Simviation Forum - Is Flight Sim X worthless ?

	Search the archive:

Simviation Main Site | Site Search | Upload Images

Simviation Forum › Current Flight Simulator Series › Flight Simulator X › Is Flight Sim X worthless ?

(Moderators: Mitch., Fly2e, ozzy72, beaky, Clipper, JBaymore, Bob70, BigTruck)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2

Is Flight Sim X worthless ? (Read 1377 times)

Reply #15 - Dec 13^th, 2006 at 11:22pm

DizZa Ex Member

Nah, fsX just has issues and with a new PC it should be a reall nice game. The problems at the moment are bugs, performance issues and todays hardware is slow, SP1 is going to come out just after January (As so I heard), SHOULD help to fix these.

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Dec 13^th, 2006 at 11:27pm

DizZa Ex Member

Joe_D wrote on Dec 13^th, 2006 at 1:36pm:

The main problem with FGSX is that it is still very CPU dependent just like FS9 but, more so.
CPUs will not get much faster in the forseeable future....they will be multi core instead and FSX has very limited multi core support.

How ACES will get around this problem is one of the keys to the future survival of FSX.....IMO.

As it stands now, no one is quite shure to what degree VISTA and DX10 will help FSX.

DX10 will help the multithread issue, and although ghz isn't skyrocketing like it used to, newer Archetectures makes computers faster, regardless of clockspeed.

A 45nm Core 2 is coming out (Peryn). I wouldn't be surpised if you can push 4.5ghz out of them on stock cooling, and 6ghz one water.

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Dec 14^th, 2006 at 12:55am

Katahu Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 6920

Nick N wrote on Dec 13^th, 2006 at 6:20pm:

I am going to add something…

The next time anyone is at a car dealership, please go in with a list of everything you want.

Speed (In MSFS = processor, motherboard, memory, HDD, video card(s))
Performance Handling with maximum road stability and ride comfort (In MSFS = right hardware, no stutters)
Comforts that include construction material and electronic additions (In MSFS = eye candy)
Maximum safety features possible (In MSFS = Best quality system components for reliable operation like a top quality PSU)
Maximum interior sound damping for engine, transmission and wind (In MSFS = quiet computer while playing)

Just to name a few and lets not forget onboard computer navigation and communications interfaced orbital technology.

I would not drive any other way however when I was younger and could not afford all those additions, I had to settle for the best I gould get with the money I had. I had to figure out what was important to me and what was not.

Typically that type of new automobile does not come 'bug free' either and will be back a few times for things. I see crying about 69.95 with bugs... why dont you guys try $69,995 plus tax with bugs? LOL

When they hand you the bill for the upgraded model… don’t go stomping out the door because the difference in price from the base model to the one you want is $25,000 or probably more and if you do buy it, be ready for the maintenance (same as upgrades and tweaks in MSFS) because you can expect to spend amounts on the order of $1200+ per service on a machine like that especially after the initial 12 month period.

I completely agree that there is nothing wrong with FS9 and those who wish to drive early model systems should stick with what will provide personal satisfaction. Time will allow for fixes, updates and the production of add-ons and development tweaks with FSX including hardware prices within reach just like it did with FS9, FS8…

Microsoft sees it the same way.

The silly thing is most people can't even afford the BASE model of the car. Just like allot can not afford the BASE hardware needed to fly FS9 much less FSX. The difference between the car and MSFS is you get to have the MSFS base package DIRT CHEAP and most CAN afford it.

It's up to YOU and not the car manufacture if you want to HAVE the LUXURY of driving the UPGRADED model.

Quit crying, SUCK IT UP and save.

I did. My first high performance sports car cost me a small fortune and the maintenance on it was worse than having a wife with 5 open credit card accounts.. and I had one of those too until I wised up.

You have to think about what is important to you and what isn't.

FS9 will run on the right hardware and settings. Check in the hardware section of the forums for recommendations as to what to get.

FSX is no different... but you should wait on that if you expect to run it with what it has to offer in the way of visuals. It will be around March-May before the hardware is out, proven and ready for prime-time.

Wise words. Wink

I have a Pentium 4 2.4GHz Processor, 512MB ram, and a GeForce 4 MX440 with 128MB. This setup is as old as the stone age [in computer years].

I fly over mountainous areas [I like flying over these areas] with the terrain mesh and terrain resolution set to max while the terrain texture resolution is set two notches from the left and the detail distance set to medium. The rest of the sliders on the entire menus have been set to complete minimum [including traffic settings]. These settings seem to have almost no impact on my computer's resources. Thus I was able to achieve 21-25FPS on average.

This is my personal taste as I don't seem to care about the autogen. The terrain textures seem to do a better job than the autogen anyways, in my opinion. I also don't bother with traffic since I don't see those very often in mountainous areas. On top of that, my hardware doesn't support certain DX9 features, thus making it easier for my system to concentrate.

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Dec 14^th, 2006 at 10:14pm

Moach Offline
Colonel
Jet-Powered PropellerHead
São Paulo, Brazil

Gender:
Posts: 991

Quote:

Maximum interior sound damping for engine, transmission and wind (In MSFS = quiet computer while playing)

Moach doesn´t need it, Moach has a 66-watt surround system... fight fire with fire!!!!! Grin

seriously tho... FSX is THE BEST flight simulator i have ever put my hands on... i have just spent my entire afternoon flying the so unrightfully ill-spoken mission (so many people said a lot of bad stuff about there being missions), they turn out to be GREAT FUN Cheesy

which you´ll never find in fs9, for it has no mission support Tongue

i´m not saying that missions are the only reason to go for FSX instead of sticking to the old 9´er, they actually brought a living world this time, and most importantly, planes feel REAL when handling, i´m not quite sure what they´ve done but now it ACTALLY SEEMS LIKE YOU´RE FLYING!!! Wink

....

i must also ad that being half a glider pilot myself, i had never been pleased by the way FS had been dealing with sailplanes this far (not tow planes, elusive thermals - if any), THAT UP ´TILL NOW. i am now flabbergasted (in the lack of a more flamboyant word for it) with the new gilder dynamics they´ve added, kudos to ACES for that! Roll Eyes

i´m greatly pleased

-- and DO note that i´one of them poor souls who are getting about 1-2 FPS if dare he turns the autogen setting up but one notch Sad

Sluggish Moach

Come, one and all aboard! - The Russian Roullete in the sky!
One in each Six of my personalities knows not at all how to fly!

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Dec 15^th, 2006 at 3:39pm

Steve-S Offline
1st Lieutenant
I Fly Sim!

Posts: 2

Fozzer wrote on Dec 13^th, 2006 at 1:28pm:

My tip, to be on the safe side, would be to get Dad BOTH games, FS9 AND FSX... Wink

...!

He won't be disappointed then... Kiss

...!

I have both Sims, but I am still enjoying FS 9 because my present system is capable of running it smoothly with everything wound up to the maximum...

...!

FS X, on the other hand, for me, is extremely sluggish, and with the scenery, Autogen and effects, etc, turned down, results in a much poorer visual game... Cry

...!

Paul...(Owner of ~~all~~ most of the MS Flight Simulators... Cool

...!

I bought FS9 for him too thanks! It was only $18.50 on Amazon.

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Dec 15^th, 2006 at 4:38pm

Fozzer Offline
Colonel
An elderly FS 2004 addict!
Hereford. England. EGBS.

Posts: 24861

Steve-S wrote on Dec 15^th, 2006 at 3:39pm:

Fozzer wrote on Dec 13^th, 2006 at 1:28pm:

My tip, to be on the safe side, would be to get Dad BOTH games, FS9 AND FSX... Wink

...!

He won't be disappointed then... Kiss

...!

I have both Sims, but I am still enjoying FS 9 because my present system is capable of running it smoothly with everything wound up to the maximum...

...!

FS X, on the other hand, for me, is extremely sluggish, and with the scenery, Autogen and effects, etc, turned down, results in a much poorer visual game... Cry

...!

Paul...(Owner of ~~all~~ most of the MS Flight Simulators... Cool

...!

I bought FS9 for him too thanks! It was only $18.50 on Amazon.

Excellent choice, Steve... Grin

...!

He will be delighted with it, and there are LOADS of add-ons out there to gradually increase his enjoyment of the Sim....

FSX is for later on... Wink

...!

LOL...

...!

Paul...Happy Crimbo!...Steve's Dad... Cheesy

...!

Dell Dimension 5000 BTX Tower. Win7 Home Edition, 32 Bit. Intel Pentium 4, dual 2.8 GHz. 2.5GB RAM, nVidia GF 9500GT 1GB. SATA 500GB + 80GB. Philips 17" LCD Monitor. Micronet ADSL Modem only. Saitek Cyborg Evo Force. FS 2004 + FSX. Briggs and Stratton Petrol Lawn Mower...Motor Bikes. Gas Cooker... and lots of musical instruments!.... ...!
Yamaha MO6,MM6,DX7,DX11,DX21,DX100,MK100,EMT10,PSR400,PSS780,Roland GW-8L v2,TR505,Casio MT-205,Korg CX3v2 dual manual,+ Leslie 760,M-Audio Prokeys88,KeyRig,Cubase,Keyfax4,Guitars,Orchestral,Baroque,Renaissance,Medieval Instruments.

IP Logged

Pages: 1 2

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Home

‹ Board

Top of this page