or: my two cents worth  whatever title you like best

I received FSX as a gift for Christmas... as i knew i would

I installed it on my machine immediately and loaded my ol' rig down with FSX nearly as badly as i could... all the sliders to max etc etc. tried that with different times of day, different seasons, and different cities and towns.

here is my take on what i experienced:

I can see what microsoft is trying to accomplish with this particular FSX title. The missions, the challenges... this simulator oozes the versatility and the vastness of aviation from every pore. From sea planes delivering supplies in the amazon to massive airliners carrying people and cargo to destinations near and far right down to the grass roots of general aviation. I feel like microsoft really pulls the arm chair pilot right into the sim with this particular title in ways they havnt been able to do so thus far.

little details i really liked:

I liked the terrain complexity in FSX over FS9 - i think the terrain is more in touch with the actual contours of the earth over what previous titles have offered. Hills and vallys that surround my home airport that really were nowhere to be found in FS 2004 are now present and realistic, for example.

I like also the addition of moving ground traffic - i dont know how many times i have been on a real life approach to a busy airport like LAX or DFW or ORD and crossed a highway packed with traffic thinking "wow thank god im not down there in that mess"... you kind of get the same sense when you "cross the fence" in your 737 and the city below you seems alive with rush hour traffic.

The flight sim franchise has really come a long way in making us feel like we are not alone in the FS world. first with static traffic, then with traffic that would take off and fly to 2 or 3 thousand feet and dissapear, then with complex AI with flight plans... now the ground below is crawling with vehicular traffic and even animals.

What i didnt like:

ATC is really no different than before.

and

I didnt care for the fact that a system i spent so much money on 4 or 5 years ago now seems a bit on the obsolete side (though i know it is far from that). FSX is very labor intensive for just about any system that a gamer would realistically have sitting in their home office. therefore i saw the following frame rates

open country / small towns = 17 FPS easily (which is what i get everywhere in FS9 with everything set to max)

Larger towns = 10 - 12 FPS a bit slower... but without stuttering

Major metropolitan areas or Intl airports = between 5 and 8 FPS max (depending on view mode sometimes at a standstill for a few seconds) not the way i would want to play the sim!

keep in mind the above is with most sliders to max

In short, i like FSX, i think it shows a lot of potential, but on the down side, you have to have a really high end machine to make it shine the way it is supposed to.

My machine as of today:

Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz
1GB ram
120 G hard drive
ATI radeon 9800 pro

My machine next week... (late christmas gift)

1. Antec 900 black steel mid tower computer case
2. EVGA NVIDIA nForce 680i intel motherboard
3. EVGA GeForce 8800GTX 768MB video card
4. Intel Core 2 Duo processor
5. 2 gigs of 240pin SDRAM

it will be interesting to see what the difference in performance is, i will post the results when they are available.

Nice review, that's pretty much exactly how I feel about it also.  I'm curious to see how your new system will handle it.

Id like to add something that i really enjoy about FSX and that is the missions.

well planned and well thought out missions are included in the sim!

It used to be that you would just get in a plane and take off... but now there are objectives to complete with these missions and it makes FS more fun

Just completed the idaho Civil Air Patrol mission... very enjoyable with quite a sense of realism in how the CAP would likely operate in this situation.

I have only flown a few missions so far, but if the rest of the missions and challenges are HALF as good as the ones i have already completed they will all be worth it.

Nice work microsoft. 

You haven't noticed the more realistic flight dynamics ?  Especially while coordinating turns (climbing and descending turns are spooky-relaistic) or in ground-effect, cross-controlling for that perfect, one-wheel, crosswind landing ?

Antec 900 black steel mid tower computer case
EVGA NVIDIA nForce 680i intel motherboard
EVGA GeForce 8800GTX 768MB video card
Intel Core 2 Duo processor
2 gigs of 240pin SDRAM

...all arrived today frum UPS

be on the look out for screens with frame rates advertised some time within the next 48 hours.

hope it looks good!

My experiences of FSX.... ACtually I better not tell you, it may turn into a rant on my part

If you have not already found them, these are the essential tweals for the config file


[Display]
TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=80// also try 100, 120, 160, 180 (depends on video card and system. Too high causes stutters)
UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=24 (slower cards = 18 city / 22 country, never over 24 unless you run 8800GTX. Too high causes muddy scenery)


[Main]
DisablePreload=1// kills the preload of the default flight, saves memory,, boots faster
FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.33 // Also try .24, .25, .28  Setting any lower muds the textures

[SCENERY]
LENSFLARE=1
DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=1
IMAGE_COMPLEXITY=5

[TrafficManager]
AirlineDensity=20 // lesser cards 0-10  Note: best to replace AI with better traffic until fixes and cards are released
GADensity=20 //lesser cards 0-10
FreewayDensity=15 // lesser cards, 0-10
ShipsAndFerriesDensity=25 //lesser cards 0-10
LeisureBoatsDensity=25//lesser cards 0-10
AIRPORT_SCENERY_DENSITY=2 // //lesser cards reduce to 0-1

[TERRAIN]
LOD_RADIUS=4.500000
MESH_COMPLEXITY=100
MESH_RESOLUTION=22 // lesser cards reduce to 19
TEXTURE_RESOLUTION=25 //lesser cards reduce to 22
AUTOGEN_DENSITY=3 //lesser cards reduce to 0-2
DETAIL_TEXTURE=1
WATER_EFFECTS=4 // lesser cards 1-3
TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=3500 // lesser cards 1200
TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=1000 // lesser cards 800


[BufferPools]
PoolSize=2500000


Its all a matter of tuning

For screens ( as rare as i do them) I just use PRINT SCREEN or MGrab to capture. If I use Print Screen, I take it into paint and save as full bitmap for Adobe Photoshop resize. PS converts to JPG and reduces with very little loss if you know how to use it. There are other programs out there which do the job well too.

Try this for re-sizing  



http://www.irfanview.com/

RE-sample at 800X600 and when you go to save.. it will give you a compression option (if it still needs compressed)