Had to see it for myself! FSX -- WOW!

[Reset XPDR 1,372]

Alrighty then. Going out to dinner now. Will post screenies off my notebook (see sig) of similar view perspectives as soon as I can.Gary

[CanadaOne 36]

I think everyone knew this was going to be a sim to grow with. We start with limited capabilities, and they increase over time with tips, tweaks, patches, and new available harware. That we don't get 30+ over LAX at full settings might be a bummer, but it really shouldn't be a surprise.Even with my mid range AMD64-3000/1024/AGP7800GS, I'm finding enough to enjoy in this sim to keep me busy while the improvements, both from the inside and the outside, come along. besides, if we did get 30+ over heavy scenery with heavy settings, where would the room to grow be? This is a sim, like many others, that's playable today, but built for tomorrow. I've been flying the IL2 series for years, but only recently with my new video card could I get the highest graphics settings, and even those tax my system. is this good? Yes and no, but it does mean that as time goes by, the sim shouldn't bore me as more and better things in-game will be available.When Falcon 4 was released years ago, the designer said flat out that it was built to play on syetems that nobody had yet. He said it required an 800Mhz machine. Few people had anything over 400Mhz. So this is nothing new, it's the nature of the flightsim beast. personally, I'm looking forward to the sims inner qualities being more and more attainable as time goes by. This isn't a FEAR or Call of Duty game we run through twice and then shelve; this a flightsim we'll fly countless hundreds of times, constantly exploring and improving, and always enjoying. I'm no blind a really excited user, just an experienced flightsimmer who's seen and heard all this before and knows that good flying and good fun are where you find it. I've had FSX for two days and I'm smiling and I'm having fun. And I expect to be having fun with it for years.

[btacon 1,850]

bt

[Guest Jimbofly]

I've found that the only real way to enjoy the sim is to turn autogen off. It gives a huge leap in performance and the sim still looks pretty good, mostly due to the textures that were done extremely well and the sky/atmospheric visuals that are truly awe-inspiring.Not ideal, but I'm having it that way until next year when I upgrade to DX10.btw I've studied up on DX10 and I've arrived at the conclusion that the cards will in fact improve the performance quite dramatically for FS9. I know that FS9 will still be DX9 but the reason for my prediction is to do with textures. A lot of resource hoggin in FSX is to do with textures, that's why people with X1900XT cards are getting much better performance than people with X800XT (or less) cards.James

[Guest Jimbofly]

Stop trolling.Your opinion doesn't mean much to me because I entirely disagree. Have a nice day.James

[B777ER 2,497]

Yes, thats what we want, fly to all the podunk places in the world and never fly to any of the cities cause frame rates will kill you. Ahem, glad I still have FS9.

[Guest jwflowers]

>DX10 is irrelevant to FSX performance. Even if DX10 hardware>& a final version of Vista were available, FSX would still>deliver a slideshow. What???? You have done no research on this subject have you. Direct X 10 will be irrelevent to FSX, you have got to be joking right? You mean reduced overhead when creating and displaying objects will not impact the game performance. Right now, all objects create overhead when passing between the Application and the API, once again during the move from the API to the graphics driver. All this overhead takes up processor speed which FSX loves. Once this overhead is reduced about 20% more execution time will be available to the game. Right now about 40% of execution time is given to the API and driver. I still haven't even touched Unified Shaders!!! If you want more information check out this website.http://www.elite######s.com/cms/index.php...id=69&Itemid=29 >The framerate issues are because of>inefficient code & an obsolete graphics engine. FSX's visuals,>even at their best, look very amateur compared to what is>coming out of professional games studios. Framerates are high>in other products that look 10years ahead of FSX.Again, you really need to do more research in regards to these areas. Most "other games" with "better" graphics do not render the world and scenery to the scale the FSX renders. Only a few games come to mind that allow the view distance to be so great. WWII Online and Operation Flashpoint. Oh, but many people think their graphics are crappy too compared to Battlefield 2's 1 city block of space. >>FSX is little more than a displaced, blurred version of Google>earth with a few boxes scattered on the surface. A horrible>data driven cluster of bloated over budget data. No evidence>of any art direction whatsoever. Won't even touch this!!!>The Autogen patch is appreciated but I would expect Microsoft>to have been capable of optimizing there own product.>Once again, ACES got screwed by the delay of Vista and Direct X 10. You have to remember that they have always push the envelope of hardware. I think you will eventually see the light.Anyways, peace out!John

[Guest flight]

Just wondering. It seems from the dusk pic that the traffic on the highways does not have lights. Can you post a night pic that shows the highway traffic with their lights on?

[Guest Thad]

No, obviously you

[Geofa 108]

Once more--some of the airports in fsx are high detailed payware quality and they cause an understandable drop...If you wish-you could disable them-import your fs9 scenery bgl-and have all the new (lots) of new features of fsx while getting your fs9 performance... eg. airport traffic, 10x the autogen etc. with probably better performance than you get in fs9.As an alternate-you can turn autogen off when flying from one of these airports and enjoy the huge improved detail-then turn it back on.Is that understandable? Not about flying in "podunk" airports only.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest]

How do you guys take the screenshots?

[Mike T 211]

>No not until you take that shot at KSEA, with autogen and>aircraft.None of those pics are at KSEA, they are in downtown Seattle and I don't see any aircraft in any of those pics. Don't get me wrong the pics are nice, but that's not my issue. My issue is at KSEA (the airport) with aircraft, ground traffic and autogen and clouds and in none of your pics do you include any of the above.After takeoff I am fine, but unfortunately we eventually have to land at an airport LOL.

[Mike T 211]

Hey CBR:Thats EXACTLY what I said! AMD marketing specs say that the dualcore will perform equivalent to a 4.8Ghz...I understand that (2x 2400 = 4800+ right?) so if that is the case and I overclock both cores to 3.2Ghz then it implies that it will perform at AMD's idea of 6Ghz right because AMD adds both cores together and sells it at whatever the cores add up to...Nice bike...

[Mike T 211]

Thaddeus:AMD 4400+ = 2200 x 2 = 4400mhz eqAMD 4800+ = 2400 x 2 = 4800mhz eqAMD 5000+ = 2500 x 2 = 5000mhz eqOVERCLOCKED 3200 x 2 = 6400mhz eq (If AMD were to make a dual core with each respective core speed they would name it a 6400+ (6Ghz) Thaddeus. Obviously, AMD is not selling 2500Mhz chips because that would be, silly, right? Thaddeus?Second...Vista comes with DIRECT X 10. Its doesn't come with Direct X 9. even though the X1900XT is not a Direct X 10 card, ergo, cannot take advantage of any DX10 features... the OS is running Direct X 10 which is backward compatible with DX9 cards Thaddeus. You would think it would be or else millions of people would have to upgrade to a new video card upon Vista release right, Thaddeus? If I wrote Direct X 9 in my specs then I would be incorrect now wouldn't I? I just assumed that most sensible people would have figured that out...I guess I should not have assumed...my fault.Why not read a few of my reviews and let me know if they meet with your approval. If they don't please don't hesitate to email me privately so that I may learn to be more fair...like you.

[Reset XPDR 1,372]

OK, the first is a repeat of FSX poopy, in all its 15 FPS glory:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158292.jpgThe second is from FS9, showing much more autogen and detail, not to mention 55 FPS!:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158293.jpgSeriously, which one do you think looks better and performs like a champ?Gary