Sometimes it pays to be behind the times

airboatr · Post by **airboatr** » 12 Oct 2006, 22:03

MALTBY D wrote:It sure is getting a slating.
I can't help thinking that for some reason they've made it run crap on purpose...............
It doesn't take much intelligence to realise that too much autogen is going to give a performance hit for most folks, so I wonder why they set it so high?

Puzzled. :think:
DM

I don't Know Mr maltby ?

maybe so we'd have to buy the next generation CPU
and VISTA?????
not that I think there is a conspiracy or anything....
:think:
It's been the same with the other releases
2 to 3 years ahead of the hardware most can afford

>>... I'm not bitter about it at all
I'm just so angry I can taste the bile in my mouth :roll:

latly I've been on a break like Angus
I'm starting to get fedup with it
I may try out the other sim altogether
the grass may not be greener on that side of the fence
but then again it may have a lot less dog shite
burning the up grass

jonesey2k · Post by **jonesey2k** » 13 Oct 2006, 00:12

Try a few good FPS' like FEAR or HL2

Quake 4 is a laugh too.

Stewart Pearson · Post by **Stewart Pearson** » 13 Oct 2006, 01:20

I think where MS have really made an error and at the same time pissed off a lot of folks, is the difference between the Demo 2nd version and the final retail version.

I have seen loads of posts/comments from folks who downloaded the demo and found it to be good and workable. Naturally they then rushed out and bought the finished product and realise that for some reason it doesn't perform anywhere near to the demo standard.

Cheers

Stewart

ajb · Post by **ajb** » 13 Oct 2006, 07:45

I've just cancelled my pre-order for FSX after reading the posts here and elsewhere. Looks like you need a next generation rig to get any sensible performance out of it. I'll wait for Vista and a complete hardware upgrade maybe next year. FS9 only runs at reasonable levels on my PC so FSX would likely be a slide show.

There's an interesting article on Roy Chaffin's website about his first impressions of the final version http://www.roychaffin.com/rcs-panels.html under his 10th October news.

Disappointed :sad:

Andy

Buggyman · Post by **Buggyman** » 13 Oct 2006, 11:22

Despite misgivings and the advice of more knowledgeable souls than me, I got a copy from play.Com yesterday. Such was my enthusiasm that I didn't open it until evening!

Setting up is fine, no problems, put disk 1 in and select the location for the installation and go put kettle on, halfway through coffee change disks. So far - great.

Read the FAQs. Er, hang on a bit, this is FSX I've bought - right? So why are the FAQs all about FS9? This does not give me a great deal of confidence. Ignore the FAQs and ReadMe, lets go fly..

Straight to airfields I use a lot in FS9, RAF Leeming first; built on a green plateau with a huge drop at the northern end (eh?). Try Cyprus; I had no idea that the eastern half of Cyprus was a desert, I did live there for 3 years and I'm sure I would have noticed.

Why does the Autumnal UK landscape look like Califorian, why does Heathrow look so bare - surely someone from MS has seen a picture of it?

Why, even accepting the 'default' settings applied by FSX, am I not getting more than 10fps.

My machine, while not new, is reasonable, a 3.4GHz, 2GB RAM, FX 5700 with 256Mb, and a 250Gb Hard drive used exclusively for FS.

In short, I am somewhat disappointed by FSX and would advise those not committed to hang on to their cash until MS get their act together and ship the real FSX - the one I have seems to be just another Beta version.

Steps off soap box, treads in dog poo and exits stage left muttering.......

Allan

Post by **Trev Clark** » 13 Oct 2006, 12:09

So it's not really any good then, is it?

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 13 Oct 2006, 23:16

I suspect the FAQ issue is because the FAQ file has the same name in FS9 and FSX. Somewhere the call for that FAQ file has been corrupted in FSX and it's opening the FSX one and not the FS9 one. I got FSX yesterday from Best Buy and it opens the FSX FAQ when I open it.

Also, I made 2 tweaks to FSX and am getting a steady 20 FPS with no other modifications and running about 75% on everything. I need to re-do my RAM because I've got mis-matched speeds installed (major choke point on the system) but I think that once I do that and the inevitible cloud texture resizing package is released around Tuesday as was done with FS9. Once those mods are made, I think I'll be able to find a steady 30-35 FPS on the standard setup.

My specs (right now) -

AMD Athlon 3700XP+ San Diego (2.2 MHz/3.0 P4 equiv)
1GB Corsair PC3200 SRAM DDR Dual Channel
nVIDIA 7800GT 256MB PCI-E x16
Windows XP SP2
10GB Pagefile (max)

airboatr · Post by **airboatr** » 14 Oct 2006, 00:30

flying default AC too?
who wants to do that day after day?
and what about all the addons that don't work
sorry Chris thats just not good enough.

I wonder if you might be surger coating it just a tad.

BTW will you be using FSX when you fly in the VA?????

did you by chance read this?
http://www.roychaffin.com/rcs-panels.html

an excerpt
Every add-on which contains an â€œexeâ€

jonesey2k · Post by **jonesey2k** » 14 Oct 2006, 01:44

Yeh I noticed that when I tried to install some payware aircraft onto the FSX Demo. Had about 20 warnings popup. Bloody anoying.

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 14 Oct 2006, 01:46

I haven't put any aircraft in yet (no time) but the part about digitally signed, I haven't had the issue, so either I'm missing something or Roy's version and the off-the-shelf version are two different things.