FS-X nearly here!! :D

Majority of the screenshots look very mediocre. Okay, better that FS9, but not a mega amount -Maybe Vista and DX10 will bring the best out of it, but am so underwhelmed with FsX
 
Wait until you get the retail realease!

It's already out in the US and loads of people I know who've got it can't run it at more than 10fps on some really decent hardware. Apparently it's all down to the new autogen, it's causing no end of problems.

Plus, it doesn't have support for dual core CPU's nor SLi cards when running in DX9!
 
Atomic said:
Majority of the screenshots look very mediocre. Okay, better that FS9, but not a mega amount -Maybe Vista and DX10 will bring the best out of it, but am so underwhelmed with FsX
Click to expand...

I feel exactly the same. Given that an extra year was spent in development than usual I was expecting a bit more. Obviously too much.

May be Vista/DX10 will be a revelation but I'm really not holding my breath.
 
Azagoth said:
Wait until you get the retail realease!

It's already out in the US and loads of people I know who've got it can't run it at more than 10fps on some really decent hardware. Apparently it's all down to the new autogen, it's causing no end of problems.

Plus, it doesn't have support for dual core CPU's nor SLi cards when running in DX9!
Click to expand...


They did a press release saying it IS dual core enabled but its only used when there is actually something to do outside of normal game dynamics.

Eg, gfx, physics, AI etc have to be done on the first core.


As for performance, demo ran perfectly at max up until I added autogen scenery, which is when frame rates plumetted to 15+
 
i wacked it all up to neally highest and it looked like crap. also played like crap. flight sims are not really for me but i love LOMAC (and it plays fine and looks great)

are the buildings on FS-x suppose to look like big grey rectangles?
 
I tried the demo again just now, i have no idea what is going on. It tells you to do stuff, then doesn't tell you why you are doing it or how to do it, so i end up getting bored, doing loops and flying upside down close to the ground.

Flights sims aren't for me
 
Atomic said:
Majority of the screenshots look very mediocre. Okay, better that FS9, but not a mega amount -Maybe Vista and DX10 will bring the best out of it, but am so underwhelmed with FsX
Click to expand...

Graphics aren't everything! Sometimes the gameplay is more important, and in this case, for people who are into to this type of thing, this looks perfect.

However, its not so perfect if it only runs at 10fps.



99th post!
 
I have a decent PC, AMD4000+, 2GB RAM, 7800GT etc etc and FSX borders on unplayable for me. The new autogen and the new cloud textures kill it, big time.

Whereas I get superb FPS with all sliders maxed in 2004, I get about 5 at best, without even using the uppermost settings, in FSX. If I play on the min settings I can scrape 30 or so....

I guess we'll have to wait for the DX10 GFX cards to come out?

It does look lovely though. And the new water textures are superb.
 
Klo said:
Graphics aren't everything! Sometimes the gameplay is more important, and in this case, for people who are into to this type of thing, this looks perfect.

However, its not so perfect if it only runs at 10fps.



99th post!
Click to expand...

True, graphics arn't everything, but in this day and age and the time spent on the game I expected MORE...At the moment it just looks like a modded Fs9.

Once again to get the best out of a Flight Sim game, you have to buy the game itself and then all the various addons to make it so much more realistic.

And then, you need a quantum computer to just get the gramerates to a good level.
 
Charlie Bravo said:
MS haven't got a clue about ATC. The best thing you could do is buy Radar Contact.

I won't be buying FSX, MS have turned it into an arcade game with poor graphics.
Click to expand...

I've heard a bit about Radar Contact - looked at a few tutorials and to be honest they went a little above my head.

Obviously the default ATC is extremely dumbed down but my main gripe is just how many go-arounds there are when you're at a busy airport with loads of AI traffic.

Last night, for example, I flew EGLL --> GCLP. Whilst waiting for take off clearance at Heathrow, 3 planes went around because of traffic on the runway that had been previously cleared for take off, or because they were too close to the plane in front. When I was on ILS approach into GCLP I was told I was number 4 for landing, the three planes in front of me were a 738, Cessna 172, another 738 and then me in a 734. We all had to go around.

Why oh why can't the program work out and stick to set approach seperations?

If radar contact can do that - I'll definitely consider buying it - but is the rest of it on quite a steep learning curve?
 
I'll probably still buy this, despite no changes to the ATC and dire performance, it'll probably take a year or more for hardware to be released that'll run it properly.
 
The freeware program that tries to sort that problem is called ai smooth.

Radar Contact is fairly easy to use. I had to look at the manual for a couple of things but apart from that I got straight into it. It adds so much more to the game.
I wrote a small review when I first got it which can be found here
 
Last edited:
Cuchulain said:
I'll probably still buy this, despite no changes to the ATC and dire performance, it'll probably take a year or more for hardware to be released that'll run it properly.
Click to expand...

Thats what happened with FS2000. It ran really slow and MS said it would be fine when better hardware came out. The new hardware came out and it made no difference.

FSX won't get much better than 15fps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom