Jump to content

armchairpil0t

Frozen-Inactivity
  • Content Count

    40
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. Thanks for the replies, guess I'll have to shop for a new graphics card then
  2. Hi, I finally got Prepar3D v2 and am not impressed with the frame rate at all - when I start in the default F-35, I get only around 13 FPS at the default start location, with a noticeable lag in responding to controls (as if P3D would render several frames in advance). In addition, the whole Windows system becomes very slow while Prepar3D is running - e.g. I get a lag when scrolling a web page while P3D is running in another window. This never happens with FSX. If I disable the virtual cockpit, the frame rate climbs to 24, which is is again not very impressive. FSX with max display settings runs at about 40 FPS. Isn't Prepar3D supposed to produce more FPS than FSX? It does look slightly nicer, but losing half the frame rate doesn't seem worth it... My system is: Intel Core i5 3470 @3.2 GHz (quad-core) 8GB RAM nVidia GeForce GT 630 with 2GB RAM Windows 7 64-bit I know my graphics card is not the latest and greatest, but it performs very well with FSX. Is it normal that Prepar3D is way more demanding on the hardware? Everyone seems so happy with the P3D performance, so it is quite puzzling why I am getting frame rates I last experienced with FS5 20 years ago... What kind of system do you need to run P3D with a smooth FPS (e.g. 40 FPS with the default scenery)? Thanks!
  3. Did you make a screenshot? You need to make a screenshot containing the text (Alt+PrintScreen, just like they said on the forum).
  4. There is a youtube video about making a simple sign posted in the support forum (http://www.simforums...topic42149.html)
  5. Yes, Flight Unlimited is exactly what came to my mind too :)But there is a huge difference. The quality of scenery in Flight Unlimited was years in advance of what MSFS had to offer at that time. We got a high-resolution photorealistic scenery area with a 3D landscape (all MSFS was offering was a flat world covered with generic tiles and a couple of box-shaped buildings). So it was a breakthrough in flight simulator graphics at the cost of flying in a small area only.With Flight, we get scenery that has no revolutionary advantages over the 5-year-old FSX, and that is easily surpassed in quality by many add-on products for the 5-year-old FSX. Trees moving with the wind are nice, but they are irrelevant while flying. And on the ground, the graphics quality correspond to 10-year-old games like Grand Theft Auto III, only that in GTA, you had cars, people and trains moving around, and yes, other airplanes and helicopters in the sky!
  6. Well how about this passage: I don't remember Microsoft (or in fact any company) ever suggesting that people who didn't immediately get their latest and greatest product were not open-minded enough.And another quote from the review: To me, this kind of suggests that users who don't see any benefit for them are short-sighted and their thinking is eclipsed by their human weaknesses.In my opinion, a review should just concentrate on the product and not contain any rhetoric denigrating its critics. Play the ball, not the opponent.Besides, I find it questionable to have a beta tester review a product, since beta testers are usually biased towards it - after all, they were a part of the team and it's the fruit of their work too. It's almost like letting a Flight developer from Microsoft write a review. I understand that it probably painful for the team to read negative opinions, but that's just life :)Or at least have it written in bold letters in front of the review: This review was written by a beta tester of Microsoft Flight. This would at least explain its attitude without people wondering why someone starts the review explaining why he is right and they are wrong just one day from the release of MS Flight.
  7. I fully agree. My first thought after seeing this "review" was that it was a part of a paid advertising campaign by Microsoft disguised as a review.But on the second thought, MS would treat their customers with a little more respect.
  8. Very interesting, thanks! Judging from the interview, there wasn't any specific plan to make it extendable by third party. What we are seeing in .pak files are probably just leftovers of FSX code.I wonder how Microsoft lawyers would react, should unofficial add-ons appear for Flight. Originally, the MSFS add-on industry appeared before any SDK was available, simply because back then Microsoft chose to tolerate third-party developments.
  9. It's still a civilian flight simulator, so why not support it?And I agree that Flight doesn't preclude FSX. Many people still use FS9 alongside FSX. A decade ago we had two Combat Flight Simulator versions, which were derived from FS98 and FS2000 and were too "dumbed down" versions of MSFS.AVSIM has a lot more to lose from Flight than we users. If Flight gets real popular and Microsoft keeps producing good content while keeping it closed to third party add-ons, the add-on industry will die out and AVSIM will lose all advertising revenue. So I very much appreciate AVSIM keeping us informed (even though I don't like what I see in MS Flight myself) despite this risk.
  10. Now I think this is an advertisement channel overlooked by MS. You should be able to see the nice toys others have and get really really envious and spend your $$$ on getting those toys too :Idea:
  11. I think when I installed Flight, I was asked about the installation folder, so I think it should be possible to install it onto another drive.
  12. No, but after reading posts here about how much smoother the Flight experience is compared with FSX, I expected at least a similar performance to FSX.
  13. Glad you are enjoying it, because I am not.I installed it on a 4 year old PC (AMD AthlonX2), and Flight produces a lower frame rate than FSX. I only get fluid movement with no discernible individual frames if set all graphics to low. With FSX, I get decent 25-30FPS with medium graphics settings, no chance for this in Flight. So I am certainly not getting a smoother experience than with FSX.Even worse, I see very little improvement in the graphics quality. Nice water reflections, ships and clouds reflecting in the water - we had all this in FSX too, and with DirectX 10 the reflections were as amazing as in Flight. It obviously looks stunning compared with FS9, so I wonder if those having a WOW experience are coming directly from FS9.I would say Flight has much less graphics improvements over FSX than any MSFS version since FS95 had over its predecessor - despite the gap between MSFS versions being 2-3 years only.With FS98, we got 3D graphics acceleration.With FS2000, we got realistic elevated terrain instead of a flat world.With FS2002, we got AI traffic and autogen scenery.With FS2004, we got a vastly expanded ATC, improved and climate zone-specific autogen scenery, weather themes and real-world weather.With FSX, we got stunning new ground textures, road traffic, a real abundance of autogen (at the cost of FPS), and in the DirectX10 mode, amazing-looking water. We got aircraft with bumpmaps, new reflections, flexing wings and shadows. Oh, and we got an SDK out of the box.With Flight, we got... the ability to walk out of the plane and a slightly better lighted autogen???I am just wondering if Flight limits the graphics features even at the highest scenery setting on slower PCs, so that I am not seeing anything. I remember a demo screenshot from 2011 that seemed to depict cloud shadows on the ground - but I don't see them in Flight.
  14. It does have potential for our community, but the question is, does MS want to use this potential?The lack of an SDK says something about their direction. If you peek into .pak files with WinZip, you just see regular BGL files just like in FSX. There cannot be too many changes, so clearly, they just don't want to have independent add-ons.If this stays the same, the sim will probably be dead (at least for our community), just like FLY!, ProPilot etc. died without additional content, despite being more advanced in some aspects than the current MSFS version at their release time. Of course it will still have a chance in the marketplace for the general public.But X-Plane has a great looking SDK, so we are not without alternatives :) If Flight stays closed for most third party developers, there will be more content created for X-Plane.
  15. I have to admit I am very disappointed by Flight, be it a free download or not. I knew it was limited to Hawaii, had almost no choice of airplanes, no support for add-ons and was mostly about flying missions and earning points. No problem, it is a different genre after all.But I fail to see significant improvements over FSX/Prepar3D in the graphics department, and over 5 years since the release of FSX I did expect some bloody new and absolutely stunning graphics.I see the same horrible default clouds as in FSX, I see the same autogen scenery as in FSX, a little improved water with the same reflections as in FSX (DirectX10). And where for God's sake is the AI traffic??? This reminds me of the lonely days with FS2000!So what are the actual improvements Flight offers over FSX? I sure overlooked something.Because the only really really cool improvement I see is the ability to walk out of your plane.
×
×
  • Create New...