WHEN YOU RUN THE DEMO... DO NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES TO SETTINGS OR EXIT THE FULL SCREEN... STAY IN THE FLIGHT. IF YOU EXIT THE SCREEN OR MAKE SETTINGS CHANGES THERE WILL BE ERRORS....


the sim is not 100% and it was designed to be that way for a NAG

You must exitr the sim and start over to make settings changes..

I had verry few problems, the water and textures dissapeared occasionally with flower bombing. But its a demo of a beta, for that its very nice 

3200+AMD Athlon XP Processor
1 gig Ram
nividia 5200 256 mb vid card

I set cars to full, and some other traffic, water was bleh for me, but i saw birds, and smooth moveing traffic. I got 12 - 15 FPS aircraft looked nice. I wasnt as impressed with the in game itself but it has been said its a demo, so i will expect more with the full version. Now what i WAS impressed with is the options you get with the game. All the views, and scenery settings. If you look through the control options its AMAZING. All the options for aircraft are stunning. There was APU, Pressurization, No Smoking and Seatbelt controls. Its going to allow a lot of options for future developers. I cant wait.

Too bad there was a time limit and the scenery wasnt fully there yet (though what i saw, i liked  )

Radeon X850 XT PE.

Maxed out, minus ground shadows, mesh resolution, texture resolution and AI.

Runs awsome.

What really gets me, is that there is no stutters compared to fs2004. If I turn down the settings so it looks like fs2004, it will run ALLOT better IMO.

Can't wait for the even more optimized full version and see how that runs.

Quote:

Yep. But try and get them graphics in fs9 by installing tons of mods, and you'll be lucky to get 5fps.

Isn't revealing you're a tester breaking the Microsoft-beta tester agreement?

P4 3.4 GHz
2048 Mb PC3200 RAM
256 Mb GeForce 6800GT


Ran like shit.

Quote:


Whats your processor and ram?

One quick question

Is it worth downloading??

2 Ghz
768 MB RAM
256 MB Radeon 9250

Will I have playable framerates ???

AMD Athlon XP2000+ 1.67GHz, 768mb RAM, Nvidia GeForce FX 5600XT.

Low-mid settings. Getting around 12-15fps at 15fps lock. Will go up to about 20 every now and then, if I don't lock.

Turns out I can get 20 almost constantly, with my display settings looking pretty nice. As good as FS9 at least, with no real blurry textures.

Pentium 4 304 GHz with Hyper threading
4 Gb Ram
geforce 6800 256 Mb

run smoothly with default setting but look like FS2002, when playing with setting I have a "good" looking sim, but it's mainly due to the water effect.
As said before, increase terrain mesh, scenery complexity or autogen have a HUGE impact on FPS.
At the last time I had scenery set to dense, autogen to normal, terrain mesh complexity to 70ish and the framerate was not hitting 10...
going to give it another go...

vince

Wont Even Try

Intel Celeron 1.1ghz
256mb ram
FX5500 (PCI)

Quote:




There is no need for clarification or confirmation. Although part of my contract includes an MS-NDA my contract is not with MS directly... there is nothing in it that states revealing that I test is a violation, only details to such projects. However after consideration of the issue and the nature of the subject I have decided to not participate in the forum fun.  

Thank you for your assessment.

EDIT: I 'm heading toward Redmond this morning and I will make sure I address the matter at some point today. I doubt there would be more than a chuckle about it since nothing I posted violates any agreements however I will make sure your concerns are addressed and clarified.

Quote:

Just unclick it in settings and save.

Anyway:
P4 2.3
1 Gig
256mb

All maxed except weather set to low. Low-ish frame rate but acceptable. A little tweaking needed.
Air Traffic brilliant. Co-Pilot on the approach mission very good, lets you get on with the flying.

Looking forward to the real deal.

Matt

PS anyone working on the 30 mimute limit yet??

Quote:


Got one for the 30 minute limit

Matt

Quote:


It depends how you look at it.


Mid settings- Doesn't really look "much" better than FS9, runs smoothly at 25 FPS.

Low settings- Looks like shit, but runs how I like it - 30+ FPS.

Maxed out- Awesome looking!! 10 FPS in airport- and island area. Over sea, 25 FPS.



I'm pretty happy with it, I guess I was just expecting too much yesterday, and I got really disappointed.

Quote:


I can tell you, that is not bad at all. Don't be disappointed with that.

System specs:

768MB DDR RAM
nVidia GeForce FX Go5200 64MB
Intel P4 2.8GHz Processor

Average framerate, with low settings (blurry textures, 76m mesh, very "un-detailed" water etc):: 6FPS

With water (slightly) detailed: 2-3FPS

With my preferred settings, I'd probably get -5FPS

Not to worry, I knew my PC would handle FS exactly like this. Time to get a WAY better graphics card methinks.

flight sim stuck at 83%... ready to fight it  

EDIT: control-alt-deled the stupid thing

Quote:


Not that bad...so I should expect half or so of everything...as I have 1GB of RAM whereas you have 2...

When i have the settings maxed ill get 16-20 but after the initial load no new scenery will sharpen just stays blurry.

I´m gonna wait until official release.Reading all the posts about the Testversion convinced me to do so.And firstoffall i have to get a better Videocard of course.

What folder are you guys putting the aircraft in? idont see an AC folder...

I have a p3 800mhz 320ram 128 vm an it runs ok..............................................................................
.......................................................................Im a bad Liar







  what really bothers me is that i have an hour Im downloading it right now , and still 10%I think Ill be here ,and Im gonna have to paid 12 hours(cybercofee) ,the time I presume will take to finish,I bet anyone that it will runs aceptable in my machine 8)

Quote:


Nice. Then I don't have to update my comp. Well...I want to get a new one anyway

Quote:


This is Perfect sense!,You very right Omar777 (((DEMO))))

This should be a good place to post my quick review of FSX.

I posted this up on another board I'm on where I fly with buddies in FS9 quite regularly, so I thought I would share it here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, I had a chance to play with FSX a bit more. My first assumption wasn't that great, but after playing around a bit I have to say FSX should be really nice once the final version is released.


To get a good feel in the differences between FS9 and FSX I installed my Aerial Foundry CF-188 Hornets into the FSX directory.

The FS9 aircraft worked almost flawlessly in FSX, I had a few issues with some gauges and effects, but to be fair I'm certain I didn't install all the necessary files needed. No biggie, all I wanted was the aircraft anyhow.


First off FSX is layed out alot like FS9. The aircraft selection menu is a bit different, and the graphics settings menus are a bit different also.

The Aircraft selection menu seems like it might be a bit harder to navigate than FS9, but  once used to it it should be fine.

The graphics settings menu seems a bit easier to navigate than FS9, and a few extra settings to control are present.

One thing I noticed about browsing through the menus is that I was able to move between menus, and aircrafts without that slight hesitation that FS9 exibts. In FSX navigating the menus goes alot smoother.

I set the display settings to about medium on all settings to start with and went flying.


So next I'll tell how I felt the FS9 aircraft flew in FSX as I'm sure alot of people were concerend about that.

I fly the AF CF-188 alot on FS9, and have a good feel for the plane.
First off there was no VC in the Hornet, no biggie right now, in time there will be work arounds for this.

All animations worked on the aircraft as they should. Apon takeoff the Hornet bit into the air as I expected, but seemed to need a little more airspeed before lift off. I  then immediately noticed how much smoother the aircraft was to fly. The pitch and roll actions were not so violent as in FS9. While these actions were smoother, I didn't notices and slowness in control surface response.

Next I played with elevator trim. WOW what a difference! In FS9 the AF Hornets are hard to trim properly, it's either too much trim, or not enough. In FSX there felt to be a finer amount of trim movement. While I had to operate the trim controls a little more, I was easily able to trim the plane out at any given speed. Very nice.

The autopilot worked as it should, along with the GPS.

After flying around a bit I went for a landing in my usual landing configuration.  I had to carry a little more airspeed to maintain a proper glideslope than FS9. Not much, maybe 10 knots or so more.

Touch down was really smooth I though, a softer landing than in FS9.


I was quite happy with how the FS9 aircraft flew. I was surprised that there was an immediate and noticable difference in flight characteristics, but it is a change for the better IMO.


After I was in the air for a bit I started to play with the graphics settings. I was able to get most of the settings up to at least 3/4 on the slider bars for all settings, some I had turned up to maximum before the sim ended.

The sim ran smoothly like this and I was able to meet the maximum target frame rate which I set to 35. I was surprised after reading about people getting horrible frame rates on different flight sim boards last night.

I was able to run higher settings in FSX and get better frame rates than FS9 with lower settings. The whole sim ran smoother than FS9.

The aircraft looked much more crisp in FSX than it does in FS9, and the color was a bit darker than it is in FS9.

One thing I really liked is the smooth panning while in exterior view, no more jerky movements of FS9.

The scenery was pretty nice too.  Trees! wow, not those 2D trees that look like road signs in FS9. These trees almost look 3D and if I was a tree / nature buff I could have probably picked the different types of trees out.

The water looked alot better than FS9, the water seemed to have depth and the wave action looked pretty realistic.
While I couldn't achieve the water effects of the Microsoft official screen shots, I was pretty impressed with the water. After all I'm not running the sim on the high end hardware Microsoft does.
I didn't get chance to really turn up the water settings to max before the sim ended, and I was flying in a fighter at 450 knots across the water.

The buildings, and objects such as cruise ships etc. were more crisp and alot more detailed than FS9.

The actual ground scenery ( grass dirt etc ) didn't seem any different than FS9 to me though.

The sky and cloud textures were quite a bit better than FS9, but didn't have the quality of some payware sky enhancements for FS9. I use Active Sky 6 in FS9, and FSX doesn't seem to be able to match that.


I did come across some glitchs while flying. One was random clipping of the sound which was easily fixed by turning the sound off and on ( pressing the Q key ).

I also experianced a shadowed terrain view when switching from external view to panel view. Cycling the views again, or panning to either side in the cockpit and back fixed it though.
To be honest, I was using a FS9 aircraft and sound file, so that may be have contributing those issues.

At this point the time limit expired and I didn't get to play with it anymore- Yet.

Overall I was impressed.

- The aircraft was easy to install, I just copied the aircraft folder from the FS9 directory and put it into the SimObjects/airplanes folder of FSX.
FSX has a Gauges and Effects folder just like FS9, and for the most part the FSX directory looks like FS9's.

- The aircraft flew well and handled better than in FS9.

- The sim ran impressively well with high settings on my machine, better than FS9 at similiar settings. We'll see once the full version comes out with the full global scenery whether there will be an impact in sim smoothness.

- The menus are easy to navigate.

- Graphics overall are quite a bit better than FS9.

FSX seems to have alot of potential, I think it will be a great next step from FS9.


I should post my machine specs for those interested.

It is not a powerful rig, probably mid line nowadays.

Pentium 3.0 GHZ 800mhz fsb
BFGtech Geforce 6800GT OC 256 mb
2.0 gig PC3200 Ram
200 gig serial ATA drive with 8mb cache

Quote:

Quote:



I was just going to post about your frame rate which did not make any sense since I can get 22-24 with dips to 15-18 (10 on hard load) on an x800xt and 35 with dips to 25 on an 7900GTX.. thats with all sliders maxed in scenery except resolution of the mesh and the textures. Mesh is @ 10m and  textures @ 60cm. Traffic @ 90 and small AI @ 50.. aircraft ultra high and weather ultra high.

I jack the mesh and texture resolution up on the 7900. That includes a few 'special tweaks' in the cfg file.


your 6FPS did not make any sense to me with your rig. From the FPS you posted I thought you were trying to run everything maxed to the hilt.. 

Pentium P4 3Ghz ...... 1Gb RAM ...... 256mb X800XL PCI-E

Everything maxed I was getting between 4 and 15FPS with Building Storms weather setting. Averaged around 20 with no weather. Ground textures were somewhat blurred although everything else loaded up beautifully. With tweaking it should be reasonable.

On Medium-Low it will lock to 25fps. On High it is between 10 and 20 fps over land.

Also, I get this crap. If I change the display settings it goes away.



3800 X2
Abit AN8 32X
1GB Kingston HyperX PC3200
BFG 6600GT

Quote:


Technically if you get less than one frame per second the game still "runs." It just doesn't run very fast.

Yeah, to get it running on a lower spec system with a decent frame rate you definately need to disable most of the options.

LIAN LI PC-60BPLUSII Black Aluminum ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
ASUS P5W64 WS Professional Socket T (LGA 775) Intel 975X ATX Server Motherboard
CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz 4M sharing L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor
Thermaltake Big Typhoon CL-P0114 120mm Cooling Fan with Heatsink,  Artic Silver 5 Thermal Paste
eVGA 512-P2-N570-AX Geforce 7900GTX 512MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Video Card
PC Power & Cooling Silencer 610 EPS12V EPS12V 610W Continuous @ 40°C Power Supply 90 - 264 V UL/ULC/CE/CB/TUV
2 X's  Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS (Perpendicular Recording Technology) 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive

Have not tried FSX Demo,  waiting on preordered Deluxe Version.
FS 2004 with most all the addons available and sliders all maxed is awlsome.
I made a dual boot with Windows XP Home SP2 on both hard drives,  FS2004 is on one hard drive and FSX will be on the other................................................

I sure will,
I can't wait,  I'm getten kinda excited.

Quote:


Your graphic card is really poor, this is your problem.
Also your RAM is quite limited... CPU is OK.
But don't worry, it has been said many times that the demo performance is crap, and beta testers confirmed that the beta was much better.

The target performance is that FSX, if tunned down to look exactely like FS9, should run a little bit better than FS9. Since your config cannot even run FS9 at max settings, you cannot expect FSX to look good or run smooth, unfortunately.

Quote:


It is indeed.
For FS9, I could get good frame rates with a Pentium 1,7 GHz, and very good frames on a 2,4 GHz.
FSX is like FS9, graphics are the most ressources-heavy thing:
- autogen needs graphic power
- visual effects (water or self-shadows for example) need graphic power
- precise textures need graphic power

Things that are heavy on the CPU:
- AI traffic
- animated sceneries
- wildflife
- car traffic
- flight model

This is why I think so good framerates can be obtained with a Pentium 2,8GHz, as long as the graphic card is powerfull enough.
Very small CPU can of course be a preformance bottleneck for powerfull videocards, but a pentium 2,8GHz is not really a small CPU.