Flight Simulator X

[fud122]

Bought and tried Flight Simulator X on a MBP (2.16Ghz, 256vram, 2GB) but it is running so choppy! I cannot get high frames but yet in the demo I was able to play it quite smoothly with the same high settings. If other people are going to try it out on their macs I would love to know how performance is. Thanks

[slick316]

Bought and tried Flight Simulator X on a MBP (2.16Ghz, 256vram, 2GB) but it is running so choppy! I cannot get high frames but yet in the demo I was able to play it quite smoothly with the same high settings. If other people are going to try it out on their macs I would love to know how performance is. Thanks

The requirements to run this game well are really high. I hear that people with really nice PC's can't run this game well at all.
What settings are you using? Are you running it at the MBP's native screen res?

[Patmian212]

The requirements to run this game well are really high. I hear that people with really nice PC's can't run this game well at all.
What settings are you using? Are you running it at the MBP's native screen res?
THey arent that high:
* Microsoft® Windows® XP SP2 / Vista
* PC with 1 GHz equivalent or higher processor
* 256 MB of system RAM for Windows XP SP2 / 512 MB Vista
* 14 GB available hard disk space
* 32x speed or faster DVD-ROM drive
* 32 MB DirectX 9 compatible video card required
* Sound card, speakers or headphones required for audio
* Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
* 56.6 Kbps or better modem for online play

[slick316]

THey arent that high:
* Microsoft® Windows® XP SP2 / Vista
* PC with 1 GHz equivalent or higher processor
* 256 MB of system RAM for Windows XP SP2 / 512 MB Vista
* 14 GB available hard disk space
* 32x speed or faster DVD-ROM drive
* 32 MB DirectX 9 compatible video card required
* Sound card, speakers or headphones required for audio
* Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
* 56.6 Kbps or better modem for online play

I mean actual gameplay settings, like how you would like for it to look. The above mentioned requirements will make this game like the flight sim 98. Just remember that the minimum requirements is just that, the minimum required to run the game.

The demo of this game ran pretty good on mainly high (not the highest, but high) settings on my PC, but it didn't impress me much.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I wonder if he is playing the Mac version or Pc version or is he emulating the PPC version on his Intel Mac? Last time I was at the X-plane site I saw little explanation for Intel based Macs nor did the requirements even acknowledge the Intel Macs.

[micvog]

Bought and tried Flight Simulator X on a MBP (2.16Ghz, 256vram, 2GB) but it is running so choppy! I cannot get high frames but yet in the demo I was able to play it quite smoothly with the same high settings. If other people are going to try it out on their macs I would love to know how performance is. Thanks

Uh oh. I pre-ordered this on Amazon for my iMac C2D. Maybe I should cancel since it still hasn't shipped?

[aquajet]

I wonder if he is playing the Mac version or Pc version or is he emulating the PPC version on his Intel Mac? Last time I was at the X-plane site I saw little explanation for Intel based Macs nor did the requirements even acknowledge the Intel Macs.

I think he was referring to this (http://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/flightsimulatorx.aspx), not X-Plane which is available on both platforms. I'm willing to bet that X-Plane has a more accurate flight model, which is why it's the only one I use. :)

[Dont Hurt Me]

OOPS! sorry about that. so use to seeing that X.

[FleurDuMal]

I don't know where Microsoft get their minimum specs from, but practically every review/preview I've read had mentioned that Flight Simulator X requires on beast of a PC. I wonder how a souped up Mac Pro would handle it??

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/sim/microsoftflightsimulatorx/review.html?sid=6159886

[Dont Hurt Me]

Fud122 never mentions his videocard, if running the cheapo 7300 that Apple has in the base machine that would explain it. He might have to turn down the scenery.

[fud122]

My video card is the ATI X1600 with 256mb vram on a refurb MBP 17". I am running Microsoft Flight Simulator X at native resolution however I can only get 7-10 fps with the settings on high (Both scenery and aircraft...I kept the traffic setting on low). I lowered the "Autogen" setting and now I get 12-16 fps. It is playable now but seems to lag over the big cities. When I try to lower some of the settings from Scenery and Aircraft..the fps only goes up by 2-4. So not a majot change. Yet in the demo I would average over 20fps with the same high settings. I even went to try the default airport (St. Maarten) that was used in the demo and it achieved less fps than the demo version. Strange. From what I have been reading in online forums, Flight Simulator X only uses one core of the CPU (now why would Microsoft do that when they know multiple core processors are the future and present). Seeing FSX as both a CPU and GPU intensive game, MS should have designed it to use multiple cores which could have helped with performance.

[micvog]

fud122 -

Can you confirm whether the final release has product activation, and whether it requires a DVD in the drive to play like FS2K4?

Thanks.

[fud122]

fud122 -

Can you confirm whether the final release has product activation, and whether it requires a DVD in the drive to play like FS2K4?

Thanks.

Flight Simulator X uses product activation as well as a DVD check. Sucks that both are implemented...I hate having to put the DVD in the drive everytime.

[micvog]

Flight Simulator X uses product activation as well as a DVD check. Sucks that both are implemented...I hate having to put the DVD in the drive everytime.

Thanks! I think I will stick with FS2K4.

[bowens]

So the game requires the dvd to be in to play? If so, then that could be a problem. The requirements say that it needs a 32x dvd-rom and the mpb has only a 8x for dvds. could this be the problem?

[EGT]

I don't think it it is actually required for game play i.e. nothing loads off the disk. It is just to confirm you have a legitimate copy of FSX. At least that's how it was with FS9 and a work around was available very shortly after it was released.

(I might be wrong with FSX though)

[fud122]

So the game requires the dvd to be in to play? If so, then that could be a problem. The requirements say that it needs a 32x dvd-rom and the mpb has only a 8x for dvds. could this be the problem?

EGT is right...the game doesn't actually load from the DVD...the game is installed on a hard drive (approx 15GB!!).

[br0adband]

If you want some real flying fun, hardware requirements that aren't quite that steep (no matter what Microsoft claims), go get X-Plane 8. When I picked up my 20" iMac last week, I snagged a copy of X-Plane 8 off the shelf, got home, installed it and then did the 8.5 update online (about 600MB or so, takes a while).

The game is simply unbelievable in scope - it comes with 7 dual layer DVDs that are loaded with scenery data. Full install of the updated game and all the scenery = 65GB. Take that, FSX!!!

Anyway, it looks better than FSX does also, is written by a handful of pro pilots, works amazingly well on a lot of hardware, and it's written natively on Macs then ported to PCs for Windows.

Really, I can't understand why people bother with Flight Sim anymore; X-Plane just blows it out of the sky... literally.

bb

[EGT]

I'm really looking forward to trying out X-plane when I get an Intel Mac. I've seen it at flight training exhibitions with the pro hardware like realistic pedals and yolk. Looks like a lot of fun. :D

With the full 65GB, are files scattered all across the hard drive or is it neat? I'm a bit weird about keeping everything tidy on computer. :o

[br0adband]

I'm really looking forward to trying out X-plane when I get an Intel Mac. I've seen it at flight training exhibitions with the pro hardware like realistic pedals and yolk. Looks like a lot of fun. :D

With the full 65GB, are files scattered all across the hard drive or is it neat? I'm a bit weird about keeping everything tidy on computer. :o

It's neat and in a directory, no worries.


ALSO:

A friend of mine that uses FSX was interested when I mentioned that FSX seems to only use one core of his dual core machine. He checked and noted that when it's running full bore, it's just one core with a slight use of the second one.

However, he did this little trick:

He went into Task Manager, changed the processor affinity of the game executable to processor 1 (it defaults to processor 0), messed with the game for a few moments, then went back to Task Manager and reset the affinity to processor 0 and...

Like magic, FSX started using both cores from that moment on, with a steady 60% or so usage on each. It continued to do that for the rest of the time he ran the game, and while it helped, the game was still sluggish and he's got a 7800GT with a high end Intel E6600 dual core CPU - as he put it, "not exactly a slug or entry level" machine.

So, hopefully this tip will help get both cores cranking along for your FSX pleasure...

Hope this helps...
bb

[fud122]

It's neat and in a directory, no worries.


ALSO:

A friend of mine that uses FSX was interested when I mentioned that FSX seems to only use one core of his dual core machine. He checked and noted that when it's running full bore, it's just one core with a slight use of the second one.

However, he did this little trick:

He went into Task Manager, changed the processor affinity of the game executable to processor 1 (it defaults to processor 0), messed with the game for a few moments, then went back to Task Manager and reset the affinity to processor 0 and...

Like magic, FSX started using both cores from that moment on, with a steady 60% or so usage on each. It continued to do that for the rest of the time he ran the game, and while it helped, the game was still sluggish and he's got a 7800GT with a high end Intel E6600 dual core CPU - as he put it, "not exactly a slug or entry level" machine.

So, hopefully this tip will help get both cores cranking along for your FSX pleasure...

Hope this helps...
bb

Thanks for the advice...I am going to try and play around with FSX and see if I can get any improvements. I also have X-Plane...it is also a great simulator (more realistic than FSX). The reason I bought FSX was mainly for the graphics and the fact that I have owned every Flight Simulator since 95...in my opinion the graphics are better in FSX (of course with a super powerful system!)

[bowens]

Has anybody tried Flight Gear (http://www.flightgear.org)? I have been messing around with it a little bit. It seems pretty good. Plus it's open source so it's free! They have pretty much the whole world mapped out and available for download. It will take about 3 dvds to fit all of the maps though. Also, they have quite a few different planes available for download even some that aren't planes like parachutes and hang-gliders.

[rspeaker]

It seems a shame that FSX runs so slow on Macs, being that all the Intel Macs seem to be pretty darn good computer. I installed (and eventually uninstalled) Windows on my iMac, and the games I installed/played ran awesome... though the last time I played them, it was on a 700MHz/192MB RAM/integrated graphics Dell.

A friend who is in flight school in North Dakota, who has some pretty neat apps like ATC 2, is really excited for this game, so we could play together. But if it runs slowly on my CD iMac, and one would think it'd run fairly slowly on his C2D iMac, and if we can't play at close to full or full quality, what's the point? I have FS2002, and it's fun and all... but the whole reason I've gotten excited for FSX is because the quality is just amazing. And it looks to be great for online play.

Perhaps the initial release is just missing something? Maybe a patch could increase performance?

It's just hard for me to swallow that my computer, which seems like a pretty good computer, won't play the only game I would re-install Windows for.

[br0adband]

It seems a shame that FSX runs so slow on Macs, being that all the Intel Macs seem to be pretty darn good computer. I installed (and eventually uninstalled) Windows on my iMac, and the games I installed/played ran awesome... though the last time I played them, it was on a 700MHz/192MB RAM/integrated graphics Dell.

A friend who is in flight school in North Dakota, who has some pretty neat apps like ATC 2, is really excited for this game, so we could play together. But if it runs slowly on my CD iMac, and one would think it'd run fairly slowly on his C2D iMac, and if we can't play at close to full or full quality, what's the point? I have FS2002, and it's fun and all... but the whole reason I've gotten excited for FSX is because the quality is just amazing. And it looks to be great for online play.

Perhaps the initial release is just missing something? Maybe a patch could increase performance?

It's just hard for me to swallow that my computer, which seems like a pretty good computer, won't play the only game I would re-install Windows for.

If you want to run a great flightsim written on a Mac that performs damned well on a Mac, X-Plane is still your best bet. FSX is written on PCs with Windows then... well... then nothing, it's just not up to speed. X-Plane just offers too much more to work with in my opinion... worth taking a look, your friend might fall in love with it also (if he hasn't already).

FSX is a massive resource hog, period. All that pretty stuff costs you, big time. I know two people with the best chips money can buy (one's got the highest end Core 2 Duo, the other a highest end Opteron) and both have 7950 cards, on both machines when they max out the graphics, it's like 25 fps average with low highs and really low lows, barely playable really.

bb

[jane doe]

My problem with X-plane is the damn yoke i have. I can't seem to get it set correctly either in the sensitivity or center it correctly. Anyone have advise?

[Chrispy]

Yeah FSX is a beast to run. I have a core2duo E6600 machine with 2GB Ram and all the goodies. I ran the demo and had to turn everything to medium settings to even make it playable. Sad

[Abulia]

Someone search up the YouTube video of the "Flight Simulator X Parody."

I laughed so hard I cried. :)

[Chrispy]

So I tweaked the settings a bunch and was able to get the settings looking good in the demo. I took some screens for your enjoyment haha ;)

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/th_2006-10-25_17-55-28-109.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/2006-10-25_17-55-28-109.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/th_2006-10-25_17-48-55-78.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/2006-10-25_17-48-55-78.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/th_2006-10-25_17-47-51-500.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/2006-10-25_17-47-51-500.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/th_2006-10-25_17-20-34-765.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/2006-10-25_17-20-34-765.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/th_2006-10-25_17-13-57-171.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/2006-10-25_17-13-57-171.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/th_2006-10-25_17-13-11-750.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/2006-10-25_17-13-11-750.jpg)

[kepardue]

While being an excellent professional/experimental tool, X-Plane still lacks behind FS X in some areas for, well, what I call "casual" armchair pilots. Specifically, air traffic simulation and aircraft quality.

It's starting to improve, but it's still a far cry from navigating taxiways and tarmacs with other realistic traffic zooming here and about (aircraft, let alone vehicles). X-Plane really needs a framework to allow developers to create or port solutions like MyTraffic or FSTraffic. I know there's flying online, but that doesn't popuplate all airfields with semi-realistic conditions. Along with that, of course, it ATC... X-Plane still by and large uses generic radio chatter.

X-Plane finally has support for 3D cockpits, but there really aren't any aircraft that take advantage of it. Hopefully by the next version of XPlane 3D Cockpits will be refined and the default aircraft will have improved in quality.

Add those two items, and X-Plane has a solid chance. All, IMHO of course.

[Kingsly]

So I tweaked the settings a bunch and was able to get the settings looking good in the demo. I took some screens for your enjoyment haha ;)~snip~

I may be a diehard x-plane fan, and it certainly has the better physics, but...

Wowowowowoeeee!!!! Those graphics are incredible!!!:eek: :eek: :eek:

[aafuss1]

I have both FSX and X-Plane 8. I like FSX's scenery-richly done and extremly realistic.

[scott523]

I have a medium end Sony desktop, 1GB RAM, 128MB ATI X300 and when I ran FSX and it was a disaster. The whole program wiped out my RAM and I had worries in keeping the quality experience at par and hoping I that FSX doesn't shut down w/o any more RAM. :(

[Chrispy]

More eye candy just for fun.... yeah... I'm bored haha

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/th_2006-10-27_18-18-48-31.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/2006-10-27_18-18-48-31.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/th_2006-10-26_14-3-43-93.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/2006-10-26_14-3-43-93.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/th_2006-10-26_14-3-20-984.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/2006-10-26_14-3-20-984.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/th_2006-10-26_14-2-19-265.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/2006-10-26_14-2-19-265.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/th_2006-10-26_13-59-23-640.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/2006-10-26_13-59-23-640.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/th_2006-10-26_13-58-48-453.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/2006-10-26_13-58-48-453.jpg)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/th_2006-10-26_13-52-28-531.jpg (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n177/custompcmicro/2006-10-26_13-52-28-531.jpg)

[psingh01]

So the game requires the dvd to be in to play? If so, then that could be a problem. The requirements say that it needs a 32x dvd-rom and the mpb has only a 8x for dvds. could this be the problem?

This is maybe somewhat late, but I wanted to set things straight. I have the Deluxe version of FS X. It requires activation but it does NOT require the DVD in the drive to play. I play it just fine with both my DVD's in the case :) As far as how it runs.....I may have to wait until an 8-core Mac Pro to see this run on higher settings than what my pc can handle ;)

[slick316]

I tried running FSX on my new PC. Ran better than I thought at 1920x1200, medium-high to high settings. The clouds look fantastic and so does the water. Lighting effects are good also. Exterior plane details are dissappointing, as well as the ground/building details. So far, doesn't seem like much of an improvement over 2004, but I here that Vista and DX10 should bring out more of this game, we'll see.

[mac ified]

last year i bought a version of X-plane 8 for my PC. this year i bought an IMAC without even realizing that x-plane (and HL2) won't even work on the mac. what should i do? give my mac to my parents and by that DELL XPS 700?

[daveIT]

I found some info over on arstechnica about tweaking FS X. I wonder if this will help make it more playable w/ Bootcamp. Someone try it out and let me know?!?!

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/39309975/m/989002451831/p/2

http://members.cox.net/spambait/FSXTweakGuide.pdf

http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41

[Dont Hurt Me]

I have a medium end Sony desktop, 1GB RAM, 128MB ATI X300 and when I ran FSX and it was a disaster. The whole program wiped out my RAM and I had worries in keeping the quality experience at par and hoping I that FSX doesn't shut down w/o any more RAM. :(Your problem is GPU ram, 128 just isnt enough and the x300 is a low end card, very low, just a step up from integrated. This program is just a hog and needs a better GPU. A modest GPU upgrade could put you into this one but a X300 is what it is.

[Dont Hurt Me]

last year i bought a version of X-plane 8 for my PC. this year i bought an IMAC without even realizing that x-plane (and HL2) won't even work on the mac. what should i do? give my mac to my parents and by that DELL XPS 700?
A new iMac should run these with no problem unless you have the integrated graphic version and dont have a copy of windows. Also you dont need a XPS 700 just a good video card.

[kepardue]

So, in reviving an old thread... now that Parallels is working seriously on 3D acceleration and are claiming 100% performance on 3D/directX games, do you all think FS X will have acceptable performance? Personally, I don't see how it possibly could. It barely runs well on PC's; I don't see how it could run acceptably if it's running on a virtualized DirectX. That said, I'm hopeful... that's the one thing I miss about going Mac.

I wish X-Plane would clean up its interface and make a consistent product. Heck, I wouldn't mind it if FlightGear would do the same. Better than all of it, I wish Terminal Reality would revive the old Fly! series and make a Fly! 3... add 3D panels and so on.

[ehurtley]

So, in reviving an old thread... now that Parallels is working seriously on 3D acceleration and are claiming 100% performance on 3D/directX games, do you all think FS X will have acceptable performance? Personally, I don't see how it possibly could. It barely runs well on PC's; I don't see how it could run acceptably if it's running on a virtualized DirectX. That said, I'm hopeful... that's the one thing I miss about going Mac.

I wish X-Plane would clean up its interface and make a consistent product. Heck, I wouldn't mind it if FlightGear would do the same. Better than all of it, I wish Terminal Reality would revive the old Fly! series and make a Fly! 3... add 3D panels and so on.

FS X barely has acceptable performance in BOOT CAMP, so no, i wouldn't imagine Parallels would be good.

In FS X in Boot Camp, I waffle between wanting all the eye candy on (and going with 3-8 fps,) and having it on a steady 15 fps (which is plenty for a flight sim,) but not as good graphics.

Hardware review sites have shown that FS X chokes even the fastest hardware available right now. (Overclocked Intel Core 2 Extreme with dual GeForce 8800s.)

[jane doe]

Well, With bootcamp I'm planning on running the elite system. If parallels will do it then great (and it should) but I'm not planning on it

[BarryW]

FS X barely has acceptable performance in BOOT CAMP, so no, i wouldn't imagine Parallels would be good.

In FS X in Boot Camp, I waffle between wanting all the eye candy on (and going with 3-8 fps,) and having it on a steady 15 fps (which is plenty for a flight sim,) but not as good graphics.


Are you running Vista, as i have heard FSX has been "optimized" for Vista. Somebody previously mentioned that only one core has been utilized when running FSX. Apparently Vista will utilize both cores.

I'm running FSX on my old crappy PC and I get about 15fps with med-low settings. But I am sticking with FS 2004 for now.

[gkarris]

Oooh fun.

I almost bought a copy, and the guy at the store told me I need a DX10 card (and of course power supply, SLI would be even nicer). I don't even have a PC that can handle this.

I went online and FS fans are saying that it's really a DX10 program so you need a Vista machine with DX10 SLI graphics cards and 4 Gigs RAM just to get rid of the "choppiness"...

Have fun...

[BarryW]

Anybody tried FS 2004 on a mbp?
In theory it should perform excellently.

[ehurtley]

Are you running Vista, as i have heard FSX has been "optimized" for Vista. Somebody previously mentioned that only one core has been utilized when running FSX. Apparently Vista will utilize both cores.

I'm running FSX on my old crappy PC and I get about 15fps with med-low settings. But I am sticking with FS 2004 for now.

Contrary to popular belief, FSX is *NOT* a DirectX 10 application. Microsoft has promised an update (http://www.fsinsider.com/About/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Technical-Questions/Vista-and-DirectX.htm) to make it one once Vista and DirectX 10 are released, but they haven't released the update yet.

In addition, it runs exactly the same on Vista as XP on the same hardware. (I have run it on XP on my MacBook Pro, and on both XP and Vista (both 32-bit and 64-bit Vista,) on my desktop.) It does not take any extra advantage of the second core on my MacBook Pro, and doesn't take advantage of the second physical, or the third and fourth virtual, cores on my Pentium Extreme desktop. (And, yes, for almost all purposes, the [dual-core] 2.0 GHz Core Duo is faster than the [dual-core + HyperThreading] 4.0 GHz Pentium Extreme Edition, showing just how much better a core the "Core Architecture" is over the older "NetBurst Architecture".)

[ehurtley]

Oh, and here are a couple screenshots comparing Microsoft Flight Simulator over the years. The FSX one was taken with absolute maximum settings on my MacBook Pro, and was getting about 5 fps at the time. (The Flight Sim 4 screenshot has been stretched to have proper aspect ratio, since its native aspect ratio used non-square pixels; 640x350 stretched to fill a 4:3 ratio screen.)

http://www.hurtley.org/Images/FS4sm.png (http://www.hurtley.org/Images/FS4.png) (Flight Sim v.4, Click for full-size, 640x480, 12 KB.)
http://www.hurtley.org/Images/FS95sm.png (http://www.hurtley.org/Images/FS95.png) (Flight Sim 95 (v.6), Click for full-size, 640x480, 40 KB.)
http://www.hurtley.org/Images/FSXsm.png (http://www.hurtley.org/Images/FSX.png) (Flight Sim X (v.10), Click for full-size, 1440x900, 1.3 MB.)

My, we've come a long way. Oh, and I do have X-Plane (http://www.x-plane.com/weapon.html) for MacOS. It it much more realistic from a simulation perspective, but Flight Sim is just more "fun". I use X-Plane when I want realism, Flight Sim when I just want to fly around sightseeing. Back in college, as an Aerospace Engineering major, we used X-Plane to do real prototyping simulations!

[BarryW]

Contrary to popular belief, FSX is *NOT* a DirectX 10 application. Microsoft has promised an update (http://www.fsinsider.com/About/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Technical-Questions/Vista-and-DirectX.htm) to make it one once Vista and DirectX 10 are released, but they haven't released the update yet.



In addition it looks like there will be a service pack (http://www.fsinsider.com/Community/News-Articles/sp1.htm) release before the DX10 fs upgrade

[G5Unit]

Man that water looks amazing. Really nice for fly overs.

[mathews1990]

i just got a imac and i cant find out how to install the game off the disc i cant find the install file does anybody know how to install this game on a mac

[BarryW]

^You need to install FSX on windows in bootcamp, it should autorun^

I have not had too much time playing FSX on my mbp yet, but I get about 15-20fps on high.
Fs2004 is amazing with everything maxed out I capped the fps at 60 and get consistent fps.

There is a patch(service pack) coming out for FSX which should address some of the performance issues on multiple core machines, its target release date is April.