Simviation Forum - FSX Preliminary Opinon Poll

Reply #15 - Oct 23^rd, 2006 at 10:14am

Clipper Offline
Global Moderator
Clearly Canadian

Posts: 8861

Quote:

Danny,

Where is the option "Happy With FS9" Wink

Dave, that would be the number two option "Problematic, where's my FS9".... maybe it should read: "Who cares?, i've got my FS9" Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Oct 23^rd, 2006 at 10:27am

Gunny04 Offline
Colonel
Who's Better than the
best when nobodys the
best?
Michigan

Gender:
Posts: 2101

I put Pleased with it.... I love FSX but I really havent done a full out flight yet, sure, With my settings balanced as best I can, it lags, so what.... if I can fly where I like which is usually over an ocean or somewhere in nowhere land. I might run medium-low like settings, but hey, I'm happy Grin

Max FPS 15, Lowest, around 6

Cheers, Gunny

AMD athlon 3800 Venice Socket 939 64 bit at 2.4Ghz, 6100K8MA-RS Foxconn Motherboard, 1gb (2X512) OCZ Platinum PC3200 Ram, EVGA 8800GTS 640MB OC, 500 Watt NZXT psu, and Windows Vista Ultimate Total hard drive space 530gb

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Oct 23^rd, 2006 at 10:59am

vololiberista Offline
Colonel
Vieni in Italia

Posts: 1042

Quote:

No software ever, no matter how much you pay for it, will run straight out of the box. Most people whom regularly buy software know minimum specifications say nothing about how the program runs. And as stated before, it is designed with future systems in mind, same as FS9 when it first came out.

And, most of all, nobody forced people to buy FSX, it wasnt like mister gates stood there with a .357 aimed at ones head.

That's a load of **** !!!!!!!
If I walk into a shop wanting to buy a game and see that my PC specs are well above the printed minimum, I expect it to work well! If it doesn't then it's money back time

I still insist FSX is a downgrade!!! I am a pilot of many years standing and I don't just use the sim for what is known as "eye candy" M(qualcosa)s have not paid attention to other areas of the sim that are probably more important than just the view. And, as has been said in other threads the "view" leaves much to be desired!!!"
I'm not prepared to spend a lot of money on a PC upgrade
just to be able to run FS9.3.
Vololiberista

Andiamo in Italia&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Oct 23^rd, 2006 at 11:08am

freedomhays Offline
Colonel
I'll take on that chump,
and you fight the other
Catonsville, Md.

Posts: 650

2002 is still avalible,
Thats what they used in my ppl ground school...

&&&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Oct 23^rd, 2006 at 11:10am

Daube Offline
Colonel
Alternative bloomer
Nice (FR)

Gender:
Posts: 5833

Quote:

That's a load of **** !!!!!!!
If I walk into a shop wanting to buy a game and see that my PC specs are well above the printed minimum, I expect it to work well! If it doesn't then it's money back time

I still insist FSX is a downgrade!!! I am a pilot of many years standing and I don't just use the sim for what is known as "eye candy" M(qualcosa)s have not paid attention to other areas of the sim that are probably more important than just the view. And, as has been said in other threads the "view" leaves much to be desired!!!"
I'm not prepared to spend a lot of money on a PC upgrade
just to be able to run FS9.3.
Vololiberista

That's a load of **** !!!!!!!
You're still purposely ignoring all of the FSX improvements over FS9, and I am NOT talking about the eye candy.

Got bloom ?
Got mountains ?
Got damage ?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Oct 23^rd, 2006 at 11:52am

vololiberista Offline
Colonel
Vieni in Italia

Posts: 1042

Quote:

That's a load of **** !!!!!!!
You're still purposely ignoring all of the FSX improvements over FS9, and I am NOT talking about the eye candy.

Which are????

Andiamo in Italia&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Oct 23^rd, 2006 at 12:01pm

Daube Offline
Colonel
Alternative bloomer
Nice (FR)

Gender:
Posts: 5833

I already listed them several times. Some of the most important are:
- improved meteo
- vastly improved helicopter flight models
- fly-by-wire system for liners
- vastly improved virtual cockpits, matching payware quality
- improved GA aircrafts physics
- improved Extra 300 flight model (meaning, better behaviour in extreme manoeuvers)
- improved airports with interactive vehicules and gates
- vastly improved gliders experience
- G1000 GPS system
- some bug corrections in ATC (note that I did not write "improvement", since it's just some corrections, but still positive stuff)
- finally some serious mutiplayer, with shared cockpit, controler feature, smooth movements for formation flying, etc...
- and some other thing I forgot.

And still, I didn't mention anything about "eye-candy", and restricted the list to the realism and flight feeling improvements. If you don't care about anything in this list, then you could still stay with FS2002. But please stop saying that FSX is a "downgrade" just because of the graphics.

Got bloom ?
Got mountains ?
Got damage ?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Oct 23^rd, 2006 at 12:49pm

Arnimon Offline
Colonel
Whats up Bugs?
Germany

Gender:
Posts: 345

I have also checked the 4th button.
I was also a little bit of Embarrassed

.
It´s only 2 months ago since i got my new Rig.
And i have already spend some bucks for upgrading.
So the 1st run of FSX went into a little disaster for me.
But now,with some tweeks done,it´s getting better and better.I know,it´s still not showing the whole potential.
And it will of course do so only after some more tweeking and upgrading.
But thats ok with me.This is my Hobby,and just as my Car is also my Hobby,i´ve also done alot "tweeking" for it to make it look and drive the way i want!

It looks like chicken,smells like chicken,tastes like chicken,but when Chuck Norris says its Beef...then damnit...its Beef!!!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #23 - Oct 23^rd, 2006 at 2:10pm

Joe_D Offline
Colonel
"Takeoffs are optional,
landings are mandatory!"
NY state

Gender:
Posts: 839

Quote:

Not everyone has gone through the whole FS series and is PC savvy. What about the folks who have bought it for the first time, just like any other computer game. Are they expected to accept that having been fed all the hype about its features, and having noted the minimum system requirements, it actually won't run on their PC? They wouldn't for any other computer game.

Different if there was a warning on the packaging, or a money-back guarantee from the manufacturer.

Good point.

M$ wants to go mainstream with FSX and is advetising it to the masses?

How can the first time simmer with average hardware run it properly when battle hardened, long time simmers with top end hardware can't?

Promoting it to the general public has to be a marketing and tech support disaster For M$.

Home airports are KMGJ and KSWF in Orange County, NY&&Stop by and say hello.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #24 - Oct 23^rd, 2006 at 4:17pm

Rocket_Bird Offline
Colonel
Canada

Gender:
Posts: 1214

One of the things I remembered one of the game designers of FSX stated in one of his blogs was that most games out there don't really have much of a shelf life, and the point of making FSX break present day average computers (and even high end) to their knees is that they want to maintain that shelf-life where other games cant and so people would enjoy it longer.

Although I accept this theory, by all means its good for business from a theoreotical point of view, I saw a lot of holes that they might have just totally skipped up on. Unlike regular games, FS should be exactly what the name advertises, a simulator. One of the things that appealed to me about some of the older versions, ie: FS5 was that the developers focused on just that, the sim. Back then there wasnt autogen, and the graphics can't compare to some of the games back then either. But a lot of people out there use this as a training tool too, and as I do fly in real life, having microstutters 20 feet off the runway while landing is a bit unacceptable. If you can imagine a perspective student pilot picking up FSX from the shelf to improve his or her training; having an average system quite above the minimum system requirements, this student spends $60 and be in shock.

Although I never spent my money on it, I believe back when Combat Flight Simulator 3 came out, there were some similar issues, and I noticed even today that a lot of the community didnt even try it in the end and stuck with CFS2. I believe it wasnt backwards compatible, and a few other issues that didnt out weight the improvements. But what do I know, I don't even own the game Wink

But at the moment, the only real thing that was improved in the new FSX is the graphics, better helicopters, and autogen. Some of the backwards compatibility got thrown off by moving the aircraft folder somewhere else. Kinda disappointed me considering I wouldn't be able to run the Level-D 767 anymore. Even more shocking was that elder scrolls oblivion runs smoother, different game but they did advertise their minimum system requirements at 2.0 ghz Shocked

. Brings another point though, all bethesda's games don't have short shelf lives either. Although they do require the latest hardware, at least they don't require hardware of the future to enjoy the experience.

I dunno though, I hope MS comes out with a patch or something. I'm sure if the glitches can be addressed by those who developed this sim that the full potential will finally come out.

Cheers,
RB

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #25 - Oct 23^rd, 2006 at 6:58pm

KDSM Offline
Colonel
SimV Forum Flyer

Gender:
Posts: 1340

the worst.

well the frame rate and the gross errors in the mesh.

The thing(s) I like the best

The airport traffic and the automatically updated logbook

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #26 - Oct 23^rd, 2006 at 8:18pm

gijake Offline
Colonel

Posts: 1061

Quote:

Different if there was a warning on the packaging, or a money-back guarantee from the manufacturer.

What would this warning lable say, exactly? "Warning! Not for bad computers! Exetremely bad Scenery in London Makes Impossible to fly! Slow framrates". That would be an exelent, and, from what I have heard, accurate warning lable.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #27 - Oct 23^rd, 2006 at 10:31pm

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

Gender:
Posts: 10261

Quote:

What would this warning lable say, exactly?

WARNING: This simulation software is exceptionally demanding upon a computer system and cannot be run to it's full capacity on the hardware and operating systems currently availabe . Correct setup will require you to understand such tasks as editing complex configuration files and altering graphical texture files in order to realize even it's current potential. Best results will only be achieved when hiring a 3rd party computer consultant such as the FSGS service to configure your machine. All advertised features will only be availabe to about 10% of total purchasers; those who can afford exceptional computer systems. Some featues may not work correctly; product is sold on an "as is" basis. No warranty is expressed or implied. Caveat Emptor.

Grin

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 #28 - Oct 23^rd, 2006 at 10:38pm

Daube Offline
Colonel
Alternative bloomer
Nice (FR)

Gender:
Posts: 5833

They should just have written something like that, it would have been ok:
Minimum requirements:
Pentium 3 GHz or equivalent
1 Gb RAM
DirectX9 video card with at least 256 Mb of Memory

Now that I think about it, instead of using such imprecise description, they should just use a benchmark, and write the minimum rating needed to run the sim at minimum settings with 25 FPS.

Got bloom ?
Got mountains ?
Got damage ?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #29 - Oct 23^rd, 2006 at 10:44pm

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

Gender:
Posts: 10261

Quote:

Now that I think about it, instead of using such imprecise description, they should just use a benchmark, and write the minimum rating needed to run the sim at minimum settings with 25 FPS.

Now THAT is a great idea!

Maybe even specify the benchmark needed to get 25 fps (or whatever standard) at the various levels of settings in the sim.

That would allow someone to evaluate a purchase accurately.

Good thought.

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

	Search the archive: