Fly Away Simulation
SearchSearch 

FSX Reviews

Pro Member Captain
Doyley Captain

There are a lot of topics about the FSX demo popping up so I think it would be a good idea to get them all in one place and then maybe send the link to the developers?

I have just had a play with it. I like the co-pilot on the st maartens approach.
The software seems to be unstable at the minute with alot of bugs. Even for a demo. I am a software developer and would probably get sacked if I released that as a demo.

I like the idea though. I cant wait to see the finished product. Hopefully it will be a lot more stable than this.

Pro Member Chief Captain
Jonathan (99jolegg) Chief Captain

BishdaBash pasted a copy of the readme of the download here:

https://forum.flyawaysimulation.com/forum/topic/19134/wow-its-like-bad-freeware/

You'll notice that it states at the top that the demo was created before the full version had been finished so yes, there will be a lot of bugs. Why Microsoft still decided to release a demo knowing it had bugs in it, I don't know. This means that they know about the bugs and have probably fixed them. A tutorial on product marketing might be more benficial though Whistle

Wink

Pro Member Trainee
tricky2070 Trainee

I must admit myself i enjoyed the St Martin mission with the co-pilot.....her voice was kinda sexy......ahem! anyway back on topic the demo ran fairly smoothly on high settings but yes you can see the bugs...not the flying ones,but i think they spent too much time on the water effects and not enough on land, and to be honest when i'm flying a 737 or 747 i'm not watching the sea.

I do hope they sort everything out before they release the final version and that it can run on most machines, but i think i'm gonna upgrade my machine anyway just incase.....roll on october just in time for my birthday.

Oh and hi to everyone,iv'e not been on this site for a long time,it's good to be back,just been busy with work n that and i'm back flying ma planes plus i can still land em well.

Guest

Demo wouldn't install - requires windows XP and will not install on 2k.

Matt Brown Guest

Strongly recommend do not purchase. This version of Flight Simulator exceptionally disappointing and is a major flop.

If you want a game where you fly hokey and pointless missions to earn points like an arcade game then FS X is the game for you. However, serious flight simmers and those that use Flight Simulator to fly for virtual airlines will despise this version. Microsoft completely missed the point that the vast majority of serious flight simmers, and those that fly for virtual airlines, fly Boeing aircraft from the 727 up to the 777 for their virtual airlines. Instead of supplying the Boeing family of aircraft from the 727 up to the 777 that the vast majority of flight simmers fly, MS only gives you the 737 and 747 and one Airbus mid-range airliner.

If the poor selection of aircraft isnít enough to convince a veteran flight simmer not to buy this version of Flight Simulator there is an endless list of technical problems that come with this version. What is advertised on the box as minimal systems requirements is nothing but a flat lie. I have a serious gaming rig that is running MS Windows XP SP2, 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 500 GB Seagate Barracuda Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM w/16MB Buffer hard drive, Direct X 9.0c, two eVGA e-GeForce 7950 512 MB GDDR3 Video Cards w/DVI-I & HDTV, 2GB RAM and Plexor PX-755SA 16X DVD R/RW CD/DVD drive. With all of this gaming power FS X only runs at 4 to 8 frames/second. If my system performance issues are not enough to convince you not to purchase this product then read any review. 99% of reviews describe similar problems including countless reports about installation problems, poor frame rates that create jerky control movement and chugging, inoperative aircraft lights and poor aircraft graphics including semi-transparent AI aircraft or poor AI aircraft displays.

The only way to get FS X to run smooth is to reduce all of the detail and graphics options to the very minimum. By doing that you get increased frame rate but then you trade off everything that FS X brings as an upgrade. Additionally, by trading off details for performance in FS X you still will not get the same frame rate performance provided by the fully maxed out previous version of Flight Simulator, Flight Simulator 2004, A Century of Flight (FS9). By trading off details for performance in FS X, you might as well keep flying FS9.

Microsoft needs to pull this off the shelf and go back to the basics. With regard to aircraft Microsoft needs to rethink their aircraft selection. They need to provide beginners with the requisite training aircraft starting with the C-182, Baron 58, and then the Learjet. Also, they need to add two to three aircraft for bush pilots. Finally, they really need to provide the entire line of Boeing commercial jets from the B727 through the 787 Dreamliner. This will keep the serious veteran flight simmers satisfied and yet keep the simulation easy for beginners. Microsoft can always provide Airbus, Concord and military aircraft as additional add-ons to be purchased separately. Additionally, Microsoft needs to dump the pointless missions. Serious flight simmers wonít waste their time. Most serious flight simmers are trying to keep their hours up with their virtual airlines and arenít going to waste time flying for not credit to their corporate log book. Furthermore, most of the missions are beyond a beginnerís capability anyway. Beginners will want to learn how to fly using the supplied flight school to earn the appropriate ratings before they try to fly heavy metal. As a real instrument rated pilot the flight school is very informative and I recommend it to anyone wanting to learn how to fly in flight simulator. The supplied flight school CAN provide basic concepts to real world flight dynamics if you ever want to think about earning a real private pilot ticket.

Finally, Microsoft must fix the system requirements gluttony. FS X is a memory pig. The most memory demanding games out on the market canít hold a light to what FS X really requires to provide consumers with what is advertised on the box. Microsoft brought PCs to the world and 90% of the software that runs on them throughout the world. They can certainly fix their own memory appetite. And if they canít, they should go ask Activision, Sierra or Relic for technical help.

With 700 virtual airline hours and 1,500 simulator hours I do not rate Flight Simulator X even one star on a scale of one to ten. DO NOT BUY.

Pro Member First Officer
GoodisonBlue First Officer

To keep it short and offer a contrast to the above

I rate it 9/10

Runs great on my pc and I love it. Spend far too much tine flying when I should be working

nonoa7c Guest

Major flop !!! Do not buy... totally agree with Matt Brown - have exactly the same problems - very disappointed - To comment on Matt Borwn's > MS should really include the whole B7xx jetliners series, BUT ALSO the airbus A3xx series ! Aviation history was not made by boeing only !!!

guest 12 Guest

wow how come it runs so poorly on your system yet other people report it runs great on other systems.

Guest

Mostly because its a known issue that the game is not optimized for multi core processors or multiGPU rigs. I have a 3.2Ghz P4 (single Core) and an x850XT (256MB) and 2 gigs of crucial ram. I can run the game just fine with everything on High. once I start moving stuff up to ultra high I run into problems, but as long as I keep it one or two notches down, it runs fine. And by fine I mean at least 25FPS at all times.

Guest

Avoid FSX!

I am absolutly disgusted with the preformance with this game. I have:

AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Venice @2400MHz
1GB DDRSD 333MHz RAM
Nvidia 7300GS (BFG) 256MB Turbo Cache
Asus A8N-SLI SE Motherboard
Hiatchi Deskstar 80GB SATA Hard drive

And i only get 9 FPS in a 747 around heathrow???? Ok, sometimes i get 15, mabey 20FPS, but the jerking, shuttering and lack of commercial jets is a big pile of crap. Have you seen the specs at the case?:

CPU: 1.0GHZ------Battlefield 2 requires 1.7GHz

RAM: 256 MB (windows XP)-------BF2 Requires 512MB

GPU: 32MB----BF2 requires 128MB MIN

You know? But, please don't let me get started on thw BUGS! What the hell..

No Taxi lights
ILS display doesn't work
No cabin lights
747 wing design wrong (mabey not a bug)
When choosing night time flight, the sim loads up in day light
AI traffic flash in distance
ATC keeps telling me to change freq every 2 secs
Gap in one of the buildings at Gatwick and bouncing trucks at some gates (UK)

The list goes on.

Why does the game include very few airliners? I was hoping for the 727, 787, etc. Plus, Microsoft can't be bothered to make a new Panel for the 747, it's the bloody same as the FS9 747!

Game crashes when at altitude, missions have autogen on if you turned it off, traffic is on in missions, decreases preformance.

ATC is poo aswell. What's up with the voices? They are still american? How about some english, italian, german, south african etc voices?

Learning centre yields little information on problems.

Why bother wasting money on this? Some people say FSX needs the ultimate system to run good, but not even the fastest system in the world currently is fast enough! (ahem, 1.21 gigawatts)

Microsoft have released this game in a right state, WHY DID YOU RUSH?????????

Avoid this game. It's a shame really, disabling goodies in the sim for a few FPS.

I do accualy find the water textures nice

Running Guest

I can easily make a longer list of bugs than you but...

No Taxi lights

I have taxi lights that work on every craft I tested. Except for those that just don't have any.

ILS display doesn't work

Lot's of peeps, including me doen't seem to have a problem with the ils.

No cabin lights

Is that a bug or did they just leave it out in their models?
I've been switching cabin lights on and off in FS2004 but those wheren't the models supplied by MS.

747 wing design wrong (mabey not a bug)

Some people seem to be missing parts of their wings in the 747 due to the lack of performance on their machine.

When choosing night time flight, the sim loads up in day light

Well this planet is round. When it's daylight in some places its night in other places.

AI traffic flash in distance

I've never been mooned by a passing aircraft, would you happen to have a screenshot of that to prove it.

ATC keeps telling me to change freq every 2 secs

It can be quite often but normally not every 2 seconds. Mostly depends on the areas you flight through. (and of course time compression)

Gap in one of the buildings at Gatwick

Most likely a performance, graphics setting.

bouncing trucks at some gates (UK)

Ok I'll let youu have this one, some trucks do move in strange ways and sometimes drive into me when I'm 100% sure I'm not at fault.

Seems to me that most of your problems are caused by poor performance and yes I believe one or two posts have already mentioned before.

The solution...... don't try to run it at max, in fact start with it at minumum and see what works best for you. Like in real life, make choices, do you want lot's of traffic on the roads, or a few AI planes in the sky. Detail level in clouds vs detail level of water? Lots of complete buildings at airports or detailed aircraft?

Most of the rest you are reporting, that is a problem between the keyboard and chair. Read a book, fly a few tutorials, visit a forum or 2 => smarten up.

Robbie W Guest

Just me then eh? (I'm the person who was moaning above)

Right, the AI flashing only happened once or twice, so i'll discount that. I have the correct ILS freq and heading (and course), approaching the correct runway and such, and the locaziler doesn't seem to move.

I have tried to see if the no cabin lights were a bug. I've tried looking for that magical switch but nothing.

Taxi lights don't work, and when i can be bothered to switch machines to get a screen shot, i'll be back.

Well this planet is round. When it's daylight in some places its night in other places

I'm not a dumbass... this hasn't happened in FS9. I choose a location, lets say KJFK (new york), i choose the time to be 02:56am. I click "fly now", then for what ever reason, it's daylight when the sim has loaded.

ATC don't lituraly tell me to change freq every 2 secs. Common way of me talking. It acts like a yoyo if you know what i mean.

For a preformance laugh, check this out:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2059176,00.asp

Remember, i'll be back with the screenshot

Running Guest

I have the correct ILS freq and heading (and course), approaching the correct runway and such, and the locaziler doesn't seem to move.

In my own flights and as ATC during multiplayer I have been able to instruct and let multiple players land using ILS. Actually I've been able to let each and every pilot land with an ILS appraoch that asked for help. (Ok maybe a few hit the ground a bit to hard on their first attempt.)

I have tried to see if the no cabin lights were a bug. I've tried looking for that magical switch but nothing.

If you define cabin light as panel light. In one of the airbus planes I belive its broke. In the other planes that have them they work without trouble on my machine.

Taxi lights don't work, and when i can be bothered to switch machines to get a screen shot, i'll be back.

Press "L" (If it switches off your lights press it once more) all lights will be on now)

I'm not a dumbass... this hasn't happened in FS9. I choose a location, lets say KJFK (new york), i choose the time to be 02:56am. I click "fly now", then for what ever reason, it's daylight when the sim has loaded.

I've flown all over the planet in FSX. I've always got the lights that came with the time I entered. You did notice there are 2 boxes to enter the time (local and zulu time)

ATC don't lituraly tell me to change freq every 2 secs. Common way of me talking. It acts like a yoyo if you know what i mean.

Yes but ATC in FS9 also did that. Actually in FS9 it did that a lot more. Especially with strong winds it seemed to put me on a zig zag course. FSX is actually better in that area.

Remember, i'll be back with the screenshot

Ofcourse but I'll be able to show you lots of screenshots of my taxi lights being on, panel lights on.

But I'll wait for your mooning AI. Smile

Pro Member First Officer
wombat457 First Officer

I FULLY agree with Matt Brown.

Microsoft indicatively has produced yet another software nightmare - typically Microsoft though to "slap" sopmething together and get it on the market for the sake of money, THEN attempt to rectify the problems with their second rate software by creating so called fixes and patches that simply DONT fix or patch.

FSX was suppose to be the MOST innovative game yet produced by anyone, yet someone said it was not compatible with dual core CPU's. How interesting that Microsoft is so far behind the 8 ball then, considering dual core CPU's are becoming the norm rather than the exception for most gamers, especially those playing top line programs.

Dual core CPU's are not the issue with FSX - Microsofts inability to produce something that works without countless numbers of updates, fixes and patches is.

As Matt (and others) have correctly stated ... FSX "claims" a lot in its promotional rubbish and on the box. The so called minimal requirements will not run FSX, how do I know - I dug up an old PC with the exact min requirements stated by Microsoft and the game would not run at all.

Every complaint about FSX is fairly much the same - low performance and an inability to achieve BETTER (note I said BETTER) results than with FS2004. You can run FSX and have it run fairly correctly, but in order to do that you loose ALL of the claimed benfits of FSX, such as detail and graphic quality. In short - you end up with a worse performer all round to what you get with FS2004.

Microsoft claimed a greater variety of aircraft too - more misleading information from the masters of misinformation. True, there are a few more aircraft yet the ones that genuine and serious sim pilots want are still missing - the Boeing range and the Airbus range. I might also point out that realism of Microsoft aircarft leaves a lot to be desired too.

I could go on and on and on about the problems with this program, but anyone that knows anythign about flight, aircraft and simulators already knows what a "flop" FSX is. As Matt said - Microsoft needs to go back to basics and concerntrate on the reason for the flight sims - to fly and put more emphasis on the flying rather than the pretty things that are what is using the majority of your computers resources.

If you want to fly rather than play a game with pretty niceties attached to it then stick with FS2004, purchase add-ons that fundementally upgrade FS2004 to what FSX is supposed to be and enjoy flying without the software drama's that are inherant in FSX.

FSX is a disaster, a waste of money and a dismal disappointment to any serious simulator pilot.

Microsoft tells us that WE need to do certain things to make FSX work. Microsoft needs to produce workable and stable software for the consumer - the consumer should NOT need to make drastic hardware or software alterationms to appease the wants of Microsoft.

In conclussion - if anyone wants to see hwo a REAL flight sim is suppose to look and run, take a look at Apples XPlane Deluxe and you will NEVER want to see another Microsoft fllight sim again. XPlanbe may not be pretty - but it is authentic in every detail and is just as good looking as FS2004. Whats more - it WORKS and does not require the appalling levels computer resources that FSX requires.

Running Guest

Yeah sure FSX has bugs in it.

I believe the average is 1 bug per 100 lines of code for software these days. Even if you do a lot better and get just 1 bug per 500 lines of code any new software package worth installing has lots of bugs.

So when is the product ready to ship then? After testing has been completed? When's that? When all the bugs are out? How do you know you have found all the bugs? Are you willing to invest all the money needed to find all the bugs (are your customers willing to pay the price tag that comes with it?)

Face it, each software package of a reasonable size has bugs. The question is how the manufacturer is handeling that fact. Are they willing to listen to customers and bring out patch after patch after patch so that the bugs that people complain the loudest about get fixed?

FSX gives you the flightsim that is ready for the next generation of computers. Those machines aren't available/affordable to most mortals yet. Installing FSX on an old PC and then compare its frame rate with FS2000 is not a good way to compare the 2.

and dual core.... well it's not entirely useless but its not just FSX that doesn't take advantage of it. I've yet to see any program that really takes advantage of it. Never have I seen the sum of the processor loads exceed 120% during a game. But I'm running it on a dual core and it doesn't crash or anything.

But frankly, it's been like what almost half a year since FSX came out. Why go to a FSX forum to complain about how crappy it runs on your old PC and how great your new apple is?

Pro Member First Officer
wombat457 First Officer

Running wrote:

Yeah sure FSX has bugs in it.

I believe the average is 1 bug per 100 lines of code for software these days. Even if you do a lot better and get just 1 bug per 500 lines of code any new software package worth installing has lots of bugs.

So when is the product ready to ship then? After testing has been completed? When's that? When all the bugs are out? How do you know you have found all the bugs? Are you willing to invest all the money needed to find all the bugs (are your customers willing to pay the price tag that comes with it?)

Face it, each software package of a reasonable size has bugs. The question is how the manufacturer is handeling that fact. Are they willing to listen to customers and bring out patch after patch after patch so that the bugs that people complain the loudest about get fixed?

FSX gives you the flightsim that is ready for the next generation of computers. Those machines aren't available/affordable to most mortals yet. Installing FSX on an old PC and then compare its frame rate with FS2000 is not a good way to compare the 2.

and dual core.... well it's not entirely useless but its not just FSX that doesn't take advantage of it. I've yet to see any program that really takes advantage of it. Never have I seen the sum of the processor loads exceed 120% during a game. But I'm running it on a dual core and it doesn't crash or anything.

But frankly, it's been like what almost half a year since FSX came out. Why go to a FSX forum to complain about how crappy it runs on your old PC and how great your new apple is?

Interesting comments - you dont happen to work for Microsft by any chance ? Smile

But okay a couple of points...
1. I run a pretty up market system ie: dual core 4400+, 8800gts, 2 gig dual XMS, and a couple of other nice little peices of hardware.

The "old" machine was used to TEST Microsofts claims - and that test proved Microsoft totally wrong.

2. FSX has only been out in Australia since October last year, BUT, as you pointed out, has been available elsewhere and on the so called testing benches for ages. STILL Microsoft cannot get it to run properly, just as they are yet to get any peice of software that they produce to run properly. As has been pointed out - perhaps Microsoft should visit companies such as UBISOFT and others, to see how to write a program and how to test it before marketing it.

When is testing finished? When the company that creates the software can confidently and HONESTLY market it with no avoidable inconvienience or additonal costs to the consumer.

3. Where you got the idea I was comparing FSX frame rates to anything isbewildering, let alone to FS2000. My comparisons were not about frame rates as such (as they are generally vastly over-rated in terms of garphics performance anyway) but were about the playability of the game compared to that of FS 2004 and what was required to obtain that playability.

4. As for why I am in an FSX forum is to confirm what the majority of people already know and to provide constructive advice regarding certain things concerning not only FSX, but all manner of flight sims.

Why are you here ? Just to subjectively critisize perhaps?

5. As for "how great your new apple is?" ... where did you get the idea I had a new Apple? What I said was this "...if you want to see a REAL flight sim look at apples XPlane Deluxe..." or words to that effect. And, ironically, XPlane is equally as complex as FSX, but with very few (if any) bugsthat substantially effect game play. The fact is that software made for Apple computers is far better than anything that Microsoft can produce - why? Because the manufactures of Apple software take the time and professionalism to ensure that their software works BEFORE they put it on the market, NOT throw it together, keep their fingers crossed that noone picks up the problems and then bombards the consumer with a million and one fixes and patches that merely compound the problems.

The other major point to FSX (and most Microsoft products) is this ... the majority of Microsoft products are basically flawed, including their OS, and Vista will be no different. FSX was Microsofts opportunity to show that they could get something right, and they failed miserably.

To sum up then ... FSX is, by all accounts, a waste of money if you expect to get all the things working that Microsoft claims. People (those mere mortals you speak of) are far better of staying with or buying FS2004 and buying add ons that actually do work and give people the same feel that FSX was suppose to without 90% of the problems and without having to spend large amounts of money to get an already overpriced product, to work effectively. Amazingly enough, companies such as Abacus have been dealing with flightsims for a long time (almost as long as Microsoft has been making them) and they have managed to write programs that work and without bugs? Why cant the "great" (tongue in cheek) Microsoft do that ... becuase they dont care about the consumer.

If you are happy to buy products from a company knowing that they are flawed then so be it. But it is that level of apathy that allows companies such as Microsoft to exist and to continue selling sub standard and flawed products. If people "complained" (even after 6 months) and refused to accept that poor standard of product (hence the product itself), then perhaps companies like Microsoft would be financially forced into improving their methods and producing software to the same standard as most other software companies.

Simply, would you go and buy a car that was full of bugs, then wait for years (in many cases) adding things to it and spending more money on it so it worked the way that the company claimed it would when you bought it? Most people wouldnt, but from what you are saying - you probably would.

In conclusion then - beofre you write anything and critisize other comments, you might be well advised to read the comments properly first and not make assumptions. Getting basic facts wrong in your reply only goes to cause the reader to wonder how accurate any information contained in your reply might be and could cause other readers to question your credibility.

Robbie Wilson Guest

You might think that Microsoft have released another demo Razz

Ps i'm back (the person on the 1st page with the AMD system) after my hard drive konked out...

I haven't played FSX for a while now, and pitty i can't sell it. They activation is all different. I thought this game was gonna be fantastic...

timjack Guest

As a long term flight simulator user I must thank MS for providing us with the previous versions. FS2004 was a trouble free application from day one.

FSX is a dud yes it looks great but you never get you use it as you have to run it on the low settings. As for the dude at MS who decided to change the file structure for the aircraft must have had a vindictive streak. I for the life of me can not see one good reason for this change.

I think fs2004 will have a extended life cycle for the true grit simmers. The eye candy heroes will carry on with FSX even if it breaks the bank to buy the latest hardware just to get it to work. Eye candy heroes normally have company backing such as the likes of Microsoft.

FSX has completely miss judged its own market or loyal flight simmers such as myself. If this was any other product other than a computer program it would have to be withdrawn from the market. The mimum running specs on the box is a downright lie.

Time for those boso's in the MS marketing department to own up and have a good look at themselves, hype more hype for one year and they release a costly dud. Sort it out guys..

Timjack

Pro Member Trainee
Craig (Sno0ze) Trainee

guest 12 wrote:

wow how come it runs so poorly on your system yet other people report it runs great on other systems.

Hehe yep it's true, I have nearly everything maxed out, except for autogen, it's on the sparse setting. I don't get a lot of chugging really, no major sticks and I'm running Pentium D 3.00Ghz, 1GB Ram, ATi Radeon X1300 256mb. So lol confusing yes but very true. I guess it depends on wether FS X likes you or not Very Happy

But yeah I'de give it a 10/10. Mainly because of graphics, which I've only seen in screenshots as of yet, but I know what the game is capable of. Once they bugs are fixed to, it will be the most indulging Flight Sim yet. Yes

badger24 Guest

i have the following specs:
Core 2 duo E6600
EVGA 680i SLI MB
2G Corsair DDR2 1066
8800GTX superclocked video card

I have absolutely no issues running FSX, all the settings are all the way to the right..the highest and it runs extreamely smooth. However, before i build my new comp it ran like crap, couldnt even play it really. I do tend to agree with most people on here. Microsoft had too many bakers baking this cake. Seems they overlooked some details like aircraft selection, the virtual cockpit in some aircraft is horrible (hard to click and see the VS, ALT, and HDG selectors). I had to build a computer to run this, while not prudent for most people, i needed an upgrade anyways. So unless you wanna fork over 2,000 and build a system for this game, stay with FS9 (thats 2004 if you arent in the loop).

Pro Member Captain
Rodney Jacobs (GundamWZero) Captain

I am with Badger..... you gotta pay to play!!!! If you are tooling with a substandard system and mad that FSX has issues with running, You have two options; stick with the old stuff or upgrade and deal with it! This is just like the battle of the OS.....you have people who can't afford to build their computers to run Windows Vista properly give bad reviews to make their own hackable XP seems like the right choice!!!

Yeah I built my own computer.

Yeah I ran FSX on a substandard system with XP as my operating system....and it sucked.

Yeah I spent around $500 bucks upgrading my computer to run both Vista and FSX.

FSX runs great...at settings that I am impressed with! I maxed out the settings and the FPS fell in metro areas, so what? I adjusted the settings and the graphics are still up where they were at with all the sliders at max.

I also have Need for Speed Carbon for the PC and it crashes after the first boss race EVERYTIME, even when I un-installed and re-installed the program! Don't give bad reviews for a program your computer is not ready to handle. Nvidia has an on site program to see if you can run Vista at its max performance. FSX says that you AT LEAST have to have the minimum requirements to run Vista. If you can't run Vista at the recommended settings, what makes you think you can run FSX at maximum settings? Read the recommended specs on the case, not the minimum!! Another thing......for those who can barely run FSX, think about overclocking and benchmarking your computer. It may (or may not) help your computer run FSX faster.

Quit trying to convince others that FSX is bad because you can't run it properly. It's like everyone complaining that a Lamborghini isn't a good buy because they can't afford the gas!

Pro Member First Officer
GoodisonBlue First Officer

Well said Gundam

bepDFO Guest

My system is not great. I was just wondering (not really considering purchasing the game) if it could stand any chance running FSX.
2.4 GHz processor, 1 gig of ram, 256 mb nvidia graphics card, windows xp. [/b]

Pro Member Chief Captain
Tailhook Chief Captain

If you get another Gig of RAM, you'll scratch by. At least you'll get a taste of FSX. Mind you, if you push all your sliders west, you should be able to enjoy plenty in FSX... until you want to benefit from the eyecandy that lies dormant that is.

Pro Member First Officer
Michaelvg1 First Officer

I have a 2 processor system. Won't their SP1 fix this?

Guest

I find it funny reading this, Microsoft designed this game for the pcs of the future. Then why the hell couldn't they build them for the PCs of today like they did with previous realises.

I will continue to use FSX instead of 2004 simply because i like the small extras FSX has to offer. But i will have to suffer poor frame rates and virtually fly to non busy airports and fly alone in the sky with the air traffic set down.

Also whats with these chucky graphic cards for Dx10, 8800 GTX is an example, how big does this thing need to be. Don't nvidia and other companies know that not all PCs will fit this card due to not having 2 PCiEx available or have the physical space for the 30+cm graphics card to fit. Maybe they are working with MS, as you will need Vista, more RAM to run Vista, even More RAM to run FSX in Vista, etc.

SP1 better be a DVD sized update so that they can actually make this game, As Real As It Gets for the simmers of Today.

Pro Member Chief Captain
Tailhook Chief Captain

Anonymous wrote:

SP1 better be a DVD sized update so that they can actually make this game, As Real As It Gets for the simmers of Today.

The 'simmers of today' use PCs of today. Having said that, I admit that I am not a 'simmer of today' due to a simmers of yesterday PC. Smile

Pro Member Captain
cheezyflier Captain

not being a "gamer" and also new to flight sim (only been doing it since the 1st of the year) i would like to make a comment (or two) from my own perspective.

1st of all, every time i see someone call themselves a "serious simmer" they always follow that statement with the comment that fsx is too much like a "game"
dude!!!!! it actually is a game!!!!!!!!!! some of you claim to be actual pilots. maybe that's true, but i suspect for many it is a fantasy. if these guys were real pilots they would know what a REAL LIFE simulator is like, and would know that the set up they have in thier parents basement will never, ever, be that nice, not even close.
even if they are real pilots, i say BIG FAT HAIRY DEAL!!!!
so you have your sport license. or maybe you have an instrument rating.
so what? your not ever gonna fly the big heavies ever, in your entire life.
your never gonna fly a show with patty wagstaff. your probably never gonna fly anything more than a handful of rental g/a stuff, when you can afford it. what i am saying to those people is:
we all know who you really are inside. the internet is not nearly as annonymous as you imagine. shut up and eat your vegetables. wear clean underwear in case of an accident. when you move out of mommies basement and can afford even the most pedestrian of aircraft out of your own pocket in real life, then you might have something to say.
however, i suspect that by then, you will have grown up sufficiently to be embarrased by the antics you currently afflict on the rest of us.

2ndly, ok, so microsoft released a product with a bunch of bugs in it, that also forces you to upgrade your stuff. how can you possibly act surprised? i have been using windows since 2.1, and i am here to tell you this is what they do every single time! it's not like you don't know who you are dealing with. shut up and stop your whining. even the alternatives have their share of problems. if that wasn't the case. microsoft would be out of bussiness by now. gates is a rich man. this didnt happen by crying about all the unfair stuff in the world. be a man.
anyone who ever told you life was fair lied to you.

3rd, if xplane is so much better, then have fun with it! i am glad you found something that makes you happy! why come here and whine about how mistreated you feel by microsoft? why not go to an x-plane forum and tell them how happy you are to have finally found something you like? i'll tell you why. because it's not really better. and you feel frustraded because you cant get what you want. that frustration makes you want to cry. like a baby. turn off the water works. i garantee, if you post your problems in an adult fashion, there are knowledgeable people here who will help you sort out what ever issue you have. i know this because several people here have already helped me tremendously!!!
going above and beyond the call. all i had to do was ask politely. it helps to remember to say thank you, although i have yet to be chastised for the times i myself have forgotten, due to my own excitement or frustrations.

these are my thoughts on the subject, your mileage may vary. if you are offended by anything i said, ask yourself why. Very Happy

Guest10 Guest

LOL, Absolutely a terrific post! Now I can go play my plane game, and not feel so insecure and inadequate. LOL

All times are GMT Page 1 of 1

Related Questions