Microsoft Flight Simulator X
- Thread starter HEADRAT
- Start date
)
spinneR~uk said:Where's the fun in that?
Well with such a complex addon plane i would say 90% of the enjoyment is in the planning stage get everything correct and it will fly the route as requested. just like the real plane, Get it wrong and its fire truck time
Where did you buy it?Hodge said:
I guess every mans tonic is his own. I prefer the hands-on approach myself.Hodge said:i would say 90% of the enjoyment is in the planning stage get everything correct and it will fly the route as requested. just like the real plane, Get it wrong and its fire truck time
spinneR~uk said:
http://www.flythemaddog.com/
Its for fs9 at the moment a patch for FSX will follow.
I have to admit looking at that panel you posted and reading the specs it seems fantastic but no VC, non?Hodge said:
There's so much quality out there in the sim market and I've already spent a fortune on environmental addons, but it's nearly time to splash out on some craft I think.
Please stop posting attractive screenshots of addons I don't have!
Associate
Trifid said:
And too fast!
Check this post out as it links to my specs and there's also a link to the settings I'm using. It does take a lot of time to tweak FSX specifically for your hardware but it's worth making the effort. As you can see my machine is nothing particularly special compared to some out there and it runs beautifully.Jay123 said:
Trifid said:
Nah he's spot on there. The only criticism would be his localizer is suggesting he needs to shift left a touch but I'm sure he's got it in hand. I wonder if that's on manual or auto on final approach in that pic!!!Lt. Manlove said:And too fast!
i am finding it hard to get flight sim X to work well with graphics set to high despite 1.5gB ram, 3.4cghz CPU and an x850xt agp) card
this may be due to the fact that i am running vista, which is RAM hungry.
when i ran flight sim 2004 on XP Pro some months ago it was fine with the same hardware, and graphics quality was high. i think this shows Vista is the culprit
this may be due to the fact that i am running vista, which is RAM hungry.
when i ran flight sim 2004 on XP Pro some months ago it was fine with the same hardware, and graphics quality was high. i think this shows Vista is the culprit
Vista isn't particularly RAM hungry when gaming. My understanding is that Vista dedicates its resources far better than XP could ever hope to. I'm running Vista Business and it's fine.
Looking at your specs there riamu I would say that you'll need Intel C2D with at least 2GB RAM and a faster GPU. FSX is very CPU intensive so will need the baddest processor you can lay your hands on.
In this instance though, trying turning autogen off, make sure scenery complexity is low and turn off traffic. You should see useful gains in performance.
Looking at your specs there riamu I would say that you'll need Intel C2D with at least 2GB RAM and a faster GPU. FSX is very CPU intensive so will need the baddest processor you can lay your hands on.
In this instance though, trying turning autogen off, make sure scenery complexity is low and turn off traffic. You should see useful gains in performance.
I would imagine with that spec you'll struggle to get any sort of activity other than basic scenery and flight dynamics. OC'ing the CPU will give you more but apparantly there's DX9 patch or service pack due this month that should yield more performance so I'd hold off to see what that can offer before starting on the hardware.TC1 said:
Im really trying to resist buying this.
Your screenshots spinneR are not helping. Although i have see the deluxe version for £34.99 on a well known auction site.
Well i will see how i get on with the X52Pro & IL2 1946. Then i may get this.
Keep the screenies coming spinneR.
Your screenshots spinneR are not helping. Although i have see the deluxe version for £34.99 on a well known auction site.
Well i will see how i get on with the X52Pro & IL2 1946. Then i may get this.
Keep the screenies coming spinneR.