Sometimes it pays to be behind the times

Stewart Pearson · Post by **Stewart Pearson** » 08 Oct 2006, 00:51

Guys,

For any of you considering running down to the local PC World on 13/10 and purchasing FSX, might I suggest you pop over to the forums at Avsim and read some of the reports from the colonials who have already got it.

Seems that even with fairly high end systems, the sim is running like a slide show. Only by turning off nearly all the nice stuff which FSX brings, can it approach useable levels.

Might be worth waiting a while.

Cheers

Stewart

Charlie Bravo · Post by **Charlie Bravo** » 08 Oct 2006, 01:43

I said it had a shit graphics engine. Anyone want to argue that point with me now?

FlyTexas · Post by **FlyTexas** » 08 Oct 2006, 02:36

This colonial :hi: is in no hurry to buy FSX. I'll need an additional gb of memory and a new video card before I'd even think about getting FSX...which isn't going to happen soon. :huf:

Brian

hinch · Post by **hinch** » 08 Oct 2006, 02:40

FlyTexas wrote:This colonial :hi: is in no hurry to buy FSX. I'll need an additional gb of memory and a new video card before I'd even think about getting FSX...which isn't going to happen soon. :huf:

Brian

same here :dance:

Post by **DaveB** » 08 Oct 2006, 02:43

This doesn't surprise me at all Stewart. Tks for the HU

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Nigel H-J · Post by **Nigel H-J** » 08 Oct 2006, 09:45

Happy with FS9 for the time being. See no reason at all to go for FSX especially now that Stewart has passed on the info regarding performance.

Can anyone tell me why Microsoft see a need to release a product that they know will not run satisfactorily unless on a higher than average spec computer? Not exactly common sense Marketing wise is it!!! :think:

TobyV · Post by **TobyV** » 08 Oct 2006, 10:06

Whats new? When I was 13 I rushed out to buy FS98 on its first day. It claimed it would run on a 486DX/2 66Mhz CPU at minimum and I had (at the time) a 486/DX4 100 with a whopping 8meg of RAM so I thought I'd be ok. Not so, and I got a slide show too :sad:

A couple of years later when my 486 had been downgraded to my spare PC and someone gave me an old copy of FS5 and that ran very nicely!

Dyl Roberts · Post by **Dyl Roberts** » 08 Oct 2006, 11:10

Hi Gents,

I'm currently waiting for My RTM Copy of FSX, I've had the Beta's to use / test & have mixed feelings about what I've seen so far.

I run this spec, wich is about an avarage system to My mind,

Windows XP Home Edition
Asus K8M MB
7,200 40GB HD (purely for FS)
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ CPU
1GB of RAM
ATI Radeon 9600 256MB GC

I'll let You chaps know what it runs like for Me once I get my copy.

Cheers,

airboatr · Post by **airboatr** » 08 Oct 2006, 11:17

I don't know if any in the UK or eleswhere have seen tv
commercials about FSX?
the latest makes FS out to be a "Game" and not to be mistaken
for a simulator, and that, FSX might make some
feel like thier real pilots, and that if it happens to you
you are to relax and remmeber it's just a game
it's almost like ''hey MSFS is a joke'' and if FSX makes you feel
like you really flying a plane ....Your a joke too

:huf:
I may never buy it

hinch · Post by **hinch** » 08 Oct 2006, 13:25

it certainly seems as though the developer has made what they want and every sim community has been left out. Of course everyones concern about FS9 was the ATC being awful - the one big thing that needs improving remains almost unchanged.

other items such as cloud performance and sloped runways also seem to be none existant.

i couldn't care less about reflective water or world mesh, i have mesh for where i want to fly and REP water is just great.

grrr!