Page 3 of 5

Posted: 05 Dec 2006, 17:51
by ianhind
Yah and John Holmes took lessons from me
For anyone who is wondering, don't ask :tuttut:

Posted: 05 Dec 2006, 18:07
by d0mokun
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.

Posted: 05 Dec 2006, 18:19
by d0mokun
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

Image

Image

Image

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.

Posted: 05 Dec 2006, 19:15
by petermcleland
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:

Posted: 05 Dec 2006, 19:18
by d0mokun
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.

Posted: 05 Dec 2006, 19:22
by tonymadge
You cant argue with photo evidence ... So thats that then....

Image

Posted: 05 Dec 2006, 19:23
by petermcleland
No, the aeroplane is lovely but flat wallpaper for scenery and not a cloud in the sky make meaningless frame rate numbers.

Posted: 05 Dec 2006, 19:24
by tonymadge
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...

Posted: 05 Dec 2006, 19:30
by d0mokun
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.

Posted: 05 Dec 2006, 20:23
by Quixoticish
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 :smile:
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.