minglis
-
Posts
12 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by minglis
-
-
Definitely buying this one. Just flown back from this place on me holidays.
Can you give a release date for this? -
I can't wait for this city!!! San Francisco has got to be one of my favourite areas of all Flight Sims.
-
Is that a Hawker Hunter?
Yes it is, its the alphasim Hawker Hunter for FSX.
-
Heres my attempt.
Bit dark innit!!! -
I think there has been way too many images with sunrises and sunsets!!!!
Heres mine!! 
Judging by the other entries, this is going to be tough.
EC-135 over Oahu in the morning
-
FSX is not at fault? FSX is the only reason why it's still not possible to use it at it's max potential, still to this day there is not hardware that can run FSX with all sliders and setting to the max and that's simply because FSX is a badly coded and optimized piece of software, they still use the same graphics engine from FS9, which has it's roots from FS2000. FSX should be better optimized to take advantage of the hardware that's available.
It seems like it's only in FSX we have to compromise between graphics and performance because i can run most other games on full settings, including FS9, where i don't compromise anything and get very acceptable frames.
I would really like to know where you get your information from, because FSX does not use the same graphics engine as FS9. It uses something called Microsoft ESP. Ive included some links to some documents from Microsoft, about the terrain engine used in FSX just to demostrate that FSX uses a completely different graphics engine.
FSX Global Terrain Technology (Word Document)
FSX Global Terrain Technology (Powerpoint Presentation)
If the above links fail, I got the documents from this website http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/esp/cc789357.aspx
In the documents, it does state that FSX is scalable to run on a wide range of systems. That to me means the user has to adjust the sliders to optimize FSX to get the best from it on their system. In fact by setting the sliders to full you are telling FSX that you have a very high-end PC and therefore it cant cope with what hardware you have got at present.
Its not just FSX that we have to compromise, a good example is Crysis, which is very demanding on hardware.
-
it would also be nice to know your PC specs.
Sure, Im running FSX Acceleration on Windows XP professional service pack 3, with Intel Quad Core Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz CPU, 2GB DDR3 RAM, 1 GPU which is a Nvidia 8800GT 512MB and 2 SATA-300 Hard drives (1 for windows which is 150GB and the other for games such as FSX which is 750GB).
The thing is i don't want to compromise graphics vs FPS, i want to be able to run FSX at it's max potential and seeing everything the sim can offer at 30+ frames, no matter what i fly and where i fly, when you have to start compromising graphics vs performance you're not taking full advantage of the flightsim's capabilities.I think everybody would love to run FSX at its maximum graphical potential, i know i would. FSX is definitely not at fault here, it all depends on your hardware. We have to compromise in order to get it running the way we want it. This applies to all games and simulations, not just FSX. It just means turning down some of the graphical settings which I've accepted and its not at all ruined my experience with FSX. There has always been a battle between graphics and performance. If you want incredible graphics, then you have to sacrifice performance. That has always been a fact with computer games.
-
Ah, well.. find me a $500 PC that runs FSX with good frames (30+) with all sliders and options checked over urban areas with full weather, AI, traffic with the most complex airliner addons.
In fact no one i have given this challenge to have ever replied and/or have not been able to find such hardware, and that after 2 whole years of FSX's life-span is just ridiculous, but i guess i'm the only one who sees that.
Enjoy your slideshow folks and i'll enjoy my smooth, bad weather approaches into KJFK with 40+ frames
I presume people are getting bored of this FS9 v FSX topic, i know i am!! But I think ill add my bit to it.
I think your asking a bit much for a $500 PC. I agree you do need a fairly hefty PC with a decent multi-core CPU and decent multi-GPUs to run FSX with all of the sliders set to max. But, as many other people on this forum have tried to explain to you that you HAVE to tailor the sliders to the bounds of what your PC is capable of and also what you want do with FSX, whether that be high or low altitude flying. If you put all of the sliders to full, you are effectively telling FSX to do a lot more work. If your PC can't handle this extra work, it will crash, simple as that.
Ive attached some images with the frame rates in top left corner, just to prove that FSX for me is not a slideshow.
-
The first sim that really blew my mind was Interceptor when I had advanced to a Commodore Amiga. For the first time the airplanes were solid (not just a grid of lines) - and it was running very smoothly compared to the Microsoft flight sims of that time.
Interceptor for the Amiga was fantastic! I spent many hours flying around San Francisco. Even tried to land on the Golden Gate Bridge a few times
-
I started with flight simulation on my commodore 64 computer back in 1984 with the ancestor of MSFS made by a company called Sublogic. It was good fun and imagination had to compensate for the lack of graphics back in those days.
I started with the ZX Spectrum on Digital Integrations Fighter Pilot, graphics were about same, definitely had to use my imagination
I have limited the frames to 30 FPS in FSX as apparently the human eye can't really notice much difference above 24-25 fps (hence the international movie standard). I have all my sliders maxed-out except one or two which I prefer not to use such as ground shadows which does use up resources and that I don't find very attractive anyway. The result is a very smooth and reliable virtual flight environment with crisp, (indeed) "lush" graphics especially when using add ons such as the Ultimate Terrain and Ground / Flight Environment series.I totally agree, decided to limit the frames on FSX to 24fps and to be honest, I cant really tell the difference except that the graphics have improved slighty which is a bonus. Still appears smooth even when using add ons like Ground Environment X and Horizons VFR Scenery.
-
very funny!! I remember playing FS2 when I was a young un!! Thought it was fantastic @ the time!! Suppose i will av to put up with FSX @ the moment!!
Joking of course, ive been flying FSX for about a year now and i have not had any problems with it. Not encountered any bugs or flaws. Got it running smoothly at 30fps, which is more than anybody needs. Never going back to FS9, been spoilt with FSX lush graphics!!
Just downloaded the F-16 from aerosoft and that works fine, no problems at all.
Incredible add on for FSX, well worth the wait!!
Nice X
in Aerosoft Scenery
Posted