fsx on a macbook pro

ringo747 · 8 Jan 2007 at 19:39

any here tried to run flight simulator x on macbook pro? Am thinking of getting an MBP soonish instead of getting cheap laptop+gaming machine.

Anyone any thoughts?

For those of you who have tried fsx,does it take an amazing spec to run?

Lolcb · 8 Jan 2007 at 19:54

your macbook will shut itself down.

frogboy · 8 Jan 2007 at 20:03

then burst into flames..

ringo747 · 8 Jan 2007 at 20:20

really???? macbook pro core2duo 2.33ghz with 2gb ram and 256 gfx card??

speedbird001 · 11 Jan 2007 at 16:46

would be interested in this also. Can anyone give any insignt into performance of this game on the mac?
Regards

Azagoth · 11 Jan 2007 at 17:48

jonnyc747 said:
really???? macbook pro core2duo 2.33ghz with 2gb ram and 256 gfx card??

Yep, not only would it shut itself down and burst into flames but it'd also run into the street and right under a bus.

sargatanas · 11 Jan 2007 at 18:33

Just remember, the amount of RAM on a graphics card means NOTHING to its performance. a 256meg X1900XT completely destroys a 512meg X1600 for example.

OzZie · 11 Jan 2007 at 21:56

Put it this way, i can barely run the game at low settings. Most people i know are in the same position. :rolleyes:

Concorde_Rules for example can only just run medium settings on his x1950xt-x even with a heavily overclocked conroe at 3ghz+. :eek:

ringo747 · 11 Jan 2007 at 22:52

yeah i tested some of the early builds of this game before the betas and it didnt run at all on my own machine! Have heard in some places that the final copy was very gfx intense but didnt realise it was so bad. I think FS2004 will have to do me for a while - with all the addons its still very playable.

FreeStream · 12 Jan 2007 at 08:45

OzZie said:
Put it this way, i can barely run the game at low settings. Most people i know are in the same position.

Concorde_Rules for example can only just run medium settings on his x1950xt-x even with a heavily overclocked conroe at 3ghz+.

Well, nearly

3.42ghz Conroe and a X1900XTX @ 709/845

Max everything apart from no auto-gen + buildings = 30+FPS.

Tweaked autogen + buldings = 20+ FPS..

philhoole · 12 Jan 2007 at 09:04

I get similar performance on my 3GHz Conroe and X1900. It's more than playable apart from over big cities or detailed airports with dense scenery when the frame rate drops to <10 fps.

The big frame killer for me is autogen and light bloom when used together. One or the other is OK.

CPU grunt seems to be the main requirement for FSX.

nero120 · 12 Jan 2007 at 13:17

Azagoth said:
Yep, not only would it shut itself down and burst into flames but it'd also run into the street and right under a bus.

My macbook pro didnt have any trouble with your mum last night, so Im sure it could handle fsx!

It eats FEAR, HL2 and X3 alive. To be honest I've never tried fsx, but the three games mentioned played very well at native res, so make up your own mind!

OspreyO · 12 Jan 2007 at 13:54

Must have a special Magic gfx card.

OspreyO · 15 Jan 2007 at 20:49

Apparently it is possible.

http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/review/bootcamp.htm

ringo747 · 15 Jan 2007 at 20:50

yep i read that the other day but that was only fs2004 he was using + fsx demo which is a lot lighter than the full version i would imagine!

silversurfer · 16 Jan 2007 at 00:23

This game is designed for dx10 isnt it, that might explain if it runs much slower then the more efficent dx10 cards? Not that we can test that theory yet

OspreyO · 17 Jan 2007 at 07:59

FSX is badly coded, it doesn't use both cores and doesn't use the GFX that much compared to most games. Like all proper flight sims is very CPU dependent. Theres lots of tips all over the web how to optimise it, turning down autogen seems to be the main thing.