iheart707 wrote:anels9 wrote:So does that mean that It's gonna have crap fps....AGAIN!
If you have a low powered machine, then yes. However, it is also important to realize that FSX WAS designed to push the limits of computer power. Even the developers for the game said that it would be months after the game was released that it people would see its true potential. That's why I don't understand the hatred against FSX! With that game, the quality of the computer parts you buy results only in the performance you want to see. Common sense if you ask me!
When FSX first came out I purposely waited until the new Duel Core processers came out. Early on in 2007, i finally picked up my Intel E2160 from the store and installed it into my new build. Needless to say, I was able to fly around in the hilly terrain of the Pacific Northwest with about 22 FPS as an average. I was happy that my frame rate at the time was much higher than others were reporting with their Pentium 4's! Of course, I made many updates since then, and I have tried to stay current with the latest computer hardware. As a result, I never really had an issue with frame rates! I currently have a nice build with a Q9550 overclocked to 3.21, Galaxy GTX 460, and 4 GB of DDR3 ram overclocked to 1333 MHz.
Then again, there are plenty of users that have
so many add-ons, airplanes, and huge resolution photo scenery installed but complain furiously about their frame rate. Another thing people need to remember about FSX is the nature of the models. FS2004 airplanes imported over to FSX don't take advantage of the new architecture and result in lower frame rates. Somehow there is a disconnect, and I don't understand why.
Remember, low framerates are YOUR fault! Not the game!
Hopefully Flight will be just as good as FSX!
+1
Try to use the REX OverDrive, combined with FSX's Max Setting, Aerosoft Munich, and the Aerosoft's Airbus X, and feel the mess. Even GTX470 + i7 950 + 12GB RAM is nothing but useless, regardless of the Windows Experience Index that said that I'm at 7.5! (only got around 12-20FPS, but i guess it's because of the poly-heavy Airbus)
Remember that FSX is created to perform a WHOLE WORLD rendering, and not just a small piece of area like HAWX, Dirt, GTA, Trainz, etc. Even though they lack a lot of things, but in terms of efficiency for that job, they're the best so far.
My wishes for Flight are fractal system (For people who never heard about it, fractals allows you to create a great ground texture, with the precise match between texture and the terrain without any BMP overlays that makes the repetitive textures. It also allows a more high-def terrain shape, and not just a flat mountain like the FSX's default), Higher GPU capability usage (most of FSX's frames comes from CPU), x64 capability (I want my 12GB of RAM to be used, and not just an accessory), and better physics.
Oh, and for those vids, anels9, you can actually turn it on at FSX. Look at the display setting, and find Light Bloom option. (Warning, it is still a performance KILLER for some people to use FSX Bloom or the ENBSeries. If you don't have a high-end and latest gen computer, better not using it to get some FPS)