|
|
 |
|
|
|
Microsoft Flight Simulator X Standard DVD Review (continued)
More User Submitted Microsoft Flight Simulator X Standard DVD Reviews
Date: 2008-01-05
Great game!
All I think you need is a computer that has a good amount of everything. I don't think the computer I use to run the program was even $1,000. I don't really care too much about the graphics. I can run it with all settings almost maxed out. In my opinion just buy the game and see if it works. Also, don't expect to get perfect graphics without spending a hefty amount of money.
Date: 2007-11-20
Great simulator, but you'd better have GREAT hardware
Loads of fun and amazingly realistic IF....you have the hardware. I have a core 2 duo 2.14MHZ, a 7900 graphics card with 512mb of memory, 2GB of 800mhz memory, a fairy high-end motherboard and this simulator runs fairly well. It still can't run at highest settings without slowing down to an unusable crawl, so don't even bother to order it if you have anything less than the above. This is the ONLY application that ever made me feel my computer was seriously underpowered. But I don't play high-end games, either, I'm sure if I did I'd have the same experience.
So if you have the stuff, go for it. It's great.
Date: 2007-10-29
Not too bad
Its not too bad, glitch Here glitch there, bad part is it requires a massive amount of power to run. i do OK with it at 1200x1600 about 50% stats graphics.
Date: 2007-09-23
"BEWARE" before you buy the "STANDARD" Version of FSX
Let me start this review by saying that FSX is really a great product with much growth potential for future development. I have been using Flight Sim from the early days of the Commodore 64. I have purchased every version since it was created. Every version starts a bit rough but between updated patches and some tweaking it performs beautifully.
Each version is usually a year or so ahead of existing hardware, which basically means that you will not be able to achieve the maximum performance with your one-year-old computer even if you think you got a great system. If you search the flight sim forums you will read how even those with gaming machines complain about not enough frame rates or hi resolution scenery or stutters during flying. Here is what I have:
Microsoft® Windows Vista(tm) Home Premium
System Manufacturer Dell Inc.
System Model Inspiron 531
Processor AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4400+, 2310 Mhz, 2
Total Physical Memory 2,045.88 MB
Available Physical Memory 1.33 GB
Total Virtual Memory 4.21 GB
Available Virtual Memory 3.53 GB
Page File Space 2.29 GB
Video Card NVIDIA GeForce 6200 LE
SATA 260 Gig Hard Drive
If I set all display sliders to Medium High I get very smooth frame rates of 20-25 FPS with very nice scenery resolution. If I put all sliders to Ultra High my machine almost comes to a stand still. This really is normal for Flight Sim. So unless you have a computer twice as powerful as mine do not expect maximum performance from this sim. At that level it would be like you were flying in the real world.
.....................
You might ask if I am so satisfied with FSX why do I give it only 3 stars.
Allow me to explain as best I can. Microsoft has done something that I find a bit upsetting. I have been playing with adding scenery and aircraft to Flight Sim for years. I have Flight Simulator Design Studio Ver 3.5 and EZ-Scenery both programs I paid for and that was OK since they are great programs for enhancing the scenery in Flight Sim. I also use lots of other freeware utilizes to help in modeling scenery. All these programs rely on a set of Microsoft development tools called SDK. You really do not need to know what the details of these are other than you need them on your computer to use all these other modeling programs. Up until now these tools SDK were free from Microsoft except with FSX. I purchased the "STANDARD" version with out even considering this issue of obtaining the SDK tools for FSX; I just assumed the "DELUXE" version was more expensive because it had more Aircraft and more Airports with greater detail. Infact if you read what the difference id between the two that is exactly the impression you get.
I installed the STANDARD version with no problem than started to use my other software for adding and modifying scenery and lo and behold. The programs asked where FSX SDK tools were.
Well I did not know so I researched the subject and was told it was on Disk one and had to be installed separately. So I looked on disk one and no SDK tools. Than I found out it ONLY COME ON THE DELUXE VERSION.
No problem I said, just go to Microsoft's web site and download the FSX SDK just like I have done with previous versions. Now I find out that you cannot get this set of tools unless you buy the "DELUXE" version. So no what. I now need to get the DELUXE VERSION. You can download the PATCH for SDK but not the original set of tools.
If you do plan on modeling and modifying the scenery of FSX DO NOT BUY THE STANDARD VERSION. If any one out there can show me I am in error please do. But so far I have found 12 incidences of other persons buying the STANDARD version and finding out they should have bought the "DELUXE" version because they needed the FSX SDK for their other designing software.
Personally I think this is one big rip off from Microsoft but I did buy the DELUXE version even though I had initially purchased the STANDARD version and will use FSX because it is in fact a good product. Because I think this was a deliberated deception to force users to buy the deluxe version instead of the standard version I can only give three stars.
Date: 2007-09-15
Great for the price
I've used MS FS on and off since the 1980's. It truly has come a long way.
I initially read a lot about how FSX requires a 'super computer' to run acceptably so I didn't bother purchasing it since my PC is a circa 2004 P4 3.2GHz, 1GB RAM with an AGP NVIDIA GeForce 6800GT (not a bad machine really, but no 'super computer'). When I received FSX for Christmas last year, I went ahead and installed it expecting the worst. Much to my surprise, FSX performed rather well. No, I can't put all the display settings close to max but even at the lower settings, FSX looks better than FS9.
For me, at least for now, it's about perceived frame rates and not actual frame rates. If I can fly an airplane smoothly, with little or no apparent hesitation, then I am pretty happy. And FSX flies pretty smoothly for me in enough situations to keep me coming back. Perfect? No. Good enough for now? Yes.
That's the key thing: situational awareness. If I try flying from JFK with AI traffic cranked up to 100% and higher display settings, I'm probably not going to get flyable results. However, if I fly from Tromso or Bodo Norway I can crank the traffic up (because there are few AI flights), and even adjust a few scenery sliders to the right and things run relatively smoothly. I have found flying around islands such as Hawaii or into Princess Juliana to be quite pleasant experiences. I can't say for certain, but the service pack may have helped things a bit.
I still have a lot to explore with FSX but at this point I think I have identified some major culprits that seem to affect performance for me: sea traffic, high water effects, highly complex scenery areas (large cities for example) and high AI traffic. But these are easily avoided and the sim still looks and feels great in a lot of areas. As long as you are willing to adjust display settings depending on where you are and what the situation is (weather, daytime, nighttime), I think you'll get a lot of satisfaction from FSX even on an older machine like mine.
Microsoft still makes fairly lousy default aircraft, although things have improved this time around. The C172 isn't bad if you want to learn about flying or just want to tool around in a half-way decent GA aircraft. And the Bell helicopter can be a lot of fun. The Beaver seems decent. The Baron and CRJ can sorta get you by until you pick up a decent add-on aircraft such as Eaglesoft's Citation II.
MS still has a ways to go in terms of ATC though. ATC can be kind of nice at times, it can more or less do an IFR flight plan and it's cool just to have radio chatter and hear surrounding AI traffic, and to hear somebody say `cleared for takeoff' or `cleared to land', but in general ATC apparently has little clue about aircraft spacing, standard procedures, terrain awareness, etc.
MS has done a decent job of creating the feeling of flight for less than $50 on a home computer. That's amazing! They have managed to create a fairly nice world to explore (much depends on where you are: some places are stunning, some are very unconvincing). Once they manage to get some more real-world logic built into the ATC system and improve some game enhancements(camera options, though improved, still leave a lot to be desired, the weather system could be better and more robust) FS will be worthy of the highest accolades. For now, it's a very nice sim that can provide a pretty realistic experience for those wishing to experience flight. And for the price, it's amazing.
|
|
|
|
