|
|
Post by lifejogger on Aug 14, 2006 9:47:05 GMT -5
The first few times I have tried the FSX demo I have started at Princess Juliana Int’l and, as I have mentioned before, FSX was not flyable. My frame rates were actually around .5. The whole thing was like looking at a bad PowerPoint presentation. Using the FSX default settings I could take off, but still my frame rates were between 5 and 10 with no fluidity at all. Now I have never flown from Princess Juliana Int’l in FS9 so I decided to see what it was like and I find out I get terrible frame rates there also, although not as bad as in FSX. Perhaps with a new graphics card and if I bump my RAM up from 1gig to 2gig FSX might run on my P4 2.5ghz PC. Tonight I am going to try flying out of some of the other airports in FSX and see how things look.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimslost on Aug 14, 2006 10:07:11 GMT -5
Yikes!
|
|
|
|
Post by scubakobe on Aug 14, 2006 11:59:48 GMT -5
Yes if it isn't possible to upgrade your video card at the moment then a gig of RAM is a must.
I don't understand how turning your settings down to Default can help any, because default settings includes high water effects, detailed land textures, and dense autogen. ;D
I ended up turning water effects to High 1.x and ground textures to 1 meter.
|
|
|
|
Post by lifejogger on Aug 14, 2006 12:29:23 GMT -5
I don't understand how turning your settings down to Default can help The reason setting FSX to the default settings helped (sort of) is that before I took a flight in FSX I tried to adjust all the settings in FSX so that they were similar to my FS9 settings. By doing that I could make a realistic comparison. As it turned out I could not run FSX at the equivalent settings I have in FS9. I had to revert to the default settings just to take off and even at the default settings FSX did not perform very well. In order to test FSX some more I need to get away from Princess Juliana Int'l to a frame rate friendlier area. (I should have explained this in the original post above) |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 14, 2006 15:11:12 GMT -5
I have 2 computers here. The Pentium 4 2.66GHz with 1 Gb RAM and an nVidia FX5700 with 128 megs gives so-so performance and is only flyable like FS9 if I turn off autogen. The other is an Athlon 64 3400+ with 2 Gb RAM and an nVidia GeForce 7600 GS w/256 megs and I can fly FSX with much higher settings and get 20-25 fps. Since this demo is of a beta build and optimizing continues, I think the finished product will be a keeper at least on the Athlon.
I am not, however, trying too hard to bring FS9 addons to FSX. My Carenado planes work fine, but many others including some of Bill's planes are not a pretty sight. I think it will be a case of thinking "TWO different sims" rather than two versions of the same sim. I will continue to enjoy my heavily modded FS9 installs for what they are and enjoy FSX (which looks VERY different under the hood) for what it is and will become. It will be like back in the day when I had FS98 and ProPilot installed at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucky409et on Sept 13, 2006 20:53:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jakemaster on Sept 13, 2006 22:15:03 GMT -5
Thats not FS, its some other sim
|
|
|
|
Post by scubakobe on Sept 13, 2006 22:26:43 GMT -5
I'm sure he knows that's in FS9.  I think what he was asking was if he could get that airplane to work in FS-X. My answer is "Most likely not". There are some airplanes out there that can work with FS-X, but not fully compatible. And a freeware airplane most likely won't work in FS-X, though it's possible! Your best bet is to download the demo and test that airplane in it yourself. Have fun and good luck , Kobbe |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 1, 2006 18:59:29 GMT -5
While FSX is an Airplane Game, it is NOT in any way a Combat game. No, there will be no bullets, bombs, damage done etc. You can get that in Combat Sim 3 if you want a game or Combat Sim 1 or 2 if you want a simulation, or IL-2 and its offspring if you want nothing but frustration and fanboys. |
|
