AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

[Navymmw]

im not sure what to do, I keep saying im not going to buy FSX, then somehow it keeps sucking me in, and now I do want to buy it.


Also how is performence for the deluxe version gennerly.

[Ryanamur]

Well, I got the deluxe version to help my VA out and test some settings. I have a P4 2.93GHZ, 1GB PC3200 RAM, Leadtek Geforce
6600TD 256MB PCI express. With some custom settings that would probably average at 50% of total quality (Wx on minimum, Aircraft on
minimum, aircraft traffic on 100% but all other traffic at 0, Buildings on medium, no lens flare, minimal water reflection, no shadow...) I
have a hard time going above 10 FPS in congested areas at 1280x1024.

[yvo]

I for one am not displeased with performance. off course with my P4 3,2 128mb videocard i can't put all sliders to the right but the overall
performance is good enough to fly. In time i might have to buy an better videocard and boost performance.
I think most people that were initially saying not to buy FSX eventually will buy it.

But I think that if you want to use FSX with a PMDG aircraft you will be stuck at 2fps!

Cheers and good luck with your choice.

Yvo

[Airliner]

Amd Athlon64 4000+ at 2.45GHz
ATI 9800XT 256MB AGP
SoundBlaster Audigy 2ZS
2 GB Corsair XMS PC3200 (DDR400)
50 ton CRT (Analog! Agh!)

I DID have UT from FS9 installed but, I disabled it for now. Waiting on Traffic X.

Ground traffic off
Airport Vehicles - medium
Water Low 2x
AutoGen off
All other sliders maxed
No light bloom

I can get 15-20 at complex airports, no worries (this equals 30 FPS in FS9, as FSX is a lot smoother at lower FPS values).

At altitude, easily cruise past 30-40 and up.

Important note - with FS9, 20FPS was the "comfort" area. In FSX, you can fly okay at 10, though 20 IS better. It's not choppy though, at 10.

Now, my only concern is getting a patch to fix all the stupid stuff like saving cold and dark and restarting to find 1 engine is turned on,
brakes are off and you're rolling into the terminal; VC controls don't all work or they work but don't visually change so they appear they
aren't working; some controls work the wrong things; etc.

[Mud]

I got FSX deluxe for 3 weeks and flew about 1 hour with it and got 20 fps in a Cessna with settings from low to medium.
With a bigger plane and more eye candy I get 6 to10 FPS.
Maybe 1 day when I got a new system and a few new addons ( hopefully FsP) I'll try it again.
For now FSX can't beat FS9, at least on my system.

P4 3.4Ghz
Geforce 6600 GT
1 GB Ram
250 Gig HD

Mud

[gronji2004]

FSX Standard has totaly blown me away. It completely blow FS9 into the wind!

I love it!

[WBHoenig]

Really, to get the frames that you got in FS and the eye candy that you *really* want, you need this:

Intel Core 2 Duo Quad Core CPU
4+ gigs of ram
nVidia gForce 8800GTX
Windows Vista
DX10
DX10 patch for FsX to make it work with DX10.

[American Jet]

WBHoenig wrote:
Really, to get the frames that you got in FS and the eye candy that you *really* want, you need this:

Intel Core 2 Duo Quad Core CPU
4+ gigs of ram
nVidia gForce 8800GTX
Windows Vista
DX10
DX10 patch for FsX to make it work with DX10.

Thats enough to get you 60fps lol...I dont think ppl really want it that high....maybe instead of the DX10 card get something like a 7950GT
card of 512Mb, 1-2gb of ram, fsx works quick enough on a 2.1Ghz for me...so maybe 2.5GHz would help and. Windows Vista does help, I
recommend getting it, But dont go balastics trying to find these things, wait until the technology catches up to the game...

[Serviceman]

I don't think it's the computer or the graphics processor that costs so much to run FSX but the liquid nitrogen cooling for the CPU and
GPU required to run this program that hurts your bottom line: