| Author |
Message |
UG_PL
First Officer
Joined: Aug 09, 2006
Posts: 153
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:49 am |
|
|
Piece of Crap software !!! 
FSX is some kind of Joke ,people!!!
Ok lets get started:
Installation took 1 Hour and 15Gb of HD 
With Medium-Low settings I get 12-17FPS!!! WTF???
I have 1024Mb of Ram ,P4 3.2Ghz HT ,ATI X800XL 256MB
With everything on max I get 2-5 FPS 
Even with Low setting I get max 20FPS and it always go down when I move the crappy plane.(Like 15FPS)
I can run FS9 with everything on max and have up to 50FPS
Game looks horrible on medium settings 
I wasted my time,money and HD for this software ,Bill G should go to hell and burn with his  FSX .
By  AMD64 X2 5000+ , Asus HD3850 512MB @ 755Mhz/925Mhz, 2GB OCZ DDR2-800 , Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATA ,Biostar TF560 AM2/AM2+ , Antec TrueBlue 2.0 480W , Sound Blaster Audigy SE <=== FSX Killer . |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Faucett
Captain
Joined: May 03, 2006
Posts: 805
Location: Missouri, USA |
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:07 am |
|
|
Don't try to do it all at once. You have a decent system, so you should have better results. Back all your sliders down, forget about autogen and special effects until you do a vista upgrade, and try to bump up all your other display settings (terrain, aircraft, mesh, etc) from there, bit by bit
Patience is a virtue....
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UG_PL
First Officer
Joined: Aug 09, 2006
Posts: 153
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:14 am |
|
|
yeah I've set autogen to zer and I get better perfomance about 50% 
anyways..
one shot from me ,more later...
Alaska:
AMD64 X2 5000+ , Asus HD3850 512MB @ 755Mhz/925Mhz, 2GB OCZ DDR2-800 , Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATA ,Biostar TF560 AM2/AM2+ , Antec TrueBlue 2.0 480W , Sound Blaster Audigy SE <=== FSX Killer . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Solotwo
Chief Captain
Joined: Jan 26, 2006
Posts: 1581
Location: Milwaukee, WI |
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:46 am |
|
|
Some of you people are amazing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CrashGordon
Chief Captain
Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 4668
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:52 am |
|
|
I just love it when people blame the software because their
computer just doesn't have what it takes! CrashGordon
CEO, Omega-Air Virtual airlines |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micah
Captain
Joined: Mar 06, 2004
Posts: 593
Location: West Sussex, England |
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:41 am |
|
|
Totally agree with CG,
my computer is ok but struggles with FSX a bit, but still looks ok. However, i know that this isn't microsofts fault.
They are going to produce something that pushes the boundries and therefore the system specs, or what would be the point??
We just have to keep up with technology, and that is down to our own personal choice. If you dont want to upgrade your system, then live with low fps or stick with fs9.
Either way, calm down a bit or your blood pressure will go through the roof!!
Micah |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UG_PL
First Officer
Joined: Aug 09, 2006
Posts: 153
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:27 pm |
|
|
CrashGordon wrote:I just love it when people blame the software because their
computer just doesn't have what it takes! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UG_PL
First Officer
Joined: Aug 09, 2006
Posts: 153
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:28 pm |
|
|
Micah wrote:
We just have to keep up with technology, and that is down to our own personal choice. If you dont want to upgrade your system, then live with low fps or stick with fs9.
Micah
And you will buy everything that Microsoft will throw at your face!!! AMD64 X2 5000+ , Asus HD3850 512MB @ 755Mhz/925Mhz, 2GB OCZ DDR2-800 , Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATA ,Biostar TF560 AM2/AM2+ , Antec TrueBlue 2.0 480W , Sound Blaster Audigy SE <=== FSX Killer . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greekman72
Chief Captain
Joined: Jun 15, 2005
Posts: 7055
Location: Hellas |
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:32 pm |
|
|
I have no reason for not respect your opinion but i must point that there are o lot of great screehsots in these forums from people who has FSX and good systems ,and i also have to admit that they look great.
Even me in past i have shot some screenshots with FSX demo and i was impressed.
Keep on mind that for me FPS are only some numbers.What i see is the objective to judge. 
Just my opinion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
encarta2006
Trainee
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:35 pm |
|
|
UG_PL wrote:CrashGordon wrote:I just love it when people blame the software because their
computer just doesn't have what it takes!
If you ABSOLUTLY HAVE TO have a great game,
MAKE IT YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!!
I think you should know better than to bash MS. They are doing their ABSOLUTE BEST for YOU, and all you have to say is that FSX stinks!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UG_PL
First Officer
Joined: Aug 09, 2006
Posts: 153
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:02 pm |
|
|
Yes for me FSX suck all the way... AMD64 X2 5000+ , Asus HD3850 512MB @ 755Mhz/925Mhz, 2GB OCZ DDR2-800 , Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATA ,Biostar TF560 AM2/AM2+ , Antec TrueBlue 2.0 480W , Sound Blaster Audigy SE <=== FSX Killer . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CrashGordon
Chief Captain
Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 4668
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:33 pm |
|
|
UG_PL wrote:CrashGordon wrote:I just love it when people blame the software because their
computer just doesn't have what it takes!
First, who wants to run any version of FS at 6 FPS more than humans can detect?
Second, for the past few years, hardware has advanced faster than software. Now, software has taken the lead. Within a year, computers that will run FSX with everything pretty much maxed out, will be commonplace.
You can choose to catch the future of stay chained to the past. Just remember, if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes. CrashGordon
CEO, Omega-Air Virtual airlines |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UG_PL
First Officer
Joined: Aug 09, 2006
Posts: 153
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:12 am |
|
|
Stop saying that crapp about human eye!! So you are telling me that there is no difference between 25 and 40FPS?   AMD64 X2 5000+ , Asus HD3850 512MB @ 755Mhz/925Mhz, 2GB OCZ DDR2-800 , Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATA ,Biostar TF560 AM2/AM2+ , Antec TrueBlue 2.0 480W , Sound Blaster Audigy SE <=== FSX Killer . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CrashGordon
Chief Captain
Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 4668
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:44 am |
|
|
UG_PL wrote:Stop saying that crapp about human eye!! So you are telling me that there is no difference between 25 and 40FPS?
Fine, forget about the science. Just listen to your gamer buddies.
There is no further point to debating it with you. CrashGordon
CEO, Omega-Air Virtual airlines |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UG_PL
First Officer
Joined: Aug 09, 2006
Posts: 153
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:04 am |
|
|
You are trying to tell me that 25 is the same as 40FPS LOL,BIG LOL .... don't even post anything like that on the PC Hardware/Games forums..... LOL
and you are getting mad because of what? you must be blind if you dont see any difference..... AMD64 X2 5000+ , Asus HD3850 512MB @ 755Mhz/925Mhz, 2GB OCZ DDR2-800 , Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATA ,Biostar TF560 AM2/AM2+ , Antec TrueBlue 2.0 480W , Sound Blaster Audigy SE <=== FSX Killer . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CrashGordon
Chief Captain
Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 4668
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:06 am |
|
|
UG_PL wrote: You are trying to tell me that 25 is the same as 40FPS LOL,BIG LOL .... don't even post anything like that on the PC Hardware/Games forums..... LOL
and you are getting mad because of what? you must be blind if you dont see any difference.....
What part of, "There is no further point to debating it with you.", was difficult to understand? CrashGordon
CEO, Omega-Air Virtual airlines |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:37 am |
|
|
I have the same graphics card as you but have twice the RAM, probably a faster CPU and have 2 HDDs in RAID0 and KNEW FOR A FACT that I wouldn't be able to run this game remotely near highest settings.
I think what you are really annoyed about is your own for thinking you could buy the game and run it at high settings and get a super high frame rate and enjoy the visuals which the screenshots advertising the game have. Every game launch in history advertises games use top of the line systems with all graphics/detail settings on full.
With regards to your FPS nonsence, if you hit Shift+Z twice in game it will show you your FPS and the Target FPS which is normally 17. I'm unsure why you have the urge to have a FPS twice the target one? What you may not be able to comprehend is that First Person Shooters require a higher FPS because things move much faster and ther is more going on, hence the minimum target of 30FPS in these games.
By |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
99jolegg
Chief Captain
Joined: Jun 26, 2004
Posts: 5429
Location: UK |
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:56 am |
|
|
UG_PL wrote:Stop saying that crapp about human eye!! So you are telling me that there is no difference between 25 and 40FPS?
I'm glad you find it so funny, but its true. Obviously, Wikipedia fell for it aswell...
These rates would be impractical for the actual frame rate of most film mechanisms so the shutter in the projection devices is actually arranged to interrupt the light two or three times for every film frame. In this fashion, the common frame rate of 24 fps (frames per second) produces 48 or 72 pulses of light per second, the latter rate being above the flicker fusion rate for most people most of the time.
LOL, BIG LOL. Click below to support FSF:
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Register now! 
Search 
Login
