Lol all good, I definitely would like to try XPlane 10 at some point. I'm keeping a close eye on it's development as I think it has heaps to offer, I'd just like to wait until there are a few more addons available and preferably when it's 64 bit capable as well so we can finally get past the memory limitations we are currently encountering. But yea I think it has heaps of promise =). Certainly a lot more than FSX does. I'm also keeping an eye on P3D and will be installing 1.4 in the not-to-distant future - hoping 64bit is on the cards with 2.0 as well. After all, why have all the fancy DX11 graphics capabilities if you are limited in how detailed you can make the scene in the first place?

 

Give it a go - you only need to download the demo and that's it. For me, at the moment it's not going to replace FSX but I believe the ads are true when they say 'your next simulator'. The important thing being that XP10 has the potential and the development to move forward, something that FSX doesn't have.

Give it a go - you only need to download the demo and that's it. For me, at the moment it's not going to replace FSX but I believe the ads are true when they say 'your next simulator'. The important thing being that XP10 has the potential and the development to move forward, something that FSX doesn't have.

 

Absolutely agree. Will definitely give the demo a shot. On another note it has the most amazing night lighting I've ever seen in a flight sim.

Yeah that's what impressed me - lighting, particularly at night, and the 'plausible' world modelling (again, particularly at night with things like the car headlights on the roads etc). Autogen that blends nicely into the distance is good as well. But don't expect too much because things like the virtual cockpits and that have a fair way to go. By the time we get to XP11 I think it will be something really special!

On another note it has the most amazing night lighting I've ever seen in a flight sim.

 

And on this point I definitely agree with you :rolleyes:

 

Now, going back to our earlier discussion - do you want to see real rubbish? THIS was my first flight sim

 

 

But as bad as it was (but it was still fun), us old barstewards used it as an opportunity to learn the basics of flight, to get from A to B. Not just to look at pretty pictures.

And on this point I definitely agree with you :rolleyes:

 

Now, going back to our earlier discussion - do you want to see real rubbish? THIS was my first flight sim

 

But as bad as it was (but it was still fun), us old barstewards used it as an opportunity to learn the basics of flight, to get from A to B. Not just to look at pretty pictures.

 

It's definitely come a long way since those times but the flaws I mentioned earlier mean that, to my mind, it has failed to fully capitalize on this gain. Maybe I'm just too much a part of the Y-Generation? Frankly I think everyone here can appreciate that the only reason FSX is still in any form of use is because MS managed to get one thing right. That being to make their product fairly extensible (yet still nowhere near enough), hence the wonderful addons we all enjoy. But for all this awesomeness it's still the same old flawed platform that struggles with deathly gasps to run consistently acceptably (despite all the money I've invested in hardware), struggles to complete it's basic low-level rendering functions properly and in a satisfactory manner (CLOUD DRAW ORDER AND BLURRIES GRRRR :mad:) and, when all is said and done, completely fails to make me happy. In fact I've not had one flight with it since I started back again in FS last year where I have left off feeling fully satisfied. Well, maybe a couple. But only because I've been feeling jolly enough to overlook all the other shortcomings.

 

Anyhow I've said my piece on this topic so I'll leave it at this. And I agree being able to learn about flight is important and FSX does some things well (albeit very few) there at least but it is still only a part of the whole package and if the other parts are incomplete and/or hacked together then the experience is lessened to my mind.

 

Have a great night!

Edited October 18, 201213 yr by kannwar
Removed reposted video link.

Old barstools? I represent that remark... Heck the first flight sim I learned, the only way to tell you'd pulled out of a dive (combat sim) was listen. The picture couldn't keep up! Green for ground. Blue for sky. That was it for the view out the window.

I think my first flight sim was F18 Interceptor on the Amiga 500!

I think my first flight sim was F18 Interceptor on the Amiga 500!

 

I remember playing F-19 Stealth Fighter on my Amiga 500!!! What memories... I purchased it in an Electronic Boutique store in NYC some time around 1990 I think, while on my way to work. I was 17-18 at the time and I spent the entire afternoon reading the manual while at work, just dying to get home and give it a try. Speaking of manuals, those were the good old days when full, paper manuals were included with the software. Great times indeed.

Might have had that as well? Think we got our Amiga in about 89 when I was all of 11. That started my love of computing and it's been downhill ever since :lol:

F-19 was the real deal on the C64. Wire frame Swiss Alps, coast lines that looked (roughly) like the part of the world you were in. What was truly awesome was when you clicked back once on the digital joystick and the micro switch clicked, you went from precisely 0deg nose up to 7deg nose up. Then just throttle all the way to the runway. Amazingly fine control. And people wonder how we live with all the things that are wrong with the sims of today (or six years ago, as the case may be...).

I'm going to have a rant now... It stuns me how often FPS is mentioned.

 

FSX sure is unique, as it must have quite a few people who must sit and watch how many FPS FSX is generating rather than actually looking out the virtual cockpit window and enjoying flying!

 

I feel this must be true as some can even quote how many FPS are generated at any given time

 

If you're referring to me, I have named the FPS in my system's worst-case-scenario. The reason I can do that is because I was testing specifically for that. It's a scientific approach to determining whether or not FSX is configured properly. Is there something wrong with that?

 

As for the assertion that a 660Ti isn't up to snuff because it lacks in certain performance categories compared to a previous generation part, the proof is in the pudding. People can speculate all they like but the numbers don't lie.

 

As far as the 680 being the equivalent of an upper-mid-range part I actually agree with this. While the performance shows it's a high-end part, it actually is using a GPU designed for the middle to upper-middle segments of the market. I really like my 680 but it's basically the 560Ti of this generation, at twice the price.

People can speculate all they like but the numbers don't lie.

 

+1

 

Thank you Max! That is exactly what I stated in my earlier post! There have been plenty of test to show that the 660Ti and the rest of the Kepler cards DO in fact outperform the 580. Benchmarks speak!

Quantum computers, that are a million trillion trillion trillion times faster than todays fastest computers, should be able to run FSX at a decent rate. Dont 'ya' think ?

I hope to live to see that day.

 

 

jime

 

Microsoft are working on Windows 18 Quantum and it will run an infinite number of FSX's ahead of time so you will get > 200fps all the time with no pauses or stutters...

If you're referring to me, I have named the FPS in my system's worst-case-scenario. The reason I can do that is because I was testing specifically for that. It's a scientific approach to determining whether or not FSX is configured properly. Is there something wrong with that?

 

As for the assertion that a 660Ti isn't up to snuff because it lacks in certain performance categories compared to a previous generation part, the proof is in the pudding. People can speculate all they like but the numbers don't lie.

 

As far as the 680 being the equivalent of an upper-mid-range part I actually agree with this. While the performance shows it's a high-end part, it actually is using a GPU designed for the middle to upper-middle segments of the market. I really like my 680 but it's basically the 560Ti of this generation, at twice the price.

 

 

Noooo... I apologise if my comments caused anyone and you in particular any offence, I was just generally ranting. I have not even looked at what you refer to and dont even know where to look! It was just a general synopsis of trawling through many posts.

 

My issue would never be with a scientific approach and this is totally the correct thing to do. If a single user tests to get a base measurement to compare changes thats perfectly the right thing to do.

 

If I for example had the exact same system and although ive not looked at what you refer to, I would expet to find some guide as to what and how you tested and im sure thats probably their. This way I could compare like with like or at least get close.

 

My issue was/is with how many times FPS is being refered to with totally no way of knowing how it was tested. In post #28 some details of how to measure them were posted. However the instructions refer to a vanilla installation. Im not certain many have one of those now, which still leaves be in a quandry as to HOW FPS is measured and how to compare apples with apples. Do we wipe FSX and start over? This is what some may have done I dont know.

 

If you take OC as an example screen shots are posted to prove the results with details of the MB/Proc and memory etc. When FPS are quoted my view is that their should be some standard that is reffered too, eg system specs and if its a vanilla installation. its that simple.

 

 

Noooo... I apologise if my comments caused anyone and you in particular any offence, I was just generally ranting. I have not even looked at what you refer to and dont even know where to look! It was just a general synopsis of trawling through many posts.

 

My issue would never be with a scientific approach and this is totally the correct thing to do. If a single user tests to get a base measurement to compare changes thats perfectly the right thing to do.

 

If I for example had the exact same system and although ive not looked at what you refer to, I would expet to find some guide as to what and how you tested and im sure thats probably their. This way I could compare like with like or at least get close.

 

My issue was/is with how many times FPS is being refered to with totally no way of knowing how it was tested. In post #28 some details of how to measure them were posted. However the instructions refer to a vanilla installation. Im not certain many have one of those now, which still leaves be in a quandry as to HOW FPS is measured and how to compare apples with apples. Do we wipe FSX and start over? This is what some may have done I dont know.

 

If you take OC as an example screen shots are posted to prove the results with details of the MB/Proc and memory etc. When FPS are quoted my view is that their should be some standard that is reffered too, eg system specs and if its a vanilla installation. its that simple.

 

Ok, I see what you mean, sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

This community has produced several standardized tests to compare FSX across various hardware configurations. In order to do so, the FSX settings and software itself must be the same. If you wish to run a baseline benchmark and then change settings or install add-ons to compare with your own stock results, that is a good way to determine the impact of the setting(s) and add-on(s) in question. The FSXMark 11 benchmark is a great place to start.