Sign in to follow this  
GHarrall

FSX in Top 100 games of 2006

Recommended Posts

Good day everyone.I know that there is always speculation about where exactly entries in the FS series rates sales-wise, and personally, I always wonder how it does against other types of games.Turns out, not all that poorly. Next Generation has compiled data from all kinds of sources, and has constructed a list of the top 100 selling games of 2006. This includes PC, consoles and hand-held systems.FSX, going on sale in October, is #82 with over 300,000 copies sold.The link to the article is here:http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=c...d=4691&Itemid=2The page in the list with FSX is here:http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=c...=1&limitstart=6In case there was any question, Madden was #1 by about 4 million copies.

Share this post


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

I would like to see the the number of original buyers who still use FSX. My hunch is that the number of current users (including me) is around 12. :)Bob...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So its a resounding succes?Who would have thought that bad out of the box performance and little support for future hardware would be that popular with the consumer. Maybe they can release FS-XI wit a 15 Frames per minute framerate and be even more succesfull. FS-XI flightsimulator the slide show edition.As always 'tongue in cheek' ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why people still troll the forums here and spread all the negativity. We all know by now that FSX has it's quirks, the issues have been addressed ad nauseum, even by MS, with rather excellent explanations on Phil Taylors blog. MS working on a free performance patch and DX10 support. Isn't it time to let it go?You got a rather excellent G1000 with the deluxe version, excellent textures, a much improved wind and thermal simulation, multiplayer, improved ATC that lets you at least fly SID/STARS (although silently), smoother gauges, a full SDK upon launch with SimConnect, missions, fly-by-wire, weather effect on runways, much improved models and VCs, realistic moon/star cycles, better water, roads, traffic, stunning mesh, hundreds of better detailed airports. Should I go on?Let's just start again and install a default FS9 and compare. All this new stuff requires CPU/GPU power and you just can't suck it out of thin air.I am as unhappy with the performance as many of you, but please stop with all the mindless negativity. Being all ironic might be "cool" in the forums in here and seems to be a popular trend. Spreading FUD doesn't help anyone.Flame ahead. Make yet another bashing, whining, complaing, "meh-meh my 1GHz CPU with onboard graphics can't handle FSX" or "This sux, I have a Core2Duo and can't max everything out" thread out of a topic that was meant to be informative. Boring. Really.Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually just booted up my mostly vanilla FS9 to compare my Traffic Viewer for FSX to the old TrafficViewBoard it's meant to replace. I almost couldn't take it :(Sure, I could slam every slider to the right and had 18,000 planes flying around me, but those lower-res ground textures just hurt my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent reply Pat, couldn't agree more!Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanx, Pat - you beat me to it! My pet peeve is those who use the word "everyone" as in - everyone knows FSX is a failure - everyone is returning their copy, etc. I rank the frame rate junkies along side the script kiddies.Is FSX perfect? Not by a long shot but it's a helluva lot better than FS9 - at least on MY system. I had no trouble installing and running. Spent a few weeks following the tweaks posted until I got something that is fun to fly and very good visuals.Just MHO,VicP4 3.4 2G Corsair 7600/512ram PCIe xppro sp2Visit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone wanting 20-25 FPS consistently could be described as a 'Frame Rate Junkie'Whatever makes you feel better I suppose......All I know is that when FSX dips below 18 FPS it feels every bit as bad as FS9 at below 18FPS.Maybe eye candy visuals is important to you in your sense of flying, but IMO (and many others here) fluidity and FPS gives the most satisfaction. Neither view is right or wrong, but describing people as FPS junkies and 'kiddies' is not helping your cause.Now if someone was expecting 50+ FPS, then I may agree with you but I don't think anyone on here has asked for that.Let's not forget, we haven't even started throwing complex addons at it yet.As it stands right now, I like the look of FSX and the missions are fun. For my 'serious' sessions it's FS9 all the way.Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found this video to make my point:Link to video removedNow try that with a default FS9 installation - without $500 in add-ons. Suddenly, a stock FSX doesn't seem so bad anymore, now does it?And that was made on an AMD 3500+ and ATi X1900XTX (stated by the author).Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20-25fps can easily be attained on most systems by removing the default.xml or turning off autogen. For those who like fluidity over eye candy, it's hard to argue against these options! I agree anything less than 20fps can be painful, especially during landing.I've been too lazy to remove FS9 from my system, but I just checked the amount of HD space it was using... 15 gigs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to video removed?To address your point, who here on the AVSIM forums is using a default FS9? Very few I would imagine.I can only compare FSX default to my FS9 with UT, GE etc as that is what I currently have. Of course FSX is going to be better than FS9 in a default state, but thats not comparing what many of us here have.Bottom line for me is 28-30 FPS in FS9 with all the complex addons and scenery versus 16-20 FPS in a typical FSX scenario. I can do better by turning off autogen but I only have it on sparse anyway and I like the trees. My default.xml is already disabled.I must add that in principal and in looks I like what FSX has to offer. However, if adding Ultimate Terrain X, Active Sky X and LVLD 767 etc to the mix is going to lower my already poor FPS, then I will pass.Hopefully the SP1 will offer a much needed performance boost.Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I can't even post public YouTube videos. No further comment. I'll let the action speak by itself.Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I guess I can't even post public YouTube videos. No further>comment. I'll let the action speak by itself.>>Pat>>From the video forum, where we have clarified the rules regarding video posting:"All links to videos here must adhere to our simple and straightforward copyright and ownership rules. If you do not have permission to use material included in your video, do not post a link to it here. If you wish to link to a video not of your making, that includes copyrighted material, that link will be removed. In short, if you don't own the material or you do not have permission to use that material, do not post it here."As much as I enjoy the Gorillaz, the band featured in the soundtrack to that video, it is copyrighted material.

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