Few FSX shots

miracleboy

miracleboy

miracleboy

Associate
Joined
31 Oct 2002
Posts
2,315
 
I've tried this on my rig (see sig) and played with the settings and to be honest i wasn't impressed at all with the visuals. I know it's a totaly different type of game but graphic wise i've seen nothing that beats GoW on the 360. I think if epic or valve etc. were to make a FS it would wipe the floor graphic wise with Microsoft's efforts.

Understand i'm only commenting on visuals and i appreciate it's technically a good FS. :)
 
I bought this for my father in law as an Xmas prezzie - I bought it quite a few months in advance though and decided to install it for a go first :)

It's really a good stepup front FS 2004, I couldnt run it on anywhere near max details with my 7900GTX.

I was amazed when I cam to uninstall it though, as it was over 13gb :eek:

If you want to see something really cool then download the Eagle mod (the ship out of Space 1999) as you can fly to the edge of the atmosphere. You really get to appreciate an amazing draw distance when you look down - it's incredible. I can't remember the site I got it from though.

pumaz said:
I've tried this on my rig (see sig) and played with the settings and to be honest i wasn't impressed at all with the visuals. I know it's a totaly different type of game but graphic wise i've seen nothing that beats GoW on the 360. I think if epic or valve etc. were to make a FS it would wipe the floor graphic wise with Microsoft's efforts.
Click to expand...
You have to appreciate that on flight sims the gfx are never made to be viewed close up - they are supposed to be viewed from heights of 10,000ft and above. The whole earth is mapped so if you had visuals like GoW then, considering it's over 13Gb now, you can imagine that you would probably get into TB of data.
 
Last edited:
Thats all very well but I'm afraid I just cant stand the uk winter textures, the whole place looks like IRAQ and that just about goes for the whole of nothern Europe so its fine in the desert around San Diego.

I give it ago every now and then but fs9 texture colors are so much better.
 
To be honest it doesn't look much better graphically than FS2004 and that runs like silk on todays systems, can be made to look better and only costs about £12.
 
A guy on one of the flightsim forums uses a quadcore Intel, 4GB and a 8800GTX and still he only gets around the 20-30fps mark over anything but open countryside.

Quite frankly it's ridiculous of Microsoft not to include full multicore and SLi support on such a system intensive sim. That's the reason I'm sticking to my beloved FS2004 for the forseeable future.

In all honesty, I think FSX was rushed out in an unfinished state to cater for the christmas market. Just take a flight over Vietnam, it's all desert! I always had the impression that Vietnam was covered un lush tropical fauna.
 
frogboy said:
To be honest it doesn't look much better graphically than FS2004 and that runs like silk on todays systems, can be made to look better and only costs about £12.
Click to expand...
I would have to agreed with this, and to be totally honest a lot of the addons that make FS2004 look better are freeware, now that says something!

Stu
 
Azagoth said:
Just take a flight over Vietnam, it's all desert! I always had the impression that Vietnam was covered un lush tropical fauna.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find that was before the U.S. dropped considerable amounts of napalm on the place :p

Stu
 
Nice screenshots :) I just hope there will be a fix for us people with a low end system. After applying all the known tweaks i can hit 40-60 fps while doing bush flying but trying to fly near any main airport :( im down to the usual texture poping and stutters. :(
 
I think MS made it system intensive on purpose, as I recall FS2004 being very similar upon it's release. Give it a year or two and then maybe high-end systems will be able to run it in all it's glory... just before they release FSXI ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom