FSX sucks because the frame rates are crappy

[Zöltuger]

http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/748/748753p1.html

i can honestly say, without hyperbole, that this is worst review in a million years.
ok, yes the frame rates aren't great. but is that a reason to give it 7/10? from the sounds of it, he didn't even give it a fair go. and his computer was no better than mine which is almost 3 years old. if you reviewed any modern game with a computer that old, you'd wouldn't be able to crank up the settings either.

[ZK-Brock]

I'm shocked.

One point that I 'specially didnt like was when he complained about the lack on an FMC in all the big aircraft. Perhaps he doesn't realise the HUGE amount of programming work needed to create one.

Shocked.

[SUBS17]

To get the best out of FSX you need:
1/ Multicore CPU
2/ 64 bit OS Vista with DX10
3/ DX10 graphics card
If you don't have all the above then you are not going to get a good performance out of FSX as is possible by taking advantage of the programs features. Eventually everyone will need the 3 items above for next generation flight sims. My only beef with FSX is the lack of crash physics and crash modelling.

[Big John]

To get the best out of FSX you need:
1/ Multicore CPU
2/ 64 bit OS Vista with DX10
3/ DX10 graphics card
If you don't have all the above then you are not going to get a good performance out of FSX as is possible by taking advantage of the programs features. Eventually everyone will need the 3 items above for next generation flight sims. My only beef with FSX is the lack of crash physics and crash modelling.

Rubbish. You need plenty of system ram. I have a Dual Core E6700 and a 8800GTX video card as was getting the same frame rates as I was getting from my P4 3.6Ghz with a 6800Ultra. When I added and extra 1GB to bring the system up to 2GB the frame rates shot up.

Even with every turned right down FSX looks much better than FS9 and when you turn it down even crappy machines can get good rates. I know because I have tried both side by side on the same machine.
Everyone just tries turning everything on full bore and expects it to work. MS have said they have designed it for future machines that will have more power as well.

And by the way the dual core make little difference as FSX is not programmed fully to make use of it. It helps when you have add ons though

[Charl]

I have a Dual Core E6700 and a 8800GTX video card as was getting the same frame rates as I was getting from my P4 3.6Ghz with a 6800Ultra. When I added and extra 1GB to bring the system up to 2GB the frame rates shot up.
<snip> And by the way the dual core make little difference as FSX is not programmed fully to make use of it. It helps when you have add ons though

You have to wonder what VISTA and DX10 have to offer though?
These guys were left high and dry by the delay in VISTA.
Can't imagine they originally set out to ignore the GPU and rely on single-strand CPU and RAM???

[ZK-Brock]

I totally agree with Big John, and disagree with SUBS. FSX looks better than FS9 is every way, even on low settings. Performance can be reasonable on average computers, you just gotta know what you're doing.

[SUBS17]

If its run on a 64bit OS (Vista) with DX10 graphics card and multi-core CPU it should be in its optimal enviroment as that from what I heard is what it was intended to be used with. More RAM of course helps any computer run a bit faster but the big change is the 64bit OS with dx10 graphics card, it will literally blow everything 32bit away in performance so long as the software is intended for dx10.

[JonARNZ]

Once we see Vista and DX10 cards running we will have a definitive answer to this question. Until then its a bit of guess work, and I'm sure we all hope the new windows and DX10 live up to the claims.

[SUBS17]

Just to give you an idea of what to expect when 64bit machines using quadcore CPUs check this movie out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OF9qoWK ... ed&search=

If the software is designed to run in dx10 then the graphics quality is alot higher and the quadcore cpu allows for alot of other features such as physics and higher AI traffic density depending on what they use them for. It all depends now on which configuration the companies settle with my guess is quad core 64bit vista combination will be the next standard in which case the price will come down after they mass produce them. For flight simmers it means alot more possibilities for extra stuff to be added to flight sims and more eye candy it'll be a generation ahead of what we have now. In the case of FSX if they intended it for Vista then the change should be quite noticeable on a 64bit machine and I'd be quite interested to see any reviews of it running in 64bit.

[Timmo]

I think its flawed logic to base the rating of a game based on the computer performance....It would be like testing BF1942 Multiplayer on a dialup connection and then blaming the game.

The 'problem' is the testers machine...but having said that, i run FSX fine with a AMD K8 Athlon 64 3200+ processor, 1GB ram and a 128meg vid card...

[firefly]

I find it confusing to see the varied results from FSX users. Some have no problems, whilst others with seemingly more powerful machines seem to struggle. I guess you can put a bit down to the user and background tasks they may have running. Also the FPS people report, what settings are they on? Are they at a busy aiport? AI traffic etc. And how much have they expanded that figure? Its hard to make a comparision. I think from that point of view its good that microsoft put a downloadable demo out so you could try it on your pc first to see how it would go - well done MS on that point.

At this stage, I'm reserving judgement on it till Vista and DX10 cards have been out for 12 months. I seem to remember when FS2004 came out a lot of people rushing out and upgrading PC's. Its just that this time round it nots just hardware to consider, its also potentially a new operating system.

[Zöltuger]

Also the FPS people report, what settings are they on? Are they at a busy aiport? AI traffic etc. And how much have they expanded that figure? Its hard to make a comparision.

i'll say. i easily get 25fps when it's not too crowded, but flying into a busy airport like KLAX saps everything from the game.
so what can you say- is my framerate good or bad? "it depends" is the correct answer.

[SUBS17]

Maybe it needs a physics card or a multi-core system with one core dedicated to traffic. But then we are talking hundreds of thousands of moving objects all at once.

[marty]

What a load of sheep

R U going have the same POS PC yuv got now in 2 years time, if U dont U will howl like sheep that FSX was going no place real fast. OK! if you got alow level PC like mine U have to run on min specs. But when I get my new PC I want My bucks worth, I want FSX to shine. So for the mean time I'll put up with what I got. Then when I've got the bucks I will expect the lot. If not Iwill howl then. All I say is wait and see.

[dharris]

I got this off Paul Taylors blog..it doesn't look like present hardware will let us do what we would like. I have it running pretty well, with dual core 4800 amd, 2 gig ram MSI K8N Diamond Plus motherboard, not with sliders all the way right but you have to chose what you want.... .if you would like to read more the link is here...

http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/default.aspx


Hi, Let me introduce myself. I am Phil Taylor and I am Senior PM for Graphics and Terrain in Aces Studio. I joined Aces during the end-game of FSX and am now involved in all the studio projects moving forward.



I am seeing a lot of threads and a lot of thrashing on this forum, and I thought I would try to address some of the discussions and draw a line in the sand. One big topic of discussion is performance (FPS) and DX10.



DX10 by itself isn't a magic bullet for the real performance issues that become evident as you move the sliders to the right. It was a conscious design decision of the studio to load the sliders so that, on day one, no one can run the sim at full slider levels. We did that so the sim will still have life in it three years from now. For better or worse, that is our design center. It is what it is. It will be that way in FS11, and it was that way in FS9, so this conscious design decision should not come as a surprise.

[Cbris]

Been there, done that, and grumbled - and I have an AMD FX 62 based machine with bags of RAM and an ATI X1900xtx graphics card.

Lousy FPS out of the box - then I followed as many tweak advice postings. I can get up to 70 FPS with reasonable slider settings (OK, external view looking up), but generally I get around 20 - 25 with the setting locked at 30 FPS.

All I need now is Vista and DX10. I may need a new graphics card if there's no firmware update possible.

Yes, FSX sucks - if you have an older PC and try to set it like FS9. More fool those who try that. FSX runs reasonably well with sliders predominantly left, and by the time the soft- and hardware is up to speed, FSX will be a great joy (as if it isn't already )

[Alex]

I got this off Paul Taylors blog..it doesn't look like present hardware will let us do what we would like.  I have it running pretty well, with dual core 4800 amd, 2 gig ram MSI K8N Diamond Plus motherboard, not with sliders all the way right but you have to chose what you want.... .if you would like to read more the link is here...

Would you be able to tell us why FS10 does not support dual-core as such? The future of CPU's is not 5000MHz+ chips, but dual or quad-core and it seems to me at least that maybe Aces made a wrong turn somewhere. Is this the case? Or am I missing something?

Alex

Oops, I think I misinterpreted the above post, better ignore my questions then.

[firefly]

I read somewhere on the blog that they started doing the architecture and schematics for the system a few years ago, I guess back then dual cores was just a theory rather than a reality.

So just think, if this is what they can do with for single core systems, what can they produce with for dual core ones? Quite exciting isnt it?

Bring on FS11 that hopefully makes the best use of dual/quad core support, I cant wait for that.

[Codge]

All very interesting. I'm just glad I'm waiting untill you guys say 'here's what you need to have it humming and here's what you don't need. Buy this but don't waste money on that. That will be when all this hardware can be got affordably.
In the meantime I'm still saving for a projector.
FS9 did have me spending alot to get some warm fuzzies, and since I'm still paying that off I have to wait anyway. And since I reckon FS is like a drug anyway and I can't have Champagne on a beer budget. But that's OK, I like beer. I have only beer but it is Elephant beer!

[JonARNZ]

Fair enuf codge, waiting until things have settled down is always a good move, I think people also need to see what the first FSX patch does in the new year, from what I have read (please corrct me if I am wrong fellow posters) ACE's now acknowledge they aimed a little high and will be doing some work to help those of us with less than cray mainframes to run X