Sign in to follow this  
Guest Buck Bolduc

watch this!.. What Microsoft Has To Say

Recommended Posts

in the film it's about 30 min and 50 sec in so just FFI don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Hello!- you buy meaningless, marketing terms like "next gen"- you buy meaningless, marketing hype called "Windows Vista will save the world and make FSX run 6 times faster"- what is the worst, you get over excited about that all.Just to calm you down, because all of the above is bad for your physical and mental health - I'll give you a riddle to solve.What GEN we are at now:a) current gen:( old genIf a) then when next gen will start, if :( then next gen already started, because we are at old gen, so what is the correct term for next gen, because it's current gen really - so when the next gen will start?P.S. My system runs FSX at average 155 fps, everything maxed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG i dont believe this... you just dont get it...FSX is made for the next generation of computers. simply put.. these next gen computers will be faster, better at multi-tasking, more ram, better graphics than a 4,000 dollar computer you can buy right now.nothing has changed in the last kagillion years about that concept.you buy a top-of-the-line computer now, guess what? It's nothing compared to whats coming out in 4 years from then.you might be thinking. "well why would microsoft put a game out that very few people can acctually use 100% right now?" once again... very simple. there LEADING THE FREAKING WAY!!!technology is pregressing rather you want it to or not. trust me.. in a few years(with new computers) we will look back and say "holy cow! FSX was nothing compared to the graphics on FSXI" and then the cycle starts all over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that the next gen of computers will be multi core and FSX can't hack that so just what other type of advanced PC specs was FSX designed for? Bruceb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>technology is pregressing rather you want it to or not. Are you related to the Bush?allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or they created a bloated overtaxed code not optimized to run on even duo-core systems and have the temerity to say its next gen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look, another person trying to trigger a negative response from everyone who is disappointed with FSX...not this time troll.}(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning computers, you got it right.Anything you buy today will be absolute in about six months to one year.But I think everybody is trying to say, why the heck release NOW something that is designed to work properly after one year or so?In my opinion, FSX should work perfectly using CURRENT technology.Would you buy a game for the non-existent XBox 550 (put what ever imaginery name you wish here) when you can't run it on the existing Xbox or XBox360?What if it runs perfectly after one year? In another year the next version will be out (assuming there will be one), and the circle will start over again.George DorkofikisAthens, Hellashttp://online.vatsimindicators.net/811520/1704.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A game doesn't have to be designed for advances in technology to get a benefit from it. DX10 cards will have a major benefit even with DX9 games, more RAM will be easily affordable and will also have a major benefit, and MS will release a patch next year anyway. It's already been confirmed.James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MS opened up the API a great deal, good for 3rd party guy's like PMDG and LDS, among others.I built a few computers a few monthes's ago that used dual core Athlon 4800's.After installing the OS I did an experiment. Installed FS9 and set the processor afiinity for FS9 to CPU-1, left the OS on CPU-0.Seemed to get really good improvement in FPS's.Has anyone tried this with FSX. Haven't had a chance to myself.The machines had 1 Gig of RAM.You need to download AMD's optimizer file from there website if u don't see two CPU windows in the process tab in task mgr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW my intention was not to further the anger of the already angry consumers (us), but to show you the other side...with that said. Im sorry if you found it angering. (not too sorry though)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I was as wealthy as you?I bought a game that is almost unplayable! I was told that FSX would require dual core and Vsta.I payed for a computer to run it in anticipation.Now after buying it I am presented with a game that dosen't even smell dual-core or want to use it!!This is ridiculous. try buying a new car that you can't pull up in, and don't forget to smile when the salesman tells you that "Oh, the brakes will be fitted next year sir, didn't you know"?"Oh and by the way sir, the brakes are going to cost you an arm and a leg".Get real, before you get any older please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what makes me laugh? To justify the argmument for using the latest, greatest hardware, our poster uses a keynote speech that featured a pre-alpha demo version of FSX from January of this year. Including rendered images that have been dong the rounds for the best part of a year and features missing from the RTM.Kinda pot calling the kettle black, donchathink?The fact is that there was a clear indication that performance increases in the basic game were being implemented between Beta 1 and RTM. That was an unambiguous statement from the ACES team, and it was made just prior to release by the team members themselves, not in a different epoch by a man who you could reasonably suggest, has more than a slight vested interest in talking UP the performance of his forthcoming products.By the way, your AMD 4000 and X600 is outmoded hardware. Show us a video of your performance over Seattle with scenery, textures - and most importantly autogen - at default levels. Lets see your fps.Because I am willing to bet that your performance is not as good as you say it is. And how to justify your statment in line with the statement from Phil Taylor of MS in this very forum that performance of FSX will be lower under Vista, all other things being equal? And no-one has so much as made any suggestions about DX10 and FSX, because the team have only just begin work on it. Again that statement can be found in these very forums.Either they are wrong, or you are. I wonder who doesn't know what they're talking about?Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally after having tried to obtain helpful evidence from those with good fps, i've now come to the conclusion they are either a bunch of nutters who have got nothing else to do or they really do live in fantasy world they truly believe is correct.If anyone would care to post a 3dm06 or 05 score alongside the 'acceptable framerate claim' and stick around for a bit of discussion, we might be able to make progress.But even the well meaning high fps people seem to disappear (evidence wise) once they say 'it runs ok' for me.I get great fps at 30000ft at night but i would like reasonable fps when i'm near the airport please and yes i've tried every combination of sliders going and it only gets near decent when i can see a flat featureless terrain.As for nextgen:They havent written the dx10 patch yet its all marketing hype it aint going to do anything much (i hope i'm wrong believe me)The Kentsfield is the nextgen cpu, see tomshardware.com, and its quad core which means it will make no difference to the performance of fsx at all.I think its sad because i cant see the performance of this fsx getting much better no matter what you buy and i think its doing a lot towards killing of proper flight simming as it will be reducing the mass appeal further.Flight simming needs MS and Aces (if they still exist) to do a better job and if we sit back and grovel to them we're not going to get anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure people mean well, but one man's miracle cure is anothers placebo. The plain and sorry story is that FSX has simply over-reached itself in the `performance-per-pound` stakes and if the intention was to drive everyone to Vista (which is definitely what MS had in mind - read details of which products MS regard as Showcase Products for the migration to Vista - FSX is right up there)http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2...E3LineupPR.mspxSo, we've got FSX running on the `wrong` OS, with the `wrong` hardware, and with no patch for the `new` features. Is it any wonder things aren't working right? But why is it OUR `fault` to fix it by spending hundreds or even thousands on hardware and new software? Should MS not follow the obligation to support the hardware which was available at the material time of release? It was their commercial decision to release FSX into a market that doesn't have DX10, or Vista, (or by definition next-generation hardware). They released it for an XP world, and it don't work right. So they should fix it. It's all very simple when you get down to it and cut through the c**p.If they had delayed the release by six months we would not be having these conversations. Their choice. Their obligation. Now theirs to fix.Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> >technology is pregressing rather you want it to or not. >>>Are you related to the Bush?>>allenHAHAHATHAT's a good one! :-lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great link and nice to hear one who isn't negative all the time.Great that you get the big picture. Finally one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sound like the White Star line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Star_Linethe Titanic was supposed to unsinkable, obviously somebody had not considered the fact that steel does not float in water. In fact the Titanic had inferior technology for the era, her watertight compartments did not raise sufficently high as per best practice and she was triple expansion powered rather than turbine and her steering arangements and stern area were not state of the art steamship technology but an adapted sailing ship design. Likewise there are plenty of people round here that have high spec machines and they are getting bad results with FSX so do not try to concoct an argument that FSX is state of the art technology it is not or it would produce much better results on today's high specification machines.AMD Athlon 64 4800 dualcore 939 Socket 1 Gigabyte RAM DDR1 6600GT Graphics CardWindows XP 64 Professional on 37 Gigabyte Raptor SATA drive FSX on 300 Gigabyte regular SATA driveThermaltake fan for CPUhttp://www.thermaltake.com/product/Cooler/...cl-p0114-01.asphttp://www.thermaltake.com/product/Cooler/cooler_index.aspBest and Warm RegardsAdrian Wainer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>What you been smoking dude?Are you sure? There's no weed that is that strong?LOL Adrian Wainer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>What you been smoking dude?>>Are you sure? There's no weed that is that strong?>>LOL Adrian Wainer >yea... you would know wouldn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>You know what makes me laugh? >>To justify the argmument for using the latest, greatest>hardware, our poster uses a keynote speech that featured a>pre-alpha demo version of FSX from January of this year.>Including rendered images that have been dong the rounds for>the best part of a year and features missing from the RTM.>>Kinda pot calling the kettle black, donchathink?>>The fact is that there was a clear indication that>performance increases in the basic game were being implemented>between Beta 1 and RTM. That was an unambiguous statement from>the ACES team, and it was made just prior to release by the>team members themselves, not in a different epoch by a man who>you could reasonably suggest, has more than a slight vested>interest in talking UP the performance of his forthcoming>products.>>By the way, your AMD 4000 and X600 is outmoded hardware. Show>us a video of your performance over Seattle with scenery,>textures - and most importantly autogen - at default levels.>Lets see your fps.>>Because I am willing to bet that your performance is not as>good as you say it is. And how to justify your statment in>line with the statement from Phil Taylor of MS in this very>forum that performance of FSX will be lower under Vista, all>other things being equal? And no-one has so much as made any>suggestions about DX10 and FSX, because the team have only>just begin work on it. Again that statement can be found in>these very forums.>>Either they are wrong, or you are. I wonder who doesn't know>what they're talking about?>>>>>>>AllcottWas this really a responce to my post number 13, Allcott?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off maybe your machine can run flightsim X ar a decent at best frame rate. For the most part I know I can't, and probably quite a few folks around here can't afford that pc of yours.So what are we supposed to do? Go and pay for a 3500$ PC, or wait another 2 years. Then at that time buy a 2000$ PC.You know the drill so I will stop. Thanks and I will boast in my sig about my crap pc.P4 3.2GHZ1 gig pc 4200 DDR RAM256 MB X700 Radeon PROWindows XP Home on a 34GIG SATA HDDFSX on 200 GIG SATA HDDCase open with a fan from walmart blowing inside for cooling.http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=4756123

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