"Holy FPS, Batman!"

PhilTaylor wrote:

See my new post "Holy FPS, Batman!" here

http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2008/05/21/holy-fps-batman.aspx

Key quote:
Toms posted a OC CPU-GPU review on May 15th that included FSX-SP2 and shows a whopping 83.1 FPS at 19x12 with no AA,trilinear and Ultra Quality, and a still excellent 72.7 FPS at 19x12 with AA, Anisotropic and Ultra Quality

I go into some more analysis in the rest of the post, and have links to the relevant Tom's articles. I think this is a must-read, both my post and the linked articles.

yeah more money to spend, thats just too bad for ppl that can.t afford it like my self

I've got great frame rates (anything over 30/second is a waste), a wonderful sim experience, and I saved myself about three thousand dollars. How did I do it? Simple, I bought FS2004 for thirty five bucks. How's that for performance!!!!

🍻

Art

effieveda wrote:

I've got great frame rates (anything over 30/second is a waste), a wonderful sim experience, and I saved myself about three thousand dollars. How did I do it? Simple, I bought FS2004 for thirty five bucks. How's that for performance!!!!

🍻

Art

isn't that just a bit off-topic for this thread? can we please stay on-topic? please?

effieveda wrote:

I've got great frame rates (anything over 30/second is a waste), a wonderful sim experience, and I saved myself about three thousand dollars. How did I do it? Simple, I bought FS2004 for thirty five bucks. How's that for performance!!!!

🍻

Art

NICE! I have all settings on highest on FS2004, and still get around 20FPS(My maximum!).

"Holy FPS Batman"! It sure seems like you're still trying to justify making people take out second mortgages just to make your lousy software work. Why can't you admit that your topic is "off topic". I think my comment was very much on topic. Who do you think you are fooling?
Maybe Robin will fall for your bull. Batman.....INDEED!!!!

🍻

Art

effieveda wrote:

"Holy FPS Batman"! It sure seems like you're still trying to justify making people take out second mortgages just to make your lousy software work. Why can't you admit that your topic is "off topic". I think my comment was very much on topic. Who do you think you are fooling?
Maybe Robin will fall for your bull. Batman.....INDEED!!!!

🍻

Art

wow, I thought this site was a bit more polite when useful information was posted.

fwiw, that article clearly shows:
1)where 8800, 9600,and 9800 stand relative to each other.
2)where CPU variants stand relative to each other.
3)what an OC on both CPU and GPU can get you.

Mods, if this persists I request this topic get locked as personal attacks like that ought not to be tolerated.

I have heard that the human eye can see at 90FPS, however,If I have a monitor that is 60 hertz, would it not be obsolete going above the 60 frames per second, as going more would just go unnoticed, and use up valuable cpu,gpu, and ram?

PhilTaylor wrote:

effieveda wrote:

"Holy FPS Batman"! It sure seems like you're still trying to justify making people take out second mortgages just to make your lousy software work. Why can't you admit that your topic is "off topic". I think my comment was very much on topic. Who do you think you are fooling?
Maybe Robin will fall for your bull. Batman.....INDEED!!!!

🍻

Art

wow, I thought this site was a bit more polite when useful information was posted.

fwiw, that article clearly shows:
1)where 8800, 9600,and 9800 stand relative to each other.
2)where CPU variants stand relative to each other.
3)what an OC on both CPU and GPU can get you.

Mods, if this persists I request this topic get locked as personal attacks like that ought not to be tolerated.

I agree.

lol well everyone is just saying that if it cost more money just to fly with fsx, then they will pass. i use it from time to time but i will not upgrade anymore hardware just to get a few more fps

My apologies to anyone who may have been offended by my remarks. In my humble opinion, ACES should have come up with an enhanced version of FS2004 instead of FSX. It was simply too much, too soon. The majority of folks who purchased FSX have experienced a great amount of frustration with it. I know I have, and it wasn’t very much fun, and the flight simulator was supposed to be just that – fun. Just have a look at all the posts on this forum regarding frame rates. It is obvious that the only way to achieve a satisfactory sim experience with FSX is to spend money, and that is just wrong. People like myself, and all those young folks who don’t have the resources will never be able to enjoy the full capabilities of FSX. Therefore, I place the blame squarely where it belongs, on the management of the ACES team. If that manager is incapable of taking any criticism of the product for which he is responsible, then that’s his problem. All I did was express my opinion, and my solution to the frame rate dilemma.

Best regards … Art

effieveda wrote:

My apologies to anyone who may have been offended by my remarks. In my humble opinion, ACES should have come up with an enhanced version of FS2004 instead of FSX. It was simply too much, too soon. The majority of folks who purchased FSX have experienced a great amount of frustration with it. I know I have, and it wasn’t very much fun, and the flight simulator was supposed to be just that – fun. Just have a look at all the posts on this forum regarding frame rates. It is obvious that the only way to achieve a satisfactory sim experience with FSX is to spend money, and that is just wrong. People like myself, and all those young folks who don’t have the resources will never be able to enjoy the full capabilities of FSX. Therefore, I place the blame squarely where it belongs, on the management of the ACES team. If that manager is incapable of taking any criticism of the product for which he is responsible, then that’s his problem. All I did was express my opinion, and my solution to the frame rate dilemma.

Best regards … Art

my problem with this attitude is, how many times do you have to do this?

is this the first and last? I see way too much beating of dead horses wrt FSX any time I try to make a positive contribution.

everyone wants to take their shot. and when it gets repetitive, as this one is about "the standard FPS gripe", when all I am trying to do is share an excellent comparo article with the community - yes I see that as off-topic and tiring. start your own thread about "the standard FPS gripe" instead of polluting my thread, please.

and if you cared about history at all, you would remember that I started right when FSX shipped and SP1 was my first release. so you are criticizing the wrong horse. get it?

what is more, I have read the FS9 boards. FS9 had much the same perf issues when it first came out. and historically the FS series has been taxing of hw. In the "very old days", it, DOS, and Lotus were the "clone compatibility test". ignoring that history and holding FSX to a separate standard is not a fair litmus test.

anyways, are you done?

I got started with FSX right when it came out, too. As for Service Packs... FSX has those? I mean, seriously. Does everything M$ makes have to have service packs? If so, Microsoft needs to spend a little more time developing, instead of releasing right away, and then releasing service packs! If it is because of a new security threat, I can live with that. But because of a flaw in development... No way.

Cheers... 😞

Concorde105

No, Mr. Taylor, I'm not done.

You mean to tell me that the thrust of your thread was not about "frames per second"?

Toms posted a OC CPU-GPU review on May 15th that included FSX-SP2 and shows a whopping 83.1 FPS at 19x12 with no AA,trilinear and Ultra Quality, and a still excellent 72.7 FPS at 19x12 with AA, Anisotropic and Ultra Quality

As for when you started at ACES, how the hell am I supposed to know (or care, for that matter)?

If I were you, I wouldn't want anyone to know that SP1 was my baby, for all the good that did!

Wrong horse? I think I got the wrong end of the horse.

History, you're the one who made the mistake of repeating it.

OK Radarman, do your thing with the lock. I'm tired of this jerk.

🍻

Regards ... Art

😳 😂

😂 ye im only 14ys old when i got fsx i thought AWSOME OUT WITH THE BAD IN WITH THE GOOD!!! well installed got 2fps bought a video card for 200 dollars 16fps with settings on low what will it take to run fsx its bullcrap that your ACE guys screwed up big time why make the thing so danm big 15gb plus ACCEL another 4 gb just a waste 🙄 😞

Locked because of the boorish behavior of members to a guest member.