General FSX Question

UPS523 · Post by **UPS523** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:34 am

MD11Forever wrote:My only suggestion would be: uninstall FSuX and go back to using FS9.

ROFL

Indeed

wilhelmsson · Post by **wilhelmsson** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:03 pm

Why do you guys all hate FsX is it because your system isn't good enough? I can play it with everything setted high and still get 20 FPS at the ground around major airports. Sorry but I just want to know this because at high everything looks very nice?

Post by **george[flytampa]** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:34 pm

Because it should be running at 60FPS. Once the novelty of shinny water & giraffes has worn off, theres really not much worth in the product. Very disappointing work for 3 years of development.

They(Vole) have to re-write the bloated engine with something fresh & efficient. FS has felt the same to me since FS98. Its got boring.

Marvel · Post by **Marvel** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:06 pm

i fly at 25/30 fps in fsx and about 40/50 in fs9 but at the end fsx seem to be to fast and realistic. i don't know the reason of that but it's true.

paavo · Post by **paavo** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:19 pm

wilhelmsson wrote:Why do you guys all hate FsX is it because your system isn't good enough? I can play it with everything setted high and still get 20 FPS at the ground around major airports. Sorry but I just want to know this because at high everything looks very nice?

Not every version of flight sim is a winner, FS2000 sucked and so does FSX.
What add ons are you using when you get 20 fps ? This is what most people forget, 20 fps with default airports and default planes is nothing to brag about. What happens to that 20 fps when you have a detailed airport, Level D or PMDG, and an large urban city ?
The other thing is autogen, what do you have that set at ?

paavo · Post by **paavo** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:42 pm

Marvel wrote:i fly at 25/30 fps in fsx and about 40/50 in fs9 but at the end fsx seem to be to fast and realistic. i don't know the reason of that but it's true.

Realistic ?
I guess you never fly in the US, which looks like the Kalahari in FSX.
Lets not forget they had an extra year with this sim, and half the world has no landclass.

Marvel · Post by **Marvel** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:07 pm

i don't know about usa. I fly in europe most time with xclass and the sim look great. without xclass or free texture replacement pack the ground are too desertic.

skydvdan · Post by **skydvdan** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:03 pm

wilhelmsson wrote:Why do you guys all hate FsX is it because your system isn't good enough? I can play it with everything setted high and still get 20 FPS at the ground around major airports. Sorry but I just want to know this because at high everything looks very nice?

LOL, yeah looking at my system specs maybe you're right, my system sucks. For years I thought that FS ran great on my system and when I got FS2002 I had a mid-range system, it ran "pretty good". Then I upgraded several times to high end system after high end system and that's when I realized that in the past I had no idea what "good" was. If 20-25 fps is good in your opinion then in my opinion you have never seen great performance. You have no idea how the sim should run. Honestly, the only time you should see 20 fps is when you are using a complex plane with a complex scenery at high sim settings and no "tweaks".

Jacek · Post by **Jacek** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:06 pm

Was MS finally able to make fully overcast skies in FSX?

MD11Forever · Post by **MD11Forever** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:34 pm

Jacek wrote:Was MS finally able to make fully overcast skies in FSX?

No. Not as far as I know. This was probably bumped in favor of additonal animals on the Serengeti.

Tracon · Post by **Tracon** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:32 pm

I have so many addons for FS9 I don't think I could name them all. FS9 on my system looks just as good as FSX does at the average user setting if not better... Ya, I have FSX too.

Oh, and it runs just fine too.