Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
LAdamson

FSX DOES NOT PEFORM POORLY.

Recommended Posts

>dont get me wrong, i congratulate MS for getting cars etc in>the sim, it adds to life, that my personal opinion and sure>there may have been better way to improve frame rates, ie like>how some other person did with the trees, i mean why didn't ms>think of this, they know that fluidity and frame rate>friendliness is most important for us hardcore simmers who are>gonna use PMDG / PSS products in their FS Sim.>>Anyways what i dont like is people coming on here saying they>can do this and can do that in FS and then tell us half the>features are off,>>its like me buying a brand new BMW and telling you that what a>great car i got its so awesome, but the car doesnt have>headlights, or doesnt have wipers and therefore cant be driven>in the rain on in the dark.>>crazy!>>p.s this whole thing is a mess.I agree. The cars, animals, and other stuff is very neat, but what good is it if you can't really enjoy it? The cars and animals are strange anyhow because you're supposed to be flying, but that's another subject.ACES is great at creating a real eye-candy experience, but at what cost? And why can't ACES streamline their code? The whole part about tweaking all the files is getting old. Remove this BGL, remove this line from the CFG files, edit the XML, and on and on. It's like a beta program that is sold to us to fix at our expense.


- Chris Jefferies

 

Asus Maximus VII Hero motherboard | Intel i7 4790k CPU | MSI GTX 970 4 GB video card | Corsair DDR3 2133 32GB SDRAM | Corsair H50 water cooler | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB SSD (2) | EVGA 1000 watt PSU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jimbofly

The eye candy I have on still looks better than FS9. The only thing that's different is that autogen is off.One thing I definitely noticed is that after playing FSX for about half an hour then playing FS9 I noticed a definity feeling that the graphics were "dumbed down" in FS9, even though FS9 had autogen and everything up almost 100%.James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jimbofly

That's exactly right. And how many payware airports employ reflective windows and bump-mapping?James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Langeveldt

I'm very happy with my FSX beta performance on a dated rig, providing Autogen is turned off.. It also looks darned good with the high res terrain textures.. Performance with dense clouds have been improved beyond mention, but not many people seem to be mentioning this benifit? I'd personally take the good cloud performance over the autogen.. My main gripe with Autogen being that even with sparse settings, it still appears really dense! I only want a few houses and trees, not a thick jungle!I look forward to two years time "Yeah but in FSX I could turn on terrain textures, now I'm just looking at a blocky mess! I can't believe you guys who arent sticking with FSX! Fools!"PPL - Algoa Flying Club (Port Elizabeth, South Africa)FS5, FS98, FS2000, FS2002, FS2004, FSX user :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,The original poster said he based his entire claim on the demo 2. In other words, this is a useless uninformed post. We all know that demo 2 is all water, lets see this user make the same claim when he is flying around Seattle with a bunch of land and mesh. We are all sitting here debating someone who hasn't even used the final version yet. How in the world someone could come on to the forums and make such a definitive claim without even seeing the Final Version is a bit beyond me but hey what do I know...Maybe we could have started this post by stating that he does not even have the RC so he is basically guessing... Man you would think when someone posts in all caps that they really KNOW what they are talking about!And I quote"I don't have the release version, just the Demo 2. I was under the impression that it was a good indication of the performance I'd be getting from the release version.When I get it I'll let you know how I go."-Paulhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158175.jpg


Have a Wonderful Day

-Paul Solk

Boeing777_Banner_BetaTeam.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Guys,>The original poster said he based his entire claim on the demo>And I quote>"I don't have the release version, just the Demo 2. I was>under the impression that it was a good indication of the>performance I'd be getting from the release version.>>When I get it I'll let you know how I go.">Okay, the last beta. With my old rig (Athlon 1900XP), which is almost five years old by now, I couldn't even finish loading the program, which I kind of expected.Last Friday, I picked up a new CPU, and then wondered if I should have spent more for dual core, etc. In the last few days, I've spent some time around Seattle, and quite a bit out of KSFO. Always liked climbing out of KSF0 in FS9 with an F-16 for the scenery.I'm keeping mesh and terrain settings on the higher ends. Water is off. I preferred water off in FS9. I've gone back and forth between auto-gen off & at sparse. It doesn't make a lot of fps difference on my system. However, auto-gen off looks great in some of the city areas. For mountains only, I can turn auto-gen up & still get very reasonable fps. Flight around mountainous areas is actually my preference, and this sim looks great for that! Traffic is still at default, and was surprised to see lots of traffic including semi's & busses while on a taxiway at SFO.Frame rate limiter is set at 28. Takeoffs out of both KSEA & KSFO are smooth with both the default 737 & Lear. Most of the time they range from 20, to the max of 28. Lowest has been 11.As much as I liked the looks of the KSFO climbeout in FS9, FSX just looks much better with it's high detail textures, and included mesh that's as good or better than FS9 with mesh addon's. FSX also appears to run smoother with much less stutters in high density areas.After reading a few reviews Friday evening, I had wondered if I should have spent hundreds more, for even better CPU upgrades. But after spending a couple of days with FSX, I'm quite surprised! At altitudes above the Seattle & San Francisco areas where I can see a lot of land mass detail below, the frame rates stay close to my limiter at 28, and ther sensation of flight is very smooth. All of the land mass looks better than it ever did in FS9, and makes FSX worth it for that very reason. FS2002 had the stutters, FS9 had less, and FSX appears to have even improved on that.FWIW, some are doing better with the fps at un-limited. My setup runs much smoother with the fps limiter set, as it started to stutter with un-limited and my graphic settings. I'll try for 35 fps when I get around to it.Athlon 3800, Geforce 7600GS 256MB, 1 gig ram, 1600*1200 res, 250gigHD. Saitek X-52 stick, Saitek rudder pedalsL.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I was driving at with my post is that there are some significant diffferences between the last beta build and the demo and release builds. I think from what I can tell, the final gold build has something much different with the way autogen is working. We did not have the autogen hit in beta three that folks are seeing now.Hornit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    33%
    $8,485.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...