Proof that FSX can perform with correct hardware.

[Guest byoung]

A Developmental Tragedy:This thread (among many many many many other threads) is why FSX should have been developed for the XBOX 360. Then we would ALL be FLYING instead of TWEAKING, creating, and responding to forum threads. Not to mention spending $1000's upgrading our Now UNDERPOWERED PCs.WHAT AN INCREDIBLE WASTE OF TIME AND FOR MANY OF US, MONEY! I would be glad to spend $400 on a console, instead of $$$$ on new motherboard, processor, memory, and Video CARDS!SHAME ON YOU ACES and MICROSOFT!I REST MY CASE!

[Guest mariosunshine]

well, well, well, not my fault if your PC is slow,,,, If you want a sophisticated simulation it is going to cost you... B y the way I have Fs9 with really a lot addons(30+),,, and since FSX due to the change in flight dynamics it is just so boring for me to fly it now.. Yes, also on my computer fps not often go over 20 FPS,( I checked perfomance poor on the survey) but flying on rails is boring. I just gotta upgrade again. I know it sounds arrogant, but why limit the product for the ability to run it on a mediocre hardware. If you check the forum here, most simmers have far beyond average hardware. Yes FSX is not a performance wonder, and MS could have made a better job in optimizing FPS, but well I'm just going to upgrade once a year!. Since OCtober 17 I used FS9 two times, in both cases to use the oustanding PMDG 747... but hey even that was kind of boring, as the plane hardly ever moves...not very real,,,.

[slashed2 53]

All I can say to this is thank goodness it wasn't developed for the xbox 360. Mine just gave me the rings of death last week blinking an unknown hardware error. 139 dollars to fix it as the 90 day warranty is over. I now have a 400 dollar paper weight (we may use it as a small table) and 200 dollars worth of games I can't use. No way I'm paying MS 139 bucks to fix it.Needless to say my son is going through withdrawal and I need a DVD player for my 2 year old, me, I'm flying on the PC.No more consoles for me, keep it on PC.Ian.

[Guest chinga]

>You may want to change this>Fiber_Frame_Time_Fraction=0.70>>>To this>Fiber_Frame_Time_Fraction=0.33>>You are using a lot of your cpu that can be used for other>areasI tried playing with the Fiber frame.. setting it as low as 0.15 and as high as 0.70 For some reason...at a lower setting(like the default 0.33) the terrain gets a very small case of the blurries in isolated areas and you can see some of the autogen "popping" in at a distance. Setting it to .70 makes it crisp and popping free as far as the virtual eye can see. I'm guessing that because of the almost 1 gig overclock...my cpu has no problems with this setting.

[Guest lalo lolo1]

What can I say. Name me other computer games that once released run crappily in 99% of the existing computers. How would they do? I agree, next time release MSFS for an Xbox, so to develop you use a hardware available for most human beings, and when sold, none of us have to buy a 2k dollars PC to run it.My system is a FX55, X1900XTX, 2G Ram. FSX, with every single tweak runs well over 20... at rural areas. As soon as I enter a city, or even parked at any default airport, fps drop to 11. Scenery and autogen at their middle, water 2x low, no traffic at all. Nice, Hu!BTW, I can take pictures that look that good or even better in FS9 at 24fps, locked at 25.Check this oneLeo

[Guest]

FS on Xbox? What a stupid suggestion. This forum is getting more ridiculous by the day.

[Mango 0]

>this is a very irrelevant post, 1% of us can afford the>system you got and you come on here saying that FS can run at>50+ fps on a system most of us can't afford.>>Doesnt make sense.I see nothing wrong with showing the result on high end PCs. Those are the standard of tomorrow.Btw - i get a similar performance:Conroe E6600 @ 3.6 Ghz water cooledFSB 1600P5WDG2 WS ProfessionalF2-8500PHU2-2GBHZ CL 4-4-4-55 x WD 2500 KS 16 MB S-ATA2 (4 x in RAID 10)Enermax Galaxy 1000 WattX1900XT @ 690/1600 Mhz water cooled19" Samsung 970P 6ms LCD Monitor1280x1024x32 resolutionCreative SoundBlaster X-Fi Xtreme MusicSuper Pi 1M - 13.9 sec @ 3.75 GhzI am satisfied with running FSX on default after applying some tweaks, but i hope for an optimized coding for upcoming CPU intensive addons. Of course a more powerful GPU would be necessary to run settings like light bloom, ground shadows and dense traffic. Well, the time will come...

[Guest babua]

The way MS bloats up programs if FSX comes in Xbox it should be renamed as XLBox! Winzip came to this world essentially to compress those bloated doc files in MS Word-remember those days?

[Guest lalo lolo1]

Oh sure it is stupid. As stupid as releasing a game that won't run decently in 99% of computers.Leo

[Guest david W.]

Thanks for posting this info. I am always interested to know what performance others are getting with their new Core 2 Duo

[carlan2uk 0]

99%? Try looking at the FSX survey results.David

[boshar 6]

You mean the survey where at the moment around 60% find the framerates poor (or worse then that)?Or maybe we can be proud that 33% rate the overall FS-X experience as poor (or worse) of that 33% around 9% chose to uninstall FS-X and go back to FS-9?Final statistic. Right now 37% would not reccomend FS-X to a friend. Advertising books suggest that people with negative experiences with a product or service tell 8 potential customers about it while positive experiences get shared with 1 other potential customer. Microsoft beter inject some extra money into advertising to keep FS-X sales going otherwise word of mouth will destroy it.FS-X can perform with correct hardware? Sure. Let them make an X-Box 360 FS-X light to proof once and for all they can program a fluid flightsim for a fixed hardware target. The current release says they can't they just use the future headroom for newer hardware statement as an excuse.

[Guest victorwest]

Without there having been a similar survey done at the same time in the product cycle of FS9 we cannot be certain whether the numbers presented are "good" or "bad". Yes, a significant percentage are unhappy and, if I were with MS, I would be concerned about customer satisfaction, but it would be interesting if we were able to compare the data with a previous issue of FS.

[spilok 1,133]

Chinga,Thanks for your positive report. I, too, love FSX and using hardware that I decided to buy for my flight simulation obsession. It's too bad that some contributors say that FSX requires hardware that MOST people can't afford. I wonder if they've checked everyone's bank account. How do they know that most people can't afford something? What a dumb statement to make! Very illogical.I watch people throw away money all the time on activities that are important to them. I see people buying 10 thousand dollar TVs, buying dinners that are hundreds of dollars, and simply spending money that they wish to spend to make them happy.We're talking about hardward for FSX that is a fraction of the cost of many other hobbies or purchases. PLUS, I use my computer for many other things besides Flight Simulation. I think my $3300 investment last month was worth every penny.I'm not showing frames in the 40's in Seattle, but instead in the 20's. However, even when frames dip into the teens with FSX, blurries and stutters seem non-existent. Overall, I'm extremely pleased with "spending my money", and I can afford it (sorry!), to thoroughly enjoy my wonderful hobby.

[Geofa 108]

Yeah-and take a look at this similar poll with similar numbers of respondents..ooops...this was fs2004..http://www.flightsimaviation.com/FS2004/?fs2004=fs2004_pollshttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg