 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Simulators / Aviation Simulators / July 2008Thinking of running FSX...
Greetings all... I have FSX, but haven´t used it before...too slow a computer.....however, I was wondering are there any particular way to set the sliders that will make it possible to use with a slower computer and still be able to enjoy some of the FSX´ magnificant graphics etc...??? .....and will I be able to use my King Air 200 and ATR bought for FS9 in FSX and how is it done?? I know I know......gotta have a faster computer soon........:-)) Thanks Erik On 7/11/2008 1:57 PM, Erik Selde went clickity clack on the keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text: > Greetings all... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I know I know......gotta have a faster computer soon........:-)) Without knowing the specifics of your computer it's hard to give a definitive answer. But you can experiment to see what results you have. Start out with the sliders set to the minimum and increase them as desired to see what your results are. As for the a/c you bought for FS9, you'll have to contact the people who made them. Some can be brought over no problem, others need a little tweaking and some just can't be adapted. One of the major stumbling blocks is that FS9 and FSX have different directory structures and so files aren't in the same place.  SignatureReal programmers don't draw flowcharts; the code speaks for itself. What are your computer specs? I ran FSX on an AMD Athlon 2 gig with a BFG 7600 AGP card but there were some missions I couldn't do - adding the 7600 helped. The best thing for me was replacing the 10 year old system with a new quad core with plenty of memory and an 8800 Ultra <G>. >Greetings all... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Thanks >Erik My Specs are..: AMD Athlon 64 Processor 3000+ Nvidia GForce FX 5500 1,5 GIG RAM Win XP > What are your computer specs? I ran FSX on an AMD Athlon 2 gig with a > BFG 7600 AGP card but there were some missions I couldn't do - adding [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>Thanks >>Erik The video card isn't going to cut it. >My Specs are..: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >>>Thanks >>>Erik I figured that, but I´m not going to upgrade on my current system....I´ll have another computer then.... > The video card isn't going to cut it. > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >>>>Thanks >>>>Erik If that card has 256meg of RAM, it will be OK. I ran an FX5900 for a couple of years on a Pentium 4 hyperthreaded machine with no problems except that I had sliders pulled waaaay back It will run, but my older FS2004 setup with loads of scenery upgrades (FS Genesis terrain mesh, Ultimate Terrain, ActiveSky, etc.) ran better than the equivalent settings on FSX. No question FSX is better, but it's only better IF you can run the sliders midway or better. It also depends on the resolution and size of your monitor. The more pixels your graphics card is pushing, the slower it runs, so don't expect to run higher than 1024x768. If you pull sliders way back, you lose the eye candy you went after. Flight Simulator programs are CPU dependent, so the graphics card is not as important as the CPU speed. > .....and will I be able to use my King Air 200 and ATR bought for FS9 in FSX > and how is it done?? ATR will run in FSX.. I don't know if the upgrade is free. The Aeroworx King Air will not run in FSX, and that is one of the reasons I never felt the need to upgrade my hardware for FSX. SignatureDallas > Greetings all... > > I have FSX, but haven´t used it before...too slow a computer.....however, > I was wondering are there any particular way to set the sliders that will > make it possible to use with a slower computer and still be able to enjoy > some of the FSX´ magnificant graphics etc...??? NO............ > .....and will I be able to use my King Air 200 and ATR bought for FS9 in > FSX and how is it done?? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks > Erik > Greetings all... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Thanks > Erik If you have to turn the graphics sliders down then what is the point of getting FSX over FS9? Only real benefit to FSX is the eye candy. And with FSX you have to deal with activation, something I am not a fan of at all. FSX at low settings is better than FS9 at medium-high settings using the default scenery. The main advantage to FSX is the terrain mesh which has a closer sampling grid. Now if you installed a lot of scenery add-ons to FS9 such as FS Genesis terrain mesh, Ultimate Terrain, Scenery Tech or other enhancements, you might be better off with FS9. But out of the box, FSX wins hands down even at low settings. Activation is painless. I have FSX installed on both of my home computers although I never run it anymore on the old Pentium 4 HT machine. No problems when I built and installed FSX on my new quad core. It phoned Microsoft and installed with no problems. > FSX at low settings is better than FS9 at medium-high settings using > the default scenery. Not going by the screenshots I have seen. They look pretty much the same at those settings. The main advantage to FSX is the terrain mesh > which has a closer sampling grid. How much closer? Is it better than X-Plane9 terrain mesh? X-Plane9 uses just over 70GB HDD space if you want to install the whole world because of the quality of its terrain mesh. > Activation is painless. Not when it first came out. Lots of people had issues installing FSX. Activating the OS is one thing but when I have to activate all my games too then that is the day I will stop buying new games. Does the activation at least allow you to run the game without having to put the DVD in the drive? If not then it gives me no benefit at all. I can run FS2004 with no disk in the drive and that's how I like it. >> FSX at low settings is better than FS9 at medium-high settings using >> the default scenery. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > in > the drive and that's how I like it. I can state , from what I perceived having FS9 and FSX on my system at one time, FSX with no autogen and min graphics, looked way better to me than FS9 with full autogen and graphics. Both of these default installs, no add-ons. FS9 no longer is on my hard drive. FSX just looks way better, and feels better, to me. I am sure, there are folks that have some very good add-ons in FS9, that bring it more up to FSX type graphics, but imho there is a huge difference in the stock installations. I also, have never had an issue with activation, I even have the same copy installed on two different drives, one in XP Pro, one in Vista 64 bit Ultimate, both activated and no issue, on my system. And no, no need for the dvd in the drive, which is nice. SignatureDon The only way to run FS2004 without the CD in the drive is to "cheat" with an unauthorized patch. FSX runs without the DVD when you register the program. I know nothing of X-Plane. One cannot compare graphics based on the relative hard drive space occupied by the two programs as the formats and compression algorithms are different. > The only way to run FS2004 without the CD in the drive is to "cheat" > with an unauthorized patch. FSX runs without the DVD when you > register the program. It's not cheating, it's running the game I paid for how I want to run it. Doesn't matter as I bought a 4870 last week and Tom's Hardware says FSX runs poorly on that video card. See the thread I made about it today. Unless it is a driver issue there is no way I want to run FSX on this vid card. Hopefully it is just a driver issue though and gets fixed. > Doesn't matter as I bought a 4870 last week and Tom's Hardware says FSX > runs poorly on that video card. See the thread I made about it today. > Unless it is a driver issue there is no way I want to run FSX on this vid > card. Hopefully it is just a driver issue though and gets fixed. Take the card back and get one that works. -- dave You're right. I'll change my wording. It is unauthorized. The question is then, is unauthorized cheating or just plain dishonest according to the EULA. You're supposed to read the EULA and if you don't agree with it's terms, abort the installation. There are a lot of programs that don't run "the way I want them to run" but that doesn't authorize me to run them in violation of the user's agreement. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.