A Total Joke

[Joe_D]

[quote]Look folks...FSX is optimized for an Operating System that hasn't been released for the general public, and for video cards that aren't (except for a few engineering samples) in existance yet...and you are griping about the performance

[Daube]

Crysis will run on a 6800GT. My proof? Have none, but all the screenshots for Crysis were on dual 7900GTX's so Id asume it would work.

Sure it would, but with poor graphics, not with the top-graphics screenshots seen so far. And that's normal.

[pepper_airborne]

How can FSX be optomized for an OS that is still in BETA and hardware that does not even exist in its final form?

When the demo was released, it was said that it "was not optimized" yet and frame rates and performace in the final would be much better.....and we all bought it!

Fact is it can't be realistically run to remotly resemble the promo pic with todays top hardware etc and get acceptable  famerates. So, why release it now?

They expect to go "mainsteam" with this when  even hard core simmers with high end systems can not get it to  run acceptably at relatively low settings?

It a major patch is not in the works, FSX might fade away like CS3.

I doubt this, since people expected it to run the same as FS9 on old hardware. Game developers always develope a game with there eye on future hardware, and so go's the same for FSX. Heck, i got it too look better then FS9 on the a GF FX6800 with a gig of RAM and 2GHZ processor.

[Daube]

[quote]
When the demo was released, it was said that it "was not optimized" yet and frame rates and performace in the final would be much better.....and we all bought it!

Fact is it can't be realistically run to remotly resemble the promo pic with todays top hardware etc and get acceptable

[Joe_D]

There seem to be  confusion and concern at aces why many (most?) are having so many problems getting acceptable frame rates with top end hardware. even at low settings

So clearly there is some sort of problem here.

[pepper_airborne]

probably a badly installed hardware config, because a few people i know also got a new rig and have absolutely no problems at all.

[Daube]

Well, I've seen a lot of users that could have some nice FPS with high-end computers. Just check the links I provided in one of my previous answers.

Anyway, I think the main "problem" (which is not really a problem) comes from the textures format. That DDS DXT5 is really heavy and ressource demanding. All of the FSX textures are extremely big and heavy, no surprise today's hardware has some difficulties in displaying them.

The point is that they will look just great on tomorrow's hardware. Some user already posted some screenshots showing those reflecting buildings, those high-details cities, etc... can't wait I can afford some serious hardware to see that too.

[Joe_D]

probably a badly installed hardware config, because a few people i know also got a new rig and have absolutely no problems at all.

Not in my case.
I have a high end sys tweaked for speed and everything else runs exceptionally well.

It your read TD's blog, he is even stumpped why so many are having problems.

This is not a future hardware issue. It is obviously a

[RollerBall]

pepper_airborne

You obviously are considerably ahead of the rest of us here on the forum in the hardware and software stakes and you have some important insights to share with us all on how to set up and optimise this software to run on apparently quite a modest rig.

And apparently all your friends have managed to get it running amazingly well as well, although they don't seem to be forum members as far as we know, so you obviously have a lot of good stuff to spread before us.

And boy, do the rest of we poor, mere mortals need it.

So can I suggest that you post a few pics showing the success you've achieved and list the steps you've taken to reach your pinnacle of success.

Until you do that can you for goodness stake stop making your wild, so far unfounded claims about it.

I for one am beginning to wonder about you.

[TSC.]

No....you totally missed the point...... I want to see pictures from the person that is saying that London is just fine.

best,

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

Good call - my bad

Damn you red wine!!!

Cheers,

TSC.

[Bindoe]

Fact is, it can't be realistically run to remotly resemble the promo pic with todays top hardware etc and get acceptable  famerates. So, why release it now?

It runs perfectly fine on todays hardware. On fs2004.com someone with a X1900GT with a few tweaks got close to maxing it out it out and got framerates above 15 at Seattle.

[Tweek]

It runs perfectly fine on todays hardware. On fs2004.com someone with a X1900GT with a few tweaks got close to maxing it out it out and got framerates above 15 at Seattle.

And was it running smoothly? I've actually managed to max out FS9 (finally) and I've got to to run pretty much how I'd like it to, with the right visual appearance. However, I have no idea what my average FPS is, because frankly, I don't care. It runs how I'd like it to. You could be getting 30 FPS and still get major stutters all over the place, when it's trying to load the scenery.

[Hagar]

I don't understand why people are so eager to defend Microsoft on this.

[RollerBall]

Yes, you're right Doug and thanks for pointing that out. But as we've moved on to FR and performance I don't mind.

But just a little thing that's about nothing really.

How come all the long standing forum members who've been simming for years are having problems with this software while the only ones who are sailing through with no problems (and no pics mind) are newbies who've only been on the forum for five minutes?

I know I'm a deeply cynical old bu**er but there you go.  Is it just me (to coin a phrase)

[pepper_airborne]

Well thank you for showing respect.

Maby because they have old systems? or havent optimized it yet? Maby they do not have the right knowdlegde about what has a certain impact on what components.

There are dozens of reasons to think off as you can see.