August 30, 200619 yr Well I got the Demo like everyone else and tried it on my computer AMD x2600 with 512mb RAM Geforce fx5200(128mb),I played with it for a while and realised I needed a bit more( Settings a bit too low in the scales )SO bought 2gb of
August 30, 200619 yr I will have to second your praise; not just for FSX itself but for the process they have gone ( and still going ) through to bring the community along with them during the latter stages of development.I'm not a kiss-#### but I think they will have a true winner once it goes retail.Granted, I DO plan on installing 3rd party addons but out of the box FSX is leaps and bounds ahead of its predecessor.
August 30, 200619 yr Interesting that you've dropped FS9 in favour of the FSX demo (ie. not final release), but I'm glad you're so pleased with what you see coming up.Also interesting that your RAM and GPU upgrade made such a difference to the FSX demo's performance. The same upgrade would have made barely any impact on FS9's complex scenario performance, so it is very pleasing to see that GPU's are finally being utilised in the FS series.In fact, I am tossing up two hardware upgrade possibilities for FSX. One is to keep my existing AMD rig and upgrade to a 7800 AGP card and the other is to go Core 2 Duo with all the trimmings. The former is obviously a lot cheaper (about 1/4 of the price) so if the final FSX release works very well for those with similar a AMD system to mine, except having a more powerful GPU, then I might go that way for this year, then upgrade to Core 2 Duo and a second gen DX10 around mid next year. Gary 9800X3D | 4090 | 64GB | 2+1TB NVME | 2TB SSD | 2TB HDD | 85/50/43” TVs | Quest 3 | DOF H3 Motion Rig | Buttkicker | T.16000M Flight Kit MSFS @ 4K Ultra DLSS Performance FG 80 FPS | VR VDXR Godlike 80Hz SSW | MSFS VR DLSS Quality, Ultra Preset - Windows 11 Acer Nitro 5 | i5-11400H | RTX 3060 6 GB | 32GB DDR4 | 15.6" FHD IPS 144Hz | 2 x 512 GB SSD | Windows 11
August 30, 200619 yr My Cpu use is 100% my RAM is used the most at 52% while running this simulatorI know I must appear Foolish to throw away fs9 The Demo is very absorbant and I can fly around a tropical paradise for a month I think Trying diferant things:-)my inexspensive upgrade was interesting (I think i am lucky) when I put in and try out Fs 9 It was now running at 79Fps - 46fps with all settings to maximum (before 21-25 if lucky)and It seemed so dull after the Demo I tasted wine and no longer wish for Water Sort of thing That I decided I would never be happy with Fs9 Again .A funny thing is My computer runs alot better after reading some things in ForumsI turn off the Pagefile thing and am Running on FAt32 And the Defrag thing x3And It is Running So well I do not think it could be any better ,Because if the settings are turned fuller then thing do not look as real,It is like too much information on the screen ? Like I prefer the first setting water to the glassy one, All that really matters with my old computer and New graphic Card my view from the aircraft looks very real and the Aircraft feels very real and that is all I need :-)I am glad to have found Some more people are as Happy about fsx like me ,And How Generous of them to allow us to sample before we buy it It has given me SO much to look forward to
August 30, 200619 yr I concur with the original poster. Thanks to the ACES team. I have not seen the whole completed version yet but, if this is just a taste of things to come, I will be very pleased and FSX will stay on my hard drive for many years.
August 30, 200619 yr Intresting that you run Fat 32. I wonder if there is any performance benefit with the XP native NTFS with FS9 and X or if the older FAT 32 runs better. I know NTFS is more efficient in utilizing hard drive space and data is more secure but performance wise I don't know. Never tried it as I would have to reformat and start over.Regards, Carlos
August 30, 200619 yr I did not intend to use FAT32 but When I last reinstall XP it was a "Time" Restore CD So I did not choose this SystemWhat I did notice Is My Computer is Working real well With FS,Smooth no blurrie texture and good FpsI am no expert but perhaps it may be if NTFS is better with HD Utilising then Fat32 with no pagefile use and Lot of Ram Maby a Faster System ?I would be interested if anyone else has this configure !It would be lots less expensive than the New computer :-)Also I must add My graphic is AGP not PCIAnyone really interested I could mail them settings or pictures :-)
August 30, 200619 yr Author >if this is just a taste of things to come, I will be very pleased >and FSX will stay on my hard drive for many years.Ot at least until 6 weeks after the release of FS11. :-) :-hah
Create an account or sign in to comment