From the FSX FAQ that some of the ACES team has put together -
A: In short, no. In long, we make a very special effort to make sure the default experience on your machine for Flight Simulator X right out of the box is equivalent to FS2004, with a lot more going on. As an example, on my machine in FS2004, I can slide the autogen slider all the way to the right and get great performance. In FSX, I can slide it somewhere in the middle and get great performance. This would at first blush seem like FSX is performing worse than FS2004. The reality is that the highest setting of Autogen in FS2004 meant that 600 objects per kilometer are being rendered. In FSX, the highest setting means that 6000 objects are being rendered. So even at the mid point in FSX, you're likely getting twice the autogen density as you were in FS2004. Additionally, you may be rendering living world traffic in the form of boats, cars on roads and vehicles at airports which didn't even exist in FS2004. Also, if you're running a 2.0 shader card or better, you're also rendering full per-pixel shaders with normal maps, specular and reflection that you weren't rendering in FS2004. Plus, you're not getting "the blurries" like you were in FS2004 and you're rendering full 1 meter per-pixel resolution terrain textures which were at 5 meters per-pixel in FS2004 (and were still not loading in fast enough).
Consider what he's saying here. In FSX, there are literally (at default settings) 10 Times more objects when your sliders are all the way left compared to FS9, and that's just Autogen. So, no, you're not going to get the same performance with FSX that you get with FS9, you've just asked your CPU to process 100 times more data than it was before. That is doesn't stop your computer altogether means that they did it at least partly right.
Well in my humble opinion, I have read the ACES posts and also read posts from those guys who "have FSX working fine" and to be perfectly honest I reckon I am getting a terrible smell of bullsh*t.
What is the point of talking up this fantastic new experience "as real as it gets", when the first thing you have to do is turn off every thing to make it work?
Oh wait a minute, I remember why............it's nothing but a way of Microsoft conning you all out of ever more hard earned money. By putting 6000 objects per square km (why?) they have guaranteed that even with top range pc specs, it's going to kill the frame rates. Ergo, your going to have to buy a new PC, new operating system Vista yadda yadda.
MS were supposed to have developed FSuX in consultation with various user groups. It appears that the users they consulted must only fly Jetliners above FL200, with no AI Traffic, oh and not between any major cities.
Now I haven't counted exactly what AI aircraft I have, but I reckon on F-16's alone I have in excess of 300 seperate schemes all toodling about. I'm working a P4, 2.8Ghz, 1.5G Ram, with 256MB graphics card, and I reckon putting just the F-16 AI traffic in will kill FSuX stone dead in it's tracks.
I would be interested in these "working fine" reports if the folks reporting had installed realistic AI Traffic (Civilian Airlines) and gave us said reports from EGLL about 10am on a weekday.
Chris simple arithmetic tells me that Partly Right = Mostly Wrong
I think it's more a case of "future proofing" the functions for when people do have the hardware to run it.
Most sims these days seem to be built to run on cutting edge hardware, and even beyond the current state of the art. It was CERTAINLY the case with IL-2/Forgotten Battles/Pacific Fighters that when they were released most people had to turn the settings down. However, a they are still being used today, and the settings are at full.
Remember that there were 3 years between FS9 and FSX. I'm sure that a lot of people had to turn down FS9's settings when they bought it back then, and since then have upgraded their hardware and are now running a lot closer to full settings.
I've got the same settings on FS9 now as I did when it came out.
All this shit about nobody having hardware fast enough is utter crap. There are far better looking games out there and they have no problem.
Why does autogen cause so many problems? Autogen isnt even detailed, it's just simple shapes with a texture applied.
IF and I say if the game runs better with Vista and DX10 then why the feck release it now? I've played the demo and read the comments on the net and I wont be buying it.
I will no doubt have Vista and a DX10 graphics card at some point but FSX will still be slow. It still uses the old FS2000 graphics engine and is in desperate need of updating.
As real as it gets? Come off it MS, the smell in the toilet of the Fokker 50 I dispatched to Amsterdam tonight was as real as it gets
A bird in the hand will probably sh!t on your wrist.
maybe the answer here is to boycott FSX
we are the consumers we are what has kept it going
and If M$ doesn't want to produce a program that
works and works well out of the BOX then to heck with em
let them Keep it and when the sales aren't going as
planned maybe the shareholders might take notice
maybe that might get there attention.
What is it that has changed in buisness where a program
that is released today won;t work on the computers
of today.. ???? because we allowed it , we have enabled
them by taking it every release they have stuck on the shelf
I say the power is still in the peoples hands.....
Simple No Money No power
well I'm done feeding the machine
/
And Chris if you want to keep supporting them
and Bowing to a corporation that really ,,, Buddy
couldn't give one shite let alone two about you............
and if you think other wise , your rapped up in chains and
don't even realize it.
Wake up and smell the coffee dude
Ok we all have our opinions. I think FSX has good potential, but I also think it has issues. Im going to buy it but not use it as Im perfectly happy with my FS9 instalation for the time being. Nuff said. After all, some people are only just upgrading from FS2002!
I think its a bit stupid arguing over the points that have been listed and discussed before. Its allmost like the Airbus vs Boeing threads on Airliners.net If you dont like it then done use it and move on to something else instead of wasting minutes of your life bickering about it
Error 482: Somebody shot the server with a 12 gauge.
jonesey2k
a simple question
do you think that what has been released for the past
6 years have been acceptiable at the time of release?
(2000 , 2002, 2004?)
or only after a few years of time had passed and
a CPU and graphics cards have been released.
(and of course memory and OS, and so on and so forth.)
Well Im happy with FS2004. I only really got into FS with the advent of FS2004 and before that it was just mucking around in FS98.
At the time of FS2004's release I ran an X2400 and a 9200SE but I soon upgraded because I was due for one anyway so I could play other games like FarCry ect.
New games needing new hardware is nothing new, thats how its allways been. My old 6800U had a heart attack when I showed it screenshots of Crysis & UT07...
It doesnt really matter what I think anyway because it wont change anything.
Error 482: Somebody shot the server with a 12 gauge.
