Any word yet on FS11? What would you like to see?

[Brett_Henderson]

EG..  while FSX is a CPU dependent program first..  your v-card is in way over it's head...  the doors you see askew, is your card 'giving' up on texture rendering.. and it starts showing up an animated parts (like doors)..

I can only imagine what other gremlins show up when that card gets tired..  

You haven't really given FSX a chance yet..

[Fr. Bill]

(whatever that will be in late 2011).

Are you going to wait a whole year before buying FS11? It is most likely to be October of 2010 according to Phil Taylor (and others at ACES)...  

[reider]

   I don't know guys, admittedly, I'm not running a high end system, but I have had the worst luck with FSX. I'm running Vista 32 bit, 4Gs of memory, NVidia 8500 GT 512mb. I'm not sure which CPU I'm running but it runs at 2.66 gHz. It seems that FSX should work fine, but I've had nothing but trouble running FSX at it's lowest settings and it's still not acceptably "flyable". In fact, I can't even change aircraft textures without having the doors sticking out of the bottom of the plane and have the landing gear sitting in the middle of the cockpit. Not to mention I can't enjoy UTX, GEXNh, FEX and the nice aircraft I'd like to "fly" in the nice sceneries.

   In order for me to upgrade to the 8800 GTX, I'd have to get bigger power source which would require a larger case and so on. I'm not sure if changing to the Q6600 would do any good at this point. So, I've been waiting for the Nehalem to come out before I drop more money into my current PC. Again, it seems that I should be able to run FSX at some satisfying level, but...

  On the brighter side of things, FS9 runs awesome on my system. So, I'm able get my simming "fix" that way.

  But, I'll apologize for being aggressively over opinionated instead of just "regular" opinionated.

Semper Fi, Dave

If you`re already running a 2.66 then a 6600 dual core would give you 2.4(?), maybe a quad might be an improvement but not that much, unless what you`re running at the moment is a single core.  The 8500 whilst not being one of the better cards should not be too much hassle to get a reasonable pic unless you truly are running a single core.  The 8600 (which I have) is a little better and mine is only on a 500watt PSU with an Intel CPU at 2gig but running at 3 gig (OC). But even this is no good as an upgrade from an 8500, no real benefits as such. Better to know exactly what you have before going further.

Reider

[Daube]

I agree with the comments above, even if a 8500 is a bad card, it is still sufficient for FSX. Your 4 Gb of RAM are cool, your CPU cores are a bit slow but overclocking to 3Ghz should not be difficult.

When all this is done, you will just need two things:
- set up Vista to remove all the useless ressource-suckers beckground processes
- set up your FSX.cfg so that the sim takes best advantage of your current hardware.

The visual problems you saw last time you testes are not really sue to your graphic card. It was just an incorrect setting somewhere. For exemple, even with my 8800 GTX, if I set the bufferpools incorrectly in my FSX.cfg, I will get:
- lots of stuttering if set too low
- exploded aircrafts (with moving parts all around it) and ground spikes everywhere if set too high
Now I've found the correct setting and my sim is mostly smooth. It took me at least....pfewww.... 3 minutes to find it.

[Fozzer]

 

  On the brighter side of things, FS9 runs awesome on my system. So, I'm able get my simming "fix" that way.

  But, I'll apologize for being aggressively over opinionated instead of just "regular" opinionated.

Semper Fi, Dave

...shame on you, Dave... ....

You backed down just as the usual FSX fisticuffs was getting really exciting again!.... .... ...!

Back to boring, old, problem-free, FSX discussions again...

...and no blood!.... ...!

Paul...G-BPLF... ...!

[ShaneG_old]

[quote][quote]  I don't know guys, admittedly, I'm not running a high end system, but I have had the worst luck with FSX.

[Brett_Henderson]

I like it when these discussions are rational. Complaints based on logic rather than a temper tamtrum, will do that.

Getting all the hardware companies to come out with perfectly timed technologies, just isn't realistic. For starters.. say you make CPUs and your product is ready for the market. You're not just going to sit on it until the mother-board makers come out with THE perfect chipset... or wait until the ideal RAM is available.. etc. etc..

[ShaneG_old]

I like it when these discussions are rational. Complaints based on logic rather than a temper tamtrum, will do that.
...............

Agrees With everything you said!

[Boikat]

Just a thought:  What might the capabilities of the mid-range PC's of 2010 going to be?  Ten GHz quad processors, ten to twenty GB RAM, Terabyte HD's? Vid cards that can handle the traffic?  FSX would run on that like FS9 runs on my 'low mid range' setup.  FSXI on a full system would have an almost photographic quality, considering that some of the high end machines give that result with FSX *now*.

[commoner]

.....What I think would be best of all,

[MOUSY]

Boikat the move now is to more cores instead of faster ones. 4GHz are possible today. So mid-range in 2 yrs may just be 2-3Ghz Quads or slower Octos. 4-6 GBs RAM and 1GB Vcards. IMHO I think even these are optimistic estimates for mid-end gamers 1 1/2 yrs from now.

[Knick]

What i would like to see would be weather radar, better AI, and better frames

[pheonix286]

i would like:
atleast one default military plane (because i dnt have much RAM)
some real or if orbit,world travel and pacifca are real maybe some most people no......
more helis
actually able to watch the plane refuek or the gate rap around the planes door(this may already be a feature)

[machineman9]

actually able to watch the plane refuek or the gate rap around the planes door(this may already be a feature)

The gate bit is possible, I believe. I can't remember the command, but you need the extra animations bit turned on and it is a command. Jetways or something... when parked near the gate.

It would probably just be a location issue with the actual refueling. Planes have their refueling doors at different places, some on the wings, others on the fueslage. It would be a programming nightmare to build it to interact with every type of height and distance to refuel.  ;D



edit: Ctrl+J for jetways. Ctrl+F for fuel trucks, says Google.

[rikm12345]

I would like MS to be reading this thread and taking it all on board

;-)