Why not?

Post Reply
anels9
Posts: 133
Joined: 09 Jul 2010, 22:05

Why not?

Post by anels9 » 16 Jan 2011, 11:32

The amount of HD FSX/FS9 video's I've seen with special effects such as light bloom and awesome! contrast etc, why doesnt the next or current flight sim have that awesomeness about it? And if they did what would that mean for the average operating system that can handle FSX?

brad9825
Posts: 29
Joined: 29 Sep 2010, 21:59

Re: Why not?

Post by brad9825 » 17 Jan 2011, 01:56

well i did read that microsoft announced for ms flight that it will be more frame rate freindly along with higher resolution textures etc. so hopefully it will get better performance on average pc's

David Anderson
Posts: 41
Joined: 09 May 2010, 22:04

Re: Why not?

Post by David Anderson » 19 Jan 2011, 20:16

brad9825 wrote:well i did read that microsoft announced for ms flight that it will be more frame rate freindly along with higher resolution textures etc. so hopefully it will get better performance on average pc's
A carbon copy of what they said about FSX. And we all know how that went.

anels9
Posts: 133
Joined: 09 Jul 2010, 22:05

Re: Why not?

Post by anels9 » 20 Jan 2011, 15:24

David Anderson wrote:
brad9825 wrote:well i did read that microsoft announced for ms flight that it will be more frame rate freindly along with higher resolution textures etc. so hopefully it will get better performance on average pc's
A carbon copy of what they said about FSX. And we all know how that went.
So does that mean that It's gonna have crap fps....AGAIN! :roll:

User avatar
iheart707
Posts: 189
Joined: 07 Mar 2010, 22:39

Re: Why not?

Post by iheart707 » 20 Jan 2011, 17:51

anels9 wrote:So does that mean that It's gonna have crap fps....AGAIN! :roll:
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!
Image

Hopefully Flight will be just as good as FSX!

anels9
Posts: 133
Joined: 09 Jul 2010, 22:05

Re: Why not?

Post by anels9 » 21 Jan 2011, 01:56

I have a gaming pc so I don't have issues just bad fps every now and then but not enough to make me not like FSX. I was more speaking from a average computer pov. But what you say is true, but I still hope flight has slightly better fps. No hard feelings dude. :)

bang_amin
Posts: 40
Joined: 05 Dec 2009, 08:09

Re: Why not?

Post by bang_amin » 21 Jan 2011, 02:19

iheart707 wrote:
anels9 wrote:So does that mean that It's gonna have crap fps....AGAIN! :roll:
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)

User avatar
iheart707
Posts: 189
Joined: 07 Mar 2010, 22:39

Re: Why not?

Post by iheart707 » 21 Jan 2011, 05:39

anels9 wrote:I have a gaming pc so I don't have issues just bad fps every now and then but not enough to make me not like FSX. I was more speaking from a average computer pov. But what you say is true, but I still hope flight has slightly better fps. No hard feelings dude. :)
I would have to think that everyone would want to have more frames per second! After all, we want a real time simulation and not a photo-style slideshow. :roll:

Generally speaking as well, I made that statement to have the 14 year olds that read this stop bashing FSX and have them think about their computer rather than the game. Just so we're clear, the dunce hat was in no way directed to you. Hopefully I got some laughs out there! :D

anels9
Posts: 133
Joined: 09 Jul 2010, 22:05

Re: Why not?

Post by anels9 » 21 Jan 2011, 09:10

Haha! Yeah ya did good one. :D

Post Reply