Simviation Forums

I want to know if FSX is worth beacuse i'm thinking of getting it.
What are the good and bad bits about it.

Unless you have an "uber" computer, then my vote is no.

My setup
AMD XP2400 "2.0GB
1Gb  ddr ram
Redeon 9600 pro 128mb

Get about 5-6 fps tops, even with the lowest settings..

I am reverting back to FS9

Wasted

Whats a "urber" computer?  :-?

Whats a "urber" "uber" computer?  :-?

A very special, very expensive device designed to run FSX faster than 5 FPS....

Available only to those with pots of money.... ...!

Paul...Uber Mk1 prototype computer running FS9... ... 8-)...!

First off, you have to qualify what you mean by "worth getting"

If you mean you mean will you be able to experiment with it and watch it mature over the years with patches etec, than yes it is worth it, assuming you enjoy such things
You will then have to consider it a "work in progress."


On the other hand, if you expect it to run as well as FS9 in is's present state with todays

"I want to know if FSX is worth beacuse . . . "
Affirmative (for the aeronautical, literally challenged, that means buy)

If you just want better graphics, then NO, you don't need FSX, just be happy with FS9, because FSX requires too much power to be beautifull.

If you don't care about graphics and just need a simulator better than FS9, then YES, FSX is for you. Later, if you get some money to spend on your computer, you will even be able to upgrade to get better graphics as well

I just tried the FSX demo and now I can't play FS9 anymore   :-/

If you just want better graphics, then NO, you don't need FSX, just be happy with FS9, because FSX requires too much power to be beautifull.

If you don't care about graphics and just need a simulator better than FS9, then YES, FSX is for you. Later, if you get some money to spend on your computer, you will even be able to upgrade to get better graphics as well

I just tried the FSX demo and now I can't play FS9 anymore   :-/

Two things:
FSX is ALL about graphics as this is basically all that has been upgraded in FSX.
Also if all you have experience with is the demo, then you are most likely not aware of the full scope of the problems people are having in more densely populated areas of FSX.

Yes and no.  Regardless of all the performance problems, its FUN.  The missions are fun, the helicopters are great, and gliding is a blast.  But its a performance hog and doing anything besides the missions gets to be a PITA.  I like FSX, but I prefer FS9 for my commercial flying because then I can have a lot of good traffic and such, but if Im in the mood for some fun I go to FSX.

FSX is ALL about graphics as this is basically all that has been upgraded in FSX.

Not true..

FSX is ALL about graphics as this is basically all that has been upgraded in FSX.

Not true..

Morning,

I to have reverted back to FS2004. I have 128MB on my Laptop's graphic card and in order to run FSX, had to run all the sliders down to low or minimal. What's the point having all this dynamic scenery-moving airways, fuel trucks etc etc-if you can't see 'em because it won't run with all that scenery running.

And with that in mind....I'll hold onto it till I win the lottery and can afford a better laptop.

My thoughts for what thier worth.

Mark

If you have lots of Payware addons for Flight Simulator 9, don't get fsX. If you have a slow computer, don't get fsX. If you have a fast computer, no payware addons, jump right in. fsX is far superior than fs9 provided you can run it.

I wouldn't bother if you have a computer bellow the following:
AMD 3500+, Pentium 4 650
1-2gb RAM (Not sure)
X850XT

And with fsX, you MUST KNOW HOW TO OPTIMIZE IT AND YOUR SYSTEM!

FSX is ALL about graphics as this is basically all that has been upgraded in FSX.

Ugh. No it isn't.

Multiplayer
Tower mode
Default planes are easily payware quality
Improved Flight Dynamics
Missions
100 000feet limit dropped (They changed the way the Earth is drawn enabling this)
Head latency effect
Improved view system (If you don't understand this don't comment)
Simconnect

In addition to the above features listed:

• Inverse kenetics - skin and bones
• Support for 2 sound cards
• Better stall effects on certain default aircraft
• 10,000 accurately placed stars on the night sky for realistic star navigation

And like Nick N said. People have their own definition of the term "worth". In my opinion, I feel that the terrain higher texture resolution of FSX looks better and more realistic than the autogen. Thus, I fly without the autogen. Another thing I noticed is that the transition between the sharp textures close to me and the blurred textures that are in the distance is much smoother than what in FSX. Please note that the performance I receive with my rig* at its current settings* are without any tweeks whatsoever to the fsx.cfg file.

Click here for the Ravenna shots in FSX

I'll just add that the vast majority of improvement listed here are just graphical in nature.

BTW, the flight model has not been changed acording to ACES. What has been done is the flight model of the default ac has been tweaked within the constraints of the old flight model.