Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

5

new plane announced

Started by jcovelli , Apr 23 2012 08:58 PM

Prev

Please log in to reply

58 replies to this topic

#41 Brandon-M

Orville Reincarnate

Members
7,912 posts

Location:Canada - Calgary

Posted 06 May 2012 - 03:39 PM

SwitchFX, on May 6 2012, 11:58 AM, said:

You can see it's just a small bump for a bit of money. Though it does translate well for games that don't have the issues FSX does.

You are just being ignorant for the sake of it now

Back to top

#42 SwitchFX

formerly TeleFarsi_Airlines818

Members
30,764 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 05:27 PM

Brandon-M, on May 6 2012, 01:39 PM, said:

You are just being ignorant for the sake of it now

Aside from misusing the word, the little result I'll see in FSX honestly isn't worth it. You guys can say it's a huge bump, but for me it's a small bump. I don't game. I rarely play FSX, so to spend that much money for 10 more frames, it's retarded. I would spend that money if I felt my rig was having issues editing and rendering 1080 p video, which it doesn't, not for now at least. As I've said in the past, I'm not a huge simmer, I hate long flights, and I certainly won't spend in excess of what Toby posted (No NewEgg) just to see that extra 10 frames. No matter what you do, intense scenery rendering will take a super-computer into the crapper. Maxed out, a larger resolution than what Toby runs, it's going no where.

Edited by SwitchFX, 06 May 2012 - 05:31 PM.

Back to top

#43 _TW_

First Class Member\Screenshot Hotshot of 2004

Moderator
8,474 posts

Location:Baden-Baden, Germany

Posted 06 May 2012 - 05:37 PM

So now we're going from "not possible" to "retarded"....

A higher res can easily be mastered by a more powerful graphics card. The most important aspect at that point would be the amount of video RAM available. 1280MB like I have on mine is just enough for 1920x1080. The GTX 580 is even better at that res. If you need to go higher, I'm sure the new GTX 670 2GB would be just fine. If not, then get the 4GB version, or suffice with a GTX 580 3GB.

And one more thing - It ain't that much money when you consider you'll have to sell off half your hardware for an upgrade. Use that money towards the new stuff and it won't seem so bad.

Back to top

#44 SwitchFX

formerly TeleFarsi_Airlines818

Members
30,764 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 05:58 PM

_TW_, on May 6 2012, 03:37 PM, said:

So now we're going from "not possible" to "retarded"....

A higher res can easily be mastered by a more powerful graphics card. The most important aspect at that point would be the amount of video RAM available. 1280MB like I have on mine is just enough for 1920x1080. The GTX 580 is even better at that res. If you need to go higher, I'm sure the new GTX 670 2GB would be just fine. If not, then get the 4GB version, or suffice with a GTX 580 3GB.

And one more thing - It ain't that much money when you consider you'll have to sell off half your hardware for an upgrade. Use that money towards the new stuff and it won't seem so bad.

There seems to be a communication problem. Money is not an issue as a whole, but to spend so much money for just a dozen more frames for one game I play maybe once every 4 months, is stupid beyond belief. Does that make sense now?

Edited by SwitchFX, 06 May 2012 - 05:59 PM.

Back to top

#45 Brandon-M

Orville Reincarnate

Members
7,912 posts

Location:Canada - Calgary

Posted 06 May 2012 - 07:53 PM

You are being ignorant though. If you upgrade your computer components to current standards, you will not have any issues and you will see incredible performance. You are being ignorant. And stubborn.

Back to top

#46 SwitchFX

formerly TeleFarsi_Airlines818

Members
30,764 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 08:55 PM

Brandon-M, on May 6 2012, 05:53 PM, said:

You are being ignorant though. If you upgrade your computer components to current standards, you will not have any issues and you will see incredible performance. You are being ignorant. And stubborn.

Using two synonyms to describe the same act. Smart move. Again, let me say this because it seems you have trouble reading.

If I PERSONALLY PLAY FSX just 3-4x a year for 1-2 hours, what is the point of spending over $500 in hardware changes for 10-12 more frames, when I only play that little and do not game in general? All I keep seeing is you repeating the words "Just upgrade" when you don't bother reading what I even said. Maybe the cost for you would be different. For me, if I was silly enough to spend so much when I use the game a few times a year, it would be a joke. But let's say I had to.

i7 2600K = $309
eVGA 590 GTX = $665
Asus P8P67 Deluxe = $250 (IIRC)
Minimum of 16 GB fast DDR3 = $290+
Aftermarket CPU cooler = $70

Almost $1,600 worth of new components just because I play 3-4x a year and find it foolish to have to spend so much more, yet again, to see little return. I know someone will point out I can get an i5. As I always say, go big or go home. I also don't purchase used parts. I'll take them for free if you're offering.

Edit: Toby, just saw a line I skipped over. I won't be selling my current i7, not for the chump change I'll get. If anything, I'll swap it into a spare case and use it as another render server.

Edited by SwitchFX, 06 May 2012 - 09:01 PM.

Back to top

#47 Brandon-M

Orville Reincarnate

Members
7,912 posts

Location:Canada - Calgary

Posted 06 May 2012 - 09:35 PM

If you personally play 3-4 times a year then why are you even having this conversation? If you made those upgrades and only saw 10 fps increase then youre not doing something right. Im not telling you that you need to upgrade. Im simply stating a fact that you are wrong about only geting that 10 frame rate increase. Not sure why you are being so aggressive.

Im not sure how i am wrong about saying you are being ignorant. You are lacking knowlege on this subject. If not lacking, you are willfully choosing ignorance over realizing FSX is a great sim.

Back to top

#48 _BD6_

June '10 Screenshot Hotshot

Members
2,577 posts

Location:Massachusetts, USA

Posted 06 May 2012 - 09:41 PM

People

over a 6 year old simulator.. priceless.

Back to top

#49 SwitchFX

formerly TeleFarsi_Airlines818

Members
30,764 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 09:50 PM

Brandon, you are simply an idiot. But continue bringing up mindless garbage. My graphic setup will be different to what you or anyone has and my monitor setup is different. It's going to take a hit in performance. Thinking outside the box, try it sometime. As I said, go all the way or go home. A collective of 3840x1200 isn't bad for most games, on FSX it'll kill the frames. 90% or higher traffic with the other modules maxed out. Come back and tell me it's going to be a massive difference.

Edited by SwitchFX, 06 May 2012 - 09:54 PM.

Back to top

#50 Brandon-M

Orville Reincarnate

Members
7,912 posts

Location:Canada - Calgary

Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:18 PM

SwitchFX, on May 6 2012, 06:50 PM, said:

Brandon, you are simply an idiot. But continue bringing up mindless garbage. My graphic setup will be different to what you or anyone has and my monitor setup is different. It's going to take a hit in performance. Thinking outside the box, try it sometime. As I said, go all the way or go home. A collective of 3840x1200 isn't bad for most games, on FSX it'll kill the frames. 90% or higher traffic with the other modules maxed out. Come back and tell me it's going to be a massive difference.

Wow

Not sure where this got personal Switch. Please, continue to prove that you are better than me.

Edited by Brandon-M, 06 May 2012 - 10:20 PM.

Back to top

#51 SwitchFX

formerly TeleFarsi_Airlines818

Members
30,764 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:41 PM

Brandon-M, on May 6 2012, 08:18 PM, said:

Wow

Not sure where this got personal Switch. Please, continue to prove that you are better than me.

Do you often go around calling people ignorant and stubborn and not attempt to talk to them in a more professional manner? You were doing just what you accused me of doing. Not once did I demean your character until you did to mine twice. Try to be cool-headed next time instead of throwing out digs.

Edited by SwitchFX, 06 May 2012 - 10:43 PM.

Back to top

#52 Brandon-M

Orville Reincarnate

Members
7,912 posts

Location:Canada - Calgary

Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:42 PM

SwitchFX, on May 6 2012, 07:41 PM, said:

Do you often go around calling people ignorant and stubborn and not attempt to talk to them in a more professional manner?

Uhm, what else is there to describe your current attitude? You are telling me I cant read? Are you forgetting what you posted yourself?

Back to top

#53 SwitchFX

formerly TeleFarsi_Airlines818

Members
30,764 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:46 PM

Brandon-M, on May 6 2012, 08:42 PM, said:

Uhm, what else is there to describe your current attitude? You are telling me I cant read? Are you forgetting what you posted yourself?

No, you cannot read. I said it several times, that an upgrade that conforms to what I like to run will result in minimal improvement. It may be vast for the average user. If you cannot comprehend that, than I fail to understand what is going on in your mind. You then have the audacity to tell me I will see a massive improvement despite telling you it won't do much with heavy add-ons, full settings and a very large display resolution. It will kill the frames. FSX is a poorly written piece of software. It is capable of turning a very powerful computer into a bucket of sludge. How many 6 year old games can do that? This is the last reply I'm going to make because no matter what I say, it escapes your mind and those who share a similar viewpoint. So I'll say the following to finish up. FSX is a poorly coded game that will crush any computer given the chance. I run a very different setup than most people. I love eye-candy, I will run full settings and dozens of frame eating add-ons at a 3840x1200 resolution. Even if I were to go to a newer system it wouldn't help? How do I know? I've asked around, I've read around, I've done the research myself. It is not worth spending $1,600 to get sub-par increases in performance, especially when I only use the game a few times a year.

Edited by SwitchFX, 06 May 2012 - 10:53 PM.

Back to top

#54 Brandon-M

Orville Reincarnate

Members
7,912 posts

Location:Canada - Calgary

Posted 06 May 2012 - 11:17 PM

Did i step into a time machine back to 2006...?

Back to top

#55 _TW_

First Class Member\Screenshot Hotshot of 2004

Moderator
8,474 posts

Location:Baden-Baden, Germany

Posted 07 May 2012 - 12:30 AM

Only thing I'm adding to this is that a GTX 590 would be a complete waste of money seeing as FSX doesn't utilize Crossfire/SLI (in other words, more than one GPU). 16GB of quality RAM can also be had for $100 these days, I have no idea where you are coming up with these prices. And a good Z77 motherboard ~ $150. No idea why you're so afraid to purchase used parts but to each their own I suppose. You say you've done the research, I might look elsewhere to gather knowledge next time.

SwitchFX, on May 6 2012, 11:46 PM, said:

FSX is a poorly coded game that will crush any computer given the chance. I run a very different setup than most people. I love eye-candy, I will run full settings and dozens of frame eating add-ons at a 3840x1200 resolution. Even if I were to go to a newer system it wouldn't help? How do I know? I've asked around, I've read around, I've done the research myself.

You need to upgrade that 8800GTX; no surprise its bringing your game to a halt if you've got all the eye-candy enabled at that sort of a resolution!

Back to top

#56 _BD6_

June '10 Screenshot Hotshot

Members
2,577 posts

Location:Massachusetts, USA

Posted 07 May 2012 - 05:11 PM

SwitchFX, on May 6 2012, 11:46 PM, said:

No, you cannot read. I said it several times, that an upgrade that conforms to what I like to run will result in minimal improvement. It may be vast for the average user. If you cannot comprehend that, than I fail to understand what is going on in your mind. You then have the audacity to tell me I will see a massive improvement despite telling you it won't do much with heavy add-ons, full settings and a very large display resolution. It will kill the frames. FSX is a poorly written piece of software. It is capable of turning a very powerful computer into a bucket of sludge. How many 6 year old games can do that? This is the last reply I'm going to make because no matter what I say, it escapes your mind and those who share a similar viewpoint. So I'll say the following to finish up. FSX is a poorly coded game that will crush any computer given the chance. I run a very different setup than most people. I love eye-candy, I will run full settings and dozens of frame eating add-ons at a 3840x1200 resolution. Even if I were to go to a newer system it wouldn't help? How do I know? I've asked around, I've read around, I've done the research myself. It is not worth spending $1,600 to get sub-par increases in performance, especially when I only use the game a few times a year.

Going from a 8800gt to even a gtx570 would yield more than 10fps easily at the same image quality.