Here we go again!

[Katahu]

It's that time now where people are now expressing their negative opinions towards the FPS shown in FSX. I can remember the past several years since FS98 was released.

Today, we complain about the 15-30 FPS we receive on how computers that are considered to be high-end at this time. But if you look far back into FS1 [the very first version], the highest FPS anyone got from even the most advanced computer of the time was 2FPS [3 if you're lucky].

Knowing that, I can imagine how everyone will be 25 years from now. Everyone might complain that they're only getting 160FPS when the computers of the time can do 300FPS.

[Overspeed]

well said Kat  ;)

[RollerBall]

Jessie, you don't need to keep jumping in to defend FSX - it will stand or fall itself on whether it is a 'good' product that people want to buy. Edit *** see below

I happen to think that several people have made some very valid points about FSX and FR, myself included.

Of course MS are right to aim their new product at the cutting edge of technology if that's what it takes to get the best out of it. But if people don't have access to that technology right now and if running it on their existing technology means that it'll be so degraded as to make it little different from (or IMO worse than) what they have now, why on earth would they want to go out and buy it right away?

And when you add in the DX10 and OS considerations, I'd say that unless you're a total FS freak, you'd be crazy to go out and get it now -

[JBaymore]

Like Roger above, I too need to point out here that I am not "anti- FSX".

[GuitarFreak]

Hah..funny. I'm used to getting 20FPS on FS2004, I imagine it won't be much different on FSX.

[Katahu]

It seems like my nastolgic humor has not caught on.

I'm not jumping into FSX's defense. I'm just reminding everyone about how FS use to be in the past compared to what we take for granted nowadays.

I don't mind people getting all hyped up about how bad FSX looks to them. I don't mind that at all. In fact, I'm becoming a little more neutral towards FS the more I see ANY comment [good or bad] about the sim.

Ok, granted that the detail is extremely high to the point where even the best Alienware computer would most likely blow up into a nuclear blast and how expensive the upgrades can be. You can complain about how FSX is disappointment to some all you like as you seem to be right about that. All I'm saying is, that we should be lucky to even get 30FPS when the first sim was running at 2-3FPS tops.

Speaking of upgrades, I can imagine my $1,600 computer being worth nothing more than a bag of chips 25 years down the road.

[RollerBall]

It seems like my nastolgic humor has not caught on.


Ok, granted that the detail is extremely high to the point where even the best Alienware computer would most likely blow up into a nuclear blast  

Well now I'm taking no chances. No Alienware for me after that bit of advice  

[Katahu]

[quote]



Well now I'm taking no chances. No Alienware for me after that bit of advice

[JBaymore]

Speaking of upgrades, I can imagine my $1,600 computer being worth nothing more than a bag of chips 25 years down the road.

How about more like 2.5 MONTHS down the road.  At least that seems to be the way of things lately  ;).

best,

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

[757200ba]

We all know that our worst battle is against fps in flight silmulator.We also know that what Microsoft puts has "requirements" make us all look to each other and ask ourselfs "..do they know something we dont.....Well but we all know that.What i think is and we can accept this has a sarcasm or a joke, is: They use games like Quake, or URT or Call of Duty to measure computers performances.So many diferent programs to tell us that we need a new machine.WHY THEY DONT USE FLIGHT SIMULATOR has an example so all the computers companys or Microsft can make something that we can win besides just give them the money for the program,and the money for the components.
Can you imagine those scores of five digits sudenly fall for two or three digits. .
Just a thought i wanted to share with you guys.
Cheers

[Katahu]

We all know that our worst battle is against fps in flight silmulator.We also know that what Microsoft puts has "requirements" make us all look to each other and ask ourselfs "..do they know something we dont.....Well but we all know that.What i think is and we can accept this has a sarcasm or a joke, is: They use games like Quake, or URT or Call of Duty to measure computers performances.So many diferent programs to tell us that we need a new machine.WHY THEY DONT USE FLIGHT SIMULATOR has an example so all the computers companys or Microsft can make something that we can win besides just give them the money for the program,and the money for the components.
Can you imagine those scores of five digits sudenly fall for two or three digits. .
Just a thought i wanted to share with you guys.
Cheers

Most of the major game companies know fully well that FS will always bring they're best rigs down to their knees begging to be spared to agony.

[Triple_7]

The way I see it...unless your running FS2004 at its max settings and still getting 20+ FPS then theres really no point in buying FSX just yet.  Yes it looks great...but why pay so much now when by the time you have a rig that can accualy run it smoothly with those nice graphics the price will have dropped dramaticaly  Whats the point in this new sim when most people will have it looking like FS2002 just to get smooth flights.  DX 10 cards are soon to come and technology constantly upgrades.  Might as well wait a little while till those stunning graphics AND the FPS are accualy possible with each other.

With that said I just found the free demo on the Microsoft sight and downloading it now.  More then likely I will find it horrible when FS2002 barely pulls on this rig.  But then again could be surprised.  Test will come tomorrow.

But judging by the comments there is no ones rig that can currently bring FSX to its knees.  :P

And why do people think FPS has to be so incredibly high  If I remember right the human eye cant even detect anything over 30  25 FPS looks really smooth to me

[richardd43]

I did buy FSX hopeing for the best and expecting the worst. Actually it fell in the middle.

I am looking forward to watching the improvements as we figure out the tweaks and requirements to get it to run at its best.

I was late buying FS-9 and only had to check the forums to get it running at its best.

It will be nice to be able to contribute to the forum and possibly help the newcomers a year from now.