Flight Simulator X

Classic British Flight Sim forum.
Support for Maltby/Piper FS models & other Classic British freeware.

Moderators: Guru's, The Ministry

Post Reply
User avatar
jonesey2k
Vintage Pair
Vintage Pair
Posts: 2613
Joined: 13 Aug 2004, 13:59
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Post by jonesey2k »

I reckon the only reason why Im getting sucky fps on FSX is because of my oldish graphics card: 6800GT @ Ultra speeds.
Anybody here got a 7900GT or GTX and had FSX going?

My CPU isnt as fast as these new fabled Conroes but a 2mb cache X2 4400 running at 2.6ghz (Basically an FX60 or X2 5200) should be more then enough for FSX.

Running 8aa and 16AF with all sliders allmost at max might also have something to do with it :lol:
Last edited by jonesey2k on 17 Oct 2006, 15:59, edited 1 time in total.
Error 482: Somebody shot the server with a 12 gauge.

User avatar
Reheat
Victor
Victor
Posts: 218
Joined: 19 Sep 2005, 14:55
Location: South Coast
Contact:

Post by Reheat »

Tony,

No point denying it, yours looks far more like Scotland.
I'm not defending the UK scenery at all, its not that good at all.

However my post was to illustrate that even on a medium system FSX isn't the pig of a slide show that some have made it out to be on everything but the ultimate system set ups.

Alex
Image

User avatar
Chris Trott
Vintage Pair
Vintage Pair
Posts: 2588
Joined: 26 Jun 2004, 05:16
Location: Wichita Falls, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by Chris Trott »

Jonsey, what's the page speed on your RAM? That tends to be a major sticking point.

User avatar
jonesey2k
Vintage Pair
Vintage Pair
Posts: 2613
Joined: 13 Aug 2004, 13:59
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Post by jonesey2k »

Im curerntly running the ram 1:1 with the FSB. 240mhz 2-3-3-10 1T is all I can get out of it. Not bad for PC3200 stuff :smile:
IIRC It took me around 30secs to run the 1m superPi test.
Error 482: Somebody shot the server with a 12 gauge.

steve p
Victor
Victor
Posts: 220
Joined: 05 Jul 2004, 04:22

Post by steve p »

Reheat wrote:
I don't see why it wouldn't work on your graphics card, I have a friend running the FX5500 and he is currently getting about 19FPS out of the box. I'm due to go round later and help him tweak it.
I have that card and after a considerable amount of tweaking I am still only getting about 12-15fps. The results when using the out of the box settings with tthe FX5500 are, IMO crappy and offer no advantage over FS9.

Best wishes
Steve P

steve p
Victor
Victor
Posts: 220
Joined: 05 Jul 2004, 04:22

Post by steve p »

Reheat wrote: I'm not defending the UK scenery at all, its not that good at all.
I thought that the new Scottish mesh was a vast improvement :redface:

Pity about the naff landclass and botched coastlines though...

Best wishes
Steve P

nigelb
Red Arrows
Red Arrows
Posts: 5039
Joined: 11 Apr 2005, 17:19
Location: Herndon, Virginia, USA

Post by nigelb »

Hardware issues aside, I will be in no rush to get FSX. I have read a lot of forum posts and reviews and come to the conclusion that FSX has little to offer that would force me to rush out and buy it.

One major feature has not been improved from what I can determine. Had this feature been improved, I would have found a compelling reason to buy FSX. Instead of elephants romping through the jungle, I wish MS had fixed ATC to be more realistic. From what I read "Speebird turn left heading 350" followed in close succession by "Speedbird turn right heading 20", "Speedbird turn on your head" and so on - still exist. I usually avoid IFR because of this and fly VFR.

While some of the new 3d panels look to be vastly improved some of the holdover panels look terrible in 3d. (from pics on the all nodes review) In any case I usually prefer to fly with the 2d panel. And thanks to many of the people invoved with this forum, I have an excellent selection of classic British aircraft to fly.

A prior post comparing the Trident leaving EGPH in FSX and FS9 convinced me the scenery has not improved and I agree with the comment made regarding the cartoonish appearence of FSX. Looks to me like Microsoft is aiming at the "gamer" market more than in prior versions. That is fine - it is a marketing decision after all, but I can also decide to exempt myself from that market.

In conclusion, despite the extended developmental period, it looks like FSX has the appearence of a product rushed to market. But that does not mean rush out to buy it! Maybe in a year or so, after all the bugs have been found and the patch has been released and after we find out how Vista figures in the equation and invested in a new machine to run that.

In the meantime, I am content with FS9!

AndyMinx
Victor
Victor
Posts: 232
Joined: 27 Jun 2004, 16:29
Location: Oakham, Rutland

Post by AndyMinx »

Now I've had some tinkering time with the new sim all my problems I have found are sourced from the weather!
As soon as I turn on detailed clouds etc I get a slide show.
I now have all the sliders maxed out apart from Autogen (I think it ruins the ground textures so I turned it off), and 'simple clouds' turned on, now I rarely get lower than 20fps! :dance:
Ohh I have AI traffic off too as it just annoys me when im waiting for 3 hours to take off! :lol:
I have AI cars, boats etc maxed out though.

Cheers,
Andy M.

tonymadge
Vintage Pair
Vintage Pair
Posts: 2082
Joined: 28 Jun 2004, 14:49
Location: middle earth next to the public toilet
Contact:

Post by tonymadge »

Great Andy, so by backing off those two it works, however sort of defeats the object, making it less effective than FS9 which it supposed to replace??
I will leave it for 12 months before considering it, by then all the bugs will be sorted along with add-ons etc and we can really compare the two.
I think it's everyone's choice either go with it now or hang fire, you pays your money and you... blah blah blah you know what I mean :lol:
Image
AMD Phenom II X4 BE 965 @ 3.80GHz
nVidia GTX 560 TI 448 Cores

User avatar
petermcleland
Red Arrows
Red Arrows
Posts: 5201
Joined: 25 Jul 2004, 10:28
Location: Dartmouth, Devon
Contact:

Post by petermcleland »


Post Reply