Jump to content

Runs faster than FSX ever could


Recommended Posts

I never got used to glass screens in FSX. They slowed everything down so much. Glass screens in 2020 aren't a problem at all. And I have only a medium system. Runs great. Even at 120 kt at 500ft.

The program tells me I haven't got an adequate system to run it, I run it fine. I am set on medium settings. It looks awesome enough for me that's for sure. Can't take my eyes off it.

Win 10 Home 64 bit.

i7-3770

16Mb RAM

GTX 670 (very slightly overclocked).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am about 18% done at 45 minutes from start. I think I will be about 4 hours, maybe a little longer.

 

Hal

Alienware Aurora R13, I7-12700KF, 16g DDR5 4400 memory, 256g NVMe boot drive, 1 - 2t NVMe m.2 drive for Apps, 2 - 1t SSD for Data, GeForce RTX 3080 TI 12g, Windows 11 Pro.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16MB ram, eh? This is one optimized game...

(Sorry, couldn't help myself :-P)

 

My son just pointed out that this is probably 16Gb. Sorry. I am new to such capacities, when I first got my Commodore 64 it had 2 Mb of RAM. And that was more than the combined capacity of my local council at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My son just pointed out that this is probably 16Gb. Sorry. I am new to such capacities, when I first got my Commodore 64 it had 2 Mb of RAM. And that was more than the combined capacity of my local council at the time.

 

The Commodore 64 had 64k (that's kilobytes) of RAM, which is why it was called the Commodore 64 and not the Commodore 2000, which is what it would have been if it it had 2Mb. I think you are mistaken.

I love the smell of napalm on my cornflakes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Commodore 64 had 64k (that's kilobytes) of RAM, which is why it was called the Commodore 64 and not the Commodore 2000, which is what it would have been if it it had 2Mb. I think you are mistaken.

 

If you wanted to run any game or in my case a Bulletin Board, you needed an external hard drive. That really gave you a lot of memory because each floppy (5 1/4") held 170K !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, I hear you. In comparison, I guess I'm quite young. My first computer was a Pentium 1, with something like 12MB ram and a whopping 750MB (ish) hdd.

 

That computer started a long and proud tradition of my computers running FS badly (FS95, in that case). My current one, eager to continue the tradition, won't be any different as it's barely above the minimum spec. I'd be quite pleased if I get 20 fps (not even kidding).

i7 3770 @ 4.2 GHz, 16 GB RAM, Radeon RX5700, 2560 x 1080 Ultrawide

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, I hear you. In comparison, I guess I'm quite young. My first computer was a Pentium 1, with something like 12MB ram and a whopping 750MB (ish) hdd.

 

That computer started a long and proud tradition of my computers running FS badly (FS95, in that case). My current one, eager to continue the tradition, won't be any different as it's barely above the minimum spec. I'd be quite pleased if I get 20 fps (not even kidding).

 

LOL. You're a funny guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, I hear you. In comparison, I guess I'm quite young. My first computer was a Pentium 1, with something like 12MB ram and a whopping 750MB (ish) hdd.

 

That computer started a long and proud tradition of my computers running FS badly (FS95, in that case). My current one, eager to continue the tradition, won't be any different as it's barely above the minimum spec. I'd be quite pleased if I get 20 fps (not even kidding).

 

I think I win in the primitive Flight Sim stakes. Sinclair Spectrum, 48k, flying the Melbourne House flight simulator. Still got higher frame rates than some people are reporting for FS2020.

I love the smell of napalm on my cornflakes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen people say this, but I assume there are some caveats. For example, I'm sure FS2020 with every single setting on minimim and 640x480 resolution runs better than than FSX on 4k with every setting turned up to 11. But that's a meaningless comparison.

 

So does your statement mean like-for-like settings? And does like-for-like settings even give the same visual fidelity (I.e. an fsx scenery complexity setting on high may look like a fs2020 scenery complexity setting on medium)?

 

So could you please give us some more context about what you mean by "runs better than FSX"?

 

Edit:

I also have to add that I disagree when people say even low settings look great. Nearby buildings look like mud structures and far-off buildings look like alien prism towers. I find this quite distracting.

Edited by KiloWatt

i7 3770 @ 4.2 GHz, 16 GB RAM, Radeon RX5700, 2560 x 1080 Ultrawide

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to report far better performance from the new sim. I always saw som artifact in fax and more in complex scenery areas.

 

In Msfs 2020, it's been smooth as silk with settings just below ultra.

 

Sent from my SM-A205U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...