From Kevin's 'Chicago in FSX' screenie thread

[RollerBall]

You know what?  If you guys want to argue, go start your own thread.  This one is mine and I just want to post pics...  ::)

I can't get very emotional about this at all - it's only the release of a dang computer game and hardly a life-changing event.

From the pics we have seen FSX is VERY, VERY hard on frame rates and even the guys who have spent a fortune on some pretty top end rigs seem to be having difficulties getting it to run currently with anything like all of the bells and whistles working.

Frankly I can't see why I would want to go to FSX if I CAN'T see all of the fancy new features it contains because I've had to turn them off to make it run ?i?!!  We have seen from the screenies that with sliders turned down it actually IMO looks worse than FS9 with sliders up!

And there's no way I'm dashing out to buy a new rig or an upgrade just to run FSX - there are many, many more important things in my life than FSX.

But my PC is important to me and I always try to keep upgrading to maintain a sensible set up for professional reasons (simply, I can't flog PCs to clients if I don't know how they perform). So at some time down the line, maybe 9-12 months from now, I might have a rig that'll do the job. Then I'll do as I did with FS9 - buy a copy cheap off eBay!

I've said before and I believe still that MS may have got their timing wrong. If FSX needs DX10 (not out yet) and Vista (not out yet) neither of which will be around until next year, I think my plan is a good 'un.

I'm very pleased for all the guys who are dashing out to grab FSX off the shelves - but (correct me if I'm wrong) I sense a feeling of disappointment among a fair proportion of them that they're not actually getting what they expected, for the reasons I mentioned above.

I'm happy just to sit tight, keep smiling, admire some of the lovely shots that some of the guys are posting (and feel smug at some of the errrrr... other stuff.....that others are putting up ..... no names  :) ) while I keep enjoying my FS9 with all of it's lovely sceneries and add ons, safe in the knowledge that when I do make the move I'll have the right technology AND an enormous library of FSX add ons to go at.

There is an up-side to NOT being an early-adopter, you know  ;)

[ozzy72]

This happens everytime a new FS comes out. It'll be a good 6 months before FSX is available in darkest Hungary and I'll have my new super computer by then that should be able to cope with it all. The virtues of patience eh Roger?

[Mobius]

I must be one of the lucky ones, I am extrememly pleased with FSX, and am happy with how it runs on my computer.  I didn't expect to get it and run it as well as I ran FS9, but still, it ran better than than I expected, so overall I'm pleased.  I also never really put any money into payware or upgrading just for FS, so I wasn't to attached to FS9, and am happy with the quality I'm getting from FSX.

[wji]

"From the pics we have seen FSX is VERY, VERY hard on frame rates "

What a curious observation . . .

I'm running FSX on an AMD 1.8 Ghz processor and have posted copious amounts of FSX screenshots showing Frames=20 Target=20

[RollerBall]

"From the pics we have seen FSX is VERY, VERY hard on frame rates "

What a curious observation . . .

I'm running FSX on an AMD 1.8 Ghz processor and have posted copious amounts of FSX screenshots showing Frames=20 Target=20

Cmon Bill - where are your sliders. I'll bet with that h/ware spec you ain't got em all maxed  ;)

[Mobius]

I do* get 50 FPS at times.


*errmm...with autogen set to zero, but still....

[JBaymore]

We went through all this same framerate garbage when fs2004 came out (look back at the early fs2004 forum posts).  It all settled down a bit when most people upgraded their hardware after coming to the realization that they'd have to if they wanted the get the actualy significant features to work.  

Even though it is CLEAR that the FSX software is a very demanding package................some people will insist that they get "great performance" with machines that seem like they'd be challenged to run the original "Pong".

I think it comes down to a person's definition of "great performance' and also as to WHEN one is noting framerates and stutters (and when one is ignoring them).

---

"Well I have a 400 mHz 386 with 512K of RAM and I am getting 10000000 fps with everything totally maxed."

---

One of my own "standards" is ...... if the manufacturer touts a feature as a selling point (like elephants roming in the wild..... the shading on rivets on the planes......... reflections on the water....... the real world weather ....etc.) ........ then I'd beter not have to disable that feature that I though I bought in order to get it to perform well as a flight simulation as oposed to a scenery slide show program.

So I am a PIA with very high standards.    Puttin' the pennies away for the fancy new hardware.


best,

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

[RollerBall]

Wise words John and I couldn't agree more. I've said exactly the same myself elsewhere. No point having great features if you have to turn em off to run the software.

Like you I'll be patient until I've got the hardware to do it justice. It'll be quite a few months yet but I can wait  ;)

[richardd43]

I consider my computer to be in the mid to high end range and can't get anywhere near max and get more that 6 FPS.

Mid range setting reap 20+FPS over L.A. and 50 over flat water.

Maybe I need to downgrade to 1.8Gh and see if I can improve my frame rates.

Did not see in the post but was that with on-board video or was there a video card installed.

[RollerBall]

Wow - that must be very disappointing. How does FS9 run on your rig richard.

Hope that there turns out to be an easy solution to these problems - DX and/or OS.

[richardd43]

FS-9 ran great. I ran almost everything maxed out and had great FPS.

Actually I was expecting this. No DX-10 card and probably not enough ram for Vista RC-2 could be hurting the sim.

I had to upgrade like crazy to get FS-9 to work, will probably do the same for FSX.

[Katahu]

FS-9 ran great. I ran almost everything maxed out and had great FPS.

Actually I was expecting this. No DX-10 card and probably not enough ram for Vista RC-2 could be hurting the sim.

I had to upgrade like crazy to get FS-9 to work, will probably do the same for FSX.

Every FS version is the same no matter the features. When FS2000 came out, people had to wait a year or two to get the most out of it because it was designed for hardware that wasn't even out. The same holds true for all the other versions after that including FSX. So it's no surprise for me that I have to wait for DX10 in order to enjoy the sim.

For now, I'll buy FSX when it OFFICIALLY comes out because I need the SDKs so that I can continue my project that might last a whole year.

[wji]

"I'll bet with that h/ware spec you ain't got em all maxed"
Roger that, R.B., with FSX maxed out on my system it pretty much turns into a slideshow

[RollerBall]

I'm recommending FSX for its FUN value, like the man said: "Don't Take It Too Seriously"

OK Bill, but I'll thcream and thcream if I get it and can't thee all the lovely eye candy  :D

[JBaymore]

I've been carefully surfing around the various FS boards on the net the past two days and the basic FSX situation seems to be reflected the same as here with the people who have managed to buy it early:

FPS tend to be REALLY low and stutters are still occuring UNLESS you turn down most of the "new" features.  Unless you have a VERY current top end machine with a cutting edge top end graphics card(s) where you MIGHT be geting something like 20 fps in the more congested areas.  And even those lucky folks are having to turn stuff down and are still not getting high rates in spite of that.

Haven't really seen anyone who says that they can run it with everything set to max.

I was hoping I'd find different but it's what I suspected would happen ....... so FOR ME it confirms the wisdom of my decision to wait for the release of Vista, DX10, and buying a totally tricked out new machine (which likely will be the most expensive machine I have ever bought...even in relative Dollars) before planning on flying with the new sim.

I do NOT want to repeat my mistakes and my frustration with trying to get fs2004 running all maxed out.

I am sure that the freeware developers will "have at it" very soon and create all sorts of work arounds to "fix" it so a mere mortal can set up a machine to run it at a reasonable level.... but to me decreasing the features (less exacting textures, mesh, and so on) to get it to run seems counterproductive.

All in all, a very disapointing situation to me.  I am sure that eventually I will have it running.....but it won't be for a while I am afraid.

best,

.....john