FSX Acceleration - Preview on Gamespot

[Guest]

>I think the sales would be enough to keep it going (just).>Obviously their 'count' doesn't take into account 50% of>people returning their copy because of performance and or>activation problems. Once you subtract those figure its a>different story. Read the user reviews on Amazon and you will>know what I'm talking about.If you think 50% of the users return the game you need to wake up. I looked at amazon, and a good 60% gave it 4 or 5 out of 5 stars, praising it heavily. Most of the guys who gave it 1 star are clueless, giving it a low rating beucase "its not much fun", "doesn't simulate flight properly", or "Airplanes are ugly and there is NO scenery". About the only valid gripes on there are the activation issues. Even with all the bogus complaints from clueless users it still shows a 3 out of 5 star average, which is pretty good considering all the people who gave it 1 star due to thier own lack of understanding.

[ryanbatc 12,835]

not to go too far OT (crap we already have)yeah, I DID have mine OCed to 2.4....then took it back cause Prime was failing lol

[Guest]

Your comment is false and contrived. The majority of complaints about performance are spot on. No other game runs as slow out of the box.

[victorwest2 0]

>Your comment is false and contrived. The majority of>complaints about performance are spot on. No other game runs>as slow out of the box.And the answer to my question re the 50% you quote is?

[Guest Jimbofly]

Actually your statement is false. You obviously haven't played many games if you think other games aren't as slow out of the box.If you can come up with a better running flight sim I suggest you go work for Microsoft. The expansion pack is looking very promising, and the visuals from the screenshots actually look improved.

[slashed2 53]

Just to add to this discussion, FSX doesn't run too bad out the box especially with SP1. I think we as the hardcore group tend to tax the default FSX more than the average joe with massive add-ons such as Ultimate Terrain, AI packages, 3rd party weather and ATC programs, complex aircraft etc.....I disabled Ultimate terrain yesterday whilst flying over Cleveland where normally flying the 737 PIC with UT, RC, MTX, ASX and ASG I would get 12-15 fps and got 14-18(locked). I switched to the default 737-800 and disabled RC as well and my fps pegged at 18, removing the lock it shot up to 25-30. Upping the settings to my normal GA flying it dropped to 20-25.I then decided to try out Manhattan and to my suprise it flew nicely at 12-14 fps with the 737-300, with Real Air sf260 I pegged at 18 locked and got 20-25 unlocked.All the above with was with MTX at 21 airline, 2 ga, 6 road, 25 ship, 25 leisure, cloud dist 90 with all other weather settings maxed, normal and sparse for scenery and autogen, 2x low water, text res 1m, mesh 19 and mesh compl 100, max radius and global textures.My point is, despite the hype and arguements and discussion in these forums, we hardcore simmers use the sim differently than the average person and are most likely much more critical because we tax FSX way more than anyone else. After SP1 with a default FSX, flying around most areas should be a very smooth experience depending on you hardware.I'm on a core2duo, e6600 with an 8800GTX and 4mb ram, stock dell xps 410, vista 32 home premium.Ian.

[Guest]

I agree, while UTX does give some nice smaller features, it is not worth the CRAZY loss of frame rate to get traffic on smaller roads and some grass between lanes. UTX takes a good 33% of my frame rate away just from a few basic features. FSX with SP1 out of the box on a decent modern system runs just fine at high settings. Stay away from UTX and the acceleration addon should run fine. I can't wait to try those carrier landings. I had been thinking of getting flight deck 4 but with all the bad reviews and the addon pack adding these features I didnt see any reason to grab it. I am looking forward to the pack.________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 565/900 | Seagate 2x320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW | Matrox Triplehead Setup

[victorwest2 0]

>I agree, while UTX does give some nice smaller features, it>is not worth the CRAZY loss of frame rate to get traffic on>smaller roads and some grass between lanes. UTX takes a good>33% of my frame rate away just from a few basic features. Then just turn down the road traffic then. :-)

[slashed2 53]

As much as I like UT, I'll most likely disable it for complex airline flying, who uses roads at 30000 feet? For GA flying in non metropolis areas like the Midwest and Northwest I'll keep it on for the rural roads and coastlines. No matter what I'm running, I don't get much of an FPS hit when flying the Do-27, Real Air Scout or SF260 or the default aircraft.Looking forward to that F-18 and some carrier landings myself.Ian.

[Guest]

>Your comment is false and contrived. The majority of>complaints about performance are spot on. No other game runs>as slow out of the box.I fly LOMAC and I'm lucky to see 20fps, as its ussually around 17fps. For me FSX runs much faster than LOMAC and looks 2x-3x as good. I get a solid 20-60fps WITHOUT SP1, though I keep it locked at 27. As you can see my settings are quite high and my CPU is quite dated. If others cannot get similar performance they need to drop some stuff like bloom, water, and traffic. This scene is running at 23fps without SP1, which is quite acceptable in my book. http://sio.midco.net/111lll/Eurotrip.jpg

[Guest]

That scene shows unknown fps!!

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>That scene shows unknown fps!!It must be a conspiracy to deceive you.

[Guest]

>That scene shows unknown fps!!Not this one. Shown using very dense autogen, and traffic is turned off like ussual. And no the sim is not paused, otherwise it would show 27fps. I normally use dense autogen, but I set it to very dense for the purpose of this image, just to give it parity with the last one I posted. When I was flying it would run in the 17-24fps range, though with my ussual setting of dense autogen its more like 20-27fps. Again this is pre SP1, as I don't care for the blurries and autogen pop. http://sio.midco.net/111lll/untitled2.jpg

[Guest Lith1um]

Bloom is super expensive because it actualy requires the video card to make an additional pass to render one frame. In other words adding that post processing effect makes the video card render the same frame twice before it's displayed. The 2 frames are combined in the frame buffer and then displayed as one frame with the post processing effects on the top layer.I'm guessing it might be possible to lessen this performance hit by using a different technique under dx10. But I'm not a programmer so I'm purely speculating on that.Edit: forgot to mention that water 2.x also requires a second pass. Phil blogged about it here, http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007...-fps-costs.aspxShadows also require that second pass, as mentioned in the blog.

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

Do not get Flight Deck 4. Wait.