Do you already have a twinked out FS2k4 with custom scenery, full air traffic and lots of add on aircraft? Then no, FSX is not worth upgrading to.
Do you not currecntly have a FS version on your computer? Then yes, FSX is worth buying.. but make sure you have a stout system first or you will get a slide show instead of a simulator.
Jycarlisle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8715 times:
Quoting Palladium (Reply 3): LOL for instance if you want to go from Seattle to Hongkong which is about 12 hours or so..... so do u have to play it for 12 hours? LOL
I'd hope (being that every other version since FS '98 has it to my knowledge) that there is an option for simulation rate which gives choices of speed during the simulation.
StarAC17 From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 2418 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8715 times:
Quoting Palladium (Thread starter): and how many types of aircraft on this game? (big plane) I know they have 747 and 737
do they have 777 and 767?
The commercial jets you get are the B737-800, B747-400, and the A321. The Boeing 777-300 was an option in FS 2004 and 2002 but they took it out FSX cry .
Quoting Palladium (Reply 3): When you try to go point A to point B... will it be in a real time ? or can you simulate it ?
LOL for instance if you want to go from Seattle to Hongkong which is about 12 hours or so..... so do u have to play it for 12 hours? LOL
You can sim from 0.5x to 16x using autopilot and up to 64x flying manually. Also there is ATC and GPS to navigate.
Quoting MDorBust (Reply 2): Do you not currecntly have a FS version on your computer? Then yes, FSX is worth buying.. but make sure you have a stout system first or you will get a slide show instead of a simulator.
So true, make sure your system has is at least two years old (probably better with one a year old) to get this game to run at all decent. Check out the Aviation Hobby forum for more info on FSX (which this has been moved to).
SaturnVRocket From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 88 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8713 times:
Quoting Palladium (Reply 3): what airbus? 340 or 330? and is the new 737NG?
No A330 or A340. Yes A321. Yes 737-800.
But regardless, you can download just about ANY aircraft ever designed in any paint scheme from various FS Sites.
Quoting Palladium (Reply 3): When you try to go point A to point B... will it be in a real time ? or can you simulate it ?
You can do either. You can increase all the way up to 80X regular time or something like that.
Quoting Palladium (Reply 3): LOL for instance if you want to go from Seattle to Hongkong which is about 12 hours or so..... so do u have to play it for 12 hours? LOL
See above
Just so people know, FSX is a resource HOG. I have an Intel D840 3.2 dual core chip, 2 GB DDR2 RAM, GeForce 8800GTS with 640 MB Video Ram and I will get 10-15 FPS in a dense area with sliders at about 85-90% of their max. Now as you can see I have a pretty good machine and it pretty much rapes it. On my FS9 rig, I have high end terrain mesh with other big airport sceneries, complex addon aircraft (PMDG, LDS), and I have literally every single slider maxed out as far as it can go. FS9 cannot have higher scenery settings on my system and I get about 30-40 FPS in dense areas. FSX has been so badly trashed in many FS forums that Microsoft is coming out with a patch that will apparently have a significant improvement in performance that will make the program be far more efficient at utilizing dual core technology and reducing loads on the CPU. Here is a link to the blog that follows FSX's SP1 progress: http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/default.aspx.
Anyway, if you are big into high end addons like PMDG, LDS, PSS, FT 737, etc etc, NONE of them work with FSX right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see any work until Christmas time. FSX has a much different code than FS9 which is clearly posing a major problem for addon developers. I am a HUGE MSFS fan and I follow this kind of news closely. If you have any other questions ask away! Hope I can help.
AviatorG From St. Lucia, joined Apr 2005, 213 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8702 times:
Waiting for my next PC setup before I let my CPU roll around with FSX. The graphics are truly 'designed for the future'. Spent a few hours playing it, before the nVidia 6800 SLI cards (x2) started to really heat up. The 'graphics slider' on this version truly pushes the envelope! 100% for FSX = no limit . Has anyone with FSX attempted to fly a route over the North Pole on a long haul (w/ FMS)? Would make my Vatsim experience even more thrilling, knowing FS9 never supported that ( -D-> on the GPS)
QFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 1786 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8681 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 5): You can sim from 0.5x to 16x using autopilot and up to 64x flying manually.
Actually its 0.25x and 124x.
Quoting Palladium (Reply 9): Intel Core Duo 2 E6600 @ 2.4 GhZ
Windows Vista Ultimate 32bit
2.00 GB Memory
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX 768 mb
400 GB Hard Disk
Quoting Palladium (Reply 9): will the FSX running smooth with this spec?
With that setup you'll be running FSX about aswell as it can be run.
I have just been playing FSX, one of the best things is the missions, if you have FS9 done up that's all you'll use FSX for. You can still make a flight but for me I'd rather fly PMDG 747/737 than the default FSX ones, the 744 VC is absolutely disgraceful. I've nearly finished all the default missions, although thankfully the more creaitve people among us are making missions available for download off avsim.
W3ndytj4n From Indonesia, joined Feb 2006, 258 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8644 times:
You should try to play FS2004, before you advance to FSX, some peoples said FS 2004 is better than FSX, I am still using FS 2004, put more AI on it, everything will be as real as real life.
StarAC17 From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 2418 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8595 times:
Palladium make sure you have a good joystick or a flight yoke as well when you pick it up.
Quoting Palladium (Reply 9):
Intel Core Duo 2 E6600 @ 2.4 GhZ
Windows Vista Ultimate 32bit
2.00 GB Memory
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX 768 mb
400 GB Hard Disk
My Windows Experience Index is at 5.3
Can I have that, according to the games explorer in Vista a WEI of 5 is recommended for FSX.
I can get around 10-15FPS with this system which needs a few upgrades when I have $$
AMD athlon 64 3000 + 1.8gHz
Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit
1GB RAM
NVIDIA Ge Force 6600 GT 128mb (Yes I know it is garbage for FSX but it works pretty decent)
A 160gb HD and a 120gb HD
WEI of 3.8
Over this summer I hope to replace the Ram, and Processor first and when the more DX10 video cards come out I will upgrade the Video .
KaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 11618 posts, RR: 50 Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8585 times:
Haha, I don't think I'll be buying FSX any time soon....I only have a laptop
Flyboyseven From Canada, joined Feb 2007, 876 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8580 times:
I have:
-dual intel pentium 2 3.4GHz processors
-2GB ram
-400GB hard drive
-NVIDIA Ge Force 7300GT
-ViewSonic 19" 4:3 2ms response time moniter
-Windows XP home
For some reason, probably the graphics card, Niether FS9 or FSX work very well. Ihave played around with settings, and even at about 75% on all the sliders in FS9, when i go into a dense area I get lag, and lots of it. FSX is almost unusable because of how low i must put the bars (0%). Any suggestions?
As long as the number of take-offs equals the number of landings...you're doing fine.
StarAC17 From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 2418 posts, RR: 4 Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8506 times:
Quoting Flyboyseven (Reply 14): For some reason, probably the graphics card, Niether FS9 or FSX work very well. Ihave played around with settings, and even at about 75% on all the sliders in FS9, when i go into a dense area I get lag, and lots of it. FSX is almost unusable because of how low i must put the bars (0%). Any suggestions?
Upgrade your video drivers, I have a lesser system and I get decent performance in FSX with the sliders around Medium and in FS9 I could max everything out and never have lag.
How do you update them? because when i right click and click update driver it asks me to connect to windows, i say yeh ok fine, yeh it asks me to insert a disk, i dont have one so i click next anyway and then it does a searching thing and then nothing. It basically searches for ages and i get fed up waiting (by ages i mean about 15 mins) and click off it.
Rgds --James--
You cant have your cake and eat it... What the hells the point in having it then!!!
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 3815 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8056 times:
For FSX, 256MB on the video card is minimum, dedicated memory, and the house numbers at Nvidia should not be below 7600. Basically graphics need 4 times the size in FSX than in FS9.
EDICHC From New Zealand, joined Nov 2006, 2584 posts, RR: 18 Reply 20, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8041 times:
I would seriously recommend getting hold of FS9 first. I bought FSX and regretted it, to get the full benefit of the features you need some seriously hi-spec hardware.
If this is to be your first flight sim FS9 will be more than adequate and there is plenty of payware and freeware available for you to customise it to your choice.
For the time being I have uninstalled my FSX and it is gathering dust until I can persuade the wife that we reaaly need that expensive upgrade/new PC!
Sponsor Message: 
From Indonesia, joined Apr 2005, 270 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 2418 posts, 
So true, make sure your system has is at least two years old (probably better with one a year old) to get this game to run at all decent. Check out the Aviation Hobby forum for more info on FSX (which this has been moved to).
From St. Lucia, joined Apr 2005, 213 posts, 
The graphics are truly 'designed for the future'. Spent a few hours playing it, before the nVidia 6800 SLI cards (x2) started to really heat up. The 'graphics slider' on this version truly pushes the envelope! 100% for FSX = no limit 
. Has anyone with FSX attempted to fly a route over the North Pole on a long haul (w/ FMS)? 
Would make my Vatsim experience even more thrilling, knowing FS9 never supported that ( -D-> on the GPS) 
From Canada, joined Feb 2007, 876 posts, 
From Colombia, joined Jul 2001, 830 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 3968 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 3815 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2006, 2584 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
