Air Force One Takeoff From OHAREX

[juniormafia27]

Not as bad as the first....However the edges are still jagged...like the gears in a 737 engine

[SirIsaac726]

Very bad, I'm sorry to say so... 

Huh? I'm puzzled,since in the second shot it shows FPS at 44.9!!!!! Where does FPS have to be at to be great

The first show is in the 20s at what appears to be a small airport, with little traffic, and clear skies.  And to boot, you have really poor settings.

Great would be 20-30s at KJFK with heavy traffic, thunderstorms, and high settings.

[Aeroman]

Pup,

Basically what everyone is trying to say is that even at maximum performance, your computer(s) cannot run FSX very well.  I'm not even sure how well it can run FS9..  I use FS9 and mine looks 10x better than your FSX with my ASE, FS Global 2010, Birds Eye View, Ultimate Terrain, and REX..and even flying into the NYC area with FSDT's KJFK, Imagine Sim's KLGA and KEWR, Aerosoft's Manhattan, AND Mega Scenery, I still get 30+ FPS flying into it in payware aircraft with the aforementioned scenery and texture programs running. 

But we're not criticizing you.  We're just saying if you save up and invest in a new system, you can get so much better results than what you're getting now..you probably can't even comprehend the difference..  But if you're happy with what you have then by all means stick with it!  Like they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

[juniormafia27]

Pup,

Basically what everyone is trying to say is that even at maximum performance, your computer(s) cannot run FSX very well.  I'm not even sure how well it can run FS9..  I use FS9 and mine looks 10x better than your FSX with my ASE, FS Global 2010, Birds Eye View, Ultimate Terrain, and REX..and even flying into the NYC area with FSDT's KJFK, Imagine Sim's KLGA and KEWR, Aerosoft's Manhattan, AND Mega Scenery, I still get 30+ FPS flying into it in payware aircraft with the aforementioned scenery and texture programs running. 

But we're not criticizing you.  We're just saying if you save up and invest in a new system, you can get so much better results than what you're getting now..you probably can't even comprehend the difference..  But if you're happy with what you have then by all means stick with it!  Like they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

You hit it right on the head, except.  "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", SHIT it is broke!!!    If you are going to subject your videos for us to watch then "by all means" fix it.  Computers are that one thing that you get what you pay for.  You try to get too cheap you get cheap results.  You need to put the shotgun to the PCs and get something worth displaying.  You still are a cool dude.  But all BS aside that computer is nothing to bragg about.....I too get great frames at JFK 40+ babe....all day!!!  So I will be looking foward to your new computer then the videos so you can get your James Camoron on in the flight sim world. 

[PUP4ORD]

Very bad, I'm sorry to say so... 

Huh? I'm puzzled,since in the second shot it shows FPS at 44.9!!!!! Where does FPS have to be at to be great

The first show is in the 20s at what appears to be a small airport, with little traffic, and clear skies.  And to boot, you have really poor settings.

Great would be 20-30s at KJFK with heavy traffic, thunderstorms, and high settings.

I have put my settings all to the right before and I can do it again to what kind of output I can get from FPS

[PUP4ORD]

Pup,

Basically what everyone is trying to say is that even at maximum performance, your computer(s) cannot run FSX very well.  I'm not even sure how well it can run FS9..  I use FS9 and mine looks 10x better than your FSX with my ASE, FS Global 2010, Birds Eye View, Ultimate Terrain, and REX..and even flying into the NYC area with FSDT's KJFK, Imagine Sim's KLGA and KEWR, Aerosoft's Manhattan, AND Mega Scenery, I still get 30+ FPS flying into it in payware aircraft with the aforementioned scenery and texture programs running. 

But we're not criticizing you.  We're just saying if you save up and invest in a new system, you can get so much better results than what you're getting now..you probably can't even comprehend the difference..  But if you're happy with what you have then by all means stick with it!  Like they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

LET me put this out and try to follow along: Intel Dual Core 2180 at 2 GHZ, OC at 2.985 GHZ 4GB RAM and a Geforce GT 9500 1024 RAM. If you can grasp all of that in a single context to start with; I can say for sure I'll be able to run FSX.

[SirIsaac726]

Pup,

Basically what everyone is trying to say is that even at maximum performance, your computer(s) cannot run FSX very well.  I'm not even sure how well it can run FS9..  I use FS9 and mine looks 10x better than your FSX with my ASE, FS Global 2010, Birds Eye View, Ultimate Terrain, and REX..and even flying into the NYC area with FSDT's KJFK, Imagine Sim's KLGA and KEWR, Aerosoft's Manhattan, AND Mega Scenery, I still get 30+ FPS flying into it in payware aircraft with the aforementioned scenery and texture programs running. 

But we're not criticizing you.  We're just saying if you save up and invest in a new system, you can get so much better results than what you're getting now..you probably can't even comprehend the difference..  But if you're happy with what you have then by all means stick with it!  Like they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

LET me put this out and try to follow along: Intel Dual Core 2180 at 2 GHZ, OC at 2.985 GHZ 4GB RAM and a Geforce GT 9500 1024 RAM. If you can grasp all of that in a single context to start with; I can say for sure I'll be able to run FSX.

The processer is what kills it.  You should really have a Quad or i Core and then you'd have a great system for FSX.  But clearly, by your videos and screenshots, your system can barely handle it.  In fact, it seems as if FSX brings your PC to its knees.

[juniormafia27]

I have to agree with Sir Issac.  That processor has to go right along with that graphics card.  Way outdated.  Settings all the way to the right or not you pics and video speak for itself.  Look at mine or someone elses and compare. 

[Aeroman]

6GB of RAM wouldn't hurt either...

[Frank Lindberg]

I run on FS9 for now, but whould like to try FSX. But can my config handle it or what

[PUP4ORD]

I run on FS9 for now, but whould like to try FSX. But can my config handle it or what

It should be able to handle FSX.

[Bruce Hamilton]

I have put my settings all to the right

Why?  My system is comparable to yours, and I can't run them all maxed out.  In fact, a lot of my payware sceneries have specific slider recommendations for optimum results, and they are all in the mid range or slightly higher, none of them are on maximum.

[PUP4ORD]

I have put my settings all to the right

Why?  My system is comparable to yours, and I can't run them all maxed out.  In fact, a lot of my payware sceneries have specific slider recommendations for optimum results, and they are all in the mid range or slightly higher, none of them are on maximum.

Are you using Fs9 or FSX Bruce?

[juniormafia27]

Although I could be wrong. But it sounds like he might be talking about FSX.

[Bruce Hamilton]

But it sounds like he might be talking about FSX.

I was talking about FSX, but I do run FS9 as well.