Jdl1527 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 52 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 22304 times:
So ok i just got tired of the frame rates in FSX and insted of going back to fs9, i decided to just start flying for real. I took my first lesson in a 2006 Cessna 172sp w/ G1000. So i guess you can call me a student pilot now.
CptSpeaking From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 639 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 22238 times:
Quoting Jdl1527 (Reply 5): So ok i just got tired of the frame rates in FSX and insted of going back to fs9, i decided to just start flying for real. I took my first lesson in a 2006 Cessna 172sp w/ G1000. So i guess you can call me a student pilot now.
Congratulations! It's a great (but expensive) habit...keep it up and don't get discouraged when you hit the learning plateaus because they willhappen...
Time to get to bed...CFI checkride with the FAA is in 7 hours!!
My current stats are 249-361 FPS!!! playing with all settings to the max
I must agree unless you post screens of this I do not believe it. No one has frames like that, nor would it make sense to increase from 100 to 200 anything over 40 is not needed, that being 40 fluid at max setting. Your eyes are not able to see more than about 32.
Jamotcx From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1037 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 21989 times:
I installed Vista RTM (Release to Manufacture) the other day. Ended up not getting on with it as much as XP so got rid. Maybe I'll try it again tommorow to see if it improves FS.
Just as a benchmark, I have a core2duo 1.86ghz, intel gma950, 1gb ram and FSX runs fine under winXP. Infact FSX was more than playable on my old Centrino 1.2Ghz, Intel855, 1GB ram. So I have no idea how people moan that they cant run it?
Sv2008 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 622 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 21853 times:
I thought that, but FSX is very demanding even on lower settings.
Even people with the most powerful pcs should lower the settings a bit. The most powerful computer dosn't mean always that you can run the game with all detail - but you have a choice of stuff, so you can more detailed aircraft OR detailed ground, or sea textures, or AA..........
Backfire103 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 21816 times:
I have a Core 2 E6700 and a 7800GT 256, an 3GB of Ram, id install vista on it but i am to afraid to partition the drive, if it fails ill loose alot of gigs in flight simulator addons. I have vista on my Notebook and love it. I'm in need of a new graphics card, probably a 8800GTX. I'm glad to see the frames your getting and hopefully when vista comes out DX10 will raise my fps up a bit.