- Average user rating: 2.5 stars out of 26 reviews Back to product review
- My rating: 0 stars
Full user review
-
2 out of 3 people found this review helpful
2.0 stars
"Professional pilots couldn't afford a PC to run this joke."
Pros: Great visuals, great sound. ATC is better.
Cons: Extremely demanding on your system.
Summary: My computer: Homebuilt. XP PRO. Pentium 4 Prescott 3.2GHz with hyper threading (OCed to 3.52GHz). 2GB of DDR 400 RAM. Audigy 2ZS sound card. GeForce 7800GS 256MB from BFG so it is OCed. Running on SATA hard drive. This isn't the best gaming system out there, but it is certainly better than your average PC. I can run ANY other game on full graphics and get at least 40FPS. I'm honestly happy with at least 20-30 because above that, your eyes can't tell the difference. I landed the beech baron with the G1000 at minneapolis st paul with heavy snow. I had traffic up to 100% because I want realism. Everything else was slimmed down, no autogen, no water effects, low terrain detail. With scenery complexity off, when I landed I got about 8 FPS. When I put it on full, I got 5 FPS. You also have to have scenery up in order to see taxi way lights. Aside from performance, there are other things. FS still doesn't have a very good terrain map. I have several updates I bought for FS9, and it honestly looks better overall at a much higher framerate than FSX. I am also disappointed that they got rid of the vintage planes from FS9, along with the amphib caravan, and cessna 183. I paid more for deluxe and I cant even really enjoy the added features like city detail because it won't run. The G1000 they got very lazy on. Half the features of the real one aren't there. In the real one, when tuned into a VOR you can hit DME on the PFD and it will show you distance, not there... You also can't access the engine screen to adjust mixture using EGT. I suppose that since it won't run as is, more detail wouldnt help. I've heard that it would run better on Vista, but I've heard just as strongly that that is not true. I must say, in rare occurences when it's not lagging and I have autogen up all the way, it's pretty spectacular, the trees actually look like they make a forest, rather than a few scattered trees over forest ground textures. I can run it pretty well with limited weather and all traffic disabled, and scenery trimmed down a bit, but um that brings up the question, why did i spend 70 bucks on it when FS9 that has many aircraft that I bought (much better detail and 90%+ funtional cockpits and FMSs), ASv6 weather engine, flight environment, and also Ultimate Terrain (yes i spent a little too much money on it but was worth it) and therefor looks just as good as, has more realistic aircraft, and 100% detailed surface streets and land/water features throughout the US and Canada, all running at higher FPS than FSX raw? (yes I know that was one of the most ridiculous sentences in history, but I think it makes my point). I have heard Microsoft is taking it back for refunds because of these performance issues, but I'm having trouble justifying it for the times it does run well and looks awsome, and also the red bull flying course, I'm down to a time of 1:40, it's fun. Anyways, moral of the story is, if you have a system about equal to mine or BETTER go for it, but if you're running your cheap $400 HP desktop that you bought at Best Buy so that you can write papers and play solitaire on, um, while you might make the 256MB RAM 1.0GHz processor and 32MB video card requirement, I would highly recommend you NOT try this. One more thought, If this brings MY system to its knees, how do they figure those minimums? That's probably what u need to run it on all lowest settings at at least 1 FPS. Hey, you can technically "run" it, but you'll be catchin part of your favorite TV show waiting for the next frame to happen.Updated
Did anyone see the TV commercial for FSX? Anyone who saw this notice that what they showed was extremely laggy. Jet flybys at about 6 FPS. I laughed when I saw that, literally, I laughed out loud.
- 3 replies to this review
-
Even though the processor technology has advanced by leaps and bounds, to produce a realistic movement of scenery with arificial intelligence is still far away in distant future. So lets say to enjoy this game, one has to use the most advanced equipment thus making it an Expensive Hobby.
-
Actually as a PROFESSIONAL PILOT I can afford about 10 of those computers in 1 month.
-
I Concur, I am running A Dell 1.7 Gig, 1 Gig Ram With a Hard Drive Read 7200 RPM's Also with the GE-Force 7600GS and this is almost unusable. To get this running as good as the old version you have to run with no anything.???? What does Microsoft really think it takes to run this creation?
I couldn't imagine running this at their suggested minimum requirements!
Where to buy
Microsoft Flight Simulator X (PC):
$18.31 - $49.99
| store | price | in stock? | rating |
|---|---|---|---|
|
$18.31 | Yes |
|
|
$49.99 | Yes |
|
%20user%20review%20and%20rating%20-%20CNET%20Reviews&srcUrl=http://reviews.cnet.com/pc-games/microsoft-flight-simulator-x/4864-9696_7-31660767-3.html){kind=small}