| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 73169 | 2006-10-09 18:29:00 | MS FSX - for JJJJJ | pctek (84) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 490395 | 2006-10-09 18:29:00 | Here's some more depressing news for you. My friend was looking at some reviews: "FSX was built for hardware coming available in the next year to 18 months. That mean an expensive DirectX-10 video card and Quad processor". Yet it doesn't support dual-core well and no SLI support. jonpatch.wordpress.com "Bottom-line: Overall, FSX has been a disappointment personally. I bought a new machine a few months ago partly to run FSX, and it’s just not fun, mostly because of low frame rates, which also makes many of the missions not easy to run. That said, I am fussier than most, and don’t find 15 fps (even with no stutters) an acceptable level of performance." |
pctek (84) | ||
| 490396 | 2006-10-09 19:38:00 | Yes I have read that. I never take too much notice of pre-release reviews. Though his comments match ny own feelings after playing with the demo version. Seems to me the biggest resources hog is the moving traffic etc. Even in fs9 adding movement to road traffic drags most of available resources. FPS doesn't worry me much. After all the default is only 20fps. This is one game where fps don't realy matter. I can't notice any difference between 15 fps and 50fps. Another point that is often overlooked when criticising the scenery is that it is supposed to be realistic views from an aircraft. In real life the quality of scenery view deteriates the further away you get. I'm quite happy with the realism of this. Never the less I won't be rushing to buy FSX. There's still so much room for improvement with fs9 |
JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 490397 | 2006-10-10 01:54:00 | Aha! You played the demo. He can't. It insisted he have SP2 installed. I knew there was something...... He has the x2 4200+ and doesn't have your problem with FS9 - try running SP1 only and see how that works with your 4200+. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 490398 | 2006-10-10 02:57:00 | My problem is with FSInn. Without it loaded I have no problems at all. The real problem is that I don't know if the problem is within FSInn or with the computer itself. Because FSInn is loaded last it could be putting in the final strain. But then plenty of others are using FSInn without trouble so I am blaming my computer. Well I'll find out when my new 4000+ cpu arrives. |
JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 490399 | 2006-10-10 03:11:00 | I'm running FS X currently, and while yes, it is a resource hog (as expected) I think a lot of this doom and gloom is a bit over the top. I was running it with my 6600GT card, on a P4 3.4GHz with 2GB RAM, and it was "adequate", a 1024x768 with moderate detail/autogen etc. I've thrown an ATI X1900 256MB in there and am running it now at 1152 x 768 with anti aliasing and "high" detail settings, and I still can't get 20fps. Turn some of those settings down and it gets there. Pretty much business as usual for a FS version in other words. However, even at moderate settings, it the terrain looks better to me, and MS have drastically overhauled how NZ looks, with the inclucsion of a default 75M mesh and topogarhical features (roads, rivers, lakes) very simialr to what Christain Stock has provided. However, they have messed up some areas due to errors in the data they used -- such as Milford Sound. Of greater concern will be aircraft and scenery add-ons not working. Old, FS98-style guages are no longer supported and these plenty of those still floating around in third-party FS2004 planes. There's going to need to be some updating from third-party devs to get things working. |
Biggles (121) | ||
| 490400 | 2006-10-10 03:24:00 | How's the NZ 20M mesh going to work with the 76? | JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 490401 | 2006-10-10 03:31:00 | 20m mesh works fine - just sits on yop like it did on the old default in FS2004. I'm still trying to get Christian Stocks NZ Topo to work though - it's hard to tell if its there or not cause the default topo is really good (although it lacks the extra airports of the Nz Topo). The landclass files don't seem tob e working either. Still playing around with this stuff. | Biggles (121) | ||
| 490402 | 2006-10-10 03:35:00 | I'll see if I can put some screenshots up tonight. | Biggles (121) | ||
| 490403 | 2006-10-10 20:42:00 | Here's Wellington in FS X, with the 20m mesh added but default topographical features: i12.photobucket.com And by comparison here's a similar view from FS2004, with the 20m mesh, Christian Stock's NZ Topo and landclass files: i12.photobucket.com Back to FSX, here's the Hutt Valley: i12.photobucket.com and another of Wellington - this is with the water effects turned down to medium: i12.photobucket.com Here's Auckland with Robin Corn's Real Auckland scenery - woks fine but there are default FSX buildings and objects that need to be removed. (there's two Sky Towers when you've got Real Auckland lodaed, for example) i12.photobucket.com Here's Great Barrier. You can see that the default textures for NZ in FS X are once again, not very NZ-like, and that the landclass needs work: i12.photobucket.com And just for comparison, here's shot takne in Japan. The sim varies quite a bit in terms of mesh detail and topographocal detail around the world - it all depends on what data MS could get. NZ is (with some irritating flaws) pretty good in this respect, due to readuly available data, and Japn looks pretty good too. Note that my FPS dropped because of this. This is something some people seem to be overlooking when tlaking about frame rates in FS X -- the greater complexity of mesh data in many parts of the sim. i12.photobucket.com |
Biggles (121) | ||
| 490404 | 2006-10-10 20:54:00 | Some excellent info on performance issues in this blog: blogs.technet.com |
Biggles (121) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||