Sign in to follow this  
Guest phenom

FSX, Crysis and framerates

Recommended Posts

If you read the rest of that thread there is a lot more than the selective qoute you have used here.The same guy switched out his drivers to a different set and doubled his framerate.More than meets the eye here......Oh, lets not forget, Crysis actually LOOKS like a DX10 / New generation game.FSX, no disrespect, looks graphically like something from 2004.

Share this post


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

I don't deny that. He went from 12.85 to 22.6 FPS with a driver update.22.6 FPS at 1920x1200.The one poster was getting 5 fps at 2560x1600. Is any of this much different than what we're getting with FSX?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why anyone would compare FSX to Crysis is beyond me. Of course Crysis is bound to have better graphics. It is a linear first person shooter with small maps. There is only one map in FSX - the whole world. And FSX gives more independence. Its not possible to match its graphics to Crysis. Its as good as a flight simulator can get. Why don't people realise that? In other threads people are even suggesting flight simulator should use the Crysis engine! Its a totally different game for godsake!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not the point.Here you have two pieces of software that can not run optimized on today's hardware. It doesn't matter world size or anything else. It could be Pong vs. BZFlag if you'd like. Is what Microsoft is doing with the development of FSX and even FS2004 before it any different than what other, maybe most developers are doing by looking forward instead of in the present?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've kinda just resolved myself that the comparison to Crysis, Windlight, etc etc aren't just going to go away even though from an FSX perspective (i.e., the vary nature of this forum and this version of this sim) they are absolutely and completely MOOT. Simply because they're not open-architecture flight sims that support a base of addons for the fight sim afficianado and there's no way to expect FSX to have it's development histroy change. Ironically, comparisons to or suggestions for combat flight simming seems to meet with an even higher level of resistance even though it's far more in the flight sim genre....but not really because it's considered "gamey" and has guns...Crysis has knives instead I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rag on FSX as much as you want, but regardless of how great you think the graphics/framerate disparity is, FSX is still the best looking pure flight sim on the market. Show me another that gives you more for less and I'll go play that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Rag on FSX as much as you want, but regardless of how great>you think the graphics/framerate disparity is, FSX is still>the best looking pure flight sim on the market. Show me>another that gives you more for less and I'll go play that. >>That's the point I was making. FSX is as good as a flightsim can be in this day. It is inevitable that other types of game will look better than flight simulator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only does Crysis run slow on an 8800gtx, people are raving about how it just doesn't look that great either. In fact, it seems like at least half of the people who were waiting for it are slagging it heavily. And that's even using a beta driver written specificaly for crysis.http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread...=101014&page=37I predict the cryengine type comments around here will evaporate like the vaporware they were. That thud you just heard was reality landing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Here you have two pieces of software that can not run>optimized on today's hardware.I guess I'd better not upgrade then, it runs just fine on 2 year old hardware... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting thread. There were comparison screenshots of DX9 and DX10 Crysis and the only difference from what I could tell was lighting (they didn't do Frames). I'm wondering if there is a misconception of DX10 as far as capability? I think most things in DX10 can be done in DX9 but at far less cost to performance. FSX is a prime example, I can run bloom and highend water in DX9 but at a far lower frame rate than in DX10. I'm guessing DX10 allows more to be done with graphics at less of a cost, and that is where DX10 should open the door for better looking games etc....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we had an addon developer on one of these threads very recently suggesting that the 'FSX models the whole world' argument for poor performance and outdated graphics engine is no excuse.I can't rememeber who it was.....I'll see if I can find the thread.No one (not me anyway!) is suggesting FSX should look like 'Crysis', but clearly a lot of people were expecting more from the DX10 update.Ditching backwards compatability in FS11 is a must and hopefully we will get a simulator that will be a big leap forward around fall 2009.My point here was that Crysis LOOKS like a next generation DX10 title. I can understand it having some major hardware required.In comparison, FSX has given us some improvments over FS9, but none of them (bar the 1m textures perhaps) has any real 'wow' factor, yet the perofrmance of the sim, even on upto date hardware is not exactly mind blowing. Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>It is a linear>first person shooter with small maps.Everyone seriously needs to stop saying this stuff. Crysis dynamically streams LOD data and it can have up to 60nm view distance in full 3D at once. It's not "small maps".Watch this video, one of the devs is using the (fully in game) editor and explains how it works:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I am not mistaken FSX came out a year ago which is a long time in software/computer industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>There were comparison>screenshots of DX9 and DX10 Crysis and the only difference>from what I could tell was lighting (they didn't do Frames). The screenshots aren't the best way to judge. There's a lot of post processing effects that are motion related too. Physics stuff too that you don't see in a screenshot like the ability to knock down all the foliage, push it aside as you walk through it etc isn't in the DX9 version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me underestand this. Crysis does not stop at stages to load to go to next stage? like half-like and fear?

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