• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Flight Simulator X is another Vista Promoting Trick...

akshayt

Banned
Could Flight Simulator be another Vista promote stratergy. We have all seen that Flight Simulator runs crap even on 1900xt and 7900gtx will no more than 10-20FPS or so. It may be that MS has specially done that so that it runs crap on XP so that they can again repair what they broke and make it run twice or even thrice as fast in Vista.

I am not sure, but the fact that it runs crap on all of today's hardware and even runs crap on a 7800GS at low settings, this means either MS is mad or there is some Vista/Xbox 360 stratergy to it.
 
I think the full version is out and it is running crap, really crap on many systems which you can call high end for gaming atleast.
 
Originally posted by: blurredvision
Nothing like a good conspiracy theory on a quiet, Saturday afternoon. Continue, please..............

what if it also runs like crap on Vista? 😛

and it's still morning here

. .. and not-so-quiet either . . . a 65 square mile major wildfire is raging about 25 miles away 🙁

other than that . . . nice day

Oh yeah . .. do you think MANY people are gonna be buying Vista JUST for Flight Stimulator performance? 😛


. . . Halo 3 maybe

probably not
 
Originally posted by: akshayt
I think the full version is out and it is running crap, really crap on many systems which you can call high end for gaming atleast.

Well, the game is very demanding.

I have it and I can run it with AA and AF with everything on Medium High settings.

I'm sure if I turned off the AA and AF that i can run it even higher.
I do have SLI but a X1900XTX should also have no trouble running this game on lower settings. You don't have to run everything at the absolute highest and for a flight sim, you don't need 150fps. Pretty much anything 30 and above will do just fine.
 
Yeah I'm not feeling simulator X, Lomac ran like crap when it first came out...but its graphics (really) were that much better than any other simulator.
 
This game is no doubt a DX-10 ready-game.
I just finished installing the full deluxe version last night. My AMD rig runs ~ 10-20fps with halfway settings in most scenries with 2aa/4af in 1680x1050 res. Barely enough to make my 1st successful landing over the DFW a/p (my home a/p)

Graphic looks stunning btw, far better than its precedessor the FS2004.
I will need a G80 to improve the fps.
 
Originally posted by: videopho
This game is no doubt a DX-10 ready-game.
I just finished installing the full deluxe version last night. My AMD rig runs ~ 10-20fps with halfway settings in most scenries with 2aa/4af in 1680x1050 res. Barely enough to make my 1st successful landing over the DFW a/p (my home a/p)

Graphic looks stunning btw, far better than its precedessor the FS2004.
I will need a G80 to improve the fps.
Flight sims are traditionally CPU limited, your video card may not be the limiting factor.
 
While I doubt it's a Vista sneak attack, it does make me laugh that the game seems to run like crap even on the TV commercial.
 
Runs pretty good on my setup X23800+,7600GT,all sliders set to medium. Why are people worried about FPS in a flight sim?
To me it runs a lot better than FS2004.
 
If my memory serves me right. Most of not all flight sim games are a year or two in advance or ahead of the hardware's. The FSx is no difference.
 
Originally posted by: apoppin
. .. and not-so-quiet either . . . a 65 square mile major wildfire is raging about 25 miles away 🙁

Again, dude? One of these days...

But, let's think positive here.

How many people actually play/use Flight Simulator X? I'm not sure MS would do something like this if it didn't pull that many people to Vista. Halo 2 is understandable because it's supposed to appeal to many more people, but a flight simulator...
 
Originally posted by: akshayt
I think the full version is out and it is running crap, really crap on many systems which you can call high end for gaming atleast.

YES WE ALL KNOW IN YOUR TWISTED WORLD EVERYTHING IS CRAP
 
Even Oblivion runs like crap on most computers. Even the best GPUs can't play the game uber-smooth with everything set to max. Is that a conspiracy too?

Use the detail sliders FTW!
 
Originally posted by: Aflac
Originally posted by: apoppin
. .. and not-so-quiet either . . . a 65 square mile major wildfire is raging about 25 miles away 🙁

Again, dude? One of these days...

But, let's think positive here.

How many people actually play/use Flight Simulator X? I'm not sure MS would do something like this if it didn't pull that many people to Vista. Halo 2 is understandable because it's supposed to appeal to many more people, but a flight simulator...

 
Originally posted by: videopho
If my memory serves me right. Most of not all flight sim games are a year or two in advance or ahead of the hardware's. The FSx is no difference.


Well thats definetly true....The ONLY reason I didnt completly rip myself off going 7800GTX sli(sold) was LOMAC flaming cliffs. That game is the GOD of flighter sims when running smooth(50fps+) at max settings/resolution, too bad it took 2 years after release for anyone to be able to do that. I love needless edits.
 
An old fogie (age 70) comes late to this thread but I must say I've run FlightSimX with all game settings on max on a EVGA 7800GS, The only problem that was annoying was when flying in heavy cloud there were artifacts caused by flying out of cloud and into cloud the card(?) couldn't keep up with those image changes and would artifact through the aircraft wind screen. The sun to shadow changes were too much for the card.
 
Back
Top