Impressed with FSX progression

[B747400F 0]

<br />It seems you are more concerned in wanting to create - and then win - an argument that no-one else but you started, rather than explore a constructive way to enjoy the FSX hobby to it's fullest, as the rest of us obviously are.<br /><br />So... take up golf: take up full size flying: take up scuba diving: take up skydiving; take up sports car racing.<br /><br />Every hobby comes with a price. You pay the piper and get on with it. I'm going flying. This is a waste of breath.<br />

<br /><br /><br />Huh? I just said I'm impressed with it too, but it sucks that it's so expensive just to get FSX to run right, you failed to prove me wrong, and now have decided to create a new reality on what we were talking about in the first place. Just admit you were wrong, and a computer built to run FSX right will cost around 2k.

[virtualstuff 758]

<br /><br /><br />Huh? I just said I'm impressed with it too, but it sucks that it's so expensive just to get FSX to run right, you failed to prove me wrong, and now have decided to create a new reality on what we were talking about in the first place. Just admit you were wrong, and a computer built to run FSX right will cost around 2k.

Lucky not for me it's more around 500 euros lol (have a strange habit of build my PC stuff self:-)), but as with a few decades of Flightsim around it's with every version the same old story (not only FSX) ;-)But we aren't here for the sake of the argument, but just helping each other to get the most out of our beloved hobby and sharing our personal experiences.Which in your case can be 2K but remember that doesn't hold for every one ;-)@ topic yep it's still great fun to fly and also to develop for aviation and FSX will maybe have some new surprise in store :-)Cheers,

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

....and FSX will maybe have some new surprise in store :-)

Yes, the 757 :(

[ryanbatc 12,835]

<br /><br /><br />Huh? I just said I'm impressed with it too, but it sucks that it's so expensive just to get FSX to run right, you failed to prove me wrong, and now have decided to create a new reality on what we were talking about in the first place. Just admit you were wrong, and a computer built to run FSX right will cost around 2k.

Ok, the way you initially wrote it was one needs to spend 2000 bucks to get FSX working well. How I read it was "I'm a happy {insert your favorite sim here} user complaining in the FSX forum." Let's just say for a moment you already have a older PC. Check out my specs... something like that. And you play XP, FS9, whatever. You already have the yoke, pedals, mouse, case, keyboard, monitor. It's not fair to factor that all in. Or perhaps I'm all wrong. You're a brand new user (or about to be with NO PC),you saw this post, however you were upset, so you made an account to post your thoughts.Yes, if you start from complete scratch, and build a capable FSX rig (without rudder or all the addons - you'll need a joystick at the very least so we'll include that) it will probably run you around $1500 for a quality value system. I admit, yeah that's a lot for someone who doesn't own a PC at all, or a younger person without a real (established) full time job. Still $2000 is a bit high based on some systems I just spec'd out yesterday. (I'm in the market for an upgrade and will be doing nearly a full-on upgrade) Stock FSX SP2 looks pretty dang good, a lot of default planes are actually quite nice. I enjoy flying the default C172. But you're right, you WILL spend more money on addons. But it's not fair to factor that in to your initial setup cost. Addons are something you acquire over time, much like the hardware in your rig. A lot of guys in these forums build their own rigs and already have some parts, so it's not abnormal for someone to quote 800 or 1000 bucks for a new FSX rig, cause they instinctively know they already have the case, psu, monitor, mouse, kb etc.FACT: FSX eats CPU cycles for breakfast. Deal with it, save up your money, buy a quality system, and enjoy the heck out of it - then be happy because you know you'll now destroy any other game that you run on your PC :(

[spilok 1,133]

Great hearing from all of you. FSX can run on a system far less than the one I have. If you're still into FS2004, I believe you're missing so very much with the stuff that we have today. What an incredible experience with the scenery and exceptional planes we have now. Let's hope that FLIGHT from Micorsoft adds to the immersive experience we are getting with FSX.Stan

[tf51d 284]

<br /><br /><br />Huh? I just said I'm impressed with it too, but it sucks that it's so expensive just to get FSX to run right, you failed to prove me wrong, and now have decided to create a new reality on what we were talking about in the first place. Just admit you were wrong, and a computer built to run FSX right will cost around 2k.

Just to add my 2 cents, I started using FSX back when it first was released, with a E6700 C2D @2.67Mhz, 2GB mem, and a GeForce 8800GT (Top of the line at the time, now it would be considered minimal for FSX). I set my scenery to extremely dense, and Autogen to Dense. Airline traffic is 100% WOAI, and I got pretty good performance. You can see it in my early videos (The ones with a 4:3 aspect ratio). I had to replace the system mid 2007, because it got fried by a direct lightning strike to the house (It fried most of my electronics). This system, which is still my current system was only a modest upgrade to an E6850 3Ghz (No overclock possible (DELL)) 4Gb mem and a 9800GTX card. What would now be considered a mid range system. With the same settings with 100% WOAI to begin with and now 100% UT2 traffic, I'm getting even better performance. Not like a I7 @4.0 but still pretty good. Here's a sample with a Captain Sim 757 (Remember I lose a couple of FPS from the video recording software, so my normal performance is even a little better.)