Microsoft Flight

I quite like X-Plane. It runs great on my small MacBook Pro 13" and amazingly well on the 27"iMac Core i7.
It might not be as complete as FSX but it's good enough to fly approaches in a Baron...
 
I got FS98 when I was 6, but before that I had Flight Unlimited II and A-10 Cuba. Both epic games. FUII was awesome because it had full ATC and AI aircraft 5 or 6 years before Microsoft did. You could only fly around the Bay Area, but since I lived there I loved it. And A-10 Cuba...well...it was just all around awesome. I still need to go back and get another copy sometime.
 
ThumperMCS said:
:rotfl:
Hopefully this Xmas I'll treat myself to a machine that can run FSX to the max....probably just to have it be outdated again within a month thereafter lol
Click to expand...


So are you going to travel into the future or are you just going to sneak into the NSA?
 
Is anyone able to run FSX on full graphics with good FPS? I was still debating getting it, and I'm running a brand new system, 3.2ghz quad core 1gb video and 4gb ram, and it seems like that isn't even enough.
 
Mark815 said:
Is anyone able to run FSX on full graphics with good FPS? I was still debating getting it, and I'm running a brand new system, 3.2ghz quad core 1gb video and 4gb ram, and it seems like that isn't even enough.
Click to expand...

That's enough but not enough to crank it all the way up and get decent frame rates when there are cloud effects (frame rates rise when the sky is blue). All the way up is like a 3D benchmark with all the goodies. It really is spectacular.
 
I've got FSX locked on 30 frames/sec and it runs great.
I don't have the graphics on max, but there are many settings to balance and it flows well over major cities.

My system is an Intel 950 chip overclocked to 4.20 GHz
6 GB Ram Mushkin Redline
ASUS P6T Deluxe V2 Motherboard
ATI 5870 video card running 3 24 inch monitors
Noctua D14 Cooler
2 Velociraptor hard drives
Track IR head tracker
FSUICP for controls
Windows 7-64 Bit

Computer is used as a simulator only
I spent about $2400 for all the parts and many hours of time

Currently running Level D 767 along with Active Sky Advanced for weather, REX for textures, UTX for terrain, FS Genesis for mesh

Couldn't be happier with this setup, but I had to build it myself and lots of tweaking to get it to run well. FSX is a very CPU intensive program and it's got to be overclocked along with getting the right type of RAM with certain timing and defragmenting the hard drives

There is some great info available about how to get FSX running well and what parts to get for best performance.
This is the first computer I've built and I invested lots of time, but the results are impressive.

I got all my info from reading through the following forums

http://www.simforums.com/forums/

NickN is very knowledgeable and knows the best setup. I followed all his advice and it worked out great
http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=34141&PID=198187#198187

http://forums1.avsim.net/

http://www.leveldsim.com/sevensix_home.asp

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/?s=

http://www.forums.pureoverclock.com/index.php
 
Unlike most other 3D titles, FSX puts most of its load on the CPU. Higher clock speeds = higher FPS. Its real weakness is that it doesn't make efficient use of multi-core CPUs. While one of the service packs addressed that issue to an extent, it still isn't a true multi-threaded application.

I could be pleasantly surprised, but it sounds like Microsoft Flight is going to be a dud amongst anyone who wants a serious flight sim. It sounds like MS is trying to get into the "pay to play" market, ala World of Warcraft, etc., and/or is dumbing the sim down to appeal to the ADD crowd who doesn't want to take the extra couple of hours to really learn how the systems in an airplane work, albeit in a simulated environment.
 
FS9 was amazing. With all the add-on scenery and weather and stuff you can get amazing performance and amazing graphics with everything at full setting. I don't get the deal with FSX, what was microsoft thinking? The other day I got to play around in a $48k 737 sim hooked up to FS9. When I asked why FSX wasn't installed, he said the computer couldn't run it at full settings.:drool:

Uh...so what kind of computer CAN run FSX at full settings? I built my computer myself and I figured it could run the crap out of any game...and then I installed FSX...not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top