FSX sucks because the frame rates are crappy

[Charl]

Well there's no arguing with the second part of this topic title.
There is no way I am going to be satisfied with running my new sim with sliders down
So I took my new toy down to the Sounds for a little photoshoot



and a year down the road we'll look back and say yeah we knew it would be good



But meantime 6 - 11 fps translates to 3 - 5m per frame which doesn't make for good close-up responses. Nice reflections, though

[Jimmy]

Looks good charl, 6-10fps is quite good, I can hardly get that in fs9 haha

But that aircraft is very good on the fps, load up the defualt 744 and try and land in a crosswind...

For now im still trying to get good fps out of fs9 but I look forward to two years time when I can run fs10 perfectly..... Its not like well never be able to run it well lol

btw did you manage to fly that ultralight out of the water there?

[Charl]

Ha James you must have lightning-fast reflexes to catch up with your sim then
No I didn't make it out - for a while I battled on in a cloud of spray then it slowly nosed over...

I started a very good flight in the 737 NZAA - NZWN
VC to max, outside display to zero and all went well
I especially liked the view from the VC using mouse panning, very smooth
And the internal glass reflections: very convincing
I'll hold judgement, because I jumped in and out of all available aircraft on the way, but somewhere over Taranaki the sim went mad, and the aircraft ended up on its back in a paddock.
The closer to ground the worse the framerate and so no chance of recovery
I may try the whole flight again

[SUBS17]

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.

Not entirely a theory as such as dual core systems and dual CPU systems have similarities in how they work. When intel released the first dual cpu systems some flight sim companies created Sims particularly for that type of PC(well one company in particular) as it was thought at the time that such systems would be the next standard. The developers of FSX might have done research prior to begining FSXs development to target a particluar PC type so that more features could be integrated.(multi-core, dx10 etc)

[omitchell]

Loving the talk about Dual CPU's etc, great to be able to afford that stuff, however for the practicle and average budget users, FSX is somewhat disappointing to me. We really aren't going to get an aweful lot out of it from the start.

To start with I am running a P4 2.8Gb, 1Gb of ram and a GeForce FX5200 256Mb graphics card. After a lot of time tweaking and downloading updates and refreshed textures for FS9 I can now fly into SimFlyers KLAX with sliders maxed (including a massive AI file) and hit around 12-15fps on wheels down using the PMDG 747-400. On FSX with pretty much nothing on it, It takes about 15 mins to load into the sim and start a flight at Auckland with the default Airbus. Checking out the frames im getting around about 5fps....
Disappointing!

Okso I admit right off the bat I dont have one of those nice flashy custom jobs with megabucks behind it, but I do think I deserve alot better performance then that... For another few years at least I will be sticking with FS9 and am listing my FSX copy on Trademe. Have been very disappointed with it...

Having said all that, for those of you that do have the ability to run it, you are producing some really really lovely screen shots, and are obviously having a great time with it. This post is not to detract from your comments or feelings on the game, just my personal dissappointment with it.

[JonARNZ]

And one shared by many, FSX is a resource hog no doubt and lots of people have been disappointed by not getting reasnoble performance. I feel fortunate that I am getting performcance from it that allows me to fly, I don't like my chances in LAX with full AI however, still a few gigs or ram and another processor on top of the two I have before that's gonna be smooth I would say.

I would suggest wait to sell and see what ACES releases update wise, I think the large number of complaints and concerns about performance have had an impact and we will see a 'patch' sooner rather than later to help with mid level machines.

[captain_bazza]

Never trust a (train) sim review in a gamer's mag. They junked MSTS at the time, and how many of their 3d shoot'ems are still going strong after six years and ONE (official) patch!

Cheers Bazza

[omitchell]

Really shouldn't require a patch for $119, but I should have known better then that LOL, and to top it off, it doesnt even identify my graphics card properly which would be part of my issues, but not all from what I've seen on forums.

BTW call me stupid Jon but who are ACES? (Never heard of them)

[captain_bazza]

Not MS, that's for sure. MS have always contracted out their sim and game software development. They're too busy patching their own insecure and buggy software, and I'm just talking about the patches they issue to patch their own insecure and buggy software, mate.

[JonARNZ]

Really shouldn't require a patch for $119, but I should have known better then that LOL, and to top it off, it doesnt even identify my graphics card properly which would be part of my issues, but not all from what I've seen on forums.

BTW call me stupid Jon but who are ACES? (Never heard of them)

ACES are the team who developed FSX on behalf of Microsoft.