Sign in to follow this  
Guest kingairvols

Was thinking of getting FSX

Recommended Posts

...but wondering if it's worth it with my system (PIV 3.2GHz, GeForce 6600 256MB, 1.5GB Main Memory)I read that the frame rates suck even on the best of systems. What makes this sim really good, compared to FS2004, besides the scenery?Can anyone point me to some good reviews?Thanks

Share this post


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

My system is similar (3.4 Ghz, 2 Gb RAM) and I get frame rates that are very acceptable for me, and it's very smooth. The list of emprovements is very long. I consider FSX to be the best flight sim I have ever used.It's well worth spending an hour or so applying some of the tweaks. They can give a very significant frame rate increase with little loss of visual quality.If you haven't done so already, why not try the free flyable demo? That should give you a good idea of what to expect. It's about 800 Mb so you will need broadband.Best regards, Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have virtually the same system as yours: Pentium 3.2, 6800XT-256Bit-512MB, 3GB-400 Memory. CPU and GPU are third party cooled.I personally am not as sold on FSX as some, although have high hopes for it as future modifications and addons evolve. At the momment there are more liabilities than assets (to me) but surely that will change as the months go by.Good points:1. I had absolutely no problem with installation and activation the like of the experience of some. In fact, I changed out my motherboard, video card, and added memory and did not have to reactivate. Don't know whether this was blind luck, or courtesy of MS. (Did have to reactivate XPPro).2. I did not implement default MSFS ATC at all in past versions. Before FS9 third party ATC was my preference. Then VatSim became the preferred ATC for a time at least. I do like the fact that text for ATC is retained in FSX to help this old memory when I fail to copy (with a pencil or pen).3. SOME of the scenery is outstanding, that being photoreal locations ONLY.4. SOME aircraft with their panels from past versions make the transition to FSX with no problem and frankly fly more smoothly for me than do the MSFS defaults (i.e. Cornado Bonanza, Twin Bonanza).5. SO FAR I have not had a crash to desktop, out of memory, or any other system glitch which occasionally may have been the case with the growing pains of past versions (Virtually always corrupt/duplicate AFCAD which has not had a chance to be present YET in FSX).6. FSX default aircraft are acceptable, although I have not even had defaults enabled on past versions for years with the exception of the required 172SP.7. Lower frame rates seem to result in smoother performance than did previous versions.Points that leave something to be desired IMHO:A. The need for expensive new hardware in order to take advantage of all that is offered by FSX, which is not available at the present time. Granted, this was true to some extent with past versions, but FSX seems to excell in this catagory. This may turn into an asset for FSX once we can enable all the bells and whistles anywhere in the world with additional aircraft.B. Rural scenery is dull and fixed so far for me with no changes at all relative to reality. Everything is snow covered to the North, and dead to the South (With updated weather). This may not be entirely fair as I don't even remember what FS9 default conditions looked like thanks to swell third party developement contributions in this catagory, which in my opinion are badly needed for FSX.C. I agree with others that even with lower frame rates, reasonably smooth operation is possible, BUT with very LIMITED LOCATION, AIRCRAFT, and SCENERY choices. Unless I can stand a bit of a slide show I must stay out of these locations. Flyable if you are not too picky, yes, but good, in my opinion this is reaching. This is true even with sliders at pretty well minimum conditions on my system. (With less appetite in lesser locations and aircraft, only Autogen and Sceneery Complexity have to be reduced.) Vehicles and the like are at low levels too, but are plentiful enough that I would consider them to be an asset, not a liability.D. Greatest concern: What I read as what seems to be the consensus opinion by others with far more computing savvy than I regarding hardware compatibility. What I hear is that FSX has some, but very little regard for multi-core implementation and never will. Yet this is the current #### of the walk CPU adaptation of choice it would seem for some time to come. If this is case, I can visualize that FSX may be handcuffed on a permanent basis and we may never be able to put all of those sliders to the right and take advantage of all that is offered by this version. This certainly is not necessarilly all the fault of FSX, but is a consideration.E. Although lesser liveries have worked fine, no relatively complex heavy aircraft/panels are available or can be successfully transferred as yet with fully functional panel provisions. To some extent in past versions granted, but again no where near to the extent of FSX.Conclusion:I agree that FS9 and FSX are probably two different animals, but i think they have the same parents. FSX has promise and within time may become all that we hope it can be, particularly if better CPU compatibility evolves. AT THE PRESENT TIME, the aircraft, utitlties, third party scenery improvements and some other items simply are not available and it seems that developers are haveing a much more difficult time producing them. The superb FSX scenery may or may not already be there, but my present system sure cannot take advantage of it (Nor do many claim to be able to with present state of the art systems). I personally will continue to enjoy and fiddle with FSX (to a point), but will regress to FS9 probably at an increasing rate until FSX catches up and hopefully overwhealms the past. I see that you have already made your decision and that my comments are purely academic. I sincerely hope that FSX is, or will soon be all that you hoped it would be.Respectfully:RTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you RTH. Even when I buy FSX, it will be just something I tinker with. My main sim will continue to be FS9 for some time. In fact I'm only just getting into the add-on market for FS9...It seems that FSX is something that will take a while to get off the ground....pun intended. As usual with MSFS products, they push your PC beyond it's limits and one gets the impression that they are realeased with next years hardware technology in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you RTH. Even when I buy FSX, it will be just something I tinker with. My main sim will continue to be FS9 for some time. In fact I'm only just getting into the add-on market for FS9...It seems that FSX is something that will take a while to get off the ground....pun intended. As usual with MSFS products, they push your PC beyond it's limits and one gets the impression that they are realeased with next years hardware technology in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RTH,With FS9, I had to wait 2 and a half years formy preferred third-party aircraft to up-date,so what's new!Peter Sydney Australia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RTH:I nice comentary.First: (thanks for bullets so the different points ie..1... 2... OR A... or B... where made easy to speake and or comment on.I wished I had comments one way or the other. But I do not. For I struggle each dat (each day being when I start my sim) THUS:We all want all to perform at the best; which results in the best tech applications as a result, lets keep in mind this is a hobby. For those that nedd to record hrs (vfr or ist) some of which allowable ((hardware like PFC and ELITE)) then I hope the new FS SIM versions keep up with them.This a wish and I realize this. I only wanted to say my peace in regards to the hope that (((all FAA approved software for how ever many hrs approved at this point may be approved.Mark.System:OS:MS Windows XP Professional, Ver 2002 Service Pack 2 Hardware:Intel Pentium® 4 CPU 2.802.84 GHz, 3.00 GB of RAM Radeon X1600 Pro 512MB running a 21/19.6 Sony Flat Screen Tubed Monitorand a 17/16 NEC/Mitsubishi Tubed MonitorGeForce FX 5200 128MB running a NEC/Mitsubishi 18 Flat Panel

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