Flight Simulator X

Discussion in 'Games' started by fud122, Oct 18, 2006.

  1. fud122 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    #1
    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
     
  2. slick316 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    #2
    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?
     
  3. Patmian212 macrumors 68020

    Patmian212

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Location:
    NYC
    #3
    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
     
  4. slick316 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    #4
    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.
     
  5. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #5
    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.
     
  6. micvog macrumors 6502

    micvog

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    #6
    Uh oh. I pre-ordered this on Amazon for my iMac C2D. Maybe I should cancel since it still hasn't shipped?
     
  7. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #7
    I think he was referring to this, 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. :)
     
  8. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #8
    OOPS! sorry about that. so use to seeing that X.
     
  9. FleurDuMal macrumors 68000

    FleurDuMal

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    London Town
    #9
  10. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #10
    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.
     
  11. fud122 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    #11
    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.
     
  12. micvog macrumors 6502

    micvog

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    #12
    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.
     
  13. fud122 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    #13
    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.
     
  14. micvog macrumors 6502

    micvog

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    #14
    Thanks! I think I will stick with FS2K4.
     
  15. bowens macrumors 6502a

    bowens

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Location:
    Trenton, FL
    #15
    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?
     
  16. EGT macrumors 68000

    EGT

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    #16
    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)
     
  17. fud122 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    #17
    EGT is right...the game doesn't actually load from the DVD...the game is installed on a hard drive (approx 15GB!!).
     
  18. br0adband macrumors 6502a

    br0adband

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    #18
    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
     
  19. EGT macrumors 68000

    EGT

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    #19
    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. :eek:
     
  20. br0adband macrumors 6502a

    br0adband

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    #20
    ALSO: How to fix the FSX dual core issues... maybe

    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
     
  21. fud122 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    #21
    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!)
     
  22. bowens macrumors 6502a

    bowens

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Location:
    Trenton, FL
    #22
    Has anybody tried Flight Gear? 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.
     
  23. rspeaker macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    #23
    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.
     
  24. br0adband macrumors 6502a

    br0adband

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    #24
    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
     
  25. jane doe macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    #25
    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?
     

Share This Page