Just installed fsx steam edition. why so bad?

Here are the keyboard commands.
https://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/files/1333/fsx-controls-keyboard-commands/

As to Steam, turn down some of your settings (slides) autogen, AI, shadows and clouds use up most of the computers power. lowering those will help others to look better.

I've also recently started playing FSX SE after a very long hiatus.  Now I'm older and getting into tinkering with it.  FSX always has and always will require lot's of tinkering, even the Steam Edition.  Many of the videos you probably saw were from people who have done the tinkering which is why they look so much better.

FSX SE is not a remake of FSX as most people first assume.  From what I understand, what they did basically is go through and fix the many, countless bugs, glitches, and errors in the game and made it run somewhat smoother on modern Windows 10 than the box version.  Smoother being a relative term here.

Here's what I've learned about FSX SE and FSX in general that apply to both:

1. I don't belive they altered the original textures or the way FSX looks for the most part in SE.  This is why it looks and feels the same without tinkering.  Though you can find lots of great addons and posts on how to edit the fsx.cfg file here on this site and others that greatly improve the way it looks and feels.

2. They're both very CPU intensive sims and they use surprisingly little of the GPU's available resources (I have a Sapphire RX 5700 XT Nitro Plus).  At most, my GPU usage in  task manager, only uses 22% while the CPU usage (I have a Ryzen 7 2700X) is at 100% usage often while in flight.  This is just the way FSX was designed, no getting around it.  The best GPU in the world won't help one bit.  You're actually better off investing in a better CPU.  Even with my CPU I still often can't run scenery and graphical settings on all max.

3. You do still have to tweak the .cfg file.  You still need to add or change things like: HIGHMEMFIX=1 (Allows FSX SE to use more than 1Gb RAM), Wide_View_Aspect=True (Will give you wide screen view you'r looking for), as well as many others can greatly improve it's performance.  I've gottem my .cfg file mostly the way I want it now and it's way better than stock settings.

Conclusion:

FSX SE is great and totally worth the price for anyone that plans to play FSX a lot because so many flaws have been fixed compared to any box versions.  Even if you're not the tinkering type, you just want to get out and fly, I still believe it's worth it because you will run into less issues (though I do recommend at the very minimum the 2 different .cfg edits I suggested above).  I personally, have learned to accept it with it's flaws and quirks that cannot be fixed because when it comes down to it, I still have endless fun flying this old sim again.

Remember, FSX is 16 years old and defintely has it's own unique, quirky personallity and only so much can be done to fix it so I just recommend you strap in, start the engines and take to the skys.  Once you begin to accept it for what it is and forget about pulling out your hair, trying to figure out how to get to work perfectly, you will have a much richer and more enjoyable experience.

 

Starting at the top: FSX is a horrible program.  If I were to teach software engineering, at a junior or senior level, and I wanted to give an example of an morbidly obese program that constantly gets in it's own way and steps on itself, FSX would be the example.  I figure that MS went to, probably, 10 to 20 SW jobber shops, with each shop doing a portion of the simulator, then they hired some individual for, maybe, 20 minutes to tie all of the parts together.  Now, along the way there was certainly no QC when tying the parts together.  Now, it has been postulated that the operator, i.e. me, has to go in and "tinker" with the various parts of FSX to get the program to run a semblance of smooth coordination, to which i can only ask, "Why?"  I mean, I didn't pay this money to finish MS's job for them.

Another question has been asked, "Why doesn't MS fix their current system before offering all of the DLC's?", and that is a valid question.    One thing that has stood out for me is pricing of the DLCs.  Example: Carenado (a SW jobber shop) builds various aircraft sims for sale.  They have a Cessna C337 Skymaster, as an example.  They offer two versions, one version for X-Plane and none Version for FSX.  The X-Plane version costs $30 bucks, the FSX version costs $10 bucks.  Why the difference?  I figure it's the old supply and demand thing.  Supply of DLCs is not a problem, as the user downloads the product off of a server that can supply a bazillion of them if it is asked.  So the only thing left is demand.  FSX is so clunky, so difficult, and ptobably so unpopular that Carenado has to cut back on it's pricing just to make the DLCs for FSX attractive.  But the answer to the question is simple: it doesn't cost anything to add more DLCs, but it costs to repair.  

And remember, MS's attitude about their SW is that you will do it their way.  So, no matter how counter-intuitive, how clumsy, how frustrating it is to use their SW (including their "games", and their games within the games) if it doesn't do what you want it to, it's your fault.  All in all, I think NS FSX is going to be following X-Plane in flight simulators for a long, long time.