Anyone think FSX is TOO demanding..?

[Boca]

.. think about it. The leaps that PC's have made have all been  forced by software being more and more demanding, but this latest flight sim is utterly ridiculous. I've been reading about people with recently bought/built PC's which can play all the latest games, yet this game reduces their systems to an expensive slideshow.
When fs2004 came out, yes it was more demanding than the 2002 version , but not THAT more demanding. This game is written for people who either have great connections in the hardware business, are very wealthy, or very very lucky or dedicated people. I fear the rest of us who have just bought recently flashy Graphic cards/motherboards/processors..etc..have just purchased a lot of expensive and very soon to be outdated junk.
Well , not this boy. I'll stick with my smooth framed fs2004 till I'm ready to upgrade. Not when Bill Gates needs another castle.

[AgentJohnson]

i kinda think so to. i can play games life bf2 and COD with every setting maxed out but as soon as i play FSX, i have to move everything down to low to get easily flyable framerates.
yes it is kinda rediculous how poorly it runs.

[ctjoyce]

Um, right. Before I flame you, put on the kevlar. FSX is one of the first in a new generation of games that were designed to run off DX10 and Vista. The hardware required for both are just barely on the seene. Therefore yes, haveing a top of the line SLi or CrossFire and E6600 rig that can crush anything else get only 25 ~ 30FPS on max settings in FSX, but you must remember that the FSX engine is ment to run on DX10 hardware which is soon to be released. When we do have the correct hardware then we should see FSX flying at the 60+ frames that we expect. We must also remember that the sceenery and polygons are almost twice that of FS9.

Cheers
Cameron

[Sytse]

Um, right. Before I flame you, put on the kevlar. FSX is one of the first in a new generation of games that were designed to run off DX10 and Vista. The hardware required for both are just barely on the seene. Therefore yes, haveing a top of the line SLi or CrossFire and E6600 rig that can crush anything else get only 25 ~ 30FPS on max settings in FSX, but you must remember that the FSX engine is ment to run on DX10 hardware which is soon to be released. When we do have the correct hardware then we should see FSX flying at the 60+ frames that we expect. We must also remember that the sceenery and polygons are almost twice that of FS9.

Cheers
Cameron

Yeah... I just think the game was released too soon.  :)

[Hai Perso Coyone?]

Yeah... I just think the game was released too soon.  :)

+1...MS rushed it a bit..

[Brett_Henderson]

I think they did rush it.. as in it's still too buggy... and that's nothing new

[flymo]

cam is 100% right, the hardware for FSX to run amxed which what eveyrone wants is not avaiable, however im happy with my FSX on high with 20FPS and thats without tweaks so i will hopefully be able to lock it at 25 FPS  and im happy until i upgrade to vista and DX10 next year

as for it being released to soon and rushed... its out in time for christmas...it runs well on up to date computers and i would just like to say that on release everygame is buggy that is why companies release patches... liek BF2 has had about 4 major patches since its release, games are never perfect its just the pure size of FSX that makes it such a challenge and why everything is not yet de-bugged and in all fairness all those people who bought FSX and are onw complaining about perforamnce. you knew it was going to be demanding so why keep bogging down the forums with your crappy complaints.....

john

[eno]

The one thing that everyone seems to have forgotten ....... VISTA and DX10 were supposed to be released about the same time.  
The delay is to the above ..... not MS bringing out FSX too early.

[alrot]

[quote]

Yeah... I just think the game was released too soon.

[Scudrunners]

As I have been saying for awhile now on this forum, one of these days, MS is going to self-destruct on their own greed.

[Boca]

" you knew it was going to be demanding so why keep bogging down the forums with your crappy complaints...."

Em...just a guess , but thats what the forums are FOR, flymo. Not for you to sit and brag about how great your new rig is, but to help people with problems overcome them.

[NicksFXHouse]

What is really hillarious is people still think they are suppose to see 35-45 frames in flight sim

Flight sim is not like any other game.. it relies on the leftover resources after the frame generation. Locking the frame counter at 24-28 no matter what kind of hardware is being run and balancing the sliders for the rest of the load is the key to both FS9 and FSX.

In FSX medium grade cards such as x850xt should be locked at 22-24 depending on the supporting processor and motherboard speed

2gigs of memory is a must

[wji]

" Well , not this boy."
I'm confused, Boca . . . did you buy FSX?

[Daube]

When fs2004 came out, yes it was more demanding than the 2002 version , but not THAT more demanding.

Yes, it was VERY DEMANDING !
The proof is simple: On a today medium-high computer, that is a PIV 3,2GHz, 1Gb RAM, and a 6800 GT with 256 Mb, FS9 still runs at LOW FPS (less than 18 FPS) over cities on default sceneries.

Just like FSX, when FS9 came out, only the guys with top of the top machines could push the sliders close to the right. Other people, with normal machines, had to install addons to decrease quality and improve framrates, and had to tweak a lot.

This has already been discussed several times.

[Fozzer]

What is really hillarious is people still think they are suppose to see 35-45 frames in flight sim

Flight sim is not like any other game.. it relies on the leftover resources after the frame generation. Locking the frame counter at 24-28 no matter what kind of hardware is being run and balancing the sliders for the rest of the load is the key to both FS9 and FSX.

In FSX medium grade cards such as x850xt should be locked at 22-24 depending on the supporting processor and motherboard speed

2gigs of memory is a must

And I am just finding out that a 128 Mb on a GPU is not enough even with all the sliders set to almost zero in FSX.

Just starting my FSX loads the GPU 128Mb memory up to 99%...  :o...!
...and as for thinking about applying Autogen....forget it...!!

I am even wondering if 256 Mb of GPU memory is really enough now......?

Looks like a very expensive, top of the range card, fitted with 512 Mb of fast, quality memory will be necessary....way out of my price range I'm afraid.... ...!

Paul... ...!