212 FRAME RATES!

[manhattan]

Tony

The difference between 2004 and FSX frame rates is VERY significant indeed as is full screen, or not, and screen resolution.

I can get 400 frames a sec, ah but that is with sublogic 1.

If you are going to make statements such as why "bother" with wideview then you need to be very clear about your configuration. Particularly as FS2004 users are now a minority.

David

The "why bother" comment was aimed at those who are looking for extra monitor views without having to go to the trouble of using ad-on programs such as "wideview". Why because of this comment, do I necessarily need to be "clear" or otherwise about my configuration?
FS2004 users may well be a minority, but I am enjoying excellent graphics, high frame rates and 8 monitors. This is more than enough for me, but I appreciate that those on FSX are looking for even more but with the down side of low to average frame rates. I know what I prefer.

TONY.

[fordgt40]

Tony

I am glad you are happy with your system, but you have inadvertently misled others in your enthusiasm.

David

[Fan of Flying]

FS2004, in my opinion, is still the way to go with multi-monitor setups. Simulation is all about immersing the pilot into an environment which he/she feels is true to life.

That said, Ive been in 3 different commercial motion simulators. I don't recall once seeing a pastel colored outside world nor did I ever recall "stutters".

I have yet to see one high end FSX-based flight simulator (in videos) represent what pilots see in real world. There are not stutters in real life. Even the latest gentleman, see Avsims page, with high end Flightdecksolutions hardware running FSX has failed to accomplish this. I mention FDS because the hardware is truly amazing and the gentlemen obviously has the means to purchase the best. Unfortunately the videos I've seen fail to accomplish a believable, seamlessly smooth, outside world in which I believe Tony was referring.

Mitch

[kermit]

Hi in the first reply s he never said what flightsim he is using,
only after some comments and questions .
we found out he is using fs2004 , with todays technology it is not hard to get
160 fps on the modest pc system
fsx is different matter , why not state your flightsim when asked
regards

[manhattan]

Hi in the first reply s he never said what flightsim he is using,
only after some comments and questions .
we found out he is using fs2004 , with todays technology it is not hard to get
160 fps on the modest pc system
fsx is different matter , why not state your flightsim when asked
regards

I don't recall being asked, but I did offer the information when I realised that I might have mis-led people into thinking that I was using FSX. This was not intentional. Providing my aircraft flies properly as commanded, and a combination of existing and add-on scenery is used, I see no need for FX10. I have constructed a full size cockpit designed for one aircraft only which combined with high frame rates (courtesy of 2004) is a joy to fly.
Each of us has our own way of enjoying flightsim.

[Fan of Flying]

Kermit,

good points.

Mitch

[manhattan]

QUOTE=brianwilliamson;158723]Yes and there are fairies at the bottom of the garden..............................


Brian W.[ QUOTE]

Hello Brian.
I am 73 years old, have been successful in business all my life, and until recently, the owner of a light aircraft and held a PPL.
I find your comment about "fairies at the bottom of the garden" suggesting that I am a liar most offensive and hope that it is picked up by Matt.

If you (and others) insist on using FSX then you will not achieve the frame rates that you desire. 2004 has a lot to offer and things that only FSX can offer, begin to look less important when you realise that you can use as many monitors and add ons as you want with high frame rates and only one computer with FS2004.

There will always be flightsim snobs in this game, who just have to have the latest whatever it is - but sometimes, there is a price to pay for this - and frame rates at the moment is it!

TONY

[kermit]

Hi Tony , at reply no 14 David Talked to you about fsx , you responded with no mentioning about your fs2004 ,
therefore we thought you talked about fsx.
If your header stated 212 frame rates with fs2004 nobody would asked you about systems or fsx ,
as fs2004 is a low end game with todays pc systems.
I think I would get even higher framerates with my system and fs2004 , but I`m using fsx .
I have thrown fs2004 with all its addons away ,couldn`t get it sold for 10 euro .
the remark fairies at the bottom of the garden by Brian , was based on the assumption that you were talking about
FSX not FS2004 .
regards Kermit

[manhattan]

QUOTE=kermit;158950]Hi Tony , at reply no 14 David Talked to you about fsx , you responded with no mentioning about your fs2004 ,
therefore we thought you talked about fsx.
If your header stated 212 frame rates with fs2004 nobody would asked you about systems or fsx ,
as fs2004 is a low end game with todays pc systems.
I think I would get even higher framerates with my system and fs2004 , but I`m using fsx .
I have thrown fs2004 with all its addons away ,couldn`t get it sold for 10 euro .
the remark fairies at the bottom of the garden by Brian , was based on the assumption that you were talking about
FSX not FS2004 .
regards Kermit[ QUOTE]

Knowing how restrictive FSX is, I am not now surprised by his comment - even though it was a bit blunt!
I will let you all plod on withFSX - I had a copy, but threw it in the bin.

"Each to his own"

TONY.