Simviation Forum - Here we go again!

Oct 9^th, 2006 at 2:13pm

Katahu Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 6920

It's that time now where people are now expressing their negative opinions towards the FPS shown in FSX. I can remember the past several years since FS98 was released.

Today, we complain about the 15-30 FPS we receive on how computers that are considered to be high-end at this time. But if you look far back into FS1 [the very first version], the highest FPS anyone got from even the most advanced computer of the time was 2FPS [3 if you're lucky].

Knowing that, I can imagine how everyone will be 25 years from now. Everyone might complain that they're only getting 160FPS when the computers of the time can do 300FPS. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Oct 9^th, 2006 at 2:36pm

Overspeed Offline
Colonel
I'm overspeed while taxiing

Posts: 510

well said Kat Wink

&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Oct 9^th, 2006 at 2:36pm

RollerBall Ex Member

Jessie, you don't need to keep jumping in to defend FSX - it will stand or fall itself on whether it is a 'good' product that people want to buy. Edit *** see below

I happen to think that several people have made some very valid points about FSX and FR, myself included.

Of course MS are right to aim their new product at the cutting edge of technology if that's what it takes to get the best out of it. But if people don't have access to that technology right now and if running it on their existing technology means that it'll be so degraded as to make it little different from (or IMO worse than) what they have now, why on earth would they want to go out and buy it right away?

And when you add in the DX10 and OS considerations, I'd say that unless you're a total FS freak, you'd be crazy to go out and get it now - that's just my opinion which may or may not suit others. But it suits me.

Surely you can see that it's a valid position to adopt - it's not detracting from FSX and its attractions at all. But me, and others like me I think, want to be able to enjoy those attractions to the full when we get the new version and not have them turned right down, as quite a few people seem to be reporting they are doing, just to make it run.

If you have road traffic turned off, AI ships turned right down, autogen at 50% or less and water effects not on (ie all of the gorgeous new effects that hit FR) well that in my book ain't FSX.

I like the look and the idea of FSX but I know that to do it justice I'll have to have a better rig than I have just now. I will not upgrade my setup just for FSX - so until that time comes FSX wil remain on the shelf for me anyway.

But good luck to the guys who are grabbing it now - and I'll be one of the 'have-nots' for a while yet who will be looking forward to appreciating the screenies that they put up onto the forum.

** BTW just popped back in case anyone misunderstood - I do believe that it will be very successful

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Oct 9^th, 2006 at 2:55pm

JBaymore Offline
Global Moderator
Under the curse of the
hombuilt cockpit!

Gender:
Posts: 10261

Like Roger above, I too need to point out here that I am not "anti- FSX". By ANY means. In fact.... I am frustrated that I cannot run it now. I wish I could. Really.

What I AM concerned with is the same thing that happened with fs2004. Based on the low "minimum standards" for machines published by Microsoft in both cases...... I think that there will be plenty of folks that buy the FSX program only to find out that to get the "promised land"....... they need a FAR more capable machene than they have.

And os they turn off the features they bought so as to get flyable framerates and stutter-less flow.

I certainly see features in FSX that I really WANT....... but until I can afford a machine that will GIVE them to me..... I'll just have to wait impatiently. Cause from my point of view it is kinda dumb to pay for features that I can't use.

And since FSX is "optimized" for Vista nd DX10"........... everyone is really going to have to wait to get "the most" out of the new program.

SO ... I'm not knocking the program..... just trying to share some thoughts that I like to call "Reality burger.... hold the ketchup." Wink

best,

.................john

Intel i7 960 quad 3.2G LGA 1366, Asus P6X58D Premium, 750W Corsair, 6 gig 1600 DDR3, Spinpoint 1TB 7200 HD, Caviar 500G 7200 HD, GTX275 1280M, Logitec Z640, Win7 Pro 64b, CH Products yoke, pedals + throttle quad, simpit

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Oct 9^th, 2006 at 4:11pm

GuitarFreak Offline
Colonel
Home Airport: KWBW/KAVP
KWBW/KAVP

Gender:
Posts: 272

Hah..funny. I'm used to getting 20FPS on FS2004, I imagine it won't be much different on FSX.

Current Computer specs:&&&&e8600@4.5GHz 1.31v/swiftech apogee GTZ/MCR320/MCP655&&EVGA 790i Ultra&&MSI GTX280 / XSPC Razor &&4GB Patriot Viper DDR3-1800&&PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750w&&Auzentech X-Fi Prelude&&1500GB Seagate 7200.11&&500GB Samsung 2.5"| 500GB Seagate 7200.11&&320GB WD Caviar | 160GB Samsung&&Cosmos S&&28" Hanns-G + 22" Gateway monitors

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Oct 9^th, 2006 at 4:26pm

Katahu Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 6920

It seems like my nastolgic humor has not caught on. Roll Eyes

I'm not jumping into FSX's defense. I'm just reminding everyone about how FS use to be in the past compared to what we take for granted nowadays. Grin

I don't mind people getting all hyped up about how bad FSX looks to them. I don't mind that at all. In fact, I'm becoming a little more neutral towards FS the more I see ANY comment [good or bad] about the sim.

Ok, granted that the detail is extremely high to the point where even the best Alienware computer would most likely blow up into a nuclear blast and how expensive the upgrades can be. You can complain about how FSX is disappointment to some all you like as you seem to be right about that. All I'm saying is, that we should be lucky to even get 30FPS when the first sim was running at 2-3FPS tops. Grin

8)

Speaking of upgrades, I can imagine my $1,600 computer being worth nothing more than a bag of chips 25 years down the road. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Oct 9^th, 2006 at 4:31pm

RollerBall Ex Member

Quote:

It seems like my nastolgic humor has not caught on. Roll Eyes

Ok, granted that the detail is extremely high to the point where even the best Alienware computer would most likely blow up into a nuclear blast

Well now I'm taking no chances. No Alienware for me after that bit of advice Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Oct 9^th, 2006 at 4:33pm

Katahu Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 6920

Quote:

Well now I'm taking no chances. No Alienware for me after that bit of advice Grin

What's wrong? Afraid of a little sun tan. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Oct 9^th, 2006 at 8:11pm

JBaymore Offline
Global Moderator
Under the curse of the
hombuilt cockpit!

Gender:
Posts: 10261

Quote:

Speaking of upgrades, I can imagine my $1,600 computer being worth nothing more than a bag of chips 25 years down the road. Grin

How about more like 2.5 MONTHS down the road. At least that seems to be the way of things lately Wink

.

best,

...............john

Intel i7 960 quad 3.2G LGA 1366, Asus P6X58D Premium, 750W Corsair, 6 gig 1600 DDR3, Spinpoint 1TB 7200 HD, Caviar 500G 7200 HD, GTX275 1280M, Logitec Z640, Win7 Pro 64b, CH Products yoke, pedals + throttle quad, simpit

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Oct 9^th, 2006 at 10:34pm

757200ba Offline
Colonel
757200-THOR of the skys
Florida

Gender:
Posts: 516

We all know that our worst battle is against fps in flight silmulator.We also know that what Microsoft puts has "requirements" make us all look to each other and ask ourselfs "..do they know something we dont.....Well but we all know that.What i think is and we can accept this has a sarcasm or a joke, is: They use games like Quake, or URT or Call of Duty to measure computers performances.So many diferent programs to tell us that we need a new machine.WHY THEY DONT USE FLIGHT SIMULATOR has an example so all the computers companys or Microsft can make something that we can win besides just give them the money for the program,and the money for the components.
Can you imagine those scores of five digits sudenly fall for two or three digits. Grin

.
Just a thought i wanted to share with you guys.
Cheers

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Oct 9^th, 2006 at 10:53pm

Katahu Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 6920

Quote:

We all know that our worst battle is against fps in flight silmulator.We also know that what Microsoft puts has "requirements" make us all look to each other and ask ourselfs "..do they know something we dont.....Well but we all know that.What i think is and we can accept this has a sarcasm or a joke, is: They use games like Quake, or URT or Call of Duty to measure computers performances.So many diferent programs to tell us that we need a new machine.WHY THEY DONT USE FLIGHT SIMULATOR has an example so all the computers companys or Microsft can make something that we can win besides just give them the money for the program,and the money for the components.
Can you imagine those scores of five digits sudenly fall for two or three digits. Grin

.
Just a thought i wanted to share with you guys.
Cheers

Most of the major game companies know fully well that FS will always bring they're best rigs down to their knees begging to be spared to agony. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Oct 10^th, 2006 at 12:08am

Triple_7 Ex Member

The way I see it...unless your running FS2004 at its max settings and still getting 20+ FPS then theres really no point in buying FSX just yet. Yes it looks great...but why pay so much now when by the time you have a rig that can accualy run it smoothly with those nice graphics the price will have dropped dramaticaly Tongue

Whats the point in this new sim when most people will have it looking like FS2002 just to get smooth flights. DX 10 cards are soon to come and technology constantly upgrades. Might as well wait a little while till those stunning graphics AND the FPS are accualy possible with each other.

With that said I just found the free demo on the Microsoft sight and downloading it now. More then likely I will find it horrible when FS2002 barely pulls on this rig. But then again could be surprised. Test will come tomorrow.

But judging by the comments there is no ones rig that can currently bring FSX to its knees. Tongue

And why do people think FPS has to be so incredibly high ??? If I remember right the human eye cant even detect anything over 30 Roll Eyes

25 FPS looks really smooth to me Lips Sealed

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #12 - Oct 10^th, 2006 at 1:37am

richardd43 Offline
Colonel
Edmonton AB

Gender:
Posts: 764

I did buy FSX hopeing for the best and expecting the worst. Actually it fell in the middle.

I am looking forward to watching the improvements as we figure out the tweaks and requirements to get it to run at its best.

I was late buying FS-9 and only had to check the forums to get it running at its best.

It will be nice to be able to contribute to the forum and possibly help the newcomers a year from now.

Asus P8Z77-V Deluxe
Intel I7 3770K w/ Corsair H100
Thermaltake Level 10 GT
Silverstone 1000W PSU
Corsair 120G Force 3
2 x Seagate Sata 3
16 G Corsair Meemory
2 x EVGA GTX 295
Windows 7 Ultimate

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: