Sign in to follow this  
FTD1949

Who are they kidding?

Recommended Posts

You would have to power up on Friday and hope to have FSX loaded by Monday morning!This is pure misrepresentation as far as I'm concerned.FSX System Requirements(from the Microsoft site)* Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista* Processor: 1.0 Ghz* RAM: Windows XP SP2 - 256MB, Windows Vista

Share this post


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

The system requirements put on the box of FSX are the poorest representation of a game/program requirements I've ever seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So some of you should write the MARKETING Department at MS and give them heck!! And don't even think out loud that the MARKETING Department should communicate with the Divisions, because they don't!Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your point is well taken. The "fine print" on my purchased Flight Sim X box is:* Windows XP SP2 - 256 MB / Windows Vista - Box is the same. 512 MB for Vista tells ya something right there though(?)* Processor: 1.0 Ghz - Box is the same.* RAM: Windows XP SP2 - 256MB, Windows Vista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>"Sorry, this has what to do with FS9????????">Actually it has alot to do with FS9 Jim!!!!!!Edit: Since I'm in a good mood Jim I'll explain. We are all forced back to FS9 due to horrible performance with FSX. I personally can't see how FSX would even start up with the Minimum Specs. on the box.See the end user is back to FS9, thus it's in this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Edit: Since I'm in a good mood Jim I'll explain. We are all>forced back to FS9 due to horrible performance with FSX. I>personally can't see how FSX would even start up with the>Minimum Specs. on the box.>Hmmmm...Last year I picked up a new (high) mid grade computer to run FSX. It does quite well! The side benefit, is that it runs FS9 much better than the old one. Since this is the case, I've now picked up several new payware sceneries and few new airplanes for FS9, as well as both for FSX. This way, everyone wins!But, I'm not forced back by any means, and am free to run either sim at will! Looking foward to that new high res FSX MegaScenery! :-hah L.AdamsonAthlon 64 3800+/2Gig/Geforce 7600GS 256MB/ 1600*1200*32 res.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, We all want to move to FSX. In fact I somewhat have, I got it run it pretty well. But, the box specs are just plain stupid. You would agree with that I'm sure. That's all the orginal poster is stating.L. Adamson I'm not get into a pissing match with you. We all know your postion, it is well stated. Why you keep adding to discussions is almost comical at this point. Let me ask both of you this. I got FSX locked at 24, sliders all at half. Taxi out I stay between 17-20fps, takeoff maybe 15-18fps, climb out between 5,000 and 15,000 Frames drop to 5-7. I can't figure it out. I first I thought it was clouds, but that's not it. I can cruise over overcast sky's even with the draw distance at 80-100nm and stay strong @ 24fps. And this can be at JFK or Fairbanks Alaska, it does not matter. And, the more tweaking I do the worse it is. I'm back to a clean FSX config now, and somewhat happy with it.Any ideas??? L. Adamson do you see this? or any type of FPS reduction on climb out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a similar system to Larry's and can relate the same. BTW the minimum specs Microsoft lists are minimum for the program to RUN and that has nothing to do with running well or even near acceptable. Yes, it may seem ridiculous but it is how it has been being done and until some kind of standard for the industry is created that is what is going to be used. Forums such as this one have always been the place to search for any new software release to see what others are saying. I recall previous FS releases and the attempts to create a standardized startup situation that could be used to compare framerates with different hardware and drivers which was a good start. I feel pretty confident saying it will be late 2007 when affordable hardware starts to catch up with FSX and by that time ACES should have released at least one patch. At present my FS9 looks better than FSX because of all the numerous addons and enhancements. I think when we start to see the Vista/DX10 patched version of FSX on the right equipment there will be no looking back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>L. Adamson >>I'm not get into a pissing match with you. We all know your>postion, it is well stated. Why you keep adding to>discussions is almost comical at this point. I've done it for 15 years. Why stop now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Typical Microsoft.It's not just Microsoft. Almost every company out there does the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> We all want to move to FSX.Speak for yourself. And lock this thread already. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sorry, this has what to do with FS9????????"Because the discussion is on the FS9 forum, not on the FSX forum.FSX will run on that minimum spec computer - with all the sliders set at the lowest level and no addon scenery or any AI. It won't run well enough for anyone to actually fly and land. But it will run.I run FSX for testing on an IBM T42 Laptop on an USB 2.0 external hard drive:1.7ghz Centrino processor512MB Ram32MB ATI Mobility Radeon 7500It is not enough to display full ground textures - but with AI running - it gives me 8-10 FPS most of the time and I have the Scenery Density set to maximum, but Autogen turned off.Like I said, not worth flying, but good enough for testing AI, airports, AFD and parking modifications, jetways, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appologies for jumping in, Dave, but no-one else responded to your query: I can't explain the difference in fps between 5 and 15, but from my experience you don't have the right hardware in that box of yours. I had (approximately) your system 'till September last year, and got moderately acceptable performance with FS9. The FS10 demo convinced me that an upgrade was needed. Nowadays 9 runs at 40 or 50, but locked at 25 - and FABULOUS - and FS10 runs, also locked at 25 very, very acceptably, with most sliders very high, or at the maximum values appropriate for the supplied detail level. There is no fps reduction in any flight phase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen I appreciate that you make take issue with my question above but simply put, it comes from the position of a fellow FS9 user (and user of many past versions) like yourselves but who is disappointed in the break within the community. So, yes, mea culpa, I responded in a blunt way and I apologize.However I am also a fairly satisified FSX user and I will qualify that statement by saying I expected lesser performance going in, as has alway been my experience through almost all of the FS series and all of the CFS series. Could be my eyeballs have grown calluses from landing the Lear at 5FPS on the Commodore Amiga long ago, but I am able to use and enjoy it, more so after adding more RAM of course (which goes to supoport the idea of min system specs being screwy if that makes you happy).However, truth is on my previous system, FS9 was, to a degree, a somewhat poor performer on a 1.8Ghz P4 system which well exceeded the above min specs as well.....now, that's not to say it performed poorly to the same degree based on the ratio of the minimum specs and the delta of my PC specs. Anyway it's all about supporting each other and to that extent I'll provide my contributing answer, for what it's worth, to the above question in the spirit of old-fashioned community support (like it seems we used to have a lot more of):In FSX I don't get the FPS drop at altitude that's being mentioned, and like you the first thought that struck me was "Clouds", but, it sounds likely from the description it could be related to either terrain textures or terrain detail.....terrain detail would be more "visible" when viewed at 'steeper' angles of 5000 to 15000 ft (as compared to sitting on the ground) it seems, and would also not be a render task when flying above overcast conditions, so does lowering the terrain detail possibly help alleviate this?There.And apologies for an FSX answer in the wrong forum, happy flying to you all.Erich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well why not John, it's only a game!It will never be a simuation, period!The default aircraft have more and lighting FDE's how else would you expect a GAME to be?Long live FS9, the LAST REAL simuator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"Sorry, this has what to do with FS9????????">>>Actually it has alot to do with FS9 Jim!!!!!!>>Edit: Since I'm in a good mood Jim I'll explain. We are all>forced back to FS9 due to horrible performance with FSX. I>personally can't see how FSX would even start up with the>Minimum Specs. on the box.>>See the end user is back to FS9, thus it's in this forum. Dave,How do you figure that "we are all forced back to FS9" ?Maybe you are but there are plenty of us that won't go back.Craig ASUS A8N- nForce SLI Chipset SATA RAID Dual PCIe MOBOAMD ATHLON64 3500+ CPU w/ HT TechLG GWA-4161 DVD/CDSeagate ST3160811AS 160GB Barracuda 9 7200RPM 8MB SATA II 3Gb/s NCQSeagate ST3160811AS 250GB Barracuda 9 7200RPM 8MB SATA II 3Gb/s NCQEVGA 7950 GT KO PCIe 512mb nvodngov19147-[Guru3D.com] drivers SB Audigy 22G Corsair PC 3200 400MHZ Dual Channel DDR Super Alien 500W P/STrack IR3 w/vectorCH Yolk & RuddersFS Genesis Terrain MeshActive SkyRC4

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