My FSX experience so far
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:07 pmor: my two cents worth ::) whatever title you like best
I received FSX as a gift for Christmas... as i knew i would ;-)
I installed it on my machine immediately and loaded my ol' rig down with FSX nearly as badly as i could... all the sliders to max etc etc. tried that with different times of day, different seasons, and different cities and towns.
here is my take on what i experienced:
I can see what microsoft is trying to accomplish with this particular FSX title. The missions, the challenges... this simulator oozes the versatility and the vastness of aviation from every pore. From sea planes delivering supplies in the amazon to massive airliners carrying people and cargo to destinations near and far right down to the grass roots of general aviation. I feel like microsoft really pulls the arm chair pilot right into the sim with this particular title in ways they havnt been able to do so thus far.
little details i really liked:
I liked the terrain complexity in FSX over FS9 - i think the terrain is more in touch with the actual contours of the earth over what previous titles have offered. Hills and vallys that surround my home airport that really were nowhere to be found in FS 2004 are now present and realistic, for example.
I like also the addition of moving ground traffic - i dont know how many times i have been on a real life approach to a busy airport like LAX or DFW or ORD and crossed a highway packed with traffic thinking "wow thank god im not down there in that mess"... you kind of get the same sense when you "cross the fence" in your 737 and the city below you seems alive with rush hour traffic.
The flight sim franchise has really come a long way in making us feel like we are not alone in the FS world. first with static traffic, then with traffic that would take off and fly to 2 or 3 thousand feet and dissapear, then with complex AI with flight plans... now the ground below is crawling with vehicular traffic and even animals.
What i didnt like:
ATC is really no different than before.
and
I didnt care for the fact that a system i spent so much money on 4 or 5 years ago now seems a bit on the obsolete side (though i know it is far from that). FSX is very labor intensive for just about any system that a gamer would realistically have sitting in their home office. therefore i saw the following frame rates
open country / small towns = 17 FPS easily (which is what i get everywhere in FS9 with everything set to max)
Larger towns = 10 - 12 FPS a bit slower... but without stuttering
Major metropolitan areas or Intl airports = between 5 and 8 FPS max (depending on view mode sometimes at a standstill for a few seconds) not the way i would want to play the sim!
keep in mind the above is with most sliders to max
In short, i like FSX, i think it shows a lot of potential, but on the down side, you have to have a really high end machine to make it shine the way it is supposed to.
My machine as of today:
Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz
1GB ram
120 G hard drive
ATI radeon 9800 pro
My machine next week... (late christmas gift)
1. Antec 900 black steel mid tower computer case
2. EVGA NVIDIA nForce 680i intel motherboard
3. EVGA GeForce 8800GTX 768MB video card
4. Intel Core 2 Duo processor
5. 2 gigs of 240pin SDRAM
it will be interesting to see what the difference in performance is, i will post the results when they are available.
I received FSX as a gift for Christmas... as i knew i would ;-)
I installed it on my machine immediately and loaded my ol' rig down with FSX nearly as badly as i could... all the sliders to max etc etc. tried that with different times of day, different seasons, and different cities and towns.
here is my take on what i experienced:
I can see what microsoft is trying to accomplish with this particular FSX title. The missions, the challenges... this simulator oozes the versatility and the vastness of aviation from every pore. From sea planes delivering supplies in the amazon to massive airliners carrying people and cargo to destinations near and far right down to the grass roots of general aviation. I feel like microsoft really pulls the arm chair pilot right into the sim with this particular title in ways they havnt been able to do so thus far.
little details i really liked:
I liked the terrain complexity in FSX over FS9 - i think the terrain is more in touch with the actual contours of the earth over what previous titles have offered. Hills and vallys that surround my home airport that really were nowhere to be found in FS 2004 are now present and realistic, for example.
I like also the addition of moving ground traffic - i dont know how many times i have been on a real life approach to a busy airport like LAX or DFW or ORD and crossed a highway packed with traffic thinking "wow thank god im not down there in that mess"... you kind of get the same sense when you "cross the fence" in your 737 and the city below you seems alive with rush hour traffic.
The flight sim franchise has really come a long way in making us feel like we are not alone in the FS world. first with static traffic, then with traffic that would take off and fly to 2 or 3 thousand feet and dissapear, then with complex AI with flight plans... now the ground below is crawling with vehicular traffic and even animals.
What i didnt like:
ATC is really no different than before.
and
I didnt care for the fact that a system i spent so much money on 4 or 5 years ago now seems a bit on the obsolete side (though i know it is far from that). FSX is very labor intensive for just about any system that a gamer would realistically have sitting in their home office. therefore i saw the following frame rates
open country / small towns = 17 FPS easily (which is what i get everywhere in FS9 with everything set to max)
Larger towns = 10 - 12 FPS a bit slower... but without stuttering
Major metropolitan areas or Intl airports = between 5 and 8 FPS max (depending on view mode sometimes at a standstill for a few seconds) not the way i would want to play the sim!
keep in mind the above is with most sliders to max
In short, i like FSX, i think it shows a lot of potential, but on the down side, you have to have a really high end machine to make it shine the way it is supposed to.
My machine as of today:
Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz
1GB ram
120 G hard drive
ATI radeon 9800 pro
My machine next week... (late christmas gift)
1. Antec 900 black steel mid tower computer case
2. EVGA NVIDIA nForce 680i intel motherboard
3. EVGA GeForce 8800GTX 768MB video card
4. Intel Core 2 Duo processor
5. 2 gigs of 240pin SDRAM
it will be interesting to see what the difference in performance is, i will post the results when they are available.
