|Aug 25, 2006, 03:26 PM||#4|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Lomack or Lockon what ever the title still looks better than this but i guess we will need a DX 10 card to see how good MS flight sim could theoretically look.
Intel i7 4930K @ 4.5
16 gigs G.skill DDR3
1300 watt EVGA Supernova
Asus Sabertooth X79
Logitech G27 wheel
ASUS MG279Q [email protected]
|Aug 25, 2006, 03:49 PM||#5|
Radeon Arctic Islands
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: In front of my PC
I also have to question the timing of the demo. The graphics themselves weren't that bad. ((They are very tweakable) But the stability was horrible.
|Aug 25, 2006, 05:19 PM||#7|
Up and away!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle, England, UK
Apparently, according to those in the know and involved in the FS:X Betas the demo which was released was actually an earlier version from the Beta versions which were being tested some time ago, and they have furthered the development from the Beta versions even more since then, so.
I'll keep my fingers crossed that, a) it was an old demo. b) they couldn't put too much in it to keep the download size down.
|Aug 25, 2006, 07:07 PM||#8|
Going Nowhere Fast
Join Date: Dec 2004
I'll keep my fingers crossed as well.
As a (ex) flight sim enthusiast, I feel kind of sad that graphics in FSX are still maintaining a "cartoonish look".
Not to mention blurriness, which stands out almost as unacceptable nowadays, where more and more games make use of high-res textures.
Besides an overall revamp (water finally looking like water), I get an uncomfortable feeling of deja-vu when flying around, and everything seems, well, sort of outdated.
Performance-wise, I find it hard to believe they can't get this game to run reasonably even on high end machines. Speculations on the net are that dual-cores aren't going to do much in making it run better.
Although my life isn't going to change that much, I'm afraid FSX will disappoint me. It would be my first time skipping a version of this program, while I was really looking forward to it!
Oh well, I'll post a couple of screenshots. The second one is from X3, a space simulation game which makes use of wonderful textures and is quite heavy both on CPU as well as GPU, but ends up running fine with settings maxed on a fairly high-end machine. I'm not trying to make a comparison, rather showing two games which are almost a year apart. And I think it doesn't show if you look at the FSX picture.
p.s. both screenshots have undergone minor re-touch.
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)|