List your system specs and describe how it ran

[JBaymore]

Are you getting better or worse fps /smoothness in FSX than with FS9 on the SAME machine with about the same level (in percent of its capability) of graphics and AI and all other such stuff running?

I have yet to even get really smooth stuff out of FS9 on my not TOO shabby machine  (see specs below) ...... so I can't IMAGINE this machine handling FSX at anything other than VERY reduced settings....... which is a "why bother" until I get a good hardware situation in place.

From my point of view...... when I buy "the package" I am buying it in order to run it with ALL the features enabled to their fullest extent.  I haven't been able to do that with FS9 yet.

I simply do not understand how perople with "minimal machines" are saying....oh yeah....it runs great on my machine.  Unless most of the stuff is turned off.

This baffled me on FS9 too.

best,

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

[cheesegrater]

I simply do not understand how perople with "minimal machines" are saying....oh yeah....it runs great on my machine.  Unless most of the stuff is turned off.

Technically if you get less than one frame per second the game still "runs." It just doesn't run very fast.

Yeah, to get it running on a lower spec system with a decent frame rate you definately need to disable most of the options.

[Bindoe]

P4 650
2gb RAM
X850XTPE oc'd 640/ 640

Runs amazing! Far better than fs9 looksm while running smoooooooth.

[freedomhays]

LIAN LI PC-60BPLUSII Black Aluminum ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
ASUS P5W64 WS Professional Socket T (LGA 775) Intel 975X ATX Server Motherboard
CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz 4M sharing L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor
Thermaltake Big Typhoon CL-P0114 120mm Cooling Fan with Heatsink,

[cheesegrater]

Wow, great system. Let us know how it goes.

[freedomhays]

I sure will,
I can't wait,  I'm getten kinda excited.

[supernova45849850l]

Well I am disappointed to say the least.

[Daube]

[quote]Well I am disappointed to say the least.

[cheesegrater]

Your graphic card is really poor, this is your problem.
Also your RAM is quite limited... CPU is OK.
But don't worry, it has been said many times that the demo performance is crap, and beta testers confirmed that the beta was much better.

The target performance is that FSX, if tunned down to look exactely like FS9, should run a little bit better than FS9. Since your config cannot even run FS9 at max settings, you cannot expect FSX to look good or run smooth, unfortunately.

That CPU is not OK for FSX.

It's like this with every release of Flight Simulator. Unless you have a top of the line PC, you won't get good frame rates. The only frame rate friendly release was FS2002.

[Daube]

That CPU is not OK for FSX.

It's like this with every release of Flight Simulator. Unless you have a top of the line PC, you won't get good frame rates. The only frame rate friendly release was FS2002.

It is indeed.
For FS9, I could get good frame rates with a Pentium 1,7 GHz, and very good frames on a 2,4 GHz.
FSX is like FS9, graphics are the most ressources-heavy thing:
- autogen needs graphic power
- visual effects (water or self-shadows for example) need graphic power
- precise textures need graphic power

Things that are heavy on the CPU:
- AI traffic
- animated sceneries
- wildflife
- car traffic
- flight model

This is why I think so good framerates can be obtained with a Pentium 2,8GHz, as long as the graphic card is powerfull enough.
Very small CPU can of course be a preformance bottleneck for powerfull videocards, but a pentium 2,8GHz is not really a small CPU.