54 replies to this topic

[falcon X]

Timmeh, on Nov 4 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

Plus everything on FSX so far is just default or cheap new freeware.

Yeah...but aren't we all PAYING to get the game?
if for you about $75.00 USD means nothing,gladly send it to me via paypal!

[89-LX]

Invisiblemoose, on Nov 5 2006, 02:18 AM, said:

B777_300ER, on Nov 4 2006, 10:51 PM, said:

FSX was designed for future hardware and software therefore it is why it runs slow on our machines! How many times do I have to repeat that?!  

If FSX was designed for future hardware, why doesn't it support dual-core CPUs or multiple GPUs?

FSX wasn't designed for future hardware, sadly. It simply is simply using an old engine that sucked to begin with. Sure, when hardware gets blazing fast, it'll be able to fun FSX by sheer brute force, but that doesn't make the game "designed for the future." It just makes Microsoft Games Studios stupid, lazy, and greedy.

Yep. And how do they know what future hardware there will be 2 years from now?

[FURRY BIRD]

I see the glass half full, FSX is a leap forward and is a sim I can grow with for many years to come. I figure that this sim is good for about 6 years or more as the graphics are so advanced we will be playing catch up for at least 2 years.

[al mac]

Hi,
got a similar spec m\c.
agree fsx is runs crap, have uninstalled and am back with fs9 with full vfr sceanery all settings maxed out

[AgonisNewton]

al mac, on Nov 5 2006, 09:03 PM, said:

Hi,
got a similar spec m\c.
agree fsx is runs crap, have uninstalled and am back with fs9 with full vfr sceanery all settings maxed out

Please make sure your grammar is easier to read and understand if you are using firefox 2 it has a built in spell checker which will underline the words in red lines when grammar mistakes are made.

other then that welcome! yeah FSX runs crappy too on my comp but i will just accept it because when FS9 was first released almost nobody could play it at high settings either

[kevinsky18]

89-LX, on Nov 5 2006, 01:36 PM, said:

Invisiblemoose, on Nov 5 2006, 02:18 AM, said:

B777_300ER, on Nov 4 2006, 10:51 PM, said:

FSX was designed for future hardware and software therefore it is why it runs slow on our machines! How many times do I have to repeat that?!  

If FSX was designed for future hardware, why doesn't it support dual-core CPUs or multiple GPUs?

FSX wasn't designed for future hardware, sadly. It simply is simply using an old engine that sucked to begin with. Sure, when hardware gets blazing fast, it'll be able to fun FSX by sheer brute force, but that doesn't make the game "designed for the future." It just makes Microsoft Games Studios stupid, lazy, and greedy.

Yep. And how do they know what future hardware there will be 2 years from now?

It's called a road map and all CPU and GPU makers have them.  Other developers have been coding and optimizing for multi-core cpus for 10 months now.

The road maps are clear.  multi-core is with us for at least the next 2-3 years.

Aces can't / won't be optimizing for multi-core. Aces has made it clear that DX10 will do little to improve current preformance. Aces has made it clear that SLI is never going to be supported.  Read the other post "Message from Phil Taylor, from Aces were he give us the bad news."

So FSX is exactly the oposite of designed for future hardware.  In fact it's designed for past hardware and thus will never preform much better than what we are getting now no matter how awsome of a machine that you buy today or two years from now.

Edited by kevinsky18, 05 November 2006 - 02:25 PM.

[Andydigital]

Mango, on Nov 5 2006, 11:40 AM, said:

Andydigital, on Nov 5 2006, 05:30 PM, said:

FSX is mostly CPU bound not GPU bound, same as every version for many years.  Thats why you don't see a massive performance difference from a radeon 9800 pro to radeon X1950XTX which you would expect if a game was GPU bound.

Is this your opinion, your research or found somewhere on the web ?

There isn't much improvement from a 9800 Pro to X1950XT ? What do you have running, a Prescott 2.4 ?

I'll tell you the improvement when i have the R600 installed. Of course is FSX CPU intensive. But i can assure you with a 3.6 Ghz Conroe a X1900XT is just a huge speed brake. With shader 2.0...

It's not opinion its experience, I've been using the FS series since 4.0 and I upgrade usually when a new version of FS comes out.

And my system spec's are in my profile and as you can see its far from a Prescott.

[Flying_Scotsman]

Andydigital, on Nov 5 2006, 03:12 PM, said:

Mango, on Nov 5 2006, 11:40 AM, said:

Andydigital, on Nov 5 2006, 05:30 PM, said:

FSX is mostly CPU bound not GPU bound, same as every version for many years.  Thats why you don't see a massive performance difference from a radeon 9800 pro to radeon X1950XTX which you would expect if a game was GPU bound.

Is this your opinion, your research or found somewhere on the web ?

There isn't much improvement from a 9800 Pro to X1950XT ? What do you have running, a Prescott 2.4 ?

I'll tell you the improvement when i have the R600 installed. Of course is FSX CPU intensive. But i can assure you with a 3.6 Ghz Conroe a X1900XT is just a huge speed brake. With shader 2.0...

It's not opinion its experience, I've been using the FS series since 4.0 and I upgrade usually when a new version of FS comes out.

And my system spec's are in my profile and as you can see its far from a Prescott.

So what was your experience with the 9800pro in that current setup?  Why did you upgrade to such a card if it doesn't really matter.

My Dad went from a 9800pro to a X800pro and saw a 50% increase in FS9, nothing else was changed in the system  

[CAT19_Hitman]

Dr...Watson, on Nov 5 2006, 01:05 PM, said:

My Dad went from a 9800pro to a X800pro and saw a 50% increase in FS9, nothing else was changed in the system  

Hmmm...Strange.

I went from a 9800 Pro 128MB card to an X850XT 256MB card and saw no difference at all in FS9.

[Captain-Amar]

I have a:

||Dell Dimension 5150||

Intel Pentium 4 630 3.0gzh
XFX 7600GT XXX
512 DDR2 RAM
Drive C= Maxtor 160GB
Drive E= Western Digital 160GB
350 WATT PSU

And i runs FSX at 25fps steady with everything on High.
At city's 15-20 fps now i  think thats high for my system!..so what about that?

Edited by amarpilot, 05 November 2006 - 04:19 PM.

[Flying_Scotsman]

CAT19_Hitman, on Nov 5 2006, 04:10 PM, said:

Dr...Watson, on Nov 5 2006, 01:05 PM, said:

My Dad went from a 9800pro to a X800pro and saw a 50% increase in FS9, nothing else was changed in the system 

Hmmm...Strange.

I went from a 9800 Pro 128MB card to an X850XT 256MB card and saw no difference at all in FS9.

       maybe it was IL2, it was ages ago  

Well, in a few weeks he will go to the 1950AGP and we will see what that does.

[Mango]

Iain, your Dad is obviously not the only one... I upgraded my 9800 Pro with a X800XT and saw a significant improvement with a Prescott @ 3.6 GHz. It's a pity that this card is AGP, i would like to try it with FSX instead of my X1900XT...

[Andydigital]

Dr...Watson, on Nov 5 2006, 09:05 PM, said:

Andydigital, on Nov 5 2006, 03:12 PM, said:

Mango, on Nov 5 2006, 11:40 AM, said:

Andydigital, on Nov 5 2006, 05:30 PM, said:

FSX is mostly CPU bound not GPU bound, same as every version for many years.  Thats why you don't see a massive performance difference from a radeon 9800 pro to radeon X1950XTX which you would expect if a game was GPU bound.

Is this your opinion, your research or found somewhere on the web ?

There isn't much improvement from a 9800 Pro to X1950XT ? What do you have running, a Prescott 2.4 ?

I'll tell you the improvement when i have the R600 installed. Of course is FSX CPU intensive. But i can assure you with a 3.6 Ghz Conroe a X1900XT is just a huge speed brake. With shader 2.0...

It's not opinion its experience, I've been using the FS series since 4.0 and I upgrade usually when a new version of FS comes out.

And my system spec's are in my profile and as you can see its far from a Prescott.

So what was your experience with the 9800pro in that current setup?  Why did you upgrade to such a card if it doesn't really matter.

My Dad went from a 9800pro to a X800pro and saw a 50% increase in FS9, nothing else was changed in the system  

I went from 10-15 FPS in some area's to 25-30 with 1950XTX, with a graphics card that is supposed to be at least 4X faster than a 9800 Pro. All my other games show massive improvements, so its not a faulty 1950 (please don't start the 3-4 years thing again its getting boring), Hence just from that you can confirm that FSX is indeed CPU bound.

And people just because someone is good at tweaking a game and has a high post count doesn't mean he's right about everything. Common sense seems to be becoming a rare commodity these days.

[Mango]

Andydigital, on Nov 6 2006, 04:58 PM, said:

And people just because someone is good at tweaking a game and has a high post count doesn't mean he's right about everything. Common sense seems to be becoming a rare commodity these days.

One final question. Are you talking about me ?

[Flying_Scotsman]

Mango, on Nov 6 2006, 05:49 AM, said:

Andydigital, on Nov 6 2006, 04:58 PM, said:

And people just because someone is good at tweaking a game and has a high post count doesn't mean he's right about everything. Common sense seems to be becoming a rare commodity these days.

One final question. Are you talking about me ?

Come on Mango, 38 to go to catch up with Mul....you can reply to this one too  

It may have been FS9 he got 50%, I'm sure it was a 100% increase in IL2, 25 to 50FPS!  He was really happy, I hope the new 1950Pro has some good results in FSX as it's too much hassle for me to upgrade his PC to PCie and change his mobo cpu combo  

[pete]

i compleatly retract my statement. this game is appauling. iv never seen anything like it. is this a joke?? i feel sik. i will keep it for future, but im not impressed. not one bit

[B777_300ER]

pete, on Nov 6 2006, 01:18 PM, said:

i compleatly retract my statement. this game is appauling. iv never seen anything like it. is this a joke?? i feel sik. i will keep it for future, but im not impressed. not one bit

Too bad!...

IMO FSX rocks! And when we all get better hardware, that's when it'll really start rocking!!   

[pete]

its compleatly unplayable. 6fps, and blocky with it!! iv tried everything, just doesnt seem right

[lindsay]

lets face it like microsoft said dx 10 will not make that much of a difference, and yes this all about us upgrading our systems or buying new computers in the next 6 months with video cards compatible with direct x 10 and of course vista installed.

Give you example how it runs go over nyc at about 1500 ft get maybe 8-10 frame rates go over a city that 's not so dense then i can get 20fps at 1500 ft with everything on max settings

The big hitters on frame rates is that new page of cars boats and ferries. and also increase your water. along with clouds which at 3d gkeep that at medium.  Also autogen is a huge hiter on my system so I keep it off.T

Basically what I am going to do is use fs 04 when I go over dense areas like LA Manhattan and so forth, but for example just flew the airbus from peoria Illinois to Pitt Pa and was getting decent frame rates, a few stutters here and there

Like I said before I have dell dimension 8400 3.4 ghz 3gigs of ram video card
which I upgraded to X1600 pro pcie, 512 mb could not afford anything else more and if I spent $400.00 for a card would not be compatible with comp since it has 350 watts.

But I understand your feelings and conluding I believe microsoft made a mistake by rolling out the product, because checking other forums people are all complaining.  This is too god of a franchise that has made things look bad for microsoft.

Like I said previously not all of us are going to buy in the next 6 months to ayr. a 3-4000dollar comp to play the game,but this is what it is, and you just have to do some tweaking to sacrifice for the performance.

[cpt_ovo2]

Mango, on Nov 6 2006, 11:49 AM, said:

Andydigital, on Nov 6 2006, 04:58 PM, said:

And people just because someone is good at tweaking a game and has a high post count doesn't mean he's right about everything. Common sense seems to be becoming a rare commodity these days.

One final question. Are you talking about me ?

Sounded like it

After a years of being on this Forum im getting fed up new people joining and thinking they are gods. Post count accounts for nothing, but look at the date joined and search for a few posts and the people they have helped. People may give people respect then to the people who have been here a long time, such as Mango, who i find to be very helpful on Tweaking, hey i wouldnt be getting 20fps if it wasnt for him and the time he puts into this community

Thanks

and people who say, this game is awful.... but ill keep it, lol cant be that bad then can it, if you don't like it, take it back

Dan.