FSX - Retail - Performance impressions

[Randall 82]

I'm really not convinced people are having that much of a problem running FSX, especially since the retail version has not been officially released for sale. But we'll see . . . To each his own. Randall

[irocx 293]

>I'm really not convinced people are having that much of a>problem running FSX, especially since the retail version has>not been officially released for sale. But we'll see . . . >To each his own. >>RandallIf the retail is anything like the demo, be prepared to be flooded with complaints. JMHO

[Guest davewins]

>I'm really not convinced people are having that much of a>problem running FSX, especially since the retail version has>not been officially released for sale. But we'll see . . . >To each his own. >>RandallWell I can't wait until more people pick it up to see. I would say the average person doesn't even have my setup and I could upgrade. My graphics card is a geforce 7600gs 256mb ddr2 memory which is by no means an excellent card. I would rank it 7/10. I know I could get something much better but how do I know how well it will perform with fsx?? I don't want to buy something for $400-500 without "test driving" it. I truly wish I could. That could be it right there. If I had 2gb ram opposed to 1gb and a top of the line card then this game can play great but how do I know. The main thing is why can't this game play with full settings on any machine. Haven't we heard that. The fact that no current high end machine can play fsx with full settings. Maybe this is where the whole "designed for windows vista" was meant...not a sales pitch. They say that vista and dx10 is going to be a HUGE upgrade for gamers. I can't recall 5 or so years back when xp came out but were they saying these things about xp and gaming?? I highly doubt it but could be wrong...

[Guest av84fun]

<>Right...and there are LOTS of posts from people who have the retail version and most of them cite numerous issues including some bugs and the need to dumb down the settings to get acceptable performance.Regards,Jim

[skully 1,045]

>Here is how I do it....now that the new high res photo>textures look great from even low altitude the autogen imho>starts to look gamelike..>>http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=244035&page=>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgI agree, the new ground textures are so good I really didn't miss the autogen when I turned it off. The autogen is a killer on my system, turning it off, frames went from 12 fps to 20 to 28.Running medium settings in the sim with no autogen and no bloom.Things will get even better as I have only started to tweak it.Albuquerque is stunning at night and enjoyed a beautiful moonrise over the Sandia mountains. The traffic on the roads really adds to the vfr flying. The various aircrafts cockpit night lighting is stunning. Calling it a night bit I'd like to thank the dev team on a superb new sim even from the short amount of time I've had to check it out.The future looks bright for sure, now when's that RealAir Duke coming out?!! :)Homebuilt system3.2 gig P4 PrescottASRock P4V88 moboSATA HD1 gig Corsair Pro Series ramRadeon X800 Pro 256 mbAudigy gamer value sound card

[JonRD463 146]

It's all about available overhead. If you're running at 60 fps with "vanilla" FS* at graphical settings you're pleased with, then you have about 30 imperceptible frames to whittle away with addons before you see a performance hit. That's where the value lies. So, if you can only get 15 fps with no addons, you're screwed if you want to add traffic, high end aircraft, etc.

[Guest Rayed]

>>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.Read about motion blur etc..I personally can't understand why one would want to play a computer game with framerate less than 20-30 FPS, not to mention some people saying that they find "10 fps in big cities" acceptable. Give me a break. Not only your gameplay experience is crap (you just got used to it and don't know anything better), but you slowly damage your eyes, get tired really fast, getting dizzines etc..Personally I don't play any computer games which run less than 30 fps, preferably 40-50 fps on average (I don't need any frame counter on screen to see the difference contrary to "science") FSX on amdx2 4600, 2gig memory and NVidia Quadro FX3500 at 1280x1024 runs 30 fps on medium settings which look better than FS9. I am not going to install any addons (why bother with slideshow) until the power of my hardware goes up around 50% (probably in a year or so). Good thing about FSX is that it's good and enjoyable w/o any addons.I've seen people complaining about low frame rates and running the sim at 1600x1200 on geforces 6800.. (probably with 4xAA and what not) please give me a break again. This card is capable of 1024x768 max (assuming you are not pleased with 10fps in big cities). I don't even try to run FSX on my Quadro at anything higher than 1280 and this is workstation class graphic card (no I did not buy it for FSX ;) )I'd like to thank FS team for giving us great game which performs considerably better than FS9 and looks gorgeous (XBox360 version would be cool though ;) )

[dlhusk 0]

I have had FSX for about 3 days and I have found it to be absolutely amazing! I have not been able to run on UltraHigh settings with my machine, but at medium High settings it is smooth with about 20 FPS. I can run at High but have to turn some other options on it.Bottom line is it will run in my opionion on the Specs that MS gives 1 ghz processor, windows xp sp2, and 15 gb HD. Only thing is you will not be able to run on the high settings. I am very Happy with my $75.00 purchase. Still have FS9 and will probably keep it for old times sake...Danny

[Manny 1,293]

The main thing is why>can't this game play with full settings on any machine. >Haven't we heard that. The fact that no current high end>machine can play fsx with full settings. Maybe this is where>the whole "designed for windows vista" was meant...Well, I run FSX retail on Core 2 Duo 2.4 OCed to 3.3Ghz and 2 Gig Ram and 7600GT 256MB.With the sliders almost 85-90% to the right. I get 20FPS and pretty smooth ride. At that same settings it drops to 7FPS when I go to KJFK.IF you are pretty recent to flight sim or just happy with the default Flight sim, get a new machine with the recent processor that is out there, you would be a happy camper. Flying FSX with all its goodies on a new Core 2 Duo processor is a non issue. Its just fine and it beats FS9 default twice over. FSX is really very nice if you can have the sliders to the right.But if you are like some of us who tend to look at FSX/FS9 just as a starting platform to pile on various addons, I suspect we have a problem. Now, or in the near future. JMO. But then, I have not heard any addon vendors complaining either.. Maybe they are too scared to complain about FSim to the ACES team. :( . Or they may know something I don't and there really is no issue. Or They are working on addons that would not takeaway any Proccessing cycle or they think we will move the sliders to the left and then buy their addons. Or they think we'll accept a 5FPS performance or they know/believe there is a 6Ghz processor in 6 mths time. Who knows the secrets of the human heart. :(As far as Vista/DX10 fixing this basic processing cycle weak link, I doubt it.Manny

[Guest davewins]

>I have had FSX for about 3 days and I have found it to be>absolutely amazing! I have not been able to run on UltraHigh>settings with my machine, but at medium High settings it is>smooth with about 20 FPS. I can run at High but have to turn>some other options on it.>>Bottom line is it will run in my opionion on the Specs that MS>gives 1 ghz processor, windows xp sp2, and 15 gb HD. Only>thing is you will not be able to run on the high settings. I>am very Happy with my $75.00 purchase. Still have FS9 and will>probably keep it for old times sake...>>Dannyspecs??>

[Randall 82]

"the need to dumb down the settings to get acceptable performance."Which is what we have ALWAYS had to do with a new release of FS. These are the same complaints we heard when FS9 was released (and virtually all other releases).Turn off autogen. Turn off bloom. Scale back the sim or scale up the computer. Alas, those are the choices if you want to fly the newest release of FS. Randall

[Guest Nemeda]

What would a Nvidia GeForce 6200 LE be like with FS X? Its just, thats what graphics card I have and I don't know what the Reatil version will be like. I've run the demo, and it runs at a steady 18 FPS with settings around about 2/3.

[Guest Nemeda]

What would a Nvidia GeForce 6200 LE be like with FS X? Its just, thats what graphics card I have and I don't know what the Retail version will be like. I've run the demo, and it runs at a steady 18 FPS with settings around about 2/3.

[Manny 1,293]

>.>>Turn off autogen. Turn off bloom. Scale back the sim or scale>up the computer. Alas, those are the choices if you want to>fly the newest release of FS. >>RandallComparing that to flying FS9 with all the addons.... FS9 is better. FSX is good only with good machines. Dumbing it down, whats the point?Manny

[frankla 44]

Turn off Autogen? You kidding. right? Autogen has been around since 2002 and is what gives FS the 3D environment when flying low! Only turbine flying fans will not appreciate it!