX.cfg and FSW.cfg settings.

With FSX I can enable higher antialiasing including 4xSGSS, using DX10 with cockpit and cloud shadows and still maintain much higher FPS rates than FSW.

Still I'm satisfied with FSW running at 30FPS, but I don't understand why it sucks so bad on the i7 2600K with much higher clocking. Only thing I can think of is that maybe FSW is using newer instructions (they do seem to require Skylake in their requirements) and perhaps they have to be emulated on the old Sandy Bridge processor? Anyway I'll open a ticket when I get a chance and see what DTG says.

[kitty4427]

Originally posted by Rodster360:

So does FSW still suffer from the same problems that the Microsoft Flight Simulator series had where it's very CPU intensive so as a result its always a problem getting high frame rates no matter the CPU or the latest graphics card?

There's been a bit of re-balancing between CPU and GPU, and this is an area that they are still working on. There's definitely a long way to go.