x1950 pro = good FS X playing?
- Thread starter O.D.
- Start date
acroig
Just another Troll
From what I've seen people say even the best vid cards are having problems getting good frame rates on FS X so I don't think the 1950 Pro will cut it, unless he's will to fly at 1024 or less.
Review:
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=69020
"Well, there's no question that FSX is much prettier than its predecessor. Aces has upped the resolutions for its terrain mesh and textures, added more variety to its 'autogen' tree and building libraries, and improved the stock water textures substantially. On top of this the team has enlivened their environments with animated road and sea traffic, airport service vehicles, and the odd animal herd and flock of birds. Predictably these worthwhile enhancements don't come without a price or problems. However formidable your current rig, it's going to struggle to achieve double-figure framerates at busy airports unless graphical sacrifices are made. As usual, users can expect to spend their first few hours tweaking detail sliders in pursuit of that perfect set-up."
More here:
http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3154482
"Here's the trick, though...in order to enjoy the stunning new vistas, you need a ridiculously high-powered machine. Just ignore those silly system requirements up top (they're another joke, right, Microsoft?). The recommended specs in our reviewer's guide were: a 3GHz processor, 2GB of RAM, and a 512MB videocard. Ouch.
So why not play on low settings, then? Because with the bells and whistles disabled, Flight Sim X looks just like Flight Sim 2004, which runs pretty darned well by comparison. Crank the detail to high, and yeah, it's a veritable photo shoot...but one that also runs like a photo show."
Review:
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=69020
"Well, there's no question that FSX is much prettier than its predecessor. Aces has upped the resolutions for its terrain mesh and textures, added more variety to its 'autogen' tree and building libraries, and improved the stock water textures substantially. On top of this the team has enlivened their environments with animated road and sea traffic, airport service vehicles, and the odd animal herd and flock of birds. Predictably these worthwhile enhancements don't come without a price or problems. However formidable your current rig, it's going to struggle to achieve double-figure framerates at busy airports unless graphical sacrifices are made. As usual, users can expect to spend their first few hours tweaking detail sliders in pursuit of that perfect set-up."
More here:
http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3154482
"Here's the trick, though...in order to enjoy the stunning new vistas, you need a ridiculously high-powered machine. Just ignore those silly system requirements up top (they're another joke, right, Microsoft?). The recommended specs in our reviewer's guide were: a 3GHz processor, 2GB of RAM, and a 512MB videocard. Ouch.
So why not play on low settings, then? Because with the bells and whistles disabled, Flight Sim X looks just like Flight Sim 2004, which runs pretty darned well by comparison. Crank the detail to high, and yeah, it's a veritable photo shoot...but one that also runs like a photo show."
Last edited: