[jhb_airlines] Re: FSX Demo

  • From: "Bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:37:13 +0100

I can't see that FSX will be any different to FS2004 in it's need for a
powerful CPU. I've no idea what the fastest is at the moment as the new
descriptions are baffling but my 3.2GHz machine can't cope with my
customised level of FS2004. I would guess that something near 5.0GHz would
possibly cut the mustard but I'd like at least double to ease the system a

Truth is that I have yet to see the full potential of what I have added to
FS2004 - and I would certainly like to see this before I think about
deserting it. With VFGM loaded plus a complex aircraft and real weather PLUS
all sliders maxed - and get really high frame rates - would be an absolute

When I look back at the past my impression is that I have always had to live
with chronic frame rates. Paradoxically it has always been a new version of
FS that has caused me to upgrade - meaning the new CPU has coped with new FS
version for a short while, until added aircraft and scenery have started the
inevitable frame rate plummet again. This time round I am going to upgrade
to improve the existing version of the sim and enjoy fluid flight again. I
won't look at FSX at all until Vista is released and sorted out.

When we designed the VFR Scenery for FS98 our constant headache was adding
detail that most users could cope with. Our first rendition of London
stopped FS dead (four of us took on each quadrant so we only saw the end
result when the final designer fired off his work). We then had to start
again and strip out a lot of work - a painful task - and I think most of you
would have groaned if you had seen what got chopped. The same still happens
with FS today as designers are able to create scenery and aircraft to the
most finite level of detail - but few design WELL and pay attention to poly
counts and minimal textures.

Oddly enough, whilst working on FS98 I found my old FS4 floppy in a box and
loaded it up. It still worked and the FPS was off the clock at 999 <g>. The
most striking observation was in the flight dynamics with really fluid
aircraft handling - so smooth it was startling. These days some users say
that you should never need more than 24fps but I can tell you that is a load
of bollards. Higher FPS isn't just about the visual movement of the aircraft
but about how finite the aerodynamics are calculated. Just zero all your
sliders and get the FPS up to silly levels to see - put the view into Chase
Plane mode and throw the aircraft about with rapid stick reversals. Once you
appreciate how good aircraft dynamics can be you rapidly get cheesed off
with having to suffer 24fps!


-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Brook
Sent: 14 August 2006 15:07
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FSX Demo

Bones -

I couldn't possibly have written a more rational & logical assessment of FSX
based on the demo than you have just done!

> I've already made my decision and I will not be buying FSX in the
> immediate future (...) - so I will stick with FS2004 until I have
> caught up.

Me too (in Spades...!)


Other related posts: