Simviation Forums

well it seems that "O" billy gates has put it to us again build a more demanding game and the fools will flock to the store and bye his upgrades and products and so on and so on. I tried 'vista bata' and the next thang that happend was a [Fried mother bord ""]. Well I had to spend money at this point so I went with mci mother bord p4 3.00ghz 250gb hard drive at 7500rpm 1.5 gb ddr2 ram ati 1600xt at 256mb ddr3. I did have a ati 1600 512mb ddr2. [It fried with the mother bord] . Found out tho the 1600xt is a better card anyways.

I know this is not the best but its what my wallet ses i can aford at this time under a computer crash emergency it ait bad thow

PS in building this computer I found out that a duel proseser is no good for demanding games talked to computer teks that were exp. in the shop with this game thay said this thay built diferent bords and tested the game ask yourself this are you runing duel core win flying "NO" wasted money

HERES THE 10MILLION DOLLER?

Is there a way to take the moving jetways,feul truck,water on the runways,and you no the eye candy out of fsx and work them in fs9 IM shere "O" billy tryed to keep this from happening being it would cost him millions really if you ask me if you could do this fs9 would be a far better fs then fsx I did all the tweaks in fsx I get up to 24fps in citys but have less senery than fs9. I meen thank about it" I got ground env. pro ut traffic captain sim 757-200,300,727,and flight 1 md80 I get 30fps on the ground 60fps in the air every thang at 100%. in fs9.

TO me if i could take some of the good stuff out of fsx and put them in fs9 instead taking fs9 stuff and put it in fsx whats the point fsx turns it to a glorafyed fs2002 at least I could use my $49.00 FSX AS PARTS DEPARTMENT FOR FS9 instead of $300.00 for vista $150 biger prosesser $100.00 more ram and so on you see what I meen Im shere that this is possable if we work at it.

um...no offense, but please spell check your posts, there is more errors than seemingly possible in that post

thanks

My million dollar ? to you is how in gods green earth does a operating system fry a mother board?????

1. Check your spelling. Regardless of the fact that this is an international forum with as many as a dozen countries being represented here, the people here make an effort to be as understanding and as clear as possible.

2. I may be neutral when it comes to how well FSX is compared to FS9 and earlier, but I have to completely DISAGREE with you. FSX is not a glorified FS2002. For starters, FSX has features that no other previous version can handle. For example: Captain Sim is taking advantage of the new space feature by creating a payware shuttle addon [still a work in progress] for us. Also, many scenery developers have taken advantage of the new terrain resolution that even FS9 will never handle. As a result, we get to see better terrain addons. Heck even inverse kenetics are completely new in FS

TO me if i could take some of the good stuff out of fsx and put them in fs9 instead taking fs9 stuff and put it in fsx whats the point fsx turns it to a glorafyed fs2002

Well, you "CAN'T". Not even the best addon developer is able to pull it off. Even if we're able to, what's the point? It'll just mean more hardware is required anyways because the new features that are added into the old sim will put a strain on the system. Therefore, we still have to cough up money for the upgrades either way. So deal with it.

I meen thank about it" I got ground env. pro ut traffic captain sim 757-200,300,727,and flight 1 md80 I get 30fps on the ground 60fps in the air every thang at 100%. in fs9.

You do realize that FS9 was considered an glorified FS2002 when it was first released a few years ago, right? And the only reason that you're able to run all those things in FS9 at better settings now is because today's hardware has caught up with FS9. Just give FSX a few more years [like we always did for the past decade] and you'll see how way better FSX "WILL" be compared to FS9 or even FS2002.

If "ole" Billy Gates (and many others) had not built more demanding stuff over the years .......... we'd all still be dealing with 640 K of RAM, an 8086 processor, and  typing RUN C:\mcrosft\FS9.exe to start a flight simulator that looks like a couple of straight lines that tip left and right and up and down when you hit the arrow keys.

best,

......................john

GAAAHHHHH!   IT'S DUAL CORE, NOT DUEL CORE!  UNLESS YOUR CORES ARE IN FACT IN SOME SORT OF VIOLENT STRIFE!



Have some cake. [smiley=birthdays.gif]

owwww. that post is difficult to read

I like his spellin'. Its fun to read in these hear parts!!

Mobius, the cake looks good. Think I'll take yer advise!

Mobius, the cake looks good. Think I'll take yer advise!

No problem, glad to help, there's plenty for everyone....

Have some cake. [smiley=birthdays.gif]

Don't mind if I do. Mmm.

Hope you understand that Microsoft only makes money off of the software that they sell you...

...as they kind of don't own Intel, ASUS, AMD, etc.

...and secondly...FATASS...*takes a slice*...

So, the 'teks' that you talked to told you that dual cores weren't 'any good' for 'demanding games'.  Are these these the same 'teks' that sold you that system?  If so, I'd advise you to never go near them again, cause in the first instance, they lied to you, and if they sold you that system as a 'top of the line computer' they cheated you.

Your system is pretty close to what I built 2 years ago..Athlon64 3400+, and an X800XT video card.

For a 'leading edge' system today, it should have been an Intel CONROE of some flavor (the faster the better), or an Athlon64 X2,  with a PAIR of Nvidia 8800's or ATI 1950's in SLI/Crossfire mode.

FSX (and FS9 for that matter) will DEFINATELY see a bit of a boost in performance when run on a dual system, IF you know how to set it up correctly ( which obviously your 'teks' don't know how to do) and make sure that one processor is dedicated to FS, and FS alone.

It really gripes me that so many people have shown up here bitching about the FSX not running well on their system, when all they have is a system that is capable of running FS9 'reasonably well'. Didn't ANY of you people bother to research a bit?  You couldn't read what the reviewers were saying about the game's requirement?  You didn't bother to D/L and try the DEMO?  All I can say is "Thank God that you are only SIM PILOTS", because I'd hate to have to trust my life to people lile you in a real plane.

It really gripes me that so many people have shown up here bitching about the FSX not running well on their system, when all they have is a system that is capable of running FS9 'reasonably well'. Didn't ANY of you people bother to research a bit?  You couldn't read what the reviewers were saying about the game's requirement?  You didn't bother to D/L and try the DEMO?  All I can say is "Thank God that you are only SIM PILOTS", because I'd hate to have to trust my life to people lile you in a real plane.

This is what happens when one is a compulsive buyer and a newbie at the same time.

I bought FSX knowing full well of the drawbacks and knowing full well that even the latest piece of hardware won't cut it for at least a year. On top of that, the FSX series has been well known by seasoned sim pilots to always push Moore's Law to its limits.

yeah, i baught it with the same mindset, of running it perfectly fine in the future. And well, it does run reasonably well for me.