FSX - Retail - Performance impressions

[Guest 777LR]

Don't feel bad cause my new e6600 and 7900GTX are having a hard time getting decent FPS so if you're looking for a quick upgrade for FPS then wait until next year because nothing on the market can tackle FSX.

[frankla 44]

how can you call a 3.6 ghz system with 7900 gt a mid range system? It is a high end!

[frankla 44]

whats the point of putting those featuers then?

[Guest av84fun]

<<...for cryin out loud, if you havent done so yet...go install the latest demo and see how it runs BEFORE buying it!>>Roger that. Amazing that hope springs eternal!

[frankla 44]

I thought our brains couldn't detect the difference once above 30 FPS! Thats what TV's run at. right?

[Guest davewins]

>Don't feel bad cause my new e6600 and 7900GTX are having a>hard time getting decent FPS so if you're looking for a quick>upgrade for FPS then wait until next year because nothing on>the market can tackle FSX. How much ram do you have??

[frankla 44]

According to ACES, there will be not much of an increase in performance in changing to DirectX 10!

[Guest av84fun]

<>I realize that few will agree but undaunted, I express the opinion that MS is approaching the market incorrectly by deliverying an ap that won't run to anywhere near its full capability on the vast majority of the installed base of pc hardware...and on the current mid-range won't run at all acceptably without significant dumbing down...at least according to many (but certainly not all) of the early posts here.Given that FS is on a roughly two year upgrade cycle I can't understand why...as was the case with FS9...that by the time the hardware cycle has caught up the with software's requirements, a new version is introduced that forces the vast majority of users to dumb down the software in order to run it successfully.And in a couple of years or so when there has been widespread hardware upgrading, FS XI will bring the majority of the then-installed base to its knees.If there was tremendous competition in the FS ap market, then staying a generation ahead of the competition would make some sense. But given that is not the case, IMHO the FS intro cycle should be gotten back in synch with the evolution of the hardware market.Again, JUST IMHO.Regards,Jim

[Guest 777LR]

>>Don't feel bad cause my new e6600 and 7900GTX are having a>>hard time getting decent FPS so if you're looking for a>quick>>upgrade for FPS then wait until next year because nothing on>>the market can tackle FSX. >>How much ram do you have?? I have 2gigs.

[Guest av84fun]

<>This has been hashed over so many times I am reluctant to mention it again but the science is that the human eye is incapable of detecting FPS much in excess of 25 and certainly not above 30.FPS rates and stutters are two entirely different factors with different causes and remedies.Regards,Jim

[Guest davewins]

I'm thinking along the lines of bubhai. It just might be wishful thinking but it does make sense. Windows Vista is out in only 3 months. I do believe that this game (made by microsoft!!) and other games are going to be the staple of windows vista gaming. The poster game for windows vista. It's really going to make ME upgrade to vista whether it helps the game or not. I am willing to take the chance and see. I don't think any of us have the knowledge to accurately say that it will or will not be better. I think it's obvious that it WILL be better but how much better?? That's the main question. Hopefully 6-8x like we have been hearing.

[Guest 777LR]

><settings is for high end computers of today, while settings of>"HIGH" and above have been implemented for systems within the>next 1 - 2years from now.>>>>I realize that few will agree but undaunted, I express the>opinion that MS is approaching the market incorrectly by>deliverying an ap that won't run to anywhere near its full>capability on the vast majority of the installed base of pc>hardware...and on the current mid-range won't run at all>acceptably without significant dumbing down...at least>according to many (but certainly not all) of the early posts>here.>>Given that FS is on a roughly two year upgrade cycle I can't>understand why...as was the case with FS9...that by the time>the hardware cycle has caught up the with software's>requirements, a new version is introduced that forces the vast>majority of users to dumb down the software in order to run it>successfully.>>And in a couple of years or so when there has been widespread>hardware upgrading, FS XI will bring the majority of the>then-installed base to its knees.>>If there was tremendous competition in the FS ap market, then>staying a generation ahead of the competition would make some>sense. But given that is not the case, IMHO the FS intro cycle>should be gotten back in synch with the evolution of the>hardware market.>>Again, JUST IMHO.>>Regards,>Jim>Exactly.The thing is so many people have said well all you have to do is go out and upgrade yourself to a core duo and a video card and you'll get the FPS. But I've purchased a new 'high end' computer and my FPS are still crappy so the reality is that no current hardware can handle FSX. Most of the people who have upgraded won't admit it because spending a few thousand dollars for a very small FPS increase is embarrassing but I'll rather not have other people go out waste money thinking they'll get a crazy increase in FPS.

[Jimmy Angel 19]

>This has been hashed over so many times I am reluctant to>mention it again but the science is that the human eye is>incapable of detecting FPS much in excess of 25 and certainly>not above 30.Yes, it's been hashed over many times, but unfortunately lots of people still persist in this idea of our ability to process images being limited to a certain number of FPS equivalent to what is used in movies and TV. Our eyes don't see in frames, and our brain doesn't process in frames. Movies at a relatively low frame rate look "smooth" because of the blurring. Do they feel smooth? I don't know. I've never flown a movie.Just google around. You'll see others debunking this common misconception.Stutters aside, there is a BIG difference in the sense of fluidity of MSFS (or any game) at 40fps and 20fps. I believe that you start to hit a diminishing return at around 60fps, but up to that point every improvement is welcome and perceivable.

[Guest jboweruk]

I'm just hanging out till it comes out here in UK. I've just built my new rig, and what a beauty, I don't have pro versions of later 3DMark stuff, only 2001, but it's nearly double the 14K I used to get with my old 3Ghz and Radeon 9700 now sitting @ 27K marks.I'll let you know what I get in the demo and FS9 after the w/end when I get those installed.

[MD83 1]

DX10 is the biggest myth connected to FSX .... some people are going to be very disappointed :-lol"No worries. It's just that the issue has caused so much confusion over the past few months I wince when I see DX10 used. Wink Truth is we designed FSX for DX9 'cause that's all we had to work with. When DX10 cards are ready only then will be *start* thinking about what to do with them."This is the last time I quote him ... I promise :-lol-------------------------------------------If it doesn't have a VC I won't be concerned :)