JohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1381 posts, RR: 6 Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6850 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Avsim already has a brand new section with FSX add-ons, not much in it though. I think the uploaders will move onto FSX just like they done with previous versions.
I might wait until it drops in price or when there is a sufficient amount of both freeware and payware. I also hope that there will be free upgrades for the payware I got (cost me an arm and a leg over the years). Or that upgrades are MUCH lower in price compared to buying it new. So is it worth buying? Yes and no IMO, great answer huh?
5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
Delboy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 722 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 6824 times:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, is it worth buying, that's between you and your bank balance and how badly you want to have the latest edition of flight sim.
I looked on Avsim last night and noticed the folders already prepared for the freeware add ons. I looked in a couple and they were empty so I didn't bother to check any of the others.
As I've said before, for me, I cannot justify what I would need to spend to make FSX run to my satisfaction. It's taken me this long to get FS9 to do it, and like JohnK, have spent a considerable amount of wonga in the process.
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9294 posts, RR: 42 Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 6820 times:
Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 1): Or that upgrades are MUCH lower in price compared to buying it new.
PMDG are talking about the FSX version costing about the same as the original plus the FSX upgrade, so I assume the upgrade won't cost much at all.
Is it worth buying? My money's on the same happening as happened with earlier versions. Some people will hold out because it's apparently not worth it but they'll give in when everyone else starts raving about it.
Wilax From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 465 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6733 times:
I was all for it until I tried the demo. On my system the framerates were worse than what I get with FS9. I also tried to install some FS9 addons in FSX and there were problems. I tried some scenery and it would stop loading and freeze up at 82% loaded. I tried some aircraft. They all loaded and all the animations worked in FSX but all the planes I tried were slightly transparent. You could see the planes textures ok, but you could also see outlines of whatever was on the other side of the plane or the virtual cabin through the textures, like there were no "_L" bmp's. Unless these are anti-piracy features, all addon scenery and planes will have to be modified or re-created for FSX. Nothing can be carried over. I have about 30 gigs worth of addon-FS stuff, so I cannot switch until everything is compatible. I guess I will buy FSX, but I don't know how long it will be until I can retire FS9
Sv2008 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 622 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6498 times:
I don't have Fs9, but want to buy this, so yes, it is worth it, even if I have to reduce the graphics a bit.
There is a lot of disscussion about if it'll run ok or not, but at the lowest detail levels it'll probably run on a 1.5Ghz easy enough. A 3ghz with a reaonable graphics card should manage ok.
Details like water/land/aircraft reflections, ultra high qualitly textures, AA, excessive res (more than 1024x768) and weather are the things that kill the frame rate, not the aircraft or object detail. If you can manage without those (i can) the game should look and play ok.
Delboy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 722 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6426 times:
I think Microsoft might be in for a bit of a shock with FSX.
Here, and on other sites, people are saying that they have a good set up already with FS9 and won't rush into buying this when it comes out. Obviously the die hard FS people will buy it regardless but there is a raft of others who won't be knocking down doors to get this from day one, me included.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12947 posts, RR: 62 Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6424 times:
Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 8): I imagine I'll probably get it at some point, but it won't be right away. My FS9 setup is pretty kickin', and since I don't have much time to use it anyways, I'm in no hurry.
What's your setup like again?
I've got a P4 3.0ghz running 2GB of PC3200 DDR SDRAM with a 250GB SATA 7200RPM HD, and a GeForce 6800GS 256MB GDDR3 PCI Express.
And my framerates at some high-density, graphics-intensive airports won't go above 15FPS.
At stock airfields it's around 30FPS on the ground, with some areas exceeding 60FPS in the air - spiking to 85-90FPS in some cases.
That's running full-screen at 1280X1024X32 and all eye-candy turned on.
[Edited 2006-08-31 11:31:43]
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9294 posts, RR: 42 Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6412 times:
Quoting Delboy (Reply 9): Here, and on other sites, people are saying that they have a good set up already with FS9 and won't rush into buying this when it comes out. Obviously the die hard FS people will buy it regardless but there is a raft of others who won't be knocking down doors to get this from day one, me included.
Exactly what happened when FS9 was about to be released. It was going to be a disaster, probably the last version.
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 10): And my framerates at some high-density, graphics-intensive airports won't go above 15FPS.
Ditto but my graphics card is overdue a replacement. With my current system FSX will struggle, just like FS9 did with the system I had then.
Delboy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 722 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6404 times:
It's all subjective at the moment anyway, time will tell.
However, and I am relatively new to the FS community but I didn't think that you needed much of a software/hardware upgrade from FS2002 to 2004 (to make it run to a decent standard). It just seems that from 2004 to FSX the upgrade could involve much more, again to make it run to a decent standard.
Continental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5484 posts, RR: 20 Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6387 times:
I'll definitely get FSX. I don't have much in terms of addons for FS9 currently, only AI traffic (which I NEED by the way). I will let Vista work out some bugs and such and upgrade to a totally new computer (I need a new one, I've had this one since 2001).
Sv2008 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 622 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6367 times:
Thats good value for a PC. Top spec PC's used to cost a lot more than they do now.
Hi end graphics are cheaper than they were, but haven't fallen in price as much as CPU's, memory and other components that weren't even around 5 years ago (LCD screens). A Voodoo 2 12mb cost about £280 9 years ago - The latest Nvidia I would guess costs around £250.