"Andrew Sutcliffe"
Usenet Poster
andrew.sutcliffe@btconnect.com
Posted on:
Nov 11, 2007, 12:09 PM
Post #9 of 29
(68 views)
Shortcut
|
2 things here.....
1. FS _IS_ a game....just look on the box it came in, it says so right
there!
2. The other games with high frame rates are limited in thier areas and can
be optimised accordingly. FS covers (almost) the whole world, in different
seasons and lighting/weather conditions). This is much more of a challenge.
I am sticking with FS9 as FSX didn't have much to entice me to buy it.
Lets hope for something major with the next installment! 
A.
"Moke G" <moke@gibboni.greatxscape .net> wrote in message
news:jcGZi.11277$ib1.4028@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Slap" <slap@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rEFZi.199091$Da.2970@pd7urf1no...
>>
>>
>> "Moke G" <moke@gibboni.greatxscape .net> wrote in message
>> news:c7FZi.38598$9Y3.18591@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>>> There are games out there with scenery just as complicated and dense (if
>>> not more so) than FSX's major cities/airports and have frame rates far
>>> in excess of FSX. To me, FSX scenery has been created in a very
>>> inefficient manner and I'm sure MS could have done much better.
>>>
>>> Let's hope FS11 brings more REALISTIC scenery (utilising Google Earth
>>> maybe?) and much more efficiently created to give us frame rates up in
>>> the 30's and 40's as the kids are getting now with all these
>>> shooting/killing type games.
>>>
>>>
>>> Moke G.
>>>
>>
>> You just don't understand Flight Simulation.
>>
>> I do believe you can buy Flight Games that do not have a problem with
>> displaying complicated scenery at a high frame rate. In fact I'm sure
>> you can.
>>
>> Flight Simulator on the other hand is not really a game. For example you
>> can, just as a real life pilot, plot a course from A to B... along with a
>> hundred or so other things to get you there.
>>
>> Flight simulator is just that, and to do that, it spends a lot of time
>> figuring out where it is in relationship to the stars, moon, sun, ground
>> etc. Then it has to get the weather, interface with other aircraft in
>> the area, GPS stuff, ILS stuff. Figure out how much air is going over
>> the wings and what to do about it. A lot of stuff that takes a fair bit
>> of the computers time. Then when it isn't busy doing that it will throw
>> stuff up on the screen.
>>
>> We want it so MS has in the last couple releases started to add a pretty
>> face. FSX it is starting to do quite a nice job of that but that's not
>> really what Flight Simulation is about.
>>
>> Suggest you turn off the Frame Rate Display (takes computing power anyway
>> to calculate and display info) and enjoy the simulation. If you can't
>> get smooth flight you can go back a series or two where the scenery isn't
>> quite as complex. You could also use the excuse to get a real nice state
>> of the art computer that might be good for a couple of years.
>>
>> Or you could buy some flight game 'shoot em up' that doesn't really model
>> anything but satisfies your need to see a high frame rate display. Then
>> you can tell your friends yours is bigger.
>>
>> --
>> dave
>
>
> Thanks for those comments. Firsts of all, I was not intending to imply
> that FSX is a game, and secondly, the reason why I originally bought a PC
> was for flight simulation purposes only. I do not play games on my PC and
> have absolutely no interest in these shooting/killing games, or any other
> computer game for that matter!
>
> I understand your comments regarding the workload that a processor has to
> do due to all the extra calculations neccesary in a flight simulator, but
> I did notice how much better the frame rates were in FS9 for example
> compared to FSX. In the cities with FS9, frame rates were really good,
> even with all the sliders maxed out. Before you suggest that I return to
> FS9, I prefer FSX because of the much improved scenery at altitude. We
> will just have to see what the future brings I suppose and be a little
> patient.
>
>
> Moke G.
>
>
|
1
