Delta Virtual Airlines Water Cooler | PC Support |
Would you recommend FSX Deluxe? |
DVA4863
First Officer, B727-200
Joined on August 12 2007
Mesa, AZ USA
36 legs, 74.4 hours
11 legs,
22.3 hours online 35 legs,
72.6 hours ACARS 6 legs,
13.9 hours event
|
Posted onPost created on
November 14 2008 13:32 ET by Chris Shepard
|
I've always loved Flight Simulator. I played it since the early days of the Commodore 64. I've been playing FS2004 for awhile now, and my computer can max everything out with no trouble and it looks great. Flying with DVA has been wonderful.
I'm wondering if I should upgrade to FSX Gold (Deluxe plus Acceleration). The graphics look better, but I'm kinda wondering how often I'll look at them. I don't watch the graphic detail very much when flying my routes. I've read that the ATC is no better than FS2004. I don't have Radar Contact, but would love to get it. Other than a few planes, I don't have any add ons with my FS2004.
My computer has a 3gig AMD Dual Core, Win XP Pro sp2, SATA hard drive, 2 gig RAM, and a 512mb 8600gt Nvidia card that is factory overclocked.
I'm wondering if FSX would be a great investment, or if perhaps I should wait for the next FS release in hopes that there will be more improvements. Based on my computer specs, what do you think?
Chris ShepardFirst Officer, B727-200
|
|
DVA5947
Captain, B777-200
E-MAIL
Joined on May 19 2008
DVA Five-Year Anniversary
Everett 250 Club
Million Mile Club
Online Quadruple Century Club
Quincentenary Club
Marshall, MN USA
574 legs, 2,693.6 hours
499 legs,
2,397.0 hours online 516 legs,
2,271.3 hours ACARS 5 legs,
22.2 hours event
|
Posted onPost created on
November 14 2008 17:34 ET by Alex Deutz
|
hey, that sounds pretty close to the computer im thinking of buying
i think you should definetly try fsx.......(tell me what its like)
i dont think you need gold edition unless you like the accleration add on i dont have it though
so ya, you should try it
what does anyone else think
|
DVA6109
Captain, B757-200
Joined on July 04 2008
Western United States
87 legs, 278.6 hours
33 legs,
91.7 hours online 67 legs,
197.1 hours ACARS
|
Posted onPost created on
November 14 2008 17:47 ET by Taylor Francis
|
If you want FSX, Deluxe is probably all you need. The only thing Deluxe offers is more default aircraft and I think a few "upgraded" airports. But it is very, very problematic. The graphics are cool, most of the time, if your card can handle them. But you will be limited on the cool add-ons availible, including aircraft. I plan on getting a copy of FS9 here shortly so that I can use stuff like FSpassengers, other aircraft, sceneries, etc.
Taylor FrancisCaptain, B757-200
|
|
DVA3680
First Officer, B767-300
OLP
Joined on November 01 2006
Stock Car Racing Club
Century Club
Berthoud, CO
114 legs, 232.4 hours
97 legs,
212.8 hours online 106 legs,
215.1 hours ACARS 2 legs,
3.7 hours event
|
Posted onPost created on
November 14 2008 18:24 ET by Kevin Williams
|
Just my 2 cents here. I'm a fan of fsx compared to default fs9. fs9+addons is a different story.
Here's some screenshots that I took on an old Athlon X2 2.0GHz, 8600GT. I could get up to around 20 fps out in the open. I had to turn the settings way down at big airports. But your system is much better than mine, so I would think you would be fine at med high/high settings.
http://forum.mountain-air.org/viewtopic.php?p=3191#p3191
Deluxe? If you fly big jets, then no unless you fly into some of the extra detailed airports. I got the reg version, but would have liked to fly around with the G1000 cockpits in the smaller planes. Acceleration has a couple extra planes (F-18, Mustang, maybe something else) and some more missions & service pack 2 (that you can download). If you want it go for it.
Kevin WilliamsFirst Officer, B767-300
|
|
DVA4863
First Officer, B727-200
Joined on August 12 2007
Mesa, AZ USA
36 legs, 74.4 hours
11 legs,
22.3 hours online 35 legs,
72.6 hours ACARS 6 legs,
13.9 hours event
|
Posted onPost created on
November 14 2008 22:35 ET by Chris Shepard
|
Kevin, those screenshots are amazing. What addons were you using for FS9 and FSX? FS9 with addons look incredible, but the FSX with addons look amazing. In response to other posts, I am interested in getting the Acceleration due to the planes that are in it. The price for the Gold edition is not much more than the Deluxe in the places I've been looking.
One of the first addons that I'm seriously looking into for FS9 is "Radar Contact". What do you think about that? Although the default ATC is okay, I get annoyed that I can't use STAR's, proper approaches, get switched between different "center" and "tower" frequencies often with the same airport, and more. I do like that the default ATC includes taxiways and airport names. I know Radar Contact doesn't have ATC for taxiways and doesn't have as many airport names recorded. But those are probably small compared to what Radar Contact can offer.
Several times I was thinking I should upgrade my graphics card to a 9600gt, because the price is reasonable. But I've seen some pretty good results from people on Youtube that have run FSX on the kind of card that I have. I have also read that FSX depends more on your processor power than your graphics card.
Chris ShepardFirst Officer, B727-200
|
|
DVA5919
Captain, MD-11
Joined on May 13 2008
Everett Century Club
50 State Club
Quatercentenary Club
Commuter Conquest
DVA Fifteen-Year Anniversary
"...and don't call me Shirley" Hillsboro, OR USA
494 legs, 1,357.8 hours
4 legs,
3.7 hours online 493 legs,
1,355.3 hours ACARS
|
Posted onPost created on
November 15 2008 13:27 ET by Jack Vogel
|
Chris, first of all its completely false that FSX ATC is no better. One thing that used to drive me
completely up the wall is FS9's tendency to silently not accept your flight plan, you know, you
load it before the plane spawns, then when you do spawn and contact ATC there's no option
to file an IFR plan. You can get around that by just taking off VFR and recontacting in the air
but that is really annoying. FSX fixes that completely, to me that small detail saves a LOT of
aggrevation
Now, its true that FSX ATC still disregards SIDs and STARs, but for simple directed flights from
A to B it works well enough.
I was one who got persuaded by others to buy Radar Contact and for a number of reasons
I hate it and just stopped using it. The voice synthesis it has is just aweful, they sound like
something from a bad 80s sci fi movie Also I had problems with the actual navigation that
it did. I also used to get annoyed at the really snotty attitude of the controllers. Here I was
a green lil noob having trouble just getting my sleek new jet to work and this controller is
snarling insultingly at me about not maintaining an altitude And its not like the interface
gives you the ability to say "CHILL you moron, I'm having hardware problems!!!"
I would not buy a 9600, if you are going to spend the money go to a 9800 its not that
much more.
I would just buy FSX and then see how it performs first. I flew the small GA planes with it
for quite a while on pretty old hardware, once I started flying VA it was clear I needed
better hardware and I made my plans accordingly.
Don't underestimate the value of the scenery, once you are using FSX you'll never want
to look back, trust me
|
DVA5945
Captain, MD-88
Joined on May 19 2008
"We'll get there......eventually" Southeastern United States
19 legs, 28.8 hours
14 legs,
22.5 hours ACARS
|
Posted onPost created on
November 15 2008 14:26 ET by Randall Morgan
|
I got the FSX deluxe, then Acceleration.
I enjoy the missions part of FSX. (most of them) a couple are a little difficult and one is particulary boring till the end. My frame rates run in the 30 -40's fps.
I think it is definitly worth it.
Randall MorganCaptain, MD-88
|
|
DVA3680
First Officer, B767-300
OLP
Joined on November 01 2006
Stock Car Racing Club
Century Club
Berthoud, CO
114 legs, 232.4 hours
97 legs,
212.8 hours online 106 legs,
215.1 hours ACARS 2 legs,
3.7 hours event
|
Posted onPost created on
November 15 2008 15:51 ET by Kevin Williams
|
A 9600GT will do that job just fine, and so will a 9600 GSO. I've had a 8600GT, 8800 GS (9600 GSO), 8800GT (9800 GT), 9600 GT, 9800 GTX, 8800 Ultra, ATI's 3870, 4850, and 4870. I got them to try out (for fun). I get my highest frame rates with the 4870, but has lots of scenery shimmering compared to the nVidia cards.
The 9800GTX and 8800Ultra are very smooth (most of the time). With the 9600GT it was a little bit jumpy and in playback mode very annoying going up to 40 down to 5 up to 35 down the 10, etc. Limiting the frames to 20 made it smooth as silk... ok maybe some half melted chocolate chips
I know graphics cards opinions vary. I'm a fan of the 9600GT for fsx if you're not looking to spend a lot of money for a graphics card (or the 9600GSO if you're in a bind). If you play other games then the 9800 GT (and higher) would be like Jack said a better choice and not all that much more. I just didn't see much of an improvement over the 9600GT.
As far as addons in the shots,
FS9:
FSGenesis Terrain Mesh
Ultimate Terrain
Ground Environment Pro
Active Sky 6.5
FSX:
SceneryTech North America Land Class
Ground Environment X (for me, this one made the biggest difference)
Ultimate Terrain X
Kevin WilliamsFirst Officer, B767-300
|
|
DVA3787
Senior Captain, CRJ-200
OLP
Joined on December 01 2006
Double Century Club
50 State Club
Online Double Century Club
"Small planes don't make small brains" Western Europe
277 legs, 515.9 hours
204 legs,
397.0 hours online 244 legs,
456.2 hours ACARS 39 legs,
80.6 hours event
|
Posted onPost created on
November 15 2008 16:58 ET by Mark Salter
|
If you're running everything maxed out now, then you can definitely upgrade to FSX. No worries.
FSX upgrades all of the scenery, views and stuff like that. So one problem I found out when I bought it was that if you're not doing a VFR flight, you're not enjoying the new upgrades. When you fly commercial jets on an IFR route the most it will offer you is cars on roads and maybe some better weather. Even then this is hardly noticeable if your're flying at FL360. I have both versions of FS on 2 different computers and I can't compare. So it's really a matter of opinion if you want to spend the money on it.
However, statistically, everyone is slowly moving to FSX whether you like it or not, so you can get your copy now, or wait for a future version to come out.
Mark SalterSenior Captain, CRJ-200
|
|
DVA6586
First Officer, B767-300
Joined on November 03 2008
Century Club
"I am serious & don't call me Shirley" Southeastern United States
165 legs, 390.6 hours
160 legs,
379.2 hours ACARS
|
Posted onPost created on
November 17 2008 09:08 ET by Mike Holmes
|
Just to throw my own two cents into the pot, I have to respectfully disagree with Mark Salter on his last post. Except for tooling around in a 172 here and there and looking and this and that, I fly everything IFR, which gives really nothing to look at except clouds, clouds, and for a bit of variety, MORE clouds. However, the cockpit graphics are so much better on the default aircraft in FSX that I cannot recommend FS2004.
There is, however, one thing I do not like about FSX: the only commercial aircraft they include is the 737-800, 747-400, and the CRJ-700. FS2004 offers the 777 and I believe (I may be wrong about this, so don't quote me) the 767.
Mike HolmesFirst Officer, B767-300
|
|
DVA3952
Captain, MD-88
Joined on September 07 2006
DVA Five-Year Anniversary
"Airbus, Mcdonnell Douglas" Chicago, IL USA
85 legs, 161.3 hours
51 legs,
106.0 hours online 77 legs,
141.3 hours ACARS
|
Posted onPost created on
November 17 2008 13:44 ET by Alex Jevdic
|
"If you're running everything maxed out now, then you can definitely upgrade to FSX. No worries." I have to disagree there. I run FS9, most payware maxed out and FSX is still a life and death struggle for my PC. I average about two FPS with FSX on sliders set to minimum vs the locked 25 I get with FS9 with max sliders.
|
DVA3787
Senior Captain, CRJ-200
OLP
Joined on December 01 2006
Double Century Club
50 State Club
Online Double Century Club
"Small planes don't make small brains" Western Europe
277 legs, 515.9 hours
204 legs,
397.0 hours online 244 legs,
456.2 hours ACARS 39 legs,
80.6 hours event
|
Posted onPost created on
November 17 2008 14:49 ET by Mark Salter
|
Good opinions Mike and Alex:
You could argue the cockpit graphics, but if you fly the fleet installers from DVA you might not be able to tell.
No I meant if you're running FS2004 maxed out, you can run FSX-but not FSX maxed out. If you get my drift.
Mark SalterSenior Captain, CRJ-200
|
|
DVA3952
Captain, MD-88
Joined on September 07 2006
DVA Five-Year Anniversary
"Airbus, Mcdonnell Douglas" Chicago, IL USA
85 legs, 161.3 hours
51 legs,
106.0 hours online 77 legs,
141.3 hours ACARS
|
Posted onPost created on
November 17 2008 15:50 ET by Alex Jevdic
|
I can't run FSX at all. I get only 2-3 FPS on sliders at minimum. Plus there are a few addons like the Tu-154M that I don't want to give up. But I will make a partial switch one day, where I have both versions. Probably when my PC is better equipped.
|