Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Erauflyboy88

  • Birthday 03/27/1988

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    MIA - Miami - FL

Flight Sim Profile

  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

About Me

  • About Me
    Been a Flight Simmer since 2001.
  1. >Whoa there! Now your spreading misinformation, At the sparsest>settings in FSX, it's more detailed than a maxed out FS9. On>my "Super Computer" (Specs below) I get mid 20's FPS with>every aircraft except the more complex aircraft like LDS,>PMDG and Captain Sim, and those I could get around 18-20>around JFK, New York City, and much higher everywhere else I>fly. This is with most sliders to the right, except Autogen>set to dense Water at 2xLow, aircraft shadows, No Ground>shadows though or bloom or lens flare, weather settings maxed>with ASX weather. and 100% Airline traffic with a large mix of>WOAI and UT traffic. I also now use UTUSAX and GEX. I also got>similar results with just slightly lower frames obviously on>my previous system which I lost in a lightning strike. That>was a E6700 stock, 2GB mem and ATI X1950XTX crossfires. So if>your system is lagging with your specs, which are higher than>mine, I suggest you look more towards your configuration>rather than blaming FSX. That being said, people who do have>lesser performing systems then we're lucky to have may have>trouble with FSX at these settings, but they should be able to>get a reasonable performance just by reducing some settings>which will still be more detailed than FS9, except maybe with>photo real scenery. You can see examples of the performance I>get on my youtube videos below. >>http://youtube.com/profile?user=tf51d>>(No music videos)>>EDIT: Only the last 3 757 videos was done on my current>system, the rest was on the E6700 at 2.66Ghz!>Like I said if FSX did it for you, well I am happy your money was well spent. 20fps is not enough for me when I am used to 35-60 on FS9 maxed to the gods. Now I can pull 20+ fps in a heart beat in my "super computer," however I am not satisfied. And you very well said it, the NICE add-ons and autogen decrease your frame-rates and that you don't have autogen (which to me is a VERY important key to realism) all the way. Now if that tickles you in the right way, then awesome! :-) but it just doesn't do it for me. I also think you missed the point, my purpose was not to inform you about my system and how FSX ran on it, it was to express my opinion on how FSX is not what I expected it to be. Besides, based on the money I've spent on FS9 and the way it runs on my system I feel happy an joyous. The places I fly to have superior sceneries that are far better than FSX. Once again point is, FSX is not what most expected. I wasn't misinforming anyone because from the beginning I said "I think" meaning it was my opinion. By the way nice videos.
  2. I've been a flight simmer for about 7 years and I've always browsed and read through the forum but never did I felt the need to comment on a thread; that is till now. I've witnessed the come and go of every sim since 2000 and never have I heard so much negative feedback on the latest version of Flight Simulator. I too have been trying real hard to like and enjoy FSX but even in my super PC (with 4GB RAM, 3.2GHz Quad Core processor, 768MB Nvidia 8800 GTX Graphics) it lags, therefore failing to deliver what I think I should be getting based on my PC and the cash I spent on FSX. FS9 on the other hand runs as smooth as a baby's butt cheeks while its maxed to the gods. lol! A lot of people have told me that FSX runs just as well as FS9 with lower display settings. To me that sounds oxymoronic! lol, Why would I want to run FSX with settings to make it look like FS9 when I could just run FS9 with my addons and even still get better performance? :D I am an Embry-Riddle pilot and student, therefore I am around many flight simmers and fellow pilots, and the majority say they are unhappy with FSX. It's tough to get adapted to a newer game that give you less performance when you're already used to smoothness. As virtual pilots we need an equal balance of performance, quality, and realism. My personal opinion is that Microsoft is not paying much attention to the feedback of the Flight Sim community because if they were, we wouldn't have so many complaints and discussion about which one is better. I expected FSX to make me not want to look back at its predecessor (FS9), but I found it doing the exact opposite. It is true that FSX brought a lot amazing features such as the ATC ability, traffic on the roads, great water reflections, etc... but all is pointless if you can barely run it because it nearly crashes your system. Like someone else mentioned, "We don't want a slide show we want a realistic simulator." The buildings, houses, and roads don't seem to be any drastically different either. I highly think that Microsoft ignored the hardcore flight simmer's needs and wants hence why the majority of us are unpleased. Now to those that like FSX, then I am glad it did it for you, and that your money was well spent. But based on what I've read since FSX came out, it didn't it do it for most of us.
  • Create New...