WARNING (read before buying FSX)

[Captain_Smith]

Will it effect Flight sim itself, with the lag? or just other things?

[Canada_Boy]

Captain_Smith wrote:
Will it effect Flight sim itself, with the lag? or just other things?

i just dont think its very realistic when it looks like your plane is moving at 15-20 kilometers

[porschedriv47]

Let's see...
The FSX demo with bars to the max and no traffic shows: 1/2 frame/second
FS9 with PAI traffic, excellent freeware enviorment add-ons and all bars max shows: 10 frames/second min.

My reason for sticking with FS9



Post Edited ( 12-13-06 05:33 )

[Anton]

It's funny how after a new FS release everyone is bi*ching about it for awhile and then switches to it anyways. )))))))))

[Canada_Boy]

Anton wrote:
It's funny how after a new FS release everyone is bi*ching about it for awhile and then switches to it anyways. )))))))))

right now i think the only way i would buy fsx is if: my computer got a bad virus and needed to be wiped clean(again)
and i accedently steped on all the fs9 cds and broke them, and their was not any left in the whole world.
then i would have to buy fsx

[pdjpeter]

i would only buy fsx if.. i first knew it work be decent on my pc
had a mental break down

[crowebird]

FS will always be the same, but as of now there are too many reasons as to why NOT to switch to FSX, my FS9 has everything I need from
it (good frame rates, great graphics, a LDS767-300er, ActiveSky v6.5 and Ground Environment Pro)

[LittleAl100]

crowebird wrote:
FS will always be the same, but as of now there are too many reasons as to why NOT to switch to FSX, my FS9 has everything I need from
it (good frame rates, great graphics, a LDS767-300er, ActiveSky v6.5 and Ground Environment Pro)

[Anton]

Hey, guys, you know, there was a good comedian in the States who had a great performance where he would say "You might be a
redneck if..." and then something like "if you say 'I used to could'" lol so I thought we might start a thread like "I would only switch to FSX
if..." Seriously, my nearest plane are to upgrade my rig so that ot would run FS9 real smooth and then I will stay with FS9 for at least a
year.

[Myrm]

It seems that many people who do not have FSX are jumping on the band wagon and shooting it down without trying the finished product.

I have FSX and I think it is far superior to FS9.

My pc specs are;

2 Core Duo E6600 processor
256MB nVidia 7900GS Graphic Card
4GB RAM (533MHz)

In the air I have my FPS locked at 30 and I consistently get that. On the ground at busy airports, or flying low over large cities I get 10-15
fps.

That's with most graphic sliders set to max, including clouds, except for Autogen (Sparse) and Scenery Complexity (med).

FSX seems to shudder far less than FS9 at the same fps.

[ste9889]

ive got FS9 and FSX but guess what i still use?
Yup FS9 with GE Pro ASV6.5, Flight Environment, Water environment, Night Environment and that freeware environment proggy it beats
the stuffing out of FSX i get better FPS on FS9 than FSX and my specs are:

Windows XP SP2
AMD XP3000+ 2.17Ghz
Corsair 2GB memory kit
BFG Nvidia 7600GS OC
Asus An7X Motherboard

I say FS9 until 2008!!!!

[DSW334]

I think that most people stick with FS9 for a while, untill all their add-ons are available for it. Personally I tried FSX on my old PIV 2.8ghz
with old Radeon card and 1.5gb of ram and got 18-20fps with sliders set to medium (no autogen etc.).

With my new pc Core DUO 6700 and Nvidia 8800GTS I will probably get better results, but FSX is still laying on the shelf. I'll wait for the
PMDG 737 before I switch over to FSX. But sure I will switch. FSX will be much more enjoyable as soon as more add-ons will become
available.



Post Edited ( 12-14-06 12:44 )

[Anton]

Being stuck with Athlon 2.5, Radeon 9600 128meg and 256 megs or RAM, well... FSX is not very appealing. Heck I only get like 16-20
FPS in FS9 with all the addons and I also experience the pain in the butt of converting all textures to DXT3... Sure I'll get FSX as soon as I
have a decent PC, but that won't happen anytime soon...

[XM DUDE]

LittleAl100 wrote:
Hi all,
Before you buy the so called amazing FSX buyer beware! You will face extreme lag, no matter how good of a supercomputer
you have. You must have a graphics card. You will need to defrag your computer soon after you install the program. (and more often.) This
program is a computer hog, and will slow you up majorly! If anyone else can think of any other buyer warnings, please post!

That is the main reason I gave up on it until technology catches up to FSX as most current computers wont run it well. I hoping that Vista 4
Gigs of ram and a Core Duel processor and 2 500 MB graphics cards should do the trick, right now that all gos for about $3500 ot more..

[Airliner]

Anton,

You'd better not even THINK about FSX right now, unless you want to fly with EVERYTHING turned off.

Here are my specs:

AMD Athlon 64 4000+ at 2.45GHz
ATI 9800XT 256MB AGP (with analog monitor - ugh!)
2 GB Corsair XMS RAM (DDR400; 2.5,2,2,6)
SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS

With everything to max on the scenery page except water: Low.2x and no autogen (no shadows either) and no traffic (road or air) I can get
a very acceptible 30 FPS which, for FSX is like 40 in FS9. Adding in 50 - 75% UT from FS9, I go down to around 10 - 15 at the airport. Still
high in the air but, takeoff and approach are what really count so call it 10-15. Still quite acceptible in FSX but, if I wanted to bring up the
autogen and the ground traffic, I'd be way into single digits.

The only reason I've made the complete switch to FSX is because my addon is being designed completely around the mission SDK.
Also, I'm still holding to the folks who say that DX10 is going to really boost performance, not just appearance. If not, I'd be staying with
FS9 too. Heck, I didn't even get FS9 until late for the very same reason many don't want FSX now - computers were too slow.