George W 3 Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 It is now nearly a year since FSX was launched. I was in the USA last October when I picked up a copy, and was somewhat disappointed when I got back to see how slow it was running on my current computer. I am the sort of guy that likes to be 'playing' with the latest software, so I did not return to FS9 and have not 'flown' for 10 months............what a martyr!!! Now , I am hungry again.............desparately wanting to fly.........I understand that the FSX SP1 has made some big improvements, and this coincides with the fact that my PC needs to be upgraded for other reasons. Being in the UK, I have bought my last two computers from Evesham, but they are now in administration, so not sure what their future is. Having told my story I have a number of questions on which I would appreciate any advice Is FSX better than FS9 and the best flight simulator? What is a good hardware spec that I would need to make it fly without (many) issues Any particular supplier or model of computer would you recommend to deliver Any reason as to why I should not go the FSX route Thanks to all those that respond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kofi 0 Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 INTEL Core 2 Duo and above are currently outperforming anything AMD has to offer. Add an NVIDIA 8800GTS or better and you'll be thoroughly enjoying FSX.... 8) (And I can honestly say this as an AMD/ATI owner myself..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skydvdan 2 Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Is FSX better than FS9 and the best flight simulator? I'm not a huge fan of FSX but I will admit that for photoreal ground imagery like Megascenery, FSX can't be beat. The sim is slowly growing on me. Once there is hardware that will run it to "my" satisfaction, it will be my only sim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted September 30, 2007 Aerosoft Share Posted September 30, 2007 It is now nearly a year since FSX was launched. I was in the USA last October when I picked up a copy, and was somewhat disappointed when I got back to see how slow it was running on my current computer. I am the sort of guy that likes to be 'playing' with the latest software, so I did not return to FS9 and have not 'flown' for 10 months............what a martyr!!! Now , I am hungry again.............desparately wanting to fly.........I understand that the FSX SP1 has made some big improvements, and this coincides with the fact that my PC needs to be upgraded for other reasons. Being in the UK, I have bought my last two computers from Evesham, but they are now in administration, so not sure what their future is. Having told my story I have a number of questions on which I would appreciate any advice Is FSX better than FS9 and the best flight simulator? What is a good hardware spec that I would need to make it fly without (many) issues Any particular supplier or model of computer would you recommend to deliver Any reason as to why I should not go the FSX route Thanks to all those that respond Yes there is. FS2004 is limited in hardware (single CPU's hardly get any faster, the real growth is in multiple cores) and this will be the real limit for FS2004 in the long run, it will get too slow (strange as that sounds now). But the biggest factor is that FS2004 is limited in complexity of objects. For example the Seahawk we are now completing. In FS2004 we could add the pilot and one crew member before hitting the max amount of polygons that could be compiled. In the FSX version we could add two more crew members (co-pilot and sonar operator), a lot more small details, bumpmaps, speculars etc. We are basically only limited to how many CPU cores you can send in to haul FSX around. See the image below (please note you got to be logged to see the attachment) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc W. 0 Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Another nice indication why FSX is the way to go is this forum! Remember, 10-12 months ago, every 2nd post here was a rant about "FSX sucks" ... all of those posters have either been converted or vanished without a trace. At least I can't remember one of those "I'll always keep flying FS9" posts in some time now I too believe the patch did away with the last issues ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verified Developer OPabst 2091 Posted September 30, 2007 Verified Developer Share Posted September 30, 2007 Hi, sorry, when I have another view related to the FS X: FS X is a VFR simulator for users, who fly below 5000 feet, with small aircrafts, from and to small airports. They can use the simulator on a good power PC of the last 2 generations. Here the FS X can show his benefits. But, all other, who are oriented to larger airliners, will never have the same level in FSX as now in FS9: You will need a max configured newest hardware to file a complex airliner to a complex large airport. And you need to wait a long time, until all the nice airports now available in FS 9 will be transferred to FSX. I say, you will never see them all in FSX. Why: In scenery development, the FS has a lot of limitations, which makes it very complex to transfer large airports to FS X design. FS9 SDK generated code will not work correct in some daytime situations, the FSX SDK generated code is much much slower then the FS9 code. When the designer will transfer there models to FSX Code, the large airports are very slow and not usable with not absolut optimized hardware. To find a good mix from old and new code need a lot of time, so the development of new/old airport scenery will not be so fast as needed to get a good base within the next month. At the time, MS will talk about the next generation of FS, this process will stop totally, because all scenery designers are not willing to restart all this process again with the next version. Based on this situation, the FS9 and FSX will have his life beside each other for the next years, until all that what we see at the moment is fixed in the next generation, then we have the chance to go back to one simulator for all kind of usage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kofi 0 Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Another nice indication why FSX is the way to go is this forum! Remember, 10-12 months ago, every 2nd post here was a rant about "FSX sucks" ... all of those posters have either been converted or vanished without a trace. At least I can't remember one of those "I'll always keep flying FS9" posts in some time now I too believe the patch did away with the last issues ... Due to individual financial issues, We have folks in the flight sim community still flying FS98. Proof is in all the FS98 uploads at FLIGHTSIM.COM And just as I know people who fly FS2002, I greatly suspect there'll also be folks flying FS2004 for quite some time.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kofi 0 Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 I've stated this here in this forum before FSX was released but I'll bring it up again since it's being debated in another forum. The subject is this: The next version of FSX should drop all backwards compatibility if any true progress AND performance is going to be made. Look at all the pure DX10 games out now. If Microsoft wants to achieve this level of spectacularity, they'll have to drop all FS backwards compatibility to include anything related to DX9 - and that includes FSX. By the time 2009/2010 arrives with FS11, DX10 will be so far advanced and refined that it would be utterly ridiculous for Microsoft to maintain backwards compatibility. If they do keep backwards compatibility, FS11 will look like it's in the stone age in comparison to other PURE DX10 products that'll be out by 2009/2010. Just my "2 pence" worth... 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts