IFC Show visit and saved a fortune

ianhind · Post by **ianhind** » 05 Dec 2006, 17:51

Yah and John Holmes took lessons from me

For anyone who is wondering, don't ask :tuttut:

d0mokun · Post by **d0mokun** » 05 Dec 2006, 18:07

Shall I post screenshots then, LOL?

Disclaimer:
System is an Intel 660, 2gb ram, 1900XT pcie.
I run with the Horizon VFR scenery, but my AI up, and weather up high. Cars are on 70% (100% is plain stupid in terms of traffic amount). Nay autogen (cough).

When I ran the betas (and RTM) on my old system, I couldn't do it. Wasn't even bareable. That was an Athlon 3000XP, 768mb ram, 9800pro AGP.

Dan.

d0mokun · Post by **d0mokun** » 05 Dec 2006, 18:19

Sod it, done it anyway. Small images here, larger ones by following links:
http://images.studiotwentyone.co.uk/fsx ... _large.jpg
http://images.studiotwentyone.co.uk/fsx ... t/fsx1.jpg
http://images.studiotwentyone.co.uk/fsx ... t/fsx2.jpg

Rick, back me up! FSX isn't all hell and demons- it's a bloody good sim if you tweak it and let it be!

Dan.

petermcleland · Post by **petermcleland** » 05 Dec 2006, 19:15

Those look absolutely dreadful...My FS9.1+ is infinitely superior to that with full autogen and proper scenery. You are kidding yourself, that is not really FSX you are using and the numbers are meaningless :think:

d0mokun · Post by **d0mokun** » 05 Dec 2006, 19:18

petermcleland wrote:Those look absolutely dreadful...My FS9.1+ is infinitely superior to that with full autogen and proper scenery. You are kidding yourself, that is not really FSX you are using and the numbers are meaningless :think:

Maybe so, but it is what I like, so I stick with it!

Of course if you mean the aeroplane then.. I'll give up :sad:

Dan.

tonymadge · Post by **tonymadge** » 05 Dec 2006, 19:22

You cant argue with photo evidence ... So thats that then....

petermcleland · Post by **petermcleland** » 05 Dec 2006, 19:23

No, the aeroplane is lovely but flat wallpaper for scenery and not a cloud in the sky make meaningless frame rate numbers.

tonymadge · Post by **tonymadge** » 05 Dec 2006, 19:24

the aeroplane looks grand its the scenery that looks bland , lifeless and well if thats the new VFR it looks as crap as the FS9 one....
Sorry did not mean to rock the boat...

d0mokun · Post by **d0mokun** » 05 Dec 2006, 19:30

LMFAO that shot is great Tony.

Tony, Peter- many thanks for the comments re the SE5a. I've spent so many 10am-5am days this past week building her.. she uses all the tricks in the book that I've learnt for both FS9 and FSX.

It'd make me cry.. really would.. if I thought that you thought it were crap!

Up high with that scenery, FSX looks great for tipping a biplane around imo. Down on the ground.. yeah.. it's naff, but I know of several scenery projects in full swing to bring scenery to the UK.

All in all.. thanks for the comments regarding my bird.

Dan.

Quixoticish · Post by **Quixoticish** » 05 Dec 2006, 20:23

d0mokun wrote:
tonymadge wrote:The pc set up I assume was very high and with nothing running at all in the background to make FSX work! Typical
I've got 56 processes going on at the mo.. and am still pulling a good 30-40 (sometimes.. often more!) fps in FSX

I was going to attend the show this year.. but didn't. Was going to attend it next year.. but.. doesn't sound like a hot event!

Dan.

I used to have nightmares about PC's with that many processes running when I used to work in IT. 17 at the moment for me with Opera and Winamp running.