Flight Simulator X

dark_matter

dark_matter

dark_matter

Permabanned
Joined
7 Oct 2006
Posts
132
Any good? It ships this week, anyone got it yet? Rumours are its a resource hog, and you need a really, really top end card to get anywhere near the medium/high sliders. Say like two x1950's.

I'm happy with my 7600gt on FS2004... Im not sure I want to downgrade my settings.
 
unless you got a top pc it will struggle, mines running on a E6400, 2g ram and a Ati 1900GT. got mine set mostly to medium high and in built up areas it gets about 15fps sometimes in the more dense areas im lucky if it gets in double figures where i was running on average about 50-70 fps on FS9 maxed out. the 2d views have changed very little but the 3d stuff is nice nd the added road and sea traffic is cool too, im curently working my way through the missions which you might find fun. Just dont get your hopes up on it running like FS9.
 
Are the missions good then? I guess sacrifices could be made. Judging by your specs, I guess your right if thats the sort of fps you get. Mind you, FS04 was like that when it came out. I remember buying a 9800pro to try and run FS04 better. Maybe when the DX10 cards come out, thats when FSX will fly. The missions might swing it. Have you tried the online play yet, is that any good?
 
I want to know what justifies such a high price tag on these games. 40-60 pounds is a rip-off in my opinion.

Also I hate hate, hate content being left out of the "standard" edition.


All being said I will pick it up when the price becomes reasonable.
 
Deluxe edition, everything max except Autogen.

Its not using my X1900XTX much at all, its certainly not using 100% because at that it should be 60C or more

But outside shots is 45-55C :confused:

Missions are good. Spent most of my time doing them. :D
 
Hostile17 said:
I want to know what justifies such a high price tag on these games. 40-60 pounds is a rip-off in my opinion.
Click to expand...

A DVD rented from blockbusters costs £3.75 for three nights. Films average out about 90 mins. 10 films cost £37.50. Thats 900 minutes, or just short of 15 hours.

When you put in about 100 hours in FS04, and end up learning a thing or two about flying a plane, £40-£60 is a bargain.

Also, its a lot cheaper than the real thing.
 
benneh said:
I'm about to run the demo on my lowly p4 3.0.. *Awaits results*.
Click to expand...
I tried running it on my p4 2.8, gig of ram and 9800pro and it died quite frankly. Although even at the low detail I couldn't really play it because I have a fear of vast open water, so flying over water I actually got worried/anxious and had to quit! :p
 
RandomTom said:
Although even at the low detail I couldn't really play it because I have a fear of vast open water, so flying over water I actually got worried/anxious and had to quit! :p
Click to expand...


Hahaha seriously?.

I'm oc'd to 3.6 (prescott), 1 gig bh5 and a 6800 ultra. Hopefully it'll run at some speed. 50mb to go on the dlownload.
 
Just looked on the task manager and found that only one of the processors was being used. Why? I can not believe that the latest Microsoft flight sim does not support Core 2 chips !!

I must admit being a flight sim enthusiast that I am a little disappointed so far with the Ver X. The aircraft and flight deck detailing does not appear to have any improvements over the 2004. I was also expecting to see a working FMS and TCAS systems, along with some nice video tutorials.

Maybe I’m not looking deep enough.
 
Not measured the frame rates yet, but it seems gittery on complex scenery, still playing around with the slider bars.

Also had to reinstall Windows cause I messed up the graphics driver install.
I don't know how to determine if both GPUs are being used cause I'm sure I should be getting smoother graphics.
 
Level of detail radius: Large

Mesh complexity: 91
mesh reso : 152 m
Texture resolution: 2 m
Water effects: low 2.x (really pretty water)
checked land detail textures

Scenery complexity: Normal
autogen dens: normal
ground scenery shadows : unchecked
special effects: High

weather --
cloud draw 96km
detailed clouds, density medium

traffic --
airline and general avation density: 18%
airport vehicel

Try those settings apparently on a 6600 30fps+, and it doesn't look half bad.
 
I think the time has come to give my opinion on this simulator. To begin with, if you are in the camp that we shouldn't hammer the team that produceed this piece of software because they put sooo much effort into it, you might as well stop reading now. As far as I see it, I paid £45 for this software so I should expect it to be perfect and run better then the other simulators I pay 2/3rds of the price for.

Good, now lets get started. I guess the first thing to reveal is my system, its probably not fair judging a latest greatest simulator on a 5 year old machine etc. So I am running this on 'quite a highly specced' machine, I admit not the fastest thing out there but no slouch either.

My Machine:

AMD A64 X2 4800+
1 GB Crucial Ballistix PC4000
ATi X1900 XT
WD Raptors x2 in RAID 0


So what do we have, 2xDVDs for installation which takes ages - even in a RAID 0 setup! Oh well thats a once in a couple of months event so not really worth worrying about. What is worrying is the fact that the installation wipes out FS2004 without even asking you, now that is just plain rude!

So you fire the simulator up, yes it takes ages to load but its what happens when you get there that is even more annoying. Without any tweaks it runs like a dog, period! So you run the tweaks and looks like FS4 or maybe 5 at best with everything turned down, and looking like that FS9 ran about 20 fps faster on average.

When you load up the planes you soon realise how little effort has gone into the ATC, the default gauges and panels (they are very similar to FS9).

So, so far we have a huge installation, poor in game panels, slow fps and literally no change to ATC. Yes, I admit I enjoy the missions, they are fun and the water does look nice but thats about it.

Right, now lets compare this to any other game that has been released recently. They all run faster, look better and work better with WinXP then Microsoft's own effort. And therein is the point, the developers of FSX are shockingly off the mark. Not only have they used the knowledge that we will buy add on software to enhance everything in the game, they haven't updated anything which will make our experience better - i.e. ATC etc.

So in a nutshell it is a very poor effort, admit it or not. Yes it will run better in 3 years time, but so will all the games that run amazingly well now! Will the experience be worth anywhere near £45 over FS2004, I really doubt it. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Summary:

Pros:

Better graphics (on maxxed out), entertaining missions

Cons:

ATC just poor, poor panels/gauges, fps, installation & loading times

Overall:

3.5 / 10
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom